What to do about those statues? The easy answer to the literally monumental question facing American cities and towns is “put them in a museum.” It seems like an obvious thing to do; we ostensibly don’t want to destroy our history and so preserving these monuments in a museum where they can be placed in a different context seems like the best option. Yet, I can’t help but think; why?

Firstly, and more basically, there simply isn’t enough physical space for the monuments. Monuments are physically massive, especially the important or iconic and therefore the most problematic ones. Sure, the podunk monuments to the Confederate grunts that litter the cemeteries of the South are small and could conceivably be stored out of sight in a county museum’s closet, but where do you put any of the massive equestrian statues of Confederate generals? Where do you put the formerly intact column of General Lee from New Orleans? Or, hypothetically, where do you put the bronze statue of Jefferson from his memorial, or, even, the structure itself? How would one even attempt to displace the Washington Monument? Certainly, those might seem like wild hypotheticals right now, but merely fifteen years before their destruction Lee and Beauregard in New Orleans were placed on the NRHP for eternal preservation. 

Secondly, even if we disregard the physical troubles of storage and presentation of monuments, what’s the point? Perhaps this is an overly cynical look at the issue, but what kind of museum is going to be created by a government for the things a government is attempting to remove? If a monument is being removed from a location, this monument is no longer wanted. It’s being removed for a reason, which, almost always, is to“de-contextualise” the public space that it resides in. For example, the removal of the physical Cecil Rhodes in Oxford is to remove the metaphorical Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, the re-contextualization of Oxford as one without Rhodes, without imperial connections. As museums, while not as public as a plaza or park, are still very much in the public space, the movement of monuments to such a location is counterproductive to the point of moving the monument in the first place.

The local governments’ reluctance to keep offensive statues is perfectly understandable, of course. Despite the best efforts of people far more intelligent than I, I don’t really see any good way to re-contextualize these monuments, either in situ or in a museum. Monuments are created with explicit intent. They are unquestionably propaganda, created to evoke a specific and intentional emotion. An equestrian statue of Lee is explicitly created to link him to the military geniuses and statesmen of the Western tradition. No matter if the statue is still on location and has a plaque placed on the base to inform the viewer of the crimes of Lee and the society that created the statue or is in a museum display with the same information, the effect is the same. So long as the statue is extant and intact the intention of the statue is intact; he is still linked to that tradition. Some would say that the monument can be modified to change its intention (for a great example, look at the Ukrainian town that paints their Stalin statue like Batman), yet in my mind this kind of extreme modification is essentially the same as destruction; the monument is no longer extant, it has been destroyed and made into another piece of art. That’s fine, but in my mind it isn’t the kind of “preservation and re-contextualization” that people talk about when referring to moving monuments into museums, which I think is served perfectly well by a photograph or two.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Lithuania had a lot of leftover statues of former Communist leaders. To start, most of them were taken down and placed into storage. However, in 2001, one man, Viliumas Malinauskas — a “mushroom magnate” — requested that he be given 86 of the statues. That year, he used all of the statues to build Grūtas Park, a forested park in Lithuania that, among the statues of mostly dead Communists, also contains play grounds and a gift shop.

According to an article in The Economist about Grūtas Park in 2017, Malinauskas’ goal was to save these impressive works of art from a destiny of rusting into obscurity, but to simultaneously contextualize them in a way which reflects how they are currently understood by the Lithuanian population.

“Grutus Park remains an interesting example of how statues can be recontextualized,” the article reads. “As countries grapple with their unsavoury pasts and consider the rightful place of their controversial monuments, the park offers and alternative model to museums or destruction.”

Personally, I think Grūtas Park is a really good example of how the environment surrounding any kind of monument is often reflective of the attitude that the governing body holds towards the people, ideas, or events being depicted. In other words, statues of Josef Stalin have a significantly different connotation when they are placed in a different context.

