May 31, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
Defending the Monuments:
And thus Defending our Western Christian Heritage
Friends,
Within
the past several days three of my penned essays have been published widely;
respectively, by THE ABBEVILLE INSTITUTE, THE UNZ REVIEW, and CHRONICLES
MAGAZINE. And so, over the next couple of days, I will pass them on to you (and
encourage that you patronize those journals).
Abbeville and Unz are online magazines, and Chronicles publishes a handsome print
magazine each month, but also has a Web presence.
The
article in Chronicles, titled “Cultural
Marxism and Race” (June 2018 print issue), is the second piece I’ve had
featured in that distinguished Old Right journal (the first one, “That Royal
Wedding, Reverend Michael Curry, and the End of England,” was published online
only, May 23). The Unz Review essay
(May 31) is a version of the MY CORNER posting from yesterday, “Roseanne Barr,
Uncle Remus, and the Multicultural Politically-Correct Briar Patch.”
But
today I pass on the long essay that came out yesterday via The Abbeville
Institute. It is titled, “Defending the Monuments,” and it’s a detailed defense
of the endangered Confederate monuments being threatened by the frenzied social
justice warriors of the Left who now have enlisted the support of most of the
Democratic Party and even some wimpish Republicans in the efforts to remove
these symbols of our heritage.
It
is an edited version of comments I submitted to the North Carolina Historical
Commission several months ago in defense specifically of the three Confederate
monuments located on Capitol Square in Raleigh, North Carolina. A few of you
may have seen it back then, but most of you probably not. With it I offer some
additional background and extensive commentary on what has been going on in
this debate.
I
hope that this essay, which goes into great detail on the situation
in North Carolina, will serve not only as a defense in my native state, but
will also assist those in other states, and not just about Confederate symbols
that dot our landscape. For it is not just those monuments to Lee and Jackson
that are now under severe attack. Indeed, it is ALL of the “inconvenient
history” that does not fit the painfully narrow and Procrustean ideological
framework being imposed on us by the cultural Marxists who now dominate academia
and our public education, the media, and, increasingly, our politics.
You
see, it is those Confederate monuments and symbols, those flags of the
Confederacy, those reminders that are seen as the easiest and, therefore, first
targets—but they are just that, the first. And Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and
dozens and hundreds more targets of the cultural Marxist blitzkrieg are out
there. The goal of the powerful cultural Leftist offensive is the total remaking of America, and that
means that ALL symbols, markers, flags, and monuments to anything that doesn’t
fit their narrative and agenda must be done away with, removed, at best placed
in an inaccessible museum, away from the eyes of the general public, and most
assuredly away from the curious eyes of school age children.
My
question to superficially sympathetic friends and relatives has been always
this:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO PREVENT THE
DESTRUCTION OF OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND NOT JUST THOSE CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS?
Will
you let your legislator know how you feel? Will you express your views at the
next election (and in particular, in North Carolina for governor, since
Governor Roy Cooper has collaborated in a cowardly fashion with those Leftist
cultural barbarians)? And if you are a male and a descendant in any way of a
Confederate soldier or official, will you become a part of the Sons of
Confederate Veterans and join the concerted effort to stop the Revolution and
preserve our heritage?
When
the barbarians will have succeeded, it will be too late….
So
I pass that essay on today. It is longer than most that I remit to you, but I
hope that it will be useful, and I urge you to pass it on. The other
publications will follow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ABBEVILLE INSTITUTE
Defending the Monuments
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/defending-the-monuments/?mc_cid=0b3e24a491&mc_eid=8639a6a6ea
After
the Charleston shooting in 2015, all across the old Confederacy memorials,
monuments, flags and other symbols of the South’s Confederate history came
under renewed and severe assault. It seemed that the last vestiges of that
heritage might be swept away in a paroxysm of politically-driven outrage and
media-hyped efforts to purge the landscape of those symbols.
In
many ways North Carolina became ground zero for these efforts. But the
Tar Heel State also witnessed a pushback from defenders of the state’s heritage
who organized successfully and were able, for the moment at least, to fend off
the worst of those attacks. Most significantly, working with a conservative and
Republican General Assembly, the state’s Sons of Confederate Veterans division,
was able to secure passage of one of the nation’s strongest Monuments
Protection Laws [NC General Statute 100-2.1].
