Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

    The erasure of history continues... Folks, please share and use the hashtag #PreserveHistory. We will use this hashtag on our Twitter account whenever we post one of these stories. Help us PRESERVE HISTORY!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BaltimoreMonuments.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	245.3 KB
ID:	231876
    By Luke Broadwater
    The Baltimore Sun
    January 14, 2016

    A task force is recommending two Confederate monuments in Baltimore City be removed.

    Two monuments that celebrate Confederate-era leaders should be removed from Baltimore's public parks, a mayoral task force recommended Thursday.

    The seven-member commission, appointed by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to consider what to do with Baltimore's four Confederate-era monuments, voted narrowly to remove two of them. The mayor must now make a final decision.

    University of Maryland law professor Larry S. Gibson, a commission member, proposed the plan to remove the Roger B. Taney Monument on Mount Vernon Place and the Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson Monument in the Wyman Park Dell.

    Gibson said Taney's statute should be dismantled because his authorship of the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision was "pure racism." The decision held that African-Americans could not be American citizens.

    "In my view, he deserves a place in infamy," Gibson said of the fifth chief justice of the United States.

    Gibson also argued that Baltimore has a disproportionate number of monuments to the Confederacy on its public property. He said that more than twice as many Marylanders fought for the Union as the Confederacy during the Civil War, but the city has only one public monument to the Union.

    "Three monuments to the Confederacy is out of proportion," Gibson said. "Probably a majority of Baltimoreans think there should be none to the Confederacy."

    The commissioners recommended that the statute of Lee and Jackson be offered to the U.S. Park Service to place in Chancellorsville, Va. The two Confederate generals last met in person shortly before the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863.

    The commission voted to keep the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument on Mount Royal Avenue and the Confederate Women's Monument on West University Parkway, but to add context. Members said they needed to meet again to decide exactly what context they wanted to add.

    Commission member Elford Jackson, a civil engineer and member of Baltimore City Public Arts Commission, argued that he wanted to see more art in Baltimore, not less.

    "They are pieces of art," he said of the statutes. "Do they have a negative connotation? They sure do."

    The task force voted 4-3 to remove the two monuments and 6-1 to keep the other two.

    Rawlings-Blake, a Democrat, created the task force in June after nine African-Americans were shot to death in a South Carolina church allegedly by a white man whose photograph with the Confederate battle flag was widely circulated online.

    The shooting led to the removal of the Confederate flag from the grounds of the South Carolina Statehouse and calls for other changes, including the possible renaming of city-owned Robert E. Lee Park in Baltimore County. That proposal is before the City Council.

    Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, has moved to stop the state from issuing license plates bearing images of the Confederate battle flag. The New Orleans City Council voted last month to remove four Confederate monuments from public places.

    Although Taney, a Marylander, was not a Confederate fighter, his authorship of the Dred Scott decision brought him into the commission's purview. Gibson argued that the Baltimore statue is merely a copy of a monument that sits in Annapolis.

    "Roger B. Taney is a monument that symbolizes racism," said commission member Donna Cypress, director of library services at Lincoln College of Technology and member of Maryland Commission on African American History and Culture.

    "The Taney monument is the most offensive," said commission member Mary Demory, who serves on the Baltimore City Public Arts Commission.

    Six of the seven commissioners are African-Americans. The commissioners plan to submit their recommendations to the mayor in a formal report.

    "The mayor looks forward to seeing their formal report and explanation for their recommendations," said mayoral spokesman Howard Libit. "Then we'll make a decision."

    Johns W. Hopkins, the director of Baltimore Heritage, a nonprofit dedicated to preservation, said the organization supports the process Rawlings-Blake has created.

    "Our position is very much in support of the thoughtful and deliberate way to decide what to do with these monuments," Hopkins said. "We think that's important public discussion to have."

    Alexander E. Hooke, a philosophy professor at Stevenson University, has described the statute of Lee and Jackson as a "stunning sculpture," and compared it to artwork "one might find in Paris or Vienna." He has argued that the monuments should remain as a "teachable moment" for passers-by.

    He called the vote Thursday "very sad."

    "What's next?" he asked. "Go to Mount Rushmore and put a blanket over Washington and Jefferson?"

    Both early presidents owned slaves.

    The Civil War, in which more than 700,000 people died, was fought largely over slavery. As war raged on, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring "that all persons held as slaves" within the Confederacy "are, and henceforward shall be free."

    lbroadwater@baltsun.com

    twitter.com/lukebroadwater

    CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE AT THE BALTIMORE SUN
    ERIC TIPTON
    Former AC Owner

  • #2
    Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

    Saving those statues won't preserve civil war history, but only perpetuate Jim Crow history; the Lee-Jackson piece went up in 1948.