However, as good of an analog for Confederate monuments as Grūtas Park could be, there is one glaring difference. Nearly everyone in Lithuania, at least in 2001, agreed that Soviet Communism had been a bad thing for their country. Remember, these statues were not taken from pedestals to this park. Originally, they were left to deteriorate because the people through their government had chosen to no longer venerate the Stalins and Lenins of their past. Many Americans, on the other hand, are still strongly pro-Confederacy. In turn, the government that represents those people — Alabama’s for instance — has not only not removed the monuments, but it has made it legally more difficult for local municipalities to get rid of their own.

Grūtas Park is a great example of how the historical and artistic value of statues can be venerated and appreciated far from the public eye of a town square. Simultaneously, it is also an example of how reaching that point of historic and contextual appreciation cannot be achieved until a large enough governing body agrees to no longer glorify the ideas expressed in those statues.

                Monuments and statues that celebrates figures of the past, whom have a controversial background has been the topic of discussion for years when talking about removing them.  Perhaps this year the discussion has become even greater during recent months, largely due to the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.  It reminds me of the controversy that was caused by the tragedy that took place at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Due to the incident, Governor Haley had the Confederate flag removed from the state’s Capitol.  Opposing clashed over the decision one side supporting Haley’s decision and the other opposing it.  The monuments and statues that are being removed now, are symbols of the confederacy.  But when these statues and monuments is removed, what happens to them.  I do not believe the confederate monuments or symbols should be destroyed, because it is American history.  I think they should not only be used to teach about the good that were thought of them during those times, but also the bad and ugly they represented.  The monuments should be in a place where the whole history of that era should be represented along with the heroes of the other side of the cause, the heroes that stood up to the oppression and gave their life fighting.  I understand how people that are descendants of confederate soldiers have pride towards the confederacy, their ancestors fought and died for a cause.  But on the other side there is another group of people that died and fought against the system of slavery and exploitation that the confederates represented.  I understand during this time when these monuments and statues were built, they were made to represented pride to the south.  But to color people, these statues promote racism and bigotry during a time when their ancestors were enslaved and exploited.

When we look at monuments, what do we see? We may see an enormous statue dedicated to the generals of past wars, or memorials to those that fell during conflict, fighting for what they believed in, or we may see a monument to the ideals of a bygone era. While, objectively, each of these types of monument is inherently important to the historical narrative, and is a piece of history we cannot afford to forget lest we run the risk of committing the same mistakes, we can still learn about and from them if they were removed from their current public space into a museum. It is my opinion that it is the states’ responsibility to not perpetuate the racist ideals associated with Confederate monuments. What that means is the deliberate placement of these memorials on state property, i.e. the capitol building in Montgomery, AL., should be banned. These things can be moved into museums and still serve the purpose of educating future generations of the atrocities of the Old South. By placing them in front of a building that is supposed to be dedicated to the equal protection under the law of ALL citizens certainly undermines that idea by alienating those not born white in the South.

All of that said, I must be clear, I do not support the destruction of these monuments because of their historical significance. They are too important to be effectively removed from the narrative all together. Furthermore, I recognize that not all would be able to be moved to a new location, and for those I would suggest either the alteration of the monument to more accurately display them for what they are, or we better contextualize them so that we are no longer painting the Confederates as heroes. They were traitors that were upset they couldn’t own people anymore. I’ll leave you with this: if we continue to idolize these men and ideals, we are no better than them. If anything, we’re worse because at least they had the guts to actually fight for what they believed in, however evil and corrupted their beliefs were.

Removing monuments is a sticky situation any way you look at it. This is also a very broad issue. For the purpose of this article, I will focus on statues pertaining to American wars. On one side, people feel the need to keep a physical testament to the, what they would call, proud, heritage of their forefathers. On the other side, people look at said symbols and it brings to mind horrible memories and stories of that same heritage oppressing people groups in violent, inhumane ways. Removing these monuments is an increasingly large topic of conversation in the United States. I, for one, advocate for the removal of all public monuments pertaining to American wars. I believe that they should be placed in museums. Those museums, no matter what they represent, should be respected by all people. Putting any and all monuments in museums solves the problem that people are forced to see offensive statues in their daily life. If one wants to “remember their heritage,” feel free to go into the museum. If one wants to honor the sacrifices made by people who faced horrible oppression, go into that museum. One case in Mobile, Alabama, displayed this idea perfectly. A statue of a confederate navy officer in downtown Mobile was moved to a local museum, and the Mayor of Mobile stated that she had no doubt that this was the right move. This allows people who want to honor that specific area of history to be able to do so, without shoving it in the face of everyone in the city. The article containing this story had many other stories in which removing offensive monuments and relocating them to museums has been a great success. I think this is a good way to compromise. Unfortunately, history is offensive, whether one likes it or not.

