Splicetoday

Baltimore
Jul 06, 2015, 07:03AM

Tearing Down Statues in Baltimore Is Wrong

Only Luddites want to lobotomize history.

Rsz lee and jackson 036 s600x600.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

There are numerous official reasons why Baltimore is called “Monument City.” Statues serve as centerpieces in reenactment ceremonies, memorials in cemeteries, monuments in public squares and the phallic Washington Monument presides over Mount Vernon Place in honor of the nation’s founding father figure. One of the many is the statue of Robert E. Lee.

In the Northwest quadrant of Baltimore, there is also Roland Park, a leafy warren of graceful old houses on a sloping hillside that was once among the most segregated communities in America. Blacks and Jews were prohibited under its covenants from living in what is billed as the nation’s oldest planned community. The Roland Park website declaims, with characteristic understatement: “Its early planners were less than innovative in the social dimensions of development, advocating the deliberate exclusion of economic and racial diversity.”

And now, in 2015, youthful in American history by archeological standards, come those who want to lobotomize history, a non-violent version of ethnic cleansing, by eradicating from our memories that which is unpleasant and preserving only that which is satisfying.

Such an exercise in selective memory is folly of the symbol-minded. It is akin to the Luddites smashing machines to blunt progress and ISIS destroying precious antiquities in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra in an attempt to sledgehammer civilization into ideological submission. Many of those who herald the destruction of cultural heritage wouldn’t know the difference between a history book and a roll of toilet tissue.

Leading the local knee-jerk is Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz (D), who is joined by City Council President Bernard C. Jack Young (D), both of whom until now have kept their incandescent brilliance hidden from public view. They want to re-christen Robert E. Lee Park as Lake Roland Park. Where do the voters find these guys?

Robert E. Lee Park is city-owned but situated in Baltimore County. A statue of Robert E. Lee, the general who led confederate forces during the Civil War, is located in the neighborhood around the Baltimore Museum of Art. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has planted herself squarely in the political middle of the competing tugs of social demand. She plans to appoint a commission to inventory the city’s monuments, especially those associated with the Confederacy, and decide how to accommodate their social value before any is toppled or removed.

The drive to uproot history is part of the national whiplash against the confederate flag, characterized as a symbol of hate, following the gunning down of nine black worshipers at a Charlotte, SC, church by a racist young white man, Dylann Roof. The flag is coming down at many state capitols in the South.

According to a report in The Baltimore Sun, there are at least nine monuments in the city marking the confederate era among 80 military statues. It should be remembered, too, that Maryland had a split personality during the Civil War, half Northern sympathizers, half Southern. And the Mason-Dixon Line runs across the state like a right-brain, left-brain reminder of the abolitionist-pro-slavery past. (The Mason-Dixon Line, a nasty intra-mural dispute for centuries, resolved a border dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania. It is also the line of demarcation between Northern and Southern states.)

The critic, Louis Mumford, observed: “Monuments are so we’ll always remember, and memorials are so we’ll never forget,” a distinction, astute readers will discern, but not a difference. The statuary of either nomenclature helps us recall who we were, for good or ill, and are visual guideposts through a nation, state and city that is still very young and struggling with its own historical identity. Erasing or neutering the past will not cure what ails America, let alone reconcile racial strife. It is pointillism without a point.

George Washington had slaves and so, too, did Thomas Jefferson, who fathered children during a long affair with the mixed-race Sally Hemings. Yet no one has suggested bulldozing Mount Vernon or demolishing Monticello or the Jefferson Memorial. France and Great Britain helped to finance the South during the Civil War to insure continued production of cotton. We continue to eat French fries and English muffins. The past and the present co-exist, often uneasily, as a social continuum of national unity.

Yet Robert E. Lee has suddenly been exhumed from the dustbin of history as an outcast and a racist lout. I invited Blair Lee IV, the son of Maryland’s former lieutenant governor, to illuminate the competing attitudes about his famous ancestor.

First, a little background: [Francis Preston] Blair Lee IV, B-4 in shorthand, is living history. He’s the reigning scion of a family that includes the Blairs of Blair House and the Lees of Virginia. While Robert E. Lee was leading he Confederate army, Montgomery Blair was Lincoln’s postmaster general. The family has also contributed Maryland’s first popularly elected senator, nine members of Congress, a World War 1 hero, a U.S. ambassador and three presidents of Montgomery County’s council. Lee’s grandfather was a state comptroller and his father was a Maryland delegate, senator, lieutenant governor and acting governor. And add to those bloodlines a couple of signers of the Declaration of Independence, Francis Lightfoot Lee and Richard Henry Lee.