    With any luck they'll replace it with a monument to Christian Fleetwood; after all, more Marylanders served in the USCT than in the Confederate army.
    Michael A. Schaffner

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

      What other historical markers should come down?

      How many of the nation's memorials should fall?

      If we remove public displays that represent historic events and figures, who decides and where do you stop?
      John Wickett
      Former Carpetbagger
      Administrator (We got rules here! Be Nice - Sign Your Name - No Farbisms)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

        I loathe Chief Justice Roger Taney. He was a man of his time. Said time is one which many from the current age would like to forget. To atone for his sins and others politically incorrect white males like him, let's just erase all trace of him, R.E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, P.G.T. Beauregard as well as the common Confederate soldier standing in the yards of just about every courthouse in the South. Once the generation beyond the current one questions the validity of similar Blue heroes and common soldiers, said statues will be torn down, too. Hallelujah! The Year of Jubilo really will have arrived.

        History isn't about remembering only the things we deem good by the common standards of a perfidious present. Sometimes it's about remembering things we don't like and don't want repeated.

        Despite my dislike for Chief Roger Taney, I'm all for keeping him standing right where he is. His statue is a reminder how legally correct he was in Dred Scott, but morally wrong at the same time. Think about it. The people who had his statue cast knew something about him. He wasn't the most liked man in America when he died. Being inconsistent is a very American thing. Accept it and move on.
        Silas Tackitt,
        one of the moderators.

        Click here for a link to forum rules - or don't at your own peril.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

          People get entirely too discombobulated over superfluous memorials to Confederate heroes, especially those raised long after the war in places that had little or nothing to do with the subjects.

          Along with Baltimore New Orleans provides a good example of unwarranted umbrage, with the recent decisions about Lee, Davis, and Beauregard's edifices. None of those men was even in the city during the war, all have plenty of memorials elsewhere, and the city itself was "Confederate" less than a year.

          If we were really concerned about "erasing history" we'd ask where New Orleans' statues are for David Farragut, Ben Butler, and the Louisiana Native Guard. Maybe now that the city's going to clear out the extra Lee they'll have room for someone who actually had something to do with the city's actual history. Or are we really just invested in preserving the version perpetrated by Lost Causers after the fact?

          Same for Memphis and Forrest. That city is now more than 70% African-American and there's no reason they, or anyone with a sense of decency, should have to look at a monument to the perpetrator of Fort Pillow -- at least, not when they could be looking at Sam Phillips or Robert Johnson.

          Taney was born in Calvert County and practiced for most of his life in Frederick. Maybe one of those places wants his statue now that Baltimore doesn't. If not, maybe GAC will take him along with the extra Lees and Jacksons and set up a big Lost Cause theme park where for a modest fee anyone who misses them can visit.

          Oh I just checked -- Taney has another monument in Frederick, so maybe they don't want the extra one after all. Looks like the history eraser has quite a bit of work to do yet.
          \
          The question of "who decides" is a valid one. I say it's the people who live with those monuments wherever they are, and must decide whether they represent the public values they now hold. To suggest that reenactors have either the standing or, in most cases, the competence to second guess them, is more than a little silly.

          I'm sure the folks who put those monuments up -- including the Baltimore Taney statue, which besides being redundant of the one in Frederick is a recast and duplicate of the one in Annapolis -- would disagree and consider it inconsistent to dispose of any of them now. But, as said above, that's a very American thing.

          Accept it or not, it will no doubt happen anyway. The decision for all of us is whether our time is better spent defending unwanted bronzes or threatened landscapes, preserving propaganda or uncovering and presenting the real history that has for so long been suppressed.

          Along those lines, if you ever get to DC stop by the African American Civil War Museum on Vermont. I'm there most Sundays but if I'm not ask Marquett to show you around.
          Michael A. Schaffner

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

            Originally posted by Pvt Schnapps View Post
            People get entirely too discombobulated over superfluous memorials to Confederate heroes
            I will point out that what is "superfluous" is relative and a matter of opinion. What is superfluous to you and me may be dearly valued by someone else.

            Originally posted by Pvt Schnapps View Post
            New Orleans provides a good example of unwarranted umbrage, with the recent decisions about Lee, Davis, and Beauregard's edifices.
            Again, this is all relative. The decision was not put to a vote by the citizens of the city, either. So, we don't know the opinion of people who live there. Plus, in New Orleans, the monuments were 130 years old. After a century, being erected by people who lived through and fought the war, they are historic in their own right.

            Originally posted by Pvt Schnapps View Post
            If we were really concerned about "erasing history" we'd ask where New Orleans' statues are for David Farragut, Ben Butler, and the Louisiana Native Guard.
            Lamenting what is not present is not the same as removing something that is. A 130 year old statue tells us about the values of people who lived in the city historically and what they found important to remember.

            Originally posted by Pvt Schnapps View Post
            The question of "who decides" is a valid one.
            Yes, yes it is.