Reference:

“Where Have Statues of Confederates, and Other Historical Figures, Been Removed?” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2020. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-16/confederate-statues-removed.

In more recent years, the status of monuments has often been the hot topic of debate. Applied to statues and monuments across all eras, the discourse mainly focuses on events and figures that can be considered “controversial” due to behavior of belief. Though the movements mainly focus on specific figures, normal citizens often get caught in the cross hairs. In the town of Abingdon, located in Washington County, Virginia, one of these monuments has recently been the subject of town debate.

Abingdon itself is a historic town. Many of the buildings in Abingdon pre-date the Civil War and stand testament to the city’s role in the American Revolution. When entering the town, the historical identity is one that is extremely prominent. The monument being challenged in these debates stands in the courtyard to the Washington County Courthouse. Originally constructed in 1800, the Courthouse fell victim to a Union raid in 1864 and burned to the ground. Four years later, a new building was constructed and in 1907, the memorial to Confederate veterans was installed.

In the midst of recent debates, I have held the position that the memorial should be relocated. Near to the monument site is a historic cemetery with a section dedicated to Confederates. A short distance from that is a newly established park honoring the region’s veterans across all wars. While I still hold that opinion, I can understand some of the arguments as to why it should stay. Unlike some places in the region, Abingdon does not flaunt its Confederate history. If anything, it seems stronger tied to its role in the American Revolution. Many who want to keep the monument in place argue that removal is erasing history. Due to the historical nature of the town, removing it would not be “removing history”. The monument is not celebrated and often is passed by with little thought even though it is in the center of downtown. The best argument for keeping the monument is an argument I have yet to see made. The monument’s current position is highly symbolic. Even if not intended, it stands to honor those protected and defended the courthouse that was burned to the ground over a century and a half ago. While I fully understand the reasoning for wanting it to stay put, I can also say that its purpose of being a memorial is best suited in another location. A monument to honor those who risked their lives for the county deserves to stand either the veterans themselves or a place dedicated to honoring veterans.

In the dead of night of June 5, 2020, the city of Mobile removed the statue of Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes from the intersection of Royal and Government street in the heart of downtown. The monument had stood for around one hundred years, unavoidable at one of the most prominent points of entrance into the city. Mayor Stimpson announced it would be moved into the Mobile History Museum next to where the statue stood. Now is the trickiest phase for the city as they have to balance the careful considerations of how to communicate the city’s history.

 Mobile was right to remove the Semmes statue from its place in the landscape of public symbols, where it was part of a concerted effort to communicate a Lost Cause vision of the Civil War in the city’s public spaces. The current history museum was the city hall when the Semmes statue was erected. Confederate statues cannot be contextualized where they are, as their entire placement was to deliberately influence the way the public thought of their shared history. Semmes is inarguably a part of Mobile’s history, the chief player in her important chapter in the Civil War, and the namesake for a large suburb of the city.

However, this statue is not Semmes and its place in history does not belong in the Civil War section of the museum, instead it belongs in the area dedicated to Reconstruction and Jim Crow. Its place is not back on another pedestal as some magnificent centerpiece in the section devoted to the Battle of Mobile Bay. This statue was made long after the end of the Confederacy and the death of Semmes, it should be contextualized as a part of the Lost Cause revisionism championed by white supremacists in the city. It should be on the ground next to a similar symbol of the period, a Klan robe. Both are reminders of how white supremacists, secure in their belief of the justness of the Lost Cause, ruled Alabama and systemically oppressed black Mobilians.

“What should we do with historical monuments if they’re removed?”

