Civil War Monuments and the Four-Way Test
It had been a pleasant morning with the Rappahannock Rotary Club: a good cup of coffee, a light breakfast, conversation with friends. I then gave a quick 20-minute overview of the Civil War in the area, covering five campaigns and ending with a pitch for the unique importance of the area’s Civil War history and resources compared to other Civil War sites.
A couple Civil War buffs came specifically for the talk, but most folks in the audience had little more than a passing awareness of the battles and the battlefields. Despite being surrounded by the Civil War, people in the region can go about their daily lives never interacting with—or even noticing—all the history around them. The Civil War just becomes part of the background.
Overall, it was a good “crash course” for all of us.
The Q&A afterwards featured a few questions, nearly all of them broad, 30-thousand-foot sorts of things. But then came the question I knew I’d inevitably get:
“When will we see the end of all these monuments coming down and an end to all this wokeness?”
Some folks in the room shifted in their chairs, visibly uncomfortable by the question. But it’s not the first time I’ve talked about monuments to a group, and it’s definitely not the first time someone has asked that question.
First of all, I explained the difference between history and memory. History is the set of events; memory is how we tell and remember the story of those events. Two separate things. A monument is a form of memory, inviting people to remember a story or person in a particular way. As I briefly explained to the Rotarians, artists make choices about how to portray someone when they make a statue, accenting certain features and downplaying others. I used the example of Robert E. Lee: statues typically portray “noble Lee” rather than “nasty temper Lee,” for instance. (For more on that example, see this post from December 2020, “When a Monument Cherrypicks Its History.”)
Then, using a couple examples from right there in Fredericksburg, I talked about ways in which monuments can perpetuate incorrect history. For instance, a UDC monument embedded in a brick wall in front of a church, tells a completely incorrect version of the battle of Fredericksburg. (For more on that example, as well as a couple others, see this other post from December 2020, “When a Monument Gets Its History Wrong.”)
I used these brief examples to demonstrate that monuments are not infallible, and so modern audiences don’t need to feel beholden to them. As a community’s tastes and values change, it’s okay for a community to reevaluate its works of public art and commemoration. My thing is—and always has been—that there should be a public process for doing so. Yanking a statue down with a chain and a pickup truck is NOT an appropriate way to decide the matter.
So what criteria should a community use? Well, as it happened, the Rotary Club itself provided one possible framework grounded in ethics. Rotary promotes what it calls its “Four-Way Test”:
- Is it the truth?
- Is it fair to all concerned?
- Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
- Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
If you were to consider keeping or removing a statue, and you applied the Four-Way Test, what kind of conclusion might you come to?
I did not offer an answer to that question. Monuments must always be considered on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, communities must decide for themselves what system of values they want to apply as criteria for consideration. Fortuitously, the “Four-Way Test” provided an extemporaneous lens for looking that everyone in the room could relate to and understand.
“Did I answer your question?” I asked the original question-asker.
“Yes,” he admitted, “but it wasn’t the answer I wanted.”
However, it was the answer many people in the room seemed to appreciate, based on the number of folks who caught my arm on my way out the door after the meeting. In fact, during the two weeks that followed, several people stopped me at events or on the street to thank me for my response.
We need more history at this moment in America, not less. I believe in history’s inspirational power and in its educational value. If we want to learn history’s lessons, we need to remember our history accurately and fairly, unclouded by romance or wokeness. As the third and fourth criteria of the Four-Way Test suggest, we can use history to help each other.
Thank you for this article Chris. Well written, timely. Your critical thinking, timeliness, professionalism as a historian, and presentation need to be heard by more Inour country. Thank you for writing this.
I think in a perfect world of smart educated rational people, your 4 way test may work; however, when you have mobs and demonstrations and acts of violence toward historical monuments by strangers and outsiders who may visit a southern town for the purpose of demonstrating their anger at a situation or monumnet, they are not going to take time to apply the 4 way test and the local people in the area are not going to be able to do so because, as you said, some rowdy folks will take a chain and a pick up truck and pull down the statute. The removal of the statute becomes the action of the mob and not the local people of the community. Also, the monument is not just the interpretation of the person by the artist or sculptor, but a statute created based on the commision he/she was given from the folks who paid for the monument. It has been my experience that most of the CSA monumnets I have seen were the work of wives, mothers, and family members who contributed what little money they had after the war to honor their dead and veterans of the war. They were not the monuments erected because of hate, but because of love for family and the scarifice CAS soldiers make, many of whom were drafted. The courthouse squares in New Englad are filled with GAR monuments to honor their dead and veterans, and you don’t see people from the south heading up there to deface or tear them down.
Thanks, Mo. I appreciate it!
Eric Schafer, Member – Endwell, New York Rotary Club, son of two Paul Harris Fellows.
