American Historical Association Statement on Removal of Confederate Memorials.

The American Historical Association has issued a very thoughtful Statement on Confederate Memorials, explaining that "To remove such monuments is neither to 'change' history nor 'erase' it. What changes with such removals is what American communities decide is worthy of civic honor."

I especially liked this paragraph:

Decisions to remove memorials to Confederate generals and officials who have no other major historical accomplishment does not necessarily create a slippery slope towards removing the nation’s founders, former presidents, or other historical figures whose flaws have received substantial publicity in recent years. George Washington owned enslaved people, but the Washington Monument exists because of his contributions to the building of a nation. There is no logical equivalence between the builders and protectors of a nation—however imperfect—and the men who sought to sunder that nation in the name of slavery. There will be, and should be, debate about other people and events honored in our civic spaces. And precedents do matter. But so does historical specificity, and in this case the invocation of flawed analogies should not derail legitimate policy conversation.

The Organization of American Historians has also endorsed the AHA statement, emphasizing that "To remove a monument, or to change the name of a school or street, is not to erase history, but rather to alter or call attention to a previous interpretation of history."

My own view is that governments and institutions ought to be selective about monument relocation and renamings. Confederate leaders -- especially those whose fame rests entirely on their treason in defense of slavery -- should not be given places of honor and prominence.  New Orleans and Charlottesville have every good reason to move the statues of Robert E. Lee, and Tennessee should be ashamed of the Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park.  It is not necessary, however, to rename every street and building with a connection to the Confederacy.

Comments

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

The "removal" that should irritate all attorneys, judges and historians is that of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney who authored the Dred Scott majority opinion. He was the Chief Justice who presided over the Court for 28 years.

This removal prompted me to purchase a biography by Walker Lewis. Let me quote from p. 377, Chapter 28. "An awakening of conscience was sweeping the country, demanding a solution of the slavery problem faster than Constitutional process could accommodate it. In the path of this tide, by virtue of his office, stood the Chief Justice, in his own conscience opposed to slavery but sworn to uphold the Constitution as he saw it."