            I think that historical monuments should be left where they were placed.  Taking them down does nothing to change history.  These memorials are reminders of things that happened in the past and should be looked at in this capacity.  Not all of the memorials that are in cities are considered to be “racist”, but in today’s world that is exactly what is happening.  These memorials should be telling their own stories of history, what happened and how we can avoid it happening again.

            If memorials and statues are taken down, I think they should be placed in museums for people to learn from.  Destroying them is stupid and wasteful.  History is what it was, it can’t be changed, removed, or erased.  Showing our children and grandchildren how our country has changed and bettered itself is part of history and should be taught, not hidden.

            Hopefully, we as a Nation, have learned from the mistakes of our forefathers and will continue to grow together as a nation who is loving and caring and can see people for what they are and not the color of their skin.  Looking at someone’s color shows that people are ignorant in their thinking.  What truly matters is what is in someone’s heart, not their skin color.

            I don’t believe we need to “interpret” monuments.  They all clearly state who the person was and what made him stand out.  Not that anyone has to agree with what they were honored for, but at the time they were celebrated, people were proud of that and thought they did something good to deserve that honor.

            Hopefully we can all learn from history, the good and the bad, but looking at the young people today, they are making bad choices in how they act, treat people, and other people’s property, much like the things that they are complaining about that happened to their ancestors!

            Removing or destroying monuments and statues is like shutting the barndoor after the horses are out!

In considering what should be done with monuments in the present, hostile environments toward what many perceive as symbols of hate, a case by case decision process seems to be the only thoughtful methodology. Competing factors such as public versus private land, local political power in the hands of liberal or conservative interests, and laws banning removal of statues create obstacles in even broaching these issues in many areas. For example, in Birmingham, Alabama the removal of the Confederate obelisk near city hall and the courthouse after protests and significant damage prompted the state’s Attorney General to threaten hefty fines for removing the monument. But at what point do citizens’ desires to change their local narrative overrule these antiquated laws?

In the case of the Confederate General and Ku Klux Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forrest, the statue depicting him in Memphis was removed in 2017 while another cartoonish caricature of him remains protected in Nashville on private land. Complete removal, however, creates a missed opportunity for education and contextualization. There is much to be learned from the time period a statue was commissioned and by who as there is from the statue itself. For example, free blacks in Wilmington, North Carolina created a community for themselves and successfully integrated into local politics. After blacks were violently pushed from the city in 1898 through intimidation, lynchings, and voter suppression, white supremacist rule retook the city. Multiple Confederate monuments were erected in the coming years, retaking the town unequivocally for whites.

By simply removing statues from places like Wilmington, this important dialogue would be completely lost. Relocation from public, government grounds, however, remains imperative. Museums and battle fields become appropriate settings for relocation, where contextualization can provide insight into the who, what, and why of each monument. New plaques can be placed with these statues indicting their original location and give readers information on why it came to its new location. These removals will take these monuments out of a spotlight for celebration and into an environment of reflection.

Monuments serve as reminders of the past and are often used to elevate people of the past, but without context they’re just statues. Many of the monuments in the South are dedicated to the Confederate Army and the men who died for the Confederate cause, but few try to name the men they represent or contextualize themselves. These monuments have sparked backlash over their placement in public squares and often their meanings are debated to the point of anger by both sides of the political aisle. All Monuments have good and bad aspects, humans by nature are flawed and all monuments made for human achievements are subject to scrutiny for the people and ideals they represent. No two people have the same experience in life and because of this every person is different and has values that make them support certain points of view while renouncing others. This leads to mixed support and opposition to the removal of controversial memorials, with both sides grasping for moral superiority. One of the recent controversies was of the California statue of Saint Junipero Serra, he has been called a supporter and oppressor of native peoples and during a protest his statue in a local park was torn down and painted red. The unauthorized removal led to people on the right demonizing those at the protests and the present organizations. There are a plethora of solutions for monuments, but I believe the least controversial way to deal with them would be the mass decentralization of them all away from public spaces to relevant historical sites and museums, because many monuments that spark similar backlash exist in areas where they serve no purpose in teaching the area’s history. Monuments should be used to teach about the past, without proper context they fail to do this, so we should find a way to use them rather than demolish them.