Passed
almost unnoticed and with minimal opposition in 2015, that legislation has
proven to be a major road block for the social justice warriors intent on a
cultural and historical “cleansing” of the Old North State. Indeed, the
frustration of many of the more exalted and self-proclaimed Marxists has
resulted in direct action such as the violent destruction of the Durham, NC,
monument to Confederate veterans by gangs associated with the Communist Workers
World Party. [see, “8 now face charges in toppling of
Confederate statue in Durham”]
The
razor-thin election of Democrat Roy Cooper as North Carolina’s governor in 2016
brought new impetus to efforts to “do something” about the hundreds of
monuments honoring North Carolina’s some 125,000 Confederate veterans and their
sacrifices. The Cooper administration selected as its primary target perhaps
the most prominent and visible of all such monuments in the state, three iconic
monuments on Capitol Square surrounding the state’s historic 1840 State
Capitol: the Henry Wyatt Monument, the Monument to North Carolina Women of the
Confederacy, and the giant Confederate Monument facing Hillsborough Street.
But
how to get around–to get past–the 2015 Monuments Protection Law?
Although
offering strong protection for all of North Carolina’s historic monuments,
markers and symbols on public property, the Monuments Protection Law did permit
certain, very specific and limited exemptions for road construction, for
repair, and because of public safety. It was those exemptions to which Governor
Cooper and his team looked.
Given
authority to receive and review such proposed exemptions is the North Carolina
Historical Commission, which has purview in such cases [cf. North Carolina G.S.
100-2.1; G.S. 143B-63-65; and G.S. 121-12]. And it was to the Commission at its
meeting on September 22, 2017, that Cooper’s administration made its proposal
to take down the three monuments on Capitol Square and relocate them to the
Bentonville Battlefield, near rural Newton Grove. The governor made his proposal
based in an interpretation of the 2015 law, specifically section G.S. 100-2.1
(C) (3), which permits exceptions to the law if, “An object of remembrance for which a building
inspector or similar official has determined poses a threat to public safety
because of an unsafe or dangerous condition.”
At
its September 2017 meeting the Commission deferred all action; instead, it
named a select committee of its members to examine the law and history, and to
collect comments and opinions of academics and the public, and to report back
at a full meeting in April 2018. A public hearing was held on March 21, 2018,
at which monument supporters greatly predominated. And over 7,000 comments were
collected by the end of March when the comment period was closed.
The
North Carolina Division of the SCV contracted with a prominent constitutional
attorney to prepare its case defending the location of the monuments under
state law, and many others weighed in with strong arguments.
The
following is a prepared statement I submitted (slightly edited) to both the
members of the North Carolina Historical Commission and its select committee:
***************
Despite
all the debate over the meaning and history of the monuments, the primary
consideration here is a legal one.
If Governor Roy Cooper’s proposal to remove the three targeted monuments from
Capitol (Union) Square cannot be legally entertained under the Monuments
Protection Act of 2015 [G.S. 100-2.1], then all subsequent debate and
discussion, while certainly important and significant in defining meaning and
history, will remain secondary to the specific question before the Commission,
and the Commission will be incapable of acting on the proposal.
Let’s
take a closer look at the law. It was enacted with very specific provisions incorporated
into its sections affecting all of North Carolina’s existent historic “objects
of remembrance,” monuments, works of art, and memorials situated on
public property, protecting them from hastily and rashly considered or
politically motivated action. The language and intent of the legislative
authors actually recalls the originally proposed Monuments Protection Bill of
more than a decade ago, proposed by the late Senator Hamilton Horton of
Winston-Salem. Let us also recall that the 2015 legislation was passed
unanimously by the North Carolina Senate.
With
particular reference to the role of the North Carolina Historical Commission
detailed in Section 100.2.1 (a), while the General Assembly specified that the
Commission must give its approval prior to any removal, relocation or
alteration of any monument, the Commission is also strictly limited in its
possible action, as the law states, “except as otherwise provided in subsection
(b) of this section.”
That
subsection (b) clearly states: A monument on public property
may only be relocated, either permanently or temporarily, if either of the
following two conditions apply:
(1)
For the preservation of the monument (in the sense that natural or physical
decay, or other natural effects
are causing it damage);
(2)
When public construction projects, highways, etc. would impact it in its
present location.
But, if either
of these two reasons are invoked, then the following rules must apply:
***An
object of remembrance that is temporarily relocated
shall be returned to its original location within 90 days of completion of the
project that required its temporary removal;
***An
object of remembrance that is permanently relocated
shall be relocated
to a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access that
are within the
boundaries of the jurisdiction from which it was relocated;
***
And, an object of remembrance may not be relocated to a museum, cemetery, or
mausoleum unless it was originally placed at such a location.
