|
Smashing Statues, Seeding Strife
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore took down four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors, another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were toppled or defiled.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses quoted in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But they were mere actors within a U.S. propaganda show. Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under, worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate government of Ukraine pulled down hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the Soviets in the second world war took this as a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and protected them. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
“It’s not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,” Mr. Gobert said. “These differences don’t only go through geography, they go through generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural.”
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
“One guy said he didn’t really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time,” Mr. Gobert said. “When the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away.”
(People had better sex under socialism. Does not Lenin deserves statues if only for helping that along?)
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues. Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a certain ideology or concept in mind, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee’s great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May 1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied “the moral greatness of the Old South”, and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself was remembered as a conflict between “interpretations of our Constitution” and between “ideals of democracy.”
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and messages. Lee was also the man who wrote:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” People do not want to be destroyed. They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for those who voted wrongly – i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish for.
Not that it will make any difference. These are a sample from studies I did many years ago.
——————————————-
http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
Mr. Lincoln’s Speech, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois,” September 18, 1858
——————————————-
http://douglassarchives.org/linc_a89.htm
“Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. ”
Abraham Lincoln, “Cooper Institute Address,” 27 February 1860
——————————————-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment
http://www.geocities.com/ghostamendment
The Corwin amendment
uS House of Representatives, 28 February 1861
uS Senate, Adopted Adopted March 2, 1861
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
——————————————-
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861
——————————————-
http://www.classicallibrary.org/lincoln/greeley.htm
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
Lincoln’s Letter to Horace Greeley, Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862
——————————————-
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/74.html#axzz0wDlQyUEB
(it was difficult to find the text of this speech. I wonder why?)
“Applications have been made to me by many free Americans of African descent to favor their emigration, with a view to such colonization as was contemplated in recent acts of Congress. Other parties, at home and abroad–some from interested motives, others upon patriotic considerations, and still others influenced by philanthropic sentiments–have suggested similar measures, while, on the other hand, several of the Spanish American Republics have protested against the sending of such colonies to their respective territories. Under these circumstances I have declined to move any such colony to any state without first obtaining the consent of its government, with an agreement on its part to receive and protect such emigrants in all the rights of freemen; and I have at the same time offered to the several States situated within the Tropics, or having colonies there, to negotiate with them, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to favor the voluntary emigration of persons of that class to their respective territories, upon conditions which shall be equal, just, and humane. Liberia and Hayti are as yet the only countries to which colonists of African descent from here could go with certainty of being received and adopted as citizens; and I regret to say such persons contemplating colonization do not seem so willing to migrate to those countries as to some others, nor so willing as I think their interest demands. I believe, however, opinion among them in this respect is improving, and that ere long there will be an augmented and considerable migration to both these countries from the United States.”
(snip)
“I can not make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization; and yet I wish to say there is an objection urged against free colored persons remaining in the country which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious.”
Abraham Lincoln’, 2nd Annual Message, December 1,1862, Washington, DC
——————————————-
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=41&subjectID=3
Contemporary biographer Noah Brooks noted that “when others urged it upon him he almost invariably argued against it; and in this way, as had been his wont when he was in the profession of the law, he found the weakest as well as the strong points of the case under consideration.”2 It is in the light of this mental condition that we must judge the well-known reply made by him on the 13th of September to a deputation from the religious denominations of Chicago requesting him to issue at once a proclamation of universal emancipation.” President Lincoln deflected their arguments for immediate emancipation but admitted he had not “decided against a proclamation of liberty to slaves.”3 Washington journalist James C. Welling argued that was with “festive humor that, on the 13th of September, he parried the arguments of the Chicago clergymen who had come to Washington in order to press for a proclamation of freedom. To their representation that the recent military disasters ‘were tokens of divine displeasure, calling for new and advanced action on the part of the President,’ he shrewdly replied that, if it was probable that God would reveal his will to others on a point so intimately connected with the President’s duty, it might be supposed that he would reveal it directly to the President himself.”4 Mr. Lincoln told the Chicago delegation:
“Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on a legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy. Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.”
——————————————-
http://mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=1&subjectID=1
Mr. Lincoln realized that freedom depended upon Union — but he also realized that some supporters of Union opposed the actions he had taken to grant freedom to Southern slaves. He addressed these critics in an open letter to Union supporters meeting in Springfield, Illinois in September 1863.
You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and, perhaps would have it retracted — You say it is unconstitutional — I think differently. I think the constitution invests it’s [sic] commander in chief, with the law of war in time of war — The most that can be said, if so much, is that slaves are property. Is there — has there ever been — any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it, helps us, or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy enemie’s property when they can not use it; and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy — Civilized beligerents do all in their power to help themselves, or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel — Among the exceptions are the massacres of vanquished foes, and non combattants, male and female.
——————————————-
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative2.html
But Fremont also proved to be capable of rash action. Late in the summer of 1861 he issued a proclamation announcing the emancipation of slaves in Missouri. Lincoln, eager to avoid ruffling the feathers of border state slaveholders, ordered Fremont to withdraw the proclamation. When Fremont demurred, the commander-in-chief officially overruled his subordinate. In early November, the War Department removed Fremont from his command.
