The Moral Debate Over Statues

The Moral Debate Over Statues (Letters to the Editor, New York Times) SEPT. 2, 2017; original entry contains links.

uncaptioned image from entry

To the Editor:

Jon Meacham’s Aug. 22 Op-Ed essay, “Why Confederates Should Go,” proposes
a test for which figures we should still venerate with a statue. “Those who took up
arms against the Union were explicitly attempting to stop the American odyssey”
and should not be venerated, he says. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall
Jackson all have to go, but supporters of the American journey, slavery and all, can
stay.

I think it is a bad test since it is completely devoid of any morality and does not
actually address the problem of slavery. Slavery was profoundly immoral, and all
good people knew this, even in 1776.

That does not mean that Washington’s statues should be removed: He was a
great American who helped establish the United States, even though he owned
slaves. Even great people have moral warts, and Washington’s support of slavery was
such.

I would propose a different test: Great Americans get statues, even if they had
some warts and were imperfect people. That might be the most important lesson for
us all: Even great people — never mind we mere mortals — have warts that can never
be overlooked, but can be forgiven.

MICHAEL J. BROYDE, ATLANTA
The writer is a rabbi and a law professor at Emory University.

To the Editor:

The statue torn from the Confederate monument in Durham, N.C., was not that
of Robert E. Lee, or any other leader of the Southern rebellion, but that of a foot
soldier in the army. Such monuments were erected by the hundreds in memory of
the untold thousands of husbands, uncles, fathers and sons who perished.

These were not monuments to victory, but to grief and loss, and were a perpetual
reminder — as they are still today — that the South did not win the war. As such
these monuments to the “common man” remain as potent reminders of misguided
beliefs and tragedy, not of supremacy or triumph.

DANIEL D. REIFF, KENMORE, N.Y.
The writer is co-author of the forthcoming study “Column Monuments:
Commemorative and Memorial Column Monuments From Ancient Times to the
Twenty-First Century.”

To the Editor:

The decision to remove statues of historic figures should not be based on how
their words and deeds are judged by current liberal standards. Rather, they should
be judged in the context of their times and by whether they contributed more good
than harm to the world in which they lived.

To take an extreme example, President Lincoln was a racist. He wrote that he
was not “in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the
white and black races.” Does this mean that we should tear down the Lincoln
Memorial?

Well, no. In spite of his flaws he deserves his memorial because he opposed
slavery, and ultimately was able to abolish it. History does not consist entirely of
saintly people who were opposed by evil ones. To the extent that monuments
encourage viewers to read about and understand our past, they can serve a useful
role in guiding us to a better future.

WILLIAM D. DUPONT, NASHVILLE

To the Editor:

“Topple Columbus, Too? Statue Outcry Spreads” (front page, Aug. 26) describes
the growing demands to pull down monuments that celebrate Confederate leaders
and other “symbols of hate.” But the article cites some who balk when “the
symbolism is far murkier, like Christopher Columbus.”

However, there is nothing murky about Columbus’s legacy of violence and
slavery. Columbus initiated the trans-Atlantic slave trade in February 1494, sending
several dozen Taíno people as slaves from the Caribbean to Spain, and later
hundreds more. And when the Taínos resisted, Columbus sent an armed force to, in
one Spanish priest’s words, “spread terror among the Indians to show them how
strong and powerful the Christians were.”

To celebrate Columbus is to celebrate his crimes — and the greed and racial
chauvinism that motivated them. Native Americans have been saying this for years.
It’s time to listen.

BILL BIGELOW, PORTLAND, ORE.
The writer is co-editor of “Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years.”

To the Editor:

Tearing down statues and burning artifacts will do nothing more than bury
history. Our history is filled with moments that we can look at with pride, and
moments when we lost our humanity. These moments need to be part of larger
conversations as they relate to today.

To this end, why not use these artifacts as “teachable moments.” Rather than
cover the statue of Columbus, have a museum label that explains who he was and
what he did. Let this statue and other symbols of hate and prejudice encourage
discussions about right and wrong, good and evil, kindness and cruelty. Use these
artifacts in museums across the country, along with primary documents and other
artifacts to again remind us all that we can do better.

If hate can be taught, so can love. We don’t have to repeat the past; we do have
to learn from it and remember.

ANITA MEYER MEINBACH
BOCA RATON, FLA.

To the Editor:

Has anyone considered that those engaged in tearing down images of certain
icons of the past are following the barbaric examples of the Taliban and ISIS, whose
practice it has been to destroy relics of the past that they have found to be offensive
to their particular sensibilities? Let’s put a lid on the frenzy.

WILLIAM M. GREEN, NEW YORK

To the Editor:

Re “Relocate Statues Honoring the Rebels” (Critic’s Notebook, Aug. 21):
In urging us to preserve Confederate monuments, Holland Cotter quips, “When
you find yourself at a crime scene, you don’t destroy evidence.” The problem with
this formulation is that the statues were an integral part of the long, concerted effort
by the Southern elite to rewrite their story.

A huge part of that project was erasing the traces of the true history of African-Americans
in the South during and after slavery. The graveyards of enslaved people
are paved or sodded over (at my family’s former plantation the slave burial ground is
now a Christmas tree farm), while the graveyards of our white ancestors are carefully
tended. Slave cabins were torn down. Lynching sites remain unmarked.

When we talk about preserving the “evidence” of history, we must also ask:
Which history? Whose history?

ELIZABETH THOMAS
PITTSBURGH

To the Editor:

Having just finished Shelby Foote’s three-volume history of the American Civil
War, I was deeply disturbed by the riot about the removal of the equestrian statue of
Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Va. The fact that Lee chose to support the
Confederacy and owned slaves does not detract from the fact that he was one of the
greatest generals in American history, following his conscience and doing his duty as
he saw it. We should be mindful of the moral contradictions of Lee’s career, both his
triumphs and his failures.

In my opinion it is altogether fitting that the reminders of Lee, Stonewall
Jackson, P. G. T. Beauregard and others should not be seen as their glorification.
Rather, such artifacts of history should be left standing as a reminder that following
one’s conscience and doing one’s duty may not always put one on the right side of
history. The men, their personalities and even their wrong decisions should not be
reduced to symbols of slavery to be erased from our memory.

We cannot simply write off the men who died for their cause, as we continue to
fight for liberty and justice for all.

NICHOLAS SPIES, DOWNINGTON, PA.

A version of this letter appears in print on September 3, 2017, on Page SR8 of the New York edition with the headline: The Moral Debate Over Statues.