What we think will be a rich and stimulating discussion of the subject that is ever evolving, and sometimes fastmoving. Controversial, emotional, and something that we need to talk about. And from time to time when ive done this panel with friends and colleagues, ive called it on or off their pedestals. The debate over statues, memorials, memory and meaning. And i discussed this topic maybe twice or three times with edna medford and it is evolving even between us as we proceed over a year and a half. And its a pleasure to welcome not only adamant edna medford, but also lives liz varon and Gary Gallagher to join the discussion. Memorials in 22 states and the district of columbia, 110 have been removed in the past few years. And three new ones have been built. So its good to have the opportunity to take a snapshot. At best, it will be a snapshot. And i think we all have to agree that however we feel about art, iconography, memorials, icons, history, american heroes and american villains alike, that the controversy over statues and memorials not only attributes to confederates in the south, but also to those, for example, and i will show you some images in a few minutes, honoring historical figures in new york state continues at a high kind of boil. I would like to show you some images and let me start with this one. This is my opening slide to suggest the iconoclasm is not new. Im not suggesting that we can blame all of this on charlton heston, but [laughter] harold but moses did destroy the golden calf, and maybe thats where iconoclasm started. But it had more recent manifestations. The balmy on buddhas nearly 140 miles from kabul stood until the early 20th century. They were destroyed and now they are being rebuilt in silicone. So, iconoclasm is sometimes reversible, but not something we should consider. This is, on the right, a statue of the egyptian pharaoh. This is even earlier than the buddhas. This is 1500 bc. When she, who dressed as a he, left the throne, all of the statues were destroyed. Those pieces were gathered. The head was found in a collection in berlin, and now its reunited at the met. So again, reversals. Here are some heads that were destroyed and thrown into the sand by iconic lasts that once adorned notre dame. Again, heres one thats controversial and remains so. This is a juden cell sculpture, where Martin Luther preached. Its jews suckling on a pig. Its an antisemitic statue. Many people are calling for it to be removed on its 500 birthday while others say its a matter of history and theres a plaque nearby that adds context by apologizing for its ancient spew of hatred. Iconoclasm is not new to the United States. These are the colonists in new york city ripping down the statue of george the third hours after the declaration of independence was first read in new york city, i think july 14. And on and on. Ill do these quickly. Jefferson once stood in front of the white house. He no longer does. George washington, known as georgie, stood outside the capital. Lincoln looked at this figure as he was inaugurated twice. It was considered unseemly later. It in the basement of the smithsonian. Statutory hall is no longer permanent. California thought its favorite son should be, thomas starr king. Theres someone who does. Well, youre from california. Who is there now . Ronald reagan. Again, the impermanence of memorials. Stalin statues didnt do very well. John wilkes booth was once in the rotunda until people thought it was inappropriate. And, of course, we will circle back eventually to lee in richmond, and im sure gary will talk a bit about charlottesville, the infamous night in charlottesville. I was there when this statue was dedicated in richmond. It looks benign enough. Its lincoln and ted visiting richmond, supposedly, in 1865. And this is the demonstration that occurred on the day it was dedicated. I showed you lee. In richmond, of course, the great series of statues as great art. Some of them are great. This one is great. Some of them are not. Jefferson davis. And some of the responses are not. Arthur ashe, for example, at the end of monument avenue. Then we get to the recent period where these statues have been removed. Mayor landrieu had statues removed in new orleans. Here are some other removal work being done. Roger tony once stood this may not be that statue, but he once stood in front of the statehouse in annapolis. And right next to it was thurgood marshall. [laughter] harold what is more powerful . What is more powerful, the juxtaposition of a man who said black people could not be citizens and have no rights which a white person is bound to respect, next to the man who became the first africanamerican on the Supreme Court . Or just marshall without that back story of what has happened since dred scott . Anyway, well talk about that. Removals. And, of course, durham, where statues were pulled down. The generic statues of soldiers. This is the dedication of that statue, as you can see, a big deal. And here is what became of it when students got their hands on that statue. How do people confront some of the statues today if they dont pull them down . This one is pretty high up. Well, they managed graffiti on this silent sentinel. And heres another statue that has been marked up. In new york city, we have a statue of theodore roosevelt, an africanamerican, and a native american together, the subject of quite a bit of controversy for the last couple of years. In albany, we have Daniel Chester frenchs hand in the statue of sheridan. And there are people who would like that statue removed from albany. Thomas pauls statue of lincoln and an enslaved person rising or kneeling, depending on your interpretation, has been in washington since 1876. All of the money raised for this statue was contributed by friedman, and Frederick Douglass gave the brilliant address. But there are those who are discomforted by it. In new york, we recently proposed the first