by Lynn Mandaville
Is it possible that memorials and statues commemorating The Lost Cause, the attempt by southern states to secede from the Union, were the first of their kind? Participation trophies?
Ponder on this a minute.
Eleven states participated in seceding from the United States in 1860.
They expended untold amounts of money of the effort.
They sent thousands upon thousands of men to die for this cause.
Those men gave it their all. They did not succeed.
What do you give to the unsuccessful participants in such a colossal event? Hundreds of statues on marble pedestals!
How do you reward the men who tried so hard, expended so much energy, on an effort that failed to achieve its goal? With hundreds of bronze plaques on granite blocks!
So much was wagered by the South in their effort to become a nation apart from the United States to maintain the institution of slavery, their economic way of life.
Surely the people who sacrificed so much should have tangible, lasting reminders of that endeavor?
Except for the fact that the act of secession was treason, how does this differ from the ribbons, medals, and trophies we give to kids when they don’t succeed in coming in first?
Except for the fact that bronze, marble, and granite last longer than cheap plastic, cheap metal alloy, and synthetic ribbon, how does this differ from distinguishing people who win from people who lose?
Why this need to hang on to a loss? To celebrate it?
Maybe I get it.
Mine was not a generation that gave out consolation prizes. Mine was not a generation where just showing up merited an award.
But my fifth-place ribbon for my vintage car in a parade in 1993 is still in a drawer somewhere. (Saved for posterity?) Fifth place. Is fifth even worthy of the cost of the ribbon? I doubt it. But I hang on to it, the vestige of my futile attempt to polish my car to within an inch of its life that July 4th and get a first-place award.
I don’t, however, feel a need to display this memory of my failure as if it were a success. That’s not really a healthy response to failure.
The healthy response to failure is to evaluate it, learn from it and move on.
Confederate monuments and statues really are attempts to elicit success from failure. They cry out to claim the South won, somehow, but the truth is the South lost.
Instead of evaluating their loss, learning from it, and moving on as contrite but stalwart members of the United States of America, the Confederates cling to defeat and promote The Lost Cause in their century-old mantra “the South shall rise again!”
In so doing, they further the idea that black people are somehow less, somehow subservient, to white people.
Which institutionalizes a not-so-subtle racism that permeates modern society.
It took the death of George Floyd to solidify in Americans the need to rid ourselves of the reminders of the South’s loss-as-victory.
NASCAR has banned Confederate flags from all aspects of their events.
Governors and city councils are removing, or planning to remove and relocate, statues and monuments.
Legislators have suggested mandatory name changes of military bases named for Confederate generals, and the United States Army is open to this action.
The United States Marines have banned the Confederate battle flag from all public spaces and work areas, soon to be followed by a similar order for United States Navy personnel.
Most Americans are okay with these changes.
There is absolutely no reason to hang on to harmful trophies for participation in treason.
To preserve our history? Please! As if without them we won’t remember who lost the Civil War?
The time has finally come to relegate Confederate historical mementos to books and historic parks where meaningful narrative can accompany these relics.
A loss evaluated. A loss from which we’ve learned.
Let’s move on.
Ms Mandaville
Could you clarify a couple of things.
It is my interpretation of your article that only winners should have the right to honor. I do agree that a trophy for everyone is not the way to go.
But depending on the situation being awarded for lesser placing than first can be an achievement. If one only awards winners …when it comes to armed conflicts ( war) . How would you justify (honor) those that precipitated in wars the US did not win. It’s my understanding the US didn’t really win the conflict in Korea ..Vietnam was a loss…. and many of the current conflicts we have not won.
What meaningful narrative could possibly be given using Vietnam as an example?
We ( the US ) …have we really learned anything from these conflicts we lost ? In my opinion no…we are still fighting wars we can not win.
People today are trying to produce a utopian Country…..is this a real possibility..history to this point says no.
But if we remove and erase the mistakes made in the history of this Country…a few generations from now it may become the utopia most hope to achieve. Will this achievement be a true or false one ?