Let Blair Lee speak for himself in an email about his family ghost, Robert E. Lee:

“Robert E. Lee described slavery as a ‘moral and political evil.’ So why did he decide to lead the Confederate army that was trying to win independence from the Union so slavery could continue in the South? There are two answers; first, you need to understand Lee’s background. His father was a spendthrift wastrel who abandoned his family and died penniless. Lee’s older brother followed the same path, so Robert spent his life pursuing duty and honor as a reaction to his father and brother. Second, in 1861, most Americans viewed themselves as citizens of their states, not of the Federal Government. Think of it this way; do you consider yourself a graduate of your neighborhood high school or of your county school system? Lee wasn’t about slavery, he was about duty and making what he thought was the honorable choice confronting him.

“Lee pursued duty and honor at great expense. He knowingly sacrificed his U.S. Army career (he graduated second in his class from West Point) and command of the Union army which was offered him in 1861 by my great, great, great grandfather, Francis Preston Blair, on Lincoln’s behalf. Lee responded that he could not draw his sword against his native state, Virginia. He also lost his home, Arlington, which overlooks D.C. and became the National Cemetery.

“After the war, Lee became a leading voice for reconciliation and turned down lucrative job offers and book offers because he viewed it as unseemly to personally benefit from the deaths of the men he led in battle.

“Revisionists who want to paint Lee, today, as a traitor are misguided and open to this question; where do you stop? Do we delete the slaveholding presidents from our history? If we’re going to erase all Confederate symbols and names, how about our references to Great Britain, a foreign nation that attempted not once, but twice, to enslave us? Should we rename all the states, counties and highways named for British monarchs?

“Perhaps today’s revisionists should remember Lincoln’s famous advice that the post-war recovery should be conducted “with malice for none and with charity for all.” Can today’s revisionists honestly say that they are operating in that spirit?”

As an addendum to [Blair] Lee’s commentary, it should be noted that upon negotiating the terms of surrender with Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Lee counseled his troops to “go home and become good citizens.” As for Lee, he went on to become a celebrated educator and president of what is now Washington and Lee University, in Lexington, Virginia, so-named to honor him. So let Robert E. Lee Park retain the name, let Lee’s statue stand and allow Roland Park continue to make peace with its past.

Discussion
  • This piece seems pretty confused. Monuments are about honoring and promoting a certain interpretation of history. They don't just neutrally communicate history. Statues of Robert E. Lee don't just remind us that he existed; they say he was cool, and deserved a statue. He wasn't, and he doesn't. The problem with this piece can be summed up here: "Revisionists who want to paint Lee, today, as a traitor..." Lee was a traitor. He committed treason against the United States and fought against his country in the name of slavery. That's evil. It's also treason. If anyone in history has ever been a traitor, then Lee is a traitor. But somehow it's "revisionist" to point that out. And that's used as an excuse for the U.S. to have all these monuments to this traitor, because he was also kind of a nice guy and occasionally felt bad about being a traitor. Should we have monuments to the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC? They're part of American history too, right? Why should we whitewash history by refusing to erect monument to them? let's have Osama bin Laden Park. If you object, you're a Luddite who's trying to erase history!

    Responses to this comment
  • Like, if you want to keep the monuments up with a big plaque about how Lee was a traitor and fought on behalf of evil and we're leaving the statue up to remind ourselves that this country loathed and loathes black people and we should be ashamed of ourselves, I guess that would be okay. Somehow that's not what I think Lee's descendent is hoping for, though. And Lee had slaves. He didn't manumit them. Blair Lee's email is a disgraceful apology for slavery and the Confederacy. Isn't it time we got this ahistorical, self-justifying, racist false history off the landscape?

    Responses to this comment
  • I used to live in Charlottesville, unique in that it has both Lee Park - with a statue of Robert E Lee - and Monticello. The park may now come under pressure. Not sure what the odds are it gets changed. There will be no pressure to raze Monticello though, because TJ wasn't a leader of the Confederacy, of course. He also helped build the nation Lee tried to break apart.

    Responses to this comment
  • Last I checked, Osama wasn't a U.S. citizen and didn't represent the views of roughly half the U.S. populace at the time, making your analogy ridiculous and insulting. Secondly Noah, I think you are missing context. The victors write history and who is and is not considered a traitor is the result of that victory/loss, therefore Lee being a traitor is hardly the unbiased fact that you state it to be. Of course slavery is now considered an ugly and unjustifiable offence but when put in context, can you really argue that the U.S. would exist as a world power today had it not been for the economic benefits of slavery? England has had good and bad monarchs, should the bad be eliminated from the public square and denied existence in the history books? Should Caesar, who enslaved those he beat in war also be eliminated from history because of his pro-slavery stance? If we forget our history, are we not doomed to repeat it? Although I often get shit for my anti-confederate views here in Texas, (I don't buy the states right bullshit arguments myself) I do recognize the social and economic drivers and the difficulties intertwined in the dismantling of a human injustice i.e. slavery and can empathize not with the pro-slavery side but the effects that such a dismantling can/did have on a large part of the U.S. psyche and wealth of the time. In other words, it's easy in hindsight to take your position but in reality, it was not the one-dimensional disagreement you like to pretend it was.