statue of a woman in central park. The only women in central park are mother lewis and alice in wonderland. They dont count as history statues. Now theres Elizabeth Anthony and katie stanton. That does not include the africanamerican contributions to suffrage. Now people say Sojourner Truth should not be with those two women because their attitudes on suffrage were retrograde. One answer or one solution or one approach we might consider is new statues. This is an extra nearly equestrian statue extraordinary equestrian statue that appeared in times square in new york. It is destined for richmond. It is 27 feet high, called rumors of war. It shows its a classical composition, but the writer is wearing dreadlocks and a hoodie and its going to the Virginia Museum of fine arts. Harold walker has done a riff on the statue of Queen Victoria in front of buckingham palace. Fountain jets emerging from the breasts of the statue, the jugular spouts water. And this is rather an extraordinary work of art. So build we must is another approach. Heres a statue of columbus in new york city that now bears a pair of bloodied hands to represent columbusapproach to native peoples. And thats just a little bit of what is going on around the country. So, i guess the basic question id like to ask is, as an historian, as a human being, should we build . Should we reconsider or contextualize . But lets start with edna. [laughter] prof. Medford you know, im a person of color first. Im a historian second. When let me briefly give you a background of my experience with the Confederate Monuments. I grew up outside of richmond. And whenever i went to richmond and i had to travel up monument avenue, i had to deal with those monuments there. And even as a child, i wondered what they were all about. And then as i got older and i realized that they were memorials to men who had fought a war that was intended to keep my people enslaved, it became very difficult for me to appreciate it from any kind of artistic perspective or historical. And so, as a person of color, i dont think that its enough to contextualize because people are not going to stop and read whats on a plaque if its on a monument, its on monument avenue or some other place. I say remove them, take them down, put them in a museum, and contextualize them there. I dont believe in destroying history, but history doesnt have to be in my face all the time, and its early doesnt have to be on public lands that i am helping my taxes are helping to pay for. If its in someones home, its on someones personal property, thats their business. But if its a public space, it should not be there if im expected to maintain it. Harold and liz, from both you and gary, know charlottesville well. Liz i would say i agree with edna, having observed this trauma in charlottesville unfold and the origins of the confederate statues and on the intentions of those who erected them, and i can say a lot more about that. I think recontextualizing them in a museum setting, that is pedagogical and curated so that people can learn about context, is essential. Now, ive heard a range of arguments on the half of keeping the statues up. And theres a set of arguments that i respect very much, though i disagree, and a set of arguments that i think are very dangerous, and i think we have to distinguish between the two of them. The set of arguments that i disagree but respect, and ive heard friends and colleagues make this argument, that Something Like charlottesvilles lees statue shows that there is a direct line between the confederacy and its policies and jim crow segregation, and they can be used as teachable moments, teachable sort of props, to show that there was this direct connection, if properly contextualized. That, again, i see the merit of the argument. But theres another kind of argument that you hear. And this is an argument made by recent defenders of these statues in a recent Charlottesville Court case in an attempted to defend a 1909 law that prevents localities from taking statues down, and attempt to hold the city counselors financially liable. And the defenders in that context argued the statues had nothing whatsoever to do with race or slavery or White Supremacy and someone. You may say its really ludicrous someone would make that argument in the present moment, but people do. That argument is very different than the first one i made and we have to sort of stand up to that. These statues and charlottesville, the purpose of them was to promote the worshipful reverence of robert e. Lee and Stonewall Jackson robert e. Lee and stumbo jackson. In a modern and Stonewall Jackson. In a modern city, they have public hearings, they had a range of witnesses, they have a commission, that sifted through the evidence and then made a recommendation to the politicians, in charlottesville. I think that is the way to go about that. As one who taught at the university of virginia for 22 years, and use the memorial landscape as a teaching tool for all of this 22 years, i find it somewhat distressing, that we flatten out the moral landscape, and treat all of these statutes is the same thing. They are not the same thing. Lee in jackson, i would put together, among the five major confederaterelated statues. Or monument in charlottesville, they came much later, i dont even see them as Confederate Monuments, they are much later than Confederate Monuments, these are people who spearheaded putting them up, one individual basically paid for them, it was a wealthy individual that put a snap on charlottesville in general. There were three earlier ones, there actually what i recall Confederate Monuments. Came from the confederate generation. I think theres different purposes behind them, and all of which are related to the confederacy, so dont misunderstand what im saying, you you cant separate the confederacy from the institution, and they really should just stop. And spend their time doing something else, because the two are inextricably linked, and all you need to do is read what the confederate generation said. What its up to, its up to establishing a slave holding government, and threatening people such as Abraham Lincoln, but having said that, i think its important to approach this memorial landscape with an understanding, that its more complex than just reducing it to a simple either evil or not evil proposition i think its more complicated than that but i will reiterate that i think its a local issue, its a statue by statue issue it should be settled by the people who live in those places and not but people who live somewhere else where. In the end charlottesville decided to take them down, in virginia it regards it it includes the state legislator, which says you cant remove the war royals, so the legislator legislature has not changed, its gone through republican hands, democratic hands, i will be surprised if the legislator doesnt a dress this rather quickly, and then the ball will be back in Charlottesville Court and then probably lee and jackson will come down but i think that will happen i think its appropriate that its settled in charlottesville as i think its appropriate that its settled in these other localities based on this basis. I dont see any National Surge to pursue this and deal with it interest in these statues spikes ive seen it throughout my life, interest in Civil War History when i was a graduate student i saw this, their group of statues on one plaza at the university of texas that are paid for a confederate and there are statues of Jefferson Davis and water robert e. Lee along this one part of the campus and those have become an issue would come flares up periodically then dies down flares up again, and the arguments are almost pretty much the same on the two sides either in austin, some of them have come down now albert sydney johnston is gone, and there and davis would say anyway is in a museum and contextualize there. I want to add some context about the museum, alternative because i think its unrealistic. It is totally unrealistic. You know we know that enrichment a director of the multi museum has said she does not want to have the burden of carrying the statues should ever be proposed they be transferred to the museum but the second reason is, really a matter of scale and physicality. The levy and maybe not so much the davis, the lee and the Jackson Stewart, are meant to be seen from way down and what that means is that the artist who made them, made them in a way that they would look human, where the animals would look alive, from 100 feet below. If you put them at eye level with contextualize a shun, they will look grotesque and cartoonish, and artistically if it would be a mess so i dont really believe that the museum alternative would work. Private property, maybe its unrealistic. I think we should face the fact that these things are going to be, pulverized or stored away and thats a legitimate alternative away which at night you and i were talking a about this two years ago as potential but i understand the evolution on it. They can put in a park or something is anyone going to raise money to build pedestal or will they move the pedestal. You wants the burden of putting Stonewall Jackson statue and the part. Will the point you raise harold also speaks to this option of potential onsite contextual is a shun i agree that particular these larger statues, it is very unlikely, and they have to be pullover pulverize so be it, if there are no takers private or public want them then that would be unavoidable, but the same scale of this statue makes it difficult to imagine moving them also makes it difficult to contextualized them on site and the Charlottesville Commission thats discuss this said was either taken down or find a way to contextualize. Onsite with signs and so on but as you said the scale is such that its hard to imagine what you could do to balance out and of course lets be very clear about the location of the statues in the size of the statue was meant to sent an unmistakable message that they would not get. They were not welcome in the public spaces downtown in case of the charlottesville literally African Americans have been pushed out there that these were reflections of the power structures that put them up and they have very overtly messages there and were unmistakable to people at the time. I want to get to gary for a minute and try to contextualize or at least put it in a historical the wealth the period and the evolution of memory how one wonders what the confederate heroes to United States how did they become national paragons. Was all wealth was and what was the political culture that proved so welcoming to these memorializations. And i know there are several several periods of. That there was forced reconciliation to the memory of the civil war theres a statue in front of the county courthouse which is a few dozen yards from Stonewall Jackson, it is flanked by two napoleons and most napoleons were donated to the city of charlottesville by the United States government you could put on either side of the Confederate Monument its a perfect way to talk with and again i will put on my pet the logical hat here was and how the landscapes can be used to learn about memory. You have the lost cause tradition of the war will. The old sense was that there were nos black man who fought for the United States, when anothers have announced have work to identify more than 250 of them 2050. Black men fought for United States. In the civil war. Put on uniforms at fought for United States. But i think it would be very illuminating, to have a statue to those blackmon a few yards from the statue of robert e. Lee to remind people that history is not a static thing and in fact history gives way to different memory traditions and heres one of them, and here we are whatever you want to say in 2020 and here the men who fought in these units