Recasting the Confederacy: Monuments and Civil War Memory

On Monday, November 6, the University of Connecticut’s Department of History hosted a lecture, at the Konover Auditorium, that was centered around the ongoing debate about Confederate monuments in the public sphere; with lecturers examining what these memorials represented, and how their meanings influenced individuals to either be supportive of, or opposed to, the removal of such monuments from public spaces. Labeled as ‘Recasting the Confederacy: Monuments and Civil War Memory’, the event featured four lecturers providing short presentations on the differing histories portrayed by Confederate monuments, and reasoning how these varied interpretations, of the Antebellum Period, caused the memorials to emanate dissimilar messages; overall, creating conflicting stances on what the monuments were meant to express. The affair was introduced by UConn’s President Susan Herbst, who emphasized the significance of these discussions because of their opportunity to reflect on the past; and, as a result, provide a chance to better comprehend, as well as review, our nation’s contemporary beliefs.

The first lecturer to present was Manisha Sinha, Drapier Chair in American History at UConn, who provided a brief explanation for why this lecture was occurring; indicating the ideals behind Confederate monuments to have been contested for a long period of time, but only recently brought into conversation because of the Charlottesville rally back in August. Thus, according to Sinha, there had been a longstanding dispute on what Confederate monuments were representative of; with one side of the argument proposing the memorials to be commemorative pieces for those who served the Confederate States of America, while another side proclaimed the memorials to be mere symbols of white supremacy. Sinha accredited this disagreement, on the Confederate monuments’ meaning, to the lack of slavery that was depicted on such memorials, in which the form of oppression was downplayed to undermine its role in catalyzing the events which led up to the American Civil War; overall, working to present Confederate monuments as not an emblem of hate, but celebratory of the antiquated South. Due to this, Sinha advocated for having discussions about Confederate monuments, up to a national level, so all historical facts could be accounted for when debating what these memorials represented; and whether they should be removed from the public sphere or not.

The second lecturer to present was David W. Blight, an American History professor at Yale University, who juxtaposed two images; one being of the “Monument to the Confederate Defenders of Charleston” in Charleston, South Carolina, and the other being of the “Robert Gould Shaw and Massachusetts 54th Regiment Memorial” in Boston, Massachusetts. The Charleston memorial, according to Blight, was composed to commemorate the ancestors of Charleston natives who defended the city, from Fort Sumter, with “courage” and “devotion” to the Confederacy’s cause. In similar fashion, the Boston memorial was constructed to honor colonel Shaw, and the African American men of his regiment, who “bravely” died while fighting for the Union’s objective. Hence, Blight indicated that the monuments were created for similar intentions; yet, were being interpreted differently, by Northerners and Southerners, because of their region’s contrasting political culture. This, Blight proclaimed, tends to be the problem with monuments, in general, as their meanings could be manipulated to favor a particular political mindset; altering memorials', actual, connotation as a consequence. In an attempt to resolve this issue, Blight proposed that a democratic committee be established with the task of removing monuments from the public space; however, before doing so, evaluate monuments, in question, to determine if they should be removed or not. Within this assessment, Blight recommended that memorials be judged based on the history being portrayed, the context behind the monument's creation, and a set of principles that dictate what is, and is not, worth removing. Lastly, Blight suggested that if a monument is decided, by the committee, to be removed from the public sphere, then the process should be done with humility; for it would be more respectful to those with opposing viewpoints on the memorial's public stance.

The third lecturer to present was Nina Silber, a history professor at Boston University, who considered the Confederacy's portrayal, in past popular media, to be a reason why individuals’ are, presently, against the removal of Confederate monuments from the public sphere; proclaiming depictions of the South, overtime, to have shared a common beautification of the region’s social-political landscape, which have caused individuals to assemble, and preserve, Confederate monuments as homage to the South’s “glory days”. Introducing this concept as the “Lost Cost” ideology, Silber explained that the romanticizing of the Confederacy, brought on by the popular media, led southerners, in times of crises, to feel nostalgic for the past; a perception that was underscored by films and novels, such as Gone With the Wind, to further present a fantasy-based South where Confederates were honorable people seeking to make an honest living. As a response, some southern communities composed Confederate monuments to recognize this simpler, perhaps more comfortable, past, and looked upon those memorials as the foundation for what southern culture should be based around to achieve societal, as well as individual, well-being. Therefore, Silber proposed that those against the removal of Confederate monuments could be doing so with this mindset in consideration, despite this way of thinking being centered around a misconstrued narrative of the Confederacy’s history.

The fourth panelist to present was W. Fitzhugh Brundage, a history professor at the University of North Carolina, who insisted the Confederate monument debate to not be about the actual memorials, but about the use of public space instead; with Brundage contending that, as a nation, we consider it obligatory to preserve monuments, regardless of their overtone, because we are taught to avoid discussions on identity politics. As a result, monuments are safeguarded in public spaces without public input, and the symbols chosen to commemorate the national landscape are selected in the interest of a few. This problem, according to Brundage, was exemplified in North Carolina; in which 233 monuments, out of the state’s 928, were recorded to memorialize the Civil War, with only 34 of those honoring African Americans in some fashion; demonstrating the attention provided to those who fought to maintain slavery versus those who were victimized by it. To resolve this issue, Brundage recommended that a population learns about the context behind their community’s monuments, and decide, as a collective unit, if those memorials are best suited to represent their society. If not, it was suggested to either move the monuments elsewhere, or counterattack by modifying the memorials so they express a new message.

Overall, the lecture sought to explain the various reasons why individuals may, either, be supportive of, or against, the removal of Confederate monuments from the public sphere; drawing possible motivations from the way Northerners and Southerners contemplate their own cultural identity and heritage, as well as from the histories presented by the memorials themselves. From this in depth review of the debate, it could be summarized how there are an extensive array of reasons for wanting, or not wanting, Confederate monuments removed from public spaces, despite the general arguments solely centering around the possible racism presented by the memorials. While the lecturers undoubtedly agreed of racism being the Confederacy’s cause, they indicated Confederate monuments to uphold a different interpretation, of the Confederacy’s image, to certain individuals; and advocated that, in order to resolve this debate, all voices must be heard to consider all the possible imagery presented by such memorials. Yet, they also urged for historical context, of the monuments, to be considered as well; for misinformation spreads ignorance, and disallows perspective reasoning. Only through these processes could the nation figure out what to do with the monuments; however, considering the current political climate, the lecturers questioned if such steps were possible to achieve.