The three exceptions to
this section are contained in subsection (c):
*Concerning
highway historical markers;
*Relating
to private monuments placed on public property where there is
a legal, written agreement governing potential removal or relocation;
*And
in regard to a monument where a building inspector/equivalent official has
determined that the monument has become a public safety hazard (through natural
physical effects).
Let
me summarize. Except for, (1) preservation or needed repair to monuments on
Capitol Square, or (2) because of road and/or building construction that would
affect them detrimentally, or (3) due to certification that a monument
represents a clear public
safety hazard because of its intrinsic physical condition, the
North Carolina Historical Commission is not empowered
legally to approve or initiate any action in regard to monuments under G.S.
100.2.1. Moreover, if permanentrelocation
is proposed, the new location must be “of similar prominence, honor,
visibility, availability, and access that are within the boundaries of the
jurisdiction from which it was relocated.”
Governor
Cooper’s proposal for removal and relocation is submitted under this third
exception, suggesting that the monuments represent a clear public safety
hazard. Yet, his proposal directly contradicts the considered legal view of the
very legislators of the General Assembly who enacted the 2015 law. In
interpreting a law it is the intent and meaning invested by the legislators
that must be considered the benchmark and standard for interpretation. This is
long-standing constitutional jurisprudential practice, confirmed and sanctified
by our judicial system.
In
the specific case of Governor Cooper’s proposal, both President Pro-Tem of the
North Carolina Senate, Senator Phil Berger, and Speaker of the House,
Representative Tim Moore (with the concurrence of two dozen additional House of
Representatives legislators), that is, those who enacted the law, have publicly
stated in the strongest terms, more than once, that the governor’s proposal does not fulfill
the conditions nor does it fulfill the intent laid down in the third exception
(Cf., Senator Phil Berger’s full statement, “Berger Calls on Cooper to Withdraw
Unlawful Request to State Historical Commission,”
published on September 21, 2017, and Speaker Tim Moore, on September 22,
2017, as quoted by WRAL-TV, “Legislative leaders warn Cooper,
commission on statue removal”).
The
key wording of the law in exception three includes “public safety hazard.” That
is, that a monument has become a physical hazard to the public; it does not mean that
members of the public, for instance, demonstrators, have become a “hazard to
the monument.” This later case is a situation of potential vandalism, and not a
natural “public safety hazard” envisaged or covered by the law.
Additionally,
the proposed relocation of the monuments to the Bentonville Battlefield cannot
in any way satisfy the requirement that the new location be of equal prominence
and visibility as the North Carolina State Capitol. Although a State Historic
Site, Bentonville is off the beaten track and lacks the much greater
visibility, access, and prominence of the North Carolina State Capitol. During
the biennium, 2012-2014, the State Capitol building was visited by 191,730
visitors, while Bentonville was visited by 91,665, less than half the number
for the Capitol (Biennial
Report, 2012-2014. The North Carolina Office of Archives and History.
Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, 2015, p. 95). But the
number for the State Capitol does not factor in the hundreds of thousands of
citizens who walk through the grounds of the Capitol each year and thus are
able to view the monuments on the grounds.
Senator
Berger’s summary words on this point to the governor (September 21, 2017) are
definitive and must be considered as such: “The North Carolina Historical Commission does
not even have the authority to grant your request, and it would likely
lose in court if and when North Carolinians sued over the removal of the
monuments….The North Carolina Historical Commission cannot legally grant your
request.”
Additionally,
there is confirmation of this legal opinion from the attorneys of the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who, when importuned to submit a
similar proposal to the North Carolina Historical Commission for the removal of
the “Silent Sam” monument at the University under the third exception of a
“public safety hazard,” rejected the request. To quote from a report and
legal opinion cited in The
News & Observer (“UNC trustee leaders defend Folt for
not removing Silent Sam Confederate statue,” August 25,
2017): “Through advice from its legal counsel and that of the UNC system,
university leaders reached the conclusion that they do not have the authority
to take down the monument.” I should also point out that this opinion is shared
by even those who wish the monuments removed. The Greensboro News-Record, no
defender of the monuments, in a prominent editorial (“Monuments hold a protected place,”
January 18, 2018), admitted that Senator Berger’s legal interpretation, as
lawgiver, and the intent of the law, make it practically impossible to remove
the monuments using the reasoning of the governor.