            I think it is unwise to move through our public spaces every 70-100 years and erase those reminders of our history that make us feel "uncomfortable" or don't fit with the sensibilities of the current era. Doing so divorces us from our past. Stay tuned, gentle reader...

            The Authentic-Campaigner has long advocated for preservation of "silly little patches of grass and dirt", as well as raising funds for preservation issues...
            We will soon be taking a stand on the preservation of our public monuments, markers, and other memorials.

            A great moral lesson should be ...charity towards the holder of opinions different from our own, and a hesitation to condemn too harshly the actions and usages of other times and circumstances.
            I am not so much concerned about a memorial built in 1948, seen by no one who was alive during the era depicted. Instead, I fear the slippery slope, which you have illustrated so very well. Each of your arguments could be applied just as easily in this or future eras to...
            ... The Marine monument at Arlington
            ... The statue of Chamberlain at Bowdoin College
            ... The WWI memorial in Kansas City
            ... The Jefferson Memorial
            ... The Washington Monument
            John Wickett
            Former Carpetbagger
            Administrator (We got rules here! Be Nice - Sign Your Name - No Farbisms)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

              No one's recommending the dismantling of the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Chamberlain monument, the WWI memorial, or the Iwo Jima Memorial and to suggest they're in any serious jeopardy is exaggeration bordering on hysteria.

              Further, all the people celebrated by those monuments were fighting for freedom and the United States, which distinguishes them considerably from the figures in the monuments under review.

              You can't say that about the platoon of statues of Judge Taney, whose only prominent "accomplishment" was the decision that our fellow citizens couldn't be considered such because their ancestors came from Africa.

              But that was the point of putting them up. In the 1880's and 1930's, in 1948 when the Lee-Jackson statue went up in Baltimore, and in 1960 when the battle flag went up over the South Carolina state house, it was white supremacy that was "politically correct."

              Removing those emblems now is arguably just a matter correcting the injustice of erecting them in the first place. I don't see where a web site that spends pages discussing the fine points of musket defarbs and knapsack construction really has the standing to confront the cities that want to take that step.
              Michael A. Schaffner

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                What you call "hysteria" today (I prefer "hyperbole") may not be so in the future if the you have your way. Once the precedent is set, it is set. You can't control where it will go anymore than you can control a bullet once its out of the barrel.

                That's why they're called "unintended" consequences.

                Remember: Five years ago or ten, people would have called it "hysteria" if you would have suggested that 130-year-old monuments to generals and vice-presidents might be removed.

                And, by the way, people ARE questioning our reverence for Jefferson and suggesting that public memorials in some areas should be removed. I am all for open discussion of our historic figures, their accomplishments and their flaws. In fact, I think the presence of monuments HELPS engender these conversations!!! If they were gone, people would not have as much reason to ponder the people and events of our past!

                And, to suggest that somehow living history demos can somehow replace a passive memorial, especially one put in-place by the groups that lived and fought the events commemorated, is not really valid.
                John Wickett
                Former Carpetbagger
                Administrator (We got rules here! Be Nice - Sign Your Name - No Farbisms)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                  Let me just quote the article that Eric posted: "The commission voted to keep the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument on Mount Royal Avenue and the Confederate Women's Monument on West University Parkway, but to add context. Members said they needed to meet again to decide exactly what context they wanted to add."

                  In other words the same commission that voted to get rid of Jackson, Lee, and Taney is for keeping two monuments specifically for Confederate veterans and civilians.

                  If I "get my way" this would be the kind of reflection engaged in wherever these memorials are questioned. Baltimore is not getting rid of all Confederate monuments and they're not hunting for Washington and all that is holy. They're thinking it through, apparently to a greater extent than their critics.

                  Look, I enjoy the AC Forum, and have participated probably since it's been around. It's a great place for serious discussions of material culture and quality events. But I don't see where it has any particular aptitude or qualifications for interfering with local communities as they decide how to memorialize their past. Not all statues and monuments are sacred. Some of them are anything but.
                  Michael A. Schaffner

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                    Statues and memorials say more about the people who erect them than they do those they purport to commemorate. Most of these statues were erected in the era of Jim Crow, after the Federal government gave up on Reconstruction and local whites needed to re-exert power over formerly enslaved populations. While I do not support the removal of all statues, some good signage talking about the real cause of the war and statues enforcing political and racial power isn't a bad thing.

                    I'd also like to point out that this is the only nation in the world that allows the memorialization of treason and human bondage.
                    Bob Welch

                    The Eagle and The Journal
                    My blog, following one Illinois community from Lincoln's election through the end of the Civil War through the articles originally printed in its two newspapers.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                      Who is to say that banning reenactments won't be next?
                      ERIC TIPTON
                      Former AC Owner

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                        Seriously, Eric? Isn't that just a teensy bit Chicken Littlish?