    Responses to this comment
  • DeFillipo is wrong on a number of counts, but I'll just point out that he completely misunderstands the story of Luddites. The Luddites smashed factory equipment not as a protest against technology, but as a cry of pain that they as textile workers were being impoverished by new forms of work organization. The revolt of the Luddites should be understood as workers striking back against cruel and inhuman treatment, not a desire to impede technology or deny historical truth.

    Responses to this comment
  • Wow, did I actually read in these comments that the US would not be a world power today if not for slavery? That really takes the cake. So even with all those millions of European immigrants who came here and worked their asses off, and even with all the entrepreneurship and industrialization in the early 20th century, and even with the US being the main factor in winning WW2, the US would not exist as a world power now? That is an epically absurd statement.

    Responses to this comment
  • Subbeck, why resort to insult and ignorance when you don't like a comment? Why not try reason and logic assuming you are capable? What is "epic ally absurd" is that most of your examples occurred after slavery and the civil war. Another "epic ally absurd" part of your comment is that you do not refute my argument with fact but with insult and ignorance of any salient facts. What were the main exports of the U.S. prior to the end of slavery and the later civil rights movements? How were those exports harvested? Who received the taxes off the profits of said trade? Do you really think that the U.S. would have become an economic force without slavery and if so, why not explain? In economic and sociological circles there is wide acceptance of my earlier point and if you bothered to research, you might realize the unfortunate/inconvenient truth. (Also keep in mind that many of the millions immigrants you mentioned became indentured servants a.k.a white slaves) And before you insult further, I'm not speaking in support of slavery, just acknowledging historical facts.

    Responses to this comment
  • I agree with the move to rename it Lake Roland Park. For one thing, it's a great name, much better than its current one, history aside. It's just a cooler name. But as far as tearing down symbols of hatred and slavery, it is a bit arbitrary to dispense with the Confederate flag without getting rid of the American flag, a symbol of even greater injustice and inhumanity. We've done more evil in the past 14 years than the Confederacy ever had a chance to. It's a cause celebre, and a good one. Fuck the Confederate flag, and fuck Robert E. Lee. But what about the pyramids in Egypt? And all the monuments you listed? They were made by bone and blood. So, I think it's good, but no moral high ground. It's just so arbitrary, mob rule. But at least it's in the right direction.

    Responses to this comment
  • Yes,the events I mention all came after slavery, which is my very point. The US became the leading industrial power after slavery, due to the points I mentioned. It became THE world power after WW2. But it would not even be "a" world power in 2015 without slavery, which hasn't existed since 1863? That's why i call what you wrote absurd, which you take as a personal insult I guess. Would think you'd have a thicker skin, given your particular style.

    Responses to this comment
  • Lee renounced his citizenship. He also killed more Americans than Bin Laden did, by a lot. And his cause, slavery, certainly wasn't any better than Bin Laden's. I really see no reason to prefer Lee to Bin Laden in terms of actual evil defended and accomplished. The difference is that we haven't spent a hundred odd years pretending Bin Laden is a hero and celebrating his awfulness. That's it.// Edward Baptist in The Half Has Never Been Told makes a compelling case that U.S. capitalism and power was built on slave production. Counterfactual history is always dicey, and it's possible that without slavery the US could have become a world power. The fact is, though, that the way the US became a world power in the actual history we've got was through slavery, wealth produced by massive cotton production, and the capital innovations inspired through using slaves as collateral.//Re: The American flag. It's just a much more complicated symbol. People freed the slaves under the American flag. I'm no fan of American nationalism, but America has stood at various times for anti-racism as well as racism. The Confederate flag was born out of slavery, and it's been used as a symbol of white supremacy ever since. It's time for it, and memorials to the Confederacy's greatness in general, to go.

    Responses to this comment
  • What about Malcolm X, Noah? Erase his name from the street signs and schools commemorating him? Wipe J. Edgar Hoover's name off that building in DC (not actually a bad idea)? Ignore Charles Lindbergh's aviation feats because his later sympathy with the Nazis? Hell, why not tear everything down, raze the land of all monuments, and create jobs by erecting news monuments to historical figures now in favor.