Mr. Smit,
I’d be glad to clarify my thoughts.
Let’s concentrate on honors for those who participate in wars.
When American forces participate in wars on foreign soil, whether we “win” or not, we are timely in honoring those who fought as part of a united front in that conflict. Specifically, note the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.. But don’t forget other memorials to American veterans who died for their country. The operative words here are “for their country.”
Vietnam was a glaring example of a war we should never have become embroiled in. We don’t need the memorial to learn from that debacle. But one exists, and it is understated in its presence. The meaningful narrative exists in the history books, the memoirs, and, for now, in the hearts and minds of those who served and suffered the consequences of that war. The meaningful narrative exists in what has been learned about the human psyche when exposed to the horrors of war, PTSD as a prime example of something learned through war and translated into other human trauma.
I would distinguish those wars from the Civil War because the Civil War was not a war waged as a united front on foreign soil. It was a war against itself on home soil. In the meaningful narrative which results from the Civil War we have historical records of what the South felt after their defeat, and how they tried to resurrect victory out of their defeat. That should suffice, in my opinion.
It is also my opinion that there should not be monuments and statues to those who fought for the North. Again, just my opinion, but such “honors” simply serve to pour salt in the wounds of the South, a kind of gloating that I feel is unnecessary.
Finally, you ask whether only winners should share in accolades. In the context of war it is debatable. But, in my opinion, honors to other participants or to the losers should be likened to my fifth place ribbon for my car. Put it in a drawer, forget it, and move on. The memorial to the Vietnam War is a nice compromise. It sits below ground level, It is discreet. It is humble. Unlike my fifth place ribbon, no war should be forgotten. We should study them all, understand them all, evaluate them all, and, above all, learn from them all so we don’t make the same mistakes again.
I hope this has helped.
Ms Mandaville
Thanks for your answer. My problem is depending on the education system to reveal the true and ugly history of our country. Will all the events be taught or just bypassed because the truth can be painful?
So instead of the reminders (statues, flags, etc.) of who, what and why, most will gladly accept them to be removed or banned from public display.
The question no one can answer, if we are to learn from our mistakes, but there is no history documenting those mistakes, how does one learn.
Sadly the future generations will never come to understand what it took to get the United States this far. And as the saying goes history will repeat itself.
Very possibly with another form of Civil War.
The fuse was lit after reading this screed, but I held off commenting, however it is so obvious this was written from ignorance (not stupidity which lasts forever, but lack of information) I need to throw in my 2 cents.
The Union was formed from 13 states that had no laws against slavery. It was practiced widely in the South but also existed in the North to a lesser extent. The reason the South had many slaves was the hundreds of acres under cultivation had to be worked by labor, mainly slaves. The cultivation of cotton, tobacco, indigo, etc. required hand labor and since there wasn’t machinery yet to do the labor, many hands were needed.
Don’t mistake my reasoning, I’m not condoning slavery, just setting the record straight.
In the North, it was small farms using owners and their children to work the small farms to support the family. If they were lucky, they might have a few indentured servants (work for room and board for a set time until your debt was repaid for paying your way to America).
Many of the Confederate soldiers were educated at West Point and fought under the Union flag in the Mexican War. Robert Lee distinguished himself many times as well as Thomas Jackson. Did you know Robert Lee was offered the command of the Union Army before he aligned himself with is home state of Virginia and the Army of Northern Virginia?
He was torn between country and state allegiance. Back then, the state allegiance was a stronger pull for military men and civilians alike.
If Lee had the massive manufacturing as the North and massive, unending supply of troops and equipment, and Gen. Jackson was not shot by mistake by a Confederate sentry, it would have been no contest and the South would have ended the war quickly.
The South knew the institute of slavery was dying and shortly after the war, machinery was invented to harvest crops efficiently.
To say otherwise is unwise and untrue.
To eliminate history and statues is to eventually repeat it.