I think it’s great that Rotary Clubs are discussing such issues, as Rotary is a vital part of our society. We have been beset in recent decades by a tiny but very loud and violent minority determined to fundamentally transform our society into their vision of a paradise – without, of course, the consent or participation of the 90%+ of those that oppose them. When they don’t get what they want, they burn cities, commit murder, and tear down statues and monuments to people who are strangers to them, for they have no idea who these people were or what they represented. To a frightening degree, we have been finding that a huge percentage of the American populace that does not take part in such anarchy has little to no idea of our history, even our founding. It appears that the Revolution, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc. are no longer taught in public schools…which, by the way, currently have upwards of 80% of students unable to pass basic reading, writing and mathematics exams. Then they go to college and learn to chant “Free Free Palestine!” – though they are unable to find Palestine on a map. Well, no one can, for that matter… Anyway, it is vitally important for Americans to get back in touch with their rich history and rebuild the threads of their strong society, and Rotary can and should be a major part of this. This includes discussions of the Civil War in meetings. I have twice addressed my own Rotary Club concerning the story of the Civil War book I am writing.
Just a quick note: when we speak of someone with a nasty temper, it means it is a major part of their personality, and is displayed at least weekly, if not daily. Also, it is largely irrational, an improper response to the difficulties of life. Such was not true of Robert Lee. He was not just a jovial man with a playful sense of humor, but was remarkably self-controlled. He did not possess a nasty temper; rather, justified anger flared when subordinates failed to properly carry out orders or failed to carry out an attack well enough. Lee was responsible for the lives and achievements of 70,000 soldiers, who were protecting 9 million people. When things went wrong, a display of great anger is entirely normal and logical.
A few corrections to the above comments.
1. Those GAR monuments in the North are dedicated to the victors in the struggle to preserve the Union. Placed in front of a courthouse, they commemorate those who died to preserve the Union the Constitution of the United States.
2. Confederate monuments insult the 14.4% of the population that are African Americans and who were denied the benefits of citizenship and the protection of the US Constitution because they were Black and slaves. What country honors the defeated? Germany does not honor Nazis who murdered Jews and Poles and Russians. How can a Black man get justice when a Confederate statue is in front to the courtyard? Aubry didn’t get justice.
3. Robert E Lee was a traitor to the United States when he took up arms to defend slavery . No matter how you look at it and how you try and mince words that he disliked slavery, he still fought to preserve an economy based on slave labor.
4. To blame test scores on schools is a bit absurd. Education starts in the home.
Forgive me for saying, but from my perspective, Americans need to be reminded of why this country was founded. Recall that the initial assault against Colonial America was the decision of the President, I mean the King to send armed soldiers to Los Angles, no I mean Boston.
Why was the country founded? You over simplify many things. Using your analogy…Washington owned slaves (and a traitor) and should not be honored. When pushing a modern agenda on history..it never works
A couple of corrections….Washington wasn’t a traitor to the United States, unlike Robert E Lee. Recall that Washington and his wife eventually emancipated their slaves.
No one is pushing an agenda. we realize today the failing our Fore Fathers.
Washington was a traitor to the British crown he served as a young officer.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
― John Harington
I believe the surrender of British forces to Washington makes a traitor accusation moot.
Good for the Rotary Club for giving this issue the old college try … although if you asked four people the questions about “truth” and “fairness” you’d likely get four different answers … I recommend two additional questions:
5. Have asked a public historian to help?
6. Can the monument in question be appropriately curated to ensure its historical context is understood and historical value realized?
Thanks, nice piece.
I’m a big believer in process, which I’ve written about here in the past. As part of that, I agree that historians should be part of the conversation. And I also agree that context is HUGELY important!
This article is obfuscation around the central issue, which is that the Civil War has been weaponized in order to influence modern day political outcomes with an extremist bias, resulting in the demolition of history based on entirely false premises. The amazing lack of knowledge in today’s populace regarding the issues involved has made the South a sitting duck for vicious and unrelenting defamation in literally every possible respect, and then some more. A rational application of any “test” was and still is completely impossible, with frightening zealotry from highly credentialed professors to voters in the streets with no knowledge whatsoever except the latest diatribes designed to incite. It would be lovely to have a calmly and fairly applied test, but it isn’t going to happen any time soon. To NYGiant1952 – the South had no intention of destroying the Union or the Constitution. The South was leaving the Union, which could then do whatever it wanted but with fewer States. Completely constitutional.
Is this another one of those “You’re not telling the story I want you to tell so it’s wrong” arguments? The only zealots I know in the Civil War community are those who stubbornly cling to the Lost Cause despite 60+ years of scholarship by generations of researchers that clearly debunks it. And, of course, the secessionists themselves said the not-quiet-at-all part right out loud and in writing for everyone to read. But those damn post-war apologists had to excuse away their loss, and Lost Causers have been following suit ever since. That’s not a judgement about the war or those who fought it, or ascribing “good” or “bad” to any soldiers–that’s just the historical record, straight up.