Given
this essential and fundamental information, the governor’s proposal to remove
the three monuments that memorialize the experiences of as many as 125,000
North Carolinians in the brutal conflict of 1861-1865 does not satisfy the
conditions clearly set down in law.
A
second consideration, and one that I expect will draw much more comment,
concerns the erection and meaning of the monuments. There are numerous
references collected on the ncpediaand
by docsouth web sites, offering details surrounding
the erection of
those monuments. That
debate, like all debate regarding our national and state iconography, will in
all likelihood continue to rage. But, and I say this with over thirty years of
detailed research and investigation into those symbols erected by our
ancestors, there is one overriding fact that should be understood: over the past history of our
state, the facts haven’t changed; but the interpretations have.
One
hundred years ago prominent “establishment” historians such as Charles Beard
and Avery Craven, and North Carolina’s own R. D. W. Connor (the nation’s first
National Archivist) could variously envisage the 1861-1865 war as essentially
about economics or perhaps constitutional principles, fought by good and
sincere men on both sides.
In recent years, opinion has reflected the views generally of those leftist
historians such as Eric Foner, that the war was specifically and uniquely about
slavery and racism. But the essential facts haven’t changed, even if much of
historical opinion has.
In
examining in detail the contemporary accounts presented for why those monuments
were erected, including newspaper accounts, speeches and memoirs, the
overwhelming sentiment expressed by such organizations as the Ladies’ Memorial
Association (later the United Daughters of the Confederacy) and the United
Confederate Veterans is one to honor the veterans, many of whom were dying off
during that exact period. I would suggest that this has been a consistent
practice in American history—South and North,
usually forty or fifty years after the conclusion of a major conflict: erecting
monuments and other symbols to honor its wizened veterans, most in their 80s or
90s. It occurred after World War II and more recently after the Vietnam
conflict (e.g., the Vietnam Monument on Capitol Square).
The
accusation has been made that those who erected the monuments did so to
celebrate racism and its triumph legally, specifically in the form of Jim Crow
legislation. However, certain researchers have also pointed out that the
suggested congruence and symmetry between the enactment of Jim Crow legislation
and the erection of monuments to the Confederate dead are misplaced and
historically questionable, as researcher Michael Armstrong, in an investigative
essay for The Abbeville Institute, published on October 11, 2017, has detailed.
(“Why Were Confederate Monuments Built?”)
The
example that is uniformly cited to prove a racist origin is a racially-hateful
remark made by Julian Carr at the unveiling of the “Silent Sam” monument at
UNC-Chapel Hill. Yet, Carr’s comments, which are discordant with the rest of
his 3,200 word speech, are contextually out of place. While they do represent a
racially-charged aside, they stand out as real exceptions to the meaning
invested by the organizers and supporters of that monument, a meaning that is
quite clearly to honor veterans and their sacrifices, and not to celebrate
slavery or the evils of racism.
The
issues surrounding the erection of the monuments and the individuals and groups
responsible, and the views and attitudes of those persons, I would suggest,
should also be seen in historical context. Even among some of those not
identified as staunch defenders of Confederate heritage, there is a recognition
that removal and/or relocation of symbols of our past presents considerable and
serious dangers for a full understanding of our history. In reference here, I
would cite three thoughtful essays by noted and prominent writers, each highly
respected across this state and nationally.
The
first is by Professor Peter Coclanis, the Albert R. Newsome Distinguished
Professor of History at UNC-Chapel Hill (“Julian Carr did wrong, but also a
good deal right“). Dr. Coclanis and journalist Rob Christensen (“The complex origins of Confederate
monuments), take a much more nuanced and careful view of the historical
period and of the life and work of Julian Carr, pictured these days as a
bigoted, reactionary racist, but who, in fact, was much more complex, a
“progressive” individual much devoted to the improvement of the lives of all
North Carolinians. And the third item is by Pulitzer Prize-winning Tar
Heel Edwin Yoder (“A misguided name-changing cult among
UNC schools”), in reference to the renaming of Saunders Hall at UNC-Chapel
Hill, once again stressing the contextual complexity and the error of judging
past history with a single reductionist and presentist historical viewpoint as
the only measure.