                        First, if the Baltimore recommendation that set off this panic didn't even include all Confederate monuments on the review list, don't you think reenactments are somewhat farther over the horizon?

                        Second, it's something of a non sequitur to assume that the monument discussion has much to do with reenactments. Reenactments aren't public works on permanent display, they draw visitors to parks and historic sites, and they're a popular form of entertainment for people who just don't get to enough county fairs. So I suspect there's a reason we can't point to any actual steps being taken in that direction.

                        And anyway, firing blanks on private property will probably remain legal for awhile... unless of course the hippies take over, confiscate our black powder firearms, and lock us up in the same concentration camps where all Confederate memorials wait to be melted down and recast into bronze peace signs.

                        On the other hand, having been to a large portion of the big 150s, I think I could survive even the worst.

                        And if the worst does come, Canada has some lovely 1812 reenactments. :)
                        Michael A. Schaffner

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                          It already happened:

                          A historic planation in South Carolina canceled a Civil War re-enactment\u00a0because of the June\u00a0Charleston shooting that left nine people dead at\u00a0Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.


                          Started with the flag, spread quickly to monuments, statues, gravestones, naming of different buildings, etc, etc. Am I Chick Little or are you deflecting?

                          If I had to bet who the first person would be to take this position, I would have come out way ahead. ;)

                          Michael, I know a part of you has to be torn by some of this. I know you are a dedicated living historian. You don't see any potential collateral damage for all of us in the hobby from this? I find that hard to believe.
                          ERIC TIPTON
                          Former AC Owner

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                            Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

                            I'm opposed to editing history either way. Even if you don't object to today's witchhunt the next one might not be to your liking. A statue of Stonewall today, bulldoz the Alamo tommorow. Who knows.
                            John Duffer
                            Independence Mess
                            MOOCOWS
                            WIG
                            "There lies $1000 and a cow."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

                              Yes, I'd heard about Seccessionville, but since I never heard anyone talk it up as worth the trip it didn't concern me. We had a cancellation of a WWII event at Sully locally after the Waffen SS showed up, but I didn't find that disturbing either.

                              Historic site managers have always had to decide what kinds of events best serve their interpretive mission, and I honestly can't blame Boone Hall for recognizing that theirs might not be well served by the flaunting of battle flags so soon after the slaughter at Mother Emmanuel. But based on the articles I've seen, they were mostly moved by the fact that they were one of the sites that Roof visited before the killings.

                              I'd re-think my activities and the message that I might be sending, too, if it looked like a mass murderer had drawn inspiration from my site. That shouldn't be too hard for us to understand and sympathize with.

                              If it's any comfort, there were any number of battle flags at Remembrance Day -- maybe there always are; it was the first time I went. Might be the last -- it's a weirdly creepy event.

                              But I haven't heard of any significant event being cancelled, so right now I'd still say there's no need for panic. And I think that Baltimore's decision to keep some monuments while getting rid of others is a sign that even when there's debate there's no foregone conclusion, and certainly none for eradication.

                              I also know that every African-American reenactor I've heard from has no problem with the battle flag in an actual reenactment. It is, after all, an important part of their story, too. But I also hear an opposition to any governmental use of the battle flag and I fully support that.

                              As far as collateral damage affecting all of us, I suppose there's a potential, but I don't see a big possibility (have any of the AC's sponsored events encountered problems), and I do think people are over-reacting. But even if we disagree on that, I think we might be able to agree on a strategy. And I think that would involve something more nuanced than assuming that every reassessment of a statue or an event is a mortal threat to all of them and reacting accordingly.

                              One strategy would be to work with site managers who get cold feet to see how we could present history in a way that they can still work with.

                              For example, at a living history I attended last year that covered several historical periods, a group of four or five Confederate reenactors left because the site manager told them not to display the battle flag (apparently their state banner was just fine). Now I know they felt they were showing courage and integrity by leaving instead of staying with just their state color, but I didn't see it that way. My feeling was that if you can't interpret the Confederate soldier with a regimental standard (as well as a state color) for every five guys, you probably aren't doing a very good job in the first place. Walking off in a huff only reinforces that perception.

                              I was with my 1812 group by the way. I tell people that one thing I really like about 1812 is that no one is still fighting it. It sounds like a joke, but I guess our conversation here proves otherwise. :)

                              - - - Updated - - -

                              Originally posted by john duffer View Post
                              Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

                              I'm opposed to editing history either way. Even if you don't object to today's witchhunt the next one might not be to your liking. A statue of Stonewall today, bulldoz the Alamo tommorow. Who knows.
                              I don't see anyone bulldozing the Alamo, John -- the rental car company has too much political clout. But maybe they'll put up a historical marker a few blocks away where most of the defenders were cut down trying to escape...
                              Michael A. Schaffner

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X