    Responses to this comment
  • So the U.S. was nothing prior to the industrial revolution? I guess I should know better than to expect an informed argument from you.

    Responses to this comment
  • The point is that what happened after slavery, in the Northeast and Midwest,is what made the US the top industrial nation and paved the way to its becoming the superpower. So the US would now be at least "a" power without the slavery that ended so long ago.

    Responses to this comment
  • Just stop subbeck. You've already proved you're an uneducated simpleton. No need to further confirm.

    Responses to this comment
  • Damn, your wit stings like a jellyfish. Well,you're not quite Oscar Wilde yet, to put it as kindly as i can.Figured the usual was coming soon.It never takes too long for you to reveal your true stripes.

    Responses to this comment
  • No worries, subbeck. I'm sure you can find someone willing to piss all over that sting.

    Responses to this comment
  • What's your mom's number again?

    Responses to this comment
  • 1-800-HEAVEN, you sick son of a bitch. I can't believe that you'd attack someones dead mother, yet again. Not only are you a complete idiot, you've once again proven that you will leave no line of decency uncrossed in your pursuit of a confederacy of MORONS. It is bad enough that you pass judgement on others based upon your sub-par education and below average I.Q. but to repeatedly attack the deceased loved ones of someone you disagree with is totally beyond the pale. FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

    Responses to this comment
  • How was I supposed to know? And repeatedly? You are downright delusional now. Hey, you're the one who wanted to play rough.

    Responses to this comment
  • I repeat, FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!

    Responses to this comment
  • Ack; this seems to have gone off the rails. But to respond to Greenlight; the thing about Lindbergh is, no one honors him for his fascism. He's honored for his piloting feats. Lee gets statues because of his service to traitorous slaveholders. That's what he's known for; in other respects he might have been a nice guy, but you don't get a statue for just being a nice guy. Honoring Lee is honoring the Confederacy and what it stood for; honoring Lindbergh is honoring an aviator.//J. Edgar Hoover was a blight who is honored for the nasty things he did, and yeah, I'd be happy to take his name off buildings. The cause Lee stands for is really worse than the causes Hoover stood for though, awful as Hoover was; slavery and treason trump most evils. So, you know, one thing at a time. When all the Lee statues are down, if people want to work on Hoover, I wouldn't kick.

  • You didn't address Malcolm X.

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah, just because you only recognize one part of Lee's legacy does not mean others are so biased or uninformed. Personally, he is not someone I would chose to celebrate either, but I won't ascribe racist motivations to those who disagree. Many people I know talk about his attempts to reunite the country after the war. Others discuss his military successes and failures in the same way they discuss the failures and successes of Washington and Patton. In Texas, his role in the Mexican-American War and as cavalry leader protecting settlers from Indians is the primary focus. In other words Noah, you seem to share the myopic focus of those you castigate.

    Responses to this comment
  • Take Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill. Replace him with Sitting Bull.

    Responses to this comment
  • Take Meg Whitman off the $1 bill. Replace her with Charles Manson.

    Responses to this comment
  • Hoist the Jolly Roger! Let's slit some throats! When did the Splice Today comments section turn into Reddit?

    Responses to this comment
  • I envy you, DeFillipo.

    Responses to this comment
  • "Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past, controls the future." --- George Orwell

    Responses to this comment
  • Lee's military successes were in support of treason and slavery! That's what he fought for. As for reuniting the country after the war...please. He's got monuments because people think the Confederacy is awesome and he fought for the Confederacy. Show me a monument where the plaque explains that Lee made a huge mistake supporting treason and slavery, but tried to make up for it. I'll wait//HIs legacy is what his legacy is. Are people who support him racist? They're supporting a vision of history in which champions of racism are honored. That's a racist stance, and makes this country a more racist place. But, you know, that doesn't mean they have to be evil or horrible people. They could just have made a mistake...which they can easily change, by just deciding that they don't want to support that history any more.//Greenlight, I missed the part where Malcolm X was a traitor who killed scads of his fellow countrymen in the name of slavery. Malcolm X is a complicated figure, but suggesting he's somehow morally comparable to Lee is, imo, insulting and ridiculous.

  • Noah, your opinion is based on pure ignorance and denial of facts.

    Responses to this comment
  • Furthermore, F.D.R. was a racist by your standards since he unveiled the statue of Lee here in Dallas.

    Responses to this comment
  • FDR unveiled a statue of "Lee" in DALLAS? That bastard killed JFK.

    Responses to this comment
  • How exactly DID Meg Whitman get her face on the $1 bill?

    Responses to this comment
  • Thanks for the chuckle Cartman

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment