A recent family vacation to Washington, D.C. crystallized my thinking regarding the statues and other tributes erected in earlier times to honor figures now considered disreputable and worse. Like gazillions of other tourists, we visited many of the majestic monuments dedicated by Congress to former presidents and public figures, including Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and MLK. It did not escape my notice that all of these men have flaws, when seen through 21st century eyes, not appreciably worse than exhibited by those Confederate generals, leaders, and veterans whose statues and memorials have been razed, hidden, or renamed by many of our cities, municipalities, and colleges/universities over the last few years. Should our presidential memorials be next in line?
Putting aside purely political considerations, the expressed rationale for this wide-reaching concealment generally seems to be that these tributes express repellent and odious ideas favoring slavery, oppression, treason, and so forth (see above link). While understandable, this reflex is a grave mistake, and—ironically—one inconsistent with the very liberal values to which our politicians pay lip service. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a liberal state (or what Popper calls an “open society”), is the willingness of its members to constantly criticize and reassess its governing beliefs and values, including through the study of history. It should go without saying that there is, in this regard, at least as much to be gained by the study of bad men and ignoble ideas as from their opposites.
Thus, exposure to Confederate memorials might prompt the intellectually curious to wonder about the underlying moral reasoning that justified to so many an institution as brutal as slavery; why it proved impossible to avoid the calamitous civil war that ended it; and how moral progress is possible, and to what extent we have made it in the almost 155 years since the war’s conclusion, just to scratch the surface. In this light, it should be apparent that a jurisdiction’s decision to display and maintain these monuments is not an endorsement of the words or deeds of the persons or groups commemorated. However, if political expediency demands it, some disclaimer to this effect could easily be made.
There are obvious parallels here to the considerations cited by libertarians and other proponents of stringent rights of free expression. While, in my view, so-called hate speech should be protected because even bigots have the moral right, as rational agents, to express themselves, censorship also deprives the audience of the opportunity to analyze why these opinions are wrong and formulate the most compelling rebuttal. Moreover, sometimes what is regarded by most listeners as clearly false and repulsive expression turns out to be true. Imagine the reception received, when first made, of the claim that blacks were the moral and intellectual equals of whites.
Perhaps an even more apt analogy might be found in the realm of science. It is precisely because certain microbes are so pathogenic that our microbiologists must study them with such intensity. So too with ideas that we now regard as repulsive.
It is fitting to close, I think, with one of the quotes inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial, which eloquently acknowledges the need to continually reform our institutions to reflect the great intellectual progress we have made over the ages:
But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.[1]
Jefferson
would have been the first to acknowledge that such advancements are only possible
in a society that is open to a wide diversity of opinion, and is eager to learn
from its past. One, in short, that studies its history rather than demolishing
it.
[1] Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816 (the Memorial uses a slight paraphrase from the original).
I saw your comment at BHL which mentioned your blog; so I went to take a look. I saw this post on confederate monuments. Like you I am somewhat ambivalent about these monuments.
Your post says, “Perhaps an even more apt analogy might be found in the realm of science. It is precisely because certain microbes are so pathogenic that our microbiologists must study them with such intensity. So too with ideas that we now regard as repulsive.”
The point seems naïve. I don’t think Confederate Monuments at all convey a message of “study what we did with intensity”; they are treated in our culture as reminders of admirable people; and it is that commonly understood message that triggers the effort to pull them down.
You don’t see a lot of monuments of infamous people: Marx, Bin Laden, etc. If you put up such a monument, I doubt folks would accept your claim that you just wanted people to study these people with intensity.
So, to be realistic; taking these monuments down is not about hiding these people; it’s about repudiating their acts.
Certainly, private parties are and should be free to put up Confederate Monuments on private land (or monuments to Marx or Bin Laden) but when the monument is publicly owned or maintained; then the public has the right to decide it needs to go. Such a decision violates no one’s rights.
sean s.
Hi Sean:
Thanks for noticing my blog and offering this thoughtful comment. I’m afraid I can’t agree with you, however. I believe your focus on people’s motivation for erecting monuments to noxious individuals and the message that such monuments “convey” to the typical person misses my point. Sad to say, the typical person isn’t very bright or terribly interested in history. They may react in the way you suggest, i.e. “its stupid to honor these bad men.” But there are persons intelligent enough to be interested in history and the lessons it conveys who will be prompted by these memorials to wonder about the sort of questions I identified.
Our public libraries are filled with books by very bad people, monsters in fact: Marx, Lenin, Hitler Mao, etc. and their sympathizers. These libraries are funded by tax dollars. Most users of these institutions will never read these books, either out of disinterest or because they are repelled by the content. Should we then pull them from the shelves? I believe that would be a terrible mistake. We need to understand how these mass murders were able to come to power. What was it about their ideologies that was so fatally attractive to many millions of people who were not monsters? We need to ask these same sorts of questions about our history and the Confederacy, and these monuments will spark such an interest in the minds of the intellectually curious. You are correct that no one’s rights would be violated by their removal, but that’s not my point. Leaving them in place doesn’t violate anyone’s rights either. As I said in my post, I have no objection if the jurisdictions maintaining these tributes wish to place disclaimers next to them, or even “counter” monuments.
Mark, you wrote that, “Sad to say, the typical person isn’t very bright or terribly interested in history. They may react in the way you suggest, i.e. ‘its stupid to honor these bad men.’”
That overlooks the second category of “typical persons”: those who react to these monuments as venerating heroes. And this explains why these monuments; when possible; should be taken down: the typical person either is persuaded to honor the evil cause for which these dead people fought (slavery or racism) or the typical person is offended because of the evil cause for which these dead people fought.
Further; it is not for lack of brightness or interest that many people conclude that “it’s stupid to honor these bad men.” To fight and kill for an evil cause is a sign of being a bad person.
“there are persons intelligent enough to be interested in history and the lessons it conveys who will be prompted by these memorials to wonder about the sort of questions I identified.”
Intelligent persons are unlikely to encounter these monuments without already having some familiarity with the issues. I grew up in and live in the North; we have our civil war monuments; but I’ve never seen a Confederate monument up here. Strangely enough, most Northerners are still familiar with the history and issues related to that; certainly no less than most Southerners are.
And let’s be clear with regards to the Confederacy: their cause was evil. I think General Grant said it well:
“I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.” [1, emphasis added.]
“Our public libraries are filled with books by very bad people, monsters in fact: Marx, Lenin, Hitler Mao, etc. and their sympathizers. These libraries are funded by tax dollars. Most users of these institutions will never read these books, either out of disinterest or because they are repelled by the content. Should we then pull them from the shelves?”
Unless you actually go to a library; you will not encounter these books; and even if you do, you’ll need to look for them to encounter them. Monuments in public spaces are not similar.
If you do go to the library; you’ll not only find these books you mention, but also many books by people who vehemently reject the writings of Marx, Lenin, Hitler Mao, etc. and their sympathizers. If in public spaces; side-by-side with the Confederate monuments were monuments to abolitionists, run-away slaves, or Union leaders; then the situation would be similar. But you rarely will find that.
“We need to understand how these mass murders were able to come to power.”
Agreed; and libraries aid this understanding well; monuments don’t.
“… and these monuments will spark such an interest in the minds of the intellectually curious.”
Whether that’s actually the case or not is unproven. The intellectually curious will be aware of these issues whether they ever see these monuments or not. So there’s no evidence the monuments serve any purpose except to inspire veneration of or anger against bad persons. Better to just get rid of them and their mixed message.
sean s.
[1] from Grant’s Personal Memoirs; 1885
Sean, it’s always possible that evil people might be inspired to do monstrous things by any stimulus, including Shakespeare, a random newspaper story, violent films or TV shows, or even reading stuff about poisons or pathogens. But I’m pretty sure we don’t want to adopt wholesale censorship of all media, or limit the education we provide in our schools, in a vain attempt to prevent this. In fact, it’s precisely the opposite impulse that prompts educators to teach about the Holocaust, our treatment of Native Americans, etc. Further, it’s really not important to me or, more importantly, relevant to the argument I have made, how people generally react to these monuments or whether the people honored by them are evil.
What is crucial, I think, is that we not try to hide the despicable things in our past (like slavery and its defenders), so that the more intellectually curious among us will have the chance to think about the historical context and causes that gave rise to them. All that a liberal polity can do is provide this opportunity, just as all we can do is make information freely available in general. Thus, the fact that you encounter Confederate monuments in public spaces and don’t, in contrast to books, have to request to check them out is a feature and not a bug. Finally, since 95% of people already think that the Confederates were evil (and thus find these tributes offensive), I don’t believe localities need erect plaques to this effect, although it is fine with me if they do. Now, I think I’ve said all I can usefully say, so I’m afraid that if you wish to continue, it will have to be without me.
I notice my last reply is not appearing; did I do something wrong?
sean s.
Sean: I didn’t delete anything. I’m looking at my blog now, and I see your first comment, your long second comment replying to me, then this third, short question. Is something missing?
I “accepted” your second comment again. Is it showing up now?
Yes. everything seems to be squared-away now. I’m sure I did something wrong. Mea Culpa.
sean s.
No, I’m technologically challenged!