Statues

One problem with joining a cult of personality is that fealty to that personality replaces everything else.  Like, for example, common sense.  This is why the die-hard Trump-worshippers claim not to understand why some people want to remove statues of confederate leaders from public places.

Since the animating purpose of this site is to explain Things Everyone Knows, but that some inexplicably don't understand, let me lay it out here.

First, this is not about history.  None of the statues targeted for removal were erected to memorialize the history of the Civil War, which is fairly plainly evident since they were placed in public parks and not museums.  Yes, it's true that there are some historical sites --- like Colonial Williamsburg, or Cowpens National Park --- which have lots of monuments presented with historical context.  There are probably similar historical places commemorating the Civil War, and I doubt anyone has any objection to statues of Robert E. Lee, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, or any other confederate leader in those places.

That's not what we're talking about.  Typically, our society erects statues of people in public parks, squares and the like to honor a person.  So one question we need to address is whether Robert E. Lee is really someone we want to honor.

As it turns out, there are other reasons these statues were erected, but we'll get to those later.

Second --- I really shouldn't need to say this, but apparently I do.  Lee was a traitor.  He was worse than a traitor, in fact: He literally led a rebellion against the United States of America.

Doesn't that really end the argument right there?  If not, consider: Where is the statue of Lee Harvey Oswald?  Of Squeaky Fromme?  Of John Hinkley?  Where is the statue of Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995, killing 168 people, 19 of them children?

The simple answer is that no such statues exist, because the idea of creating a statue for these people --- each of whom committed treason against the United States --- is literally insane.  But for some reason, we're supposed to overlook the much more serious and damaging treason of Robert E. Lee, who led the rebellion which ended in almost as many fatalities as all other American wars put together.

The question isn't "Why should we take down the confederate statues?", but rather, why would anyone want to keep them around?

Third, Lee was not fighting for any noble cause.  Not that it would have changed the fact of his treason, even if he had.  But fundamentally, he was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery --- the institution of buying and selling human beings as if they were animals, tearing families apart, and beating and raping them.

So here again, I have to stop and ask: If you think we should have statues honoring Robert E. Lee, then why not John Wayne Gacy?

Some have correctly pointed out that many of our Founding Fathers were slave owners.  This is an unfortunate fact of our nation's history.  Thomas Jefferson is almost certainly guilty of raping Sally Hemmings many times.  Isn't this a slippery slope?  If we take down Lee's statue (and those of other confederate leaders), don't we have to take down the statues to Washington, Jefferson, et al as well?

Maybe!  But for people like Washington and Jefferson, it's no so clear cut.  There are statues of George Washington because of his achievements as a military leader, and as the 'father of our country'.  There are statues of Thomas Jefferson as a founding father and author of the Declaration of Independence.  No one decided to erect these statues because they were slave owners.  These statues celebrate their accomplishments as leaders, not as slave owners.

The statues of confederate leaders, on the other hand, celebrate their treason in defense of slavery.

Finally, if all of that wasn't enough, it turns out that the real reason for erecting confederate statues is even worse than celebrating treason in defense of slavery.  The vast majority of monuments to the confederacy were built either as Jim Crow was taking over the South, or in response to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.  So while there is little doubt that the people who erected these statues wanted to honor Lee and Forrest and others, their primary purpose was to erect a prominent symbol of white supremacy in a public place, to intimidate those fighting for civil rights.

(The whole Southern Poverty Law Center report is worth a read.  And if you like what you read, you should also consider making a donation!).

In short, they are monuments of white supremacists, built by white supremacists to enforce white supremacy.  The idea of removing them should be wholly uncontroversial.  It should be akin to northern municipalities sending out snowplows during a winter storm: "The forecast calls for a blizzard, better get the snowplows ready".  We should all be saying "These monuments to white supremacy are all really awful; we should get rid of them."

And if you still doubt that's what these statutes are all about, then you need to ask yourself why white supremacists are so determined to keep them standing.