I had no idea that you would reply in such a way. I expected better. If you weren’t aware of the mob mania that went after Civil War monuments to lost sons, fathers, brothers, family, relentlessly and vengefully – after 155 years of reconciliation personified by Eishenhower’s reinstatement of Lee’s citizenship after the belated discovery of his 1860s application – and the vilification of Lee himself with a completely inaccurate arsenal of falsehoods and/or omissions of verifiable facts, and, for example, Karen Cox’s failed attempt to drag the UDC through the mud, then you have been wearing blinders and earmuffs. Throwing out the tired “Lost Cause” epithet and the word “debunks” is a waste of your time; all of that ‘scholarship’ has been designed to erode a weak point in the armor of the US by creating division and dissension for political gain, clearly not something you’ve realized yet. Those “damn post-war apologists” “who “stubbornly cling to the Lost Cause”, followed by “that’s not a judgment about the war or those who fought it, or ascribing “good” or “bad”… “just the historical record”…..made me laugh. You’ve betrayed your bias, making you the Lost Cause. This is a short reply format for a subject that isn’t short, so good luck with those 4-way assessments, see other comments above, except for NYGiant1952, who’s worse than you ever thought about being. Any questions about Lee, let me know.
Thank you Chris!
Please show me the paragraph that says states could leave the Union.
Fact is, the Founding Fathers intended the Union to be perpetual. It’s in the Srticles of Confederation, one of our first founding documents. Our US Constitution was built upon the bedrock of those Articles. That is what Lincoln believed.
Since the South started the Civil War, saying that they didn’t want to destroy the Union is a bit a-historical. The South left the Union on the issue of slavery, knowing that a Supreme Court decision had made it legal to bring their property ( slaves ) into States of the Missouri Compromise.
The “Lost Cause” myth is a post-American Civil War ideology and social movement that promotes a romanticized view of the Confederacy and its cause, downplaying slavery as the central reason for the war. Key elements include the claims that secession was about states’ rights, not slavery; that enslaved people were “faithful” and happy; that the antebellum South was a noble, agrarian society; and that the war was a valiant but doomed struggle for states’ rights against Northern aggression.
It is unfortunate that this false narrative of American History was not de-bunked after the War. Just walking through the South after the War and seeing the destruction is reason enough to realize the South was thoroughly defeated.
You are 100% wrong in asserting that Eisenhower rested Robert E Lee’s citizenship! The fact is Robert E. Lee’s full citizenship was posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution signed into law by President Gerald Ford on August 5, 1975. Although Lee applied to have his citizenship restored in 1865 and signed an Oath of Allegiance in 1865, the petition was lost and not acted upon during his lifetime. The oath was discovered in the National Archives in 1970, leading to the 1975 legislation that restored his full civil rights, retroactive to June 13, 1865.
At least I know the facts about the Civil War and have studies the War.
Pesky thing those pesky facts!
Thanks, it’s quite relevant that it was actually the US Congress that voted to restore Lee’s citizenship upon discovery of his long lost application/oath, and relevant that the 1865-1870 US Congress hadn’t tried him or Davis, et al, for treason, all of which seems to have some bearing on the accusations of treason even on this page… oh, wait! That was you! Well, kept those pesky facts coming. For the record, here’s what Dwight Eisenhower said about Lee in 1960: August 9, 1960 (civilwartalk.com, but easily available from a search):
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more that 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
The question for me isn’t the worthiness of a particular monument. Its who makes the decisions about the public space in a community. If the community, the people who have to live with a monument, mow the grass about it, maintain it and so forth likes it, it stays. If they don’t like it, it should go. It should be a boring process involving paperwork, applications, hearings in front of the historic commission and the city council, and the decision should be made in an orderly, transparent process.
I’m willing to support monuments to Rebels being erected in cemeteries where they lie. They have no business erecting nor placing monuments to Rebels next to court houses.
If you ever venture to France, there are no monuments to the Nazis in public area. German military cemeteries do exist in France wand there is only where you find commemoration.
No where in Eisenhower’a comment is there any granting of citizenship. So your initial comment about Eisenhower reinstating Lee’s citizenship remains wishful thinking.
Lee fought against the United States….that is treason. Just because he nor Davis were never tried, does not detract from the seriousness of their offense to the United States. A grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, indicted Lee for treason in June 1865, charging him with maliciously carrying on war against the United States. As any lawyer will tell you, in a trial in Virginia after the Civil War, the chances of a Southern jury conviction Lee of treason was infinitesimal.
Read the book by Ty Seidule, Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause…or the book by my friend Alan Nolan, lee Considered for the real portrait of Lee.
Pesky thing those pesky facts.
Well said.
Let us recall a few things about these monuments to the Confederacy.
1. These statues misrepresent history, glorifying people who perpetuated slavery and seceded from the country.
2. These statues are racist and offensive and pay homage to hate.
3. These statues should be replaced with monuments that reflect the country’s historic progress and diversity.