Let
me add to this consideration the opinion of Professor Alfred Brophy, the Reef
C. Ivey II Professor of Law, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, who in a
long, heavily-documented essay, specifically on the renaming of the William
Simkins dormitory at the University of Texas (“The Law and Morality of Building Renaming”),
despite sharing a belief that Confederate monuments may project a hurtful
imagery and symbolism to portions of our population, believes that the
existence of such symbols in positions of prominence may be of greater value
than their relocation or removal:
To continue the analogy to regime
changes and monuments that attempt to establish a controversial interpretation
of history, one might think of Confederate monuments. When they were placed in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, one purpose—in addition to
honoring family members—may have been to establish a pro-Confederate history.
They put that version of history in conspicuous places. But I wonder if
politics—150 years after the Civil War began—has so changed that the monuments
are not so much about organizing political space. Maybe the monuments have
themselves become a testimony to history and part of the historical landscape
rather than a positive effort to remake how we think about history…. That
particular exercise in forgetting points out the reason why I have come full
circle, back to my youthful opposition to renaming. As I see the calculus now,
removal of a name threatens our memory of the past.
And
he adds an example closer to home, in respect to a dormitory named for Justice
Thomas Ruffin on the UNC campus. Ruffin defended slavery from the state’s
highest judicial bench, yet Professor Brophy, weighing the pain and hurt
occasioned by his decisions, also believes: “I think we should keep his
name on the dormitory on the University of North Carolina campus because it is
part of our history and because
we should remember that there was a time when his ideas were triumphant… I hope
that those who ask for changes will also investigate whether the cause of
promotion of knowledge of our past is best accomplished by removal of a name or
whether removal facilitates, instead, the process of forgetting.”
Let
me suggest, in conclusion, that the real reason for this proposal has nothing
to do with finding a better or more appropriate place for the targeted
monuments. Rather, it involves politics and a particular ideological
interpretation of the factual record that these monuments—their presence—equals
a defense of slavery, and, in fact, racism. If this is the standard that is now
adopted for memorials, then nearly every monument
on Capitol Square must, logically, be removed, including the monuments to
Presidents Washington, Jackson, Polk, and Johnson, and to the North Carolina
governors, all of whom could be considered racists or defenders of racism. Even
the Vietnam Veterans monument has become a target, as there are those who see
American involvement in Vietnam as an example of “racism.”
Our
question, then, must be: where would such a process inevitably end? Already
plaques honoring George Washington (e.g., Christ Church, Alexandria, Virginia)
have been removed, and efforts are underway to banish Christopher Columbus and
Father Junipero Serra (in California) and rename our military institutions that
bear the names of Confederate generals. And Presidents Jefferson and Jackson have
also begun to suffer erasure and exile. The list seems to increase almost
daily.
Certainly,
it is understandable given the torturous history of race relations in this
nation that some of our citizens may feel offended by those symbols. Yet, for
millions of Tar Heel citizens—an overwhelming majority in every poll
taken on this issue—those monuments are memorials to real ancestors, flesh and
blood men and women who suffered and died, and not icons celebrating slavery or
racism. (For the polls, see: Elon University, Meredith College,
and Marist College.)
The
Monuments Protection Law was enacted precisely to prevent such rash action as
is being proposed—action which would denude us of a full understanding and
representation of our history. We may not like what we see, we may find parts
of our past hurtful, even offensive; each of us may find this or that event or
person not to our liking. Yet, would it not be much better to take a broader
view, and incorporate those memorials and symbols into our instruction and the
education we provide to our citizens?
That
is the true and wise spirit of North Carolina and the spirit that, I would
suggest, mirrors the overwhelming sentiment of the citizens of this state, as
well as enacted law.
***************
The
original date for a consideration of the select committee’s report to the full
North Carolina Historical Commission was to be sometime in April of 2018; that
month has long past, and May will soon be past as well, but thus far there has
been no news of a scheduled meeting of the Commission. Various explanations and
rumors continue to surface as reasons for this delay: first, that the enormous
number of comments and their consideration has caused the postponement. Then,
some have speculated that the Commission, which still has a majority of members
appointed by Republican Governor Pat McCrory, may be waiting for new
appointments. Finally, others have suggested that the Commission members, like
the attorneys for the University of North Carolina system, comprehend that they
cannot take positive action on Cooper’s proposal and are looking for ways to
compensate for a negative decision (perhaps additional signage around existent
monuments?).
In
any event, the future decision of the North Carolina Historical Commission and
whatever legal (or legislative) action that may follow will have enormous
consequences not just for the Tar Heel State but for monument and heritage
defense all across the South.
About Boyd Cathey
Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic
University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow,
and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a
Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the
late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French,
Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and
opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical,
archival, and genealogical organizations.
No comments:
Post a Comment