——————————————-
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/september/lincoln-slave-order.htm
(www.sonofthesouth.net site has “over 7,000 pages of original Civil War content” and “recently completed posting the complete run of Harper’s Weekly newspapers from the Civil War. These papers give incredible insight into this important period of our history.”)
THE EMANCIPATION QUESTION IN MISSOURI.
The following letter front the President to General Fremont has been published:
” WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 11, 1861. “Major-General John C. Fremont:
SIR,—Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d instant, was just received. Assured that you, upon the ground, could better judge of the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing your proclamation of August 30 I perceived no general objection to it; the particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable in its non-conformity to the act of Congress, passed the 6th of last August, upon the same subjects, and hence I wrote you expressing my wish that that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer just received expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construed as to conform with and not to transcend the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled ‘An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes’ approved August 6, 1861, and that said act be published at length with this order.
” Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.”
Posted by: JAimeInTexas | Aug 17 2017 15:15 utc | 131
Not that it will make any difference. These are a sample from studies I did many years ago.
Within the last 10 years, letters been found in England, where Lincoln was still working on sending free blacks out of these uSA. Lincoln was still working for the colonization project through his war against Southern Independence.
This is a sample of the news at the time:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356078/Abraham-Lincoln-tried-deport-slaves-British-colonies.html
——————————————-
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/29.1/magness.html
Benjamin Butler’s Colonization Testimony Reevaluated
PHILLIP W. MAGNESS
One morning in the waning days of the Civil War, Major General Benjamin F. Butler called upon Abraham Lincoln at the White House. An obviously concerned Lincoln approached the general in private, acting “very much disturbed” in thought.1 Questioning Butler, the president remarked, “But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free?”2 With the hostilities of the previous four years drawing to a close, Lincoln’s attention now turned to the condition and future of the emancipated slaves. “I fear a race war,” he confided, while expressing concern that the enlisted black soldiers of the Union army would “be but little better off with their masters than they were before” if no action was taken to prevent it. The solution, he observed, was to be found in a program of colonization. Continued Lincoln, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes.”3
1
Instructed to study the feasibility of a colonization plan, Butler departed the Executive Mansion, promising to return with his findings. A few days later he again called on Lincoln. The logistical scale of colonizing the freedmen of the South, he reported, would make a comprehensive colonization program impossible. Butler proposed an alternative in which the “one hundred and fifty thousand negro troops” that were “now enlisted” in the federal army could be transported to a long-proposed colony location on the Panama isthmus where they could find employment in digging an American canal between the two oceans. “After we get ourselves established” on the isthmus, “we will petition Congress under your recommendation to send down to us our wives and children,” thus apparently inducing a free migration of blacks to the new colony. “There is meat in that, General Butler, there is meat in that,” responded Lincoln with instructions to the general to pursue preparations for the plan.4 Butler was apparently to lead a renewed administration policy for colonization—a topic that occupied substantial attention within the Lincoln administration prior to January 1, 1863, but had since been supplanted by other priorities as the war progressed and, according to a common interpretation, abandoned entirely. It was the last time the two would meet, as Lincoln’s life ended with an assassin’s bullet a few days later.
2
So goes a well-known and controversial anecdote related late in life by General Butler. Though the colonization issue appeared frequently in the early years of the Lincoln presidency, its placement by Butler a few short days before Lincoln’s death, if accepted as true, may require a revision of longstanding interpretations of both Lincoln’s racial views and post-war policy goals at his untimely death. Hinting at those implications, George Frederickson observes that acceptance of the Butler anecdote would suggest that “Lincoln continued to his dying day to deny the possibility of racial harmony in the United States and persisted in regarding colonization as the only real alternative to perpetual race conflict.”5
(snip)
The present inquiry set out to provide a firmer basis for evaluating Butler’s colonization anecdote by resolving the issue of its reported timeline. Though established in date, the anecdote leaves many additional questions unanswered and provides room for further examination of an underexplored area of Lincoln’s presidency. As the full conversation between Butler and Lincoln was known only to its participants, one of them assassinated only three days later and the other writing of it twice several decades after the fact, a comprehensive and unbiased record of its events is unlikely ever to emerge. What is certain is that a private meeting in 1865 between Butler and Lincoln occurred. The details of this meeting, as conveyed by Butler, exhibit duly acknowledged signs of embellishment and the distorting effects of their distance from the event itself. Beginning with the meeting’s known date though, the two Butler accounts deserve greater attention than they have received. Sufficient evidence exists to merit additional consideration of Lincoln’s colonization views later in life, and tends to caution against the conclusiveness that many scholars have previously attached to the view that Lincoln fully abandoned this position. The Butler anecdote remains an imperfect example, yet some of its more plausible details may indicate that Lincoln retained an interest in colonization, even if limited, as late as 1865.
Posted by: JAimeInTexas | Aug 17 2017 15:20 utc | 132
|
