In reading a piece on NPR on how "Confederate Statues
were Built to Further a 'White Supremacist Future,'" it is clear that
Miles Parks only wants to further widen the divisions that have always existed
in the United States and which the media, unfortunately, exploits. Parks, and
the others he quotes, miss one key element in their anti-monument pep rally :
Economics 101.
The chart accompanying
the article shows peaks in when monuments were erected. The majority of
the Confederate monuments were erected between 1905 and 1920. (It would be
interesting to see a comparable chart regarding Union monuments, but who cares
about them, right? They don't fit the narrative. )
Enter the Second Industrial Revolution. In the last couple of
decades of the 19th century, and the first 20 years of the 20th century, the
United States entered a phase of rapid industrialization. There were numerous
new discoveries and inventions, like the automobile. It boggles the mind to
think of all the related industries beyond those of the plants of Ford, General
Motors, and Chrysler that the automobile created. Oil had to be refined (and
shipped), and gas stations, roads, dealerships, and repair shops had to be
constructed. All of this would lead to the rise of inns for travelers to stay,
and restaurants in which they could eat. Added to this were advances in
machinery, tools, electricity and lights, etc., etc. By 1895, the United States
had outpaced Great Britain for first place in manufacturing output. Economic
growth between 1890 and 1910 was above 4%. People had jobs, had money to spend,
and had money to give to civic projects.
There were over 50 Confederate monuments raised in the 1910s
and 1920s in North Carolina. The economy could support it. When the stock
market crashed in 1929, followed by the Great Depression, the erection of
monuments slowed to a crawl. Parks quotes Jane Daily, an associate professor at
the University of Chicago as saying "Most of the people who were involved
in erecting the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past,
but were rather, erecting them toward a white supremacist future." Hmm.
Professor Daily, can you actually prove that, or is that just an assumption?
Which people? Where is the documentation? I've looked into the erection of North
Carolina monuments for the better part of twenty years. First, there is no
treasure trove of material, usually just little snippets of the past found in
newspapers of the time. I've never seen an article, letter, or diary state
"Oh, we're against African-Americas. Let's put up a monument so these people
know who is still the master, no matter what year it is." Never. Maybe someone was thinking that , but
historians cannot get into the mind-reading business without supporting
evidence. Parks's article also seems to
lead readers into thinking that these monuments just magically appeared
overnight. The truth of the matter is that it took years for the groups that
erected these monuments (mostly women and many of them widows and children of
veterans) to raise the necessary funds. In Stanley County, it took ten years to
raise the first $6,000. That was in 1880. The monument was not actually
finished and dedicated until 1925. In Burke County, the base of the monument
was dedicated in 1911, but the bronze soldier on top was not dedicated until
1918.
Economics is not the only subject that gets left out the
discussion. What about the African-Americans in North Carolina who also
participated in the fundraising or dedication of the Confederate monuments?
There is a great picture of the dedication of the Unity Monument at Bennett
Place in 1923 that shows an African-American man front and center, sitting on a
platform, apparently listening to something going on that we cannot see.
Whatever is going on has his attention, unlike the row of politicians, or
veterans, behind him, who appear to be mostly asleep. I wish we knew his story.
There are other well-known photographs of black men, proudly bedecked in
Confederate Veteran reunion ribbons and medals. Their story is complicated, and
it needs to be told.
Certainly, there is no doubt that life for African-Americans
in the Jim Crow era was horrible. Even until
quite recently, ridiculous and humiliating rules and assumptions were firmly in
place, and they were as appalling and wrong then as they would be now. Not long
ago, as our family watched Hidden Figures
(an amazing movie that I highly
recommend both for its treatment of the space program and of social issues),
our younger child was stunned that anyone would expect someone to use a
different coffee carafe because of her race. She had trouble grasping that such
nonsense was ever perpetuated in our country, and kept asking "Did that
really happen?" We should all be
horrified that anyone could be treated the way African-Americans (along with many other ethnic groups) have
been treated. Perhaps somebody in the process of putting up a monument
somewhere did have nefarious intentions, but we do not know that for certain,
and if we make assumptions about those people, judging them by our standards,
we are not only misunderstanding the past; we are misunderstanding actual
people, whose complex lives cannot be boiled down to a slogan or shoved into a
box that suits our narrative, whatever it may be. We should recognize that the past is just as
complicated as the present, that people are complicated, and that every era,
like every person, is a mixed bag of both good and ill.
In the end, I think just as strong of a case can be made for
economics being a driving force behind the erection of Confederate monuments in
the nation as the one for the era of Jim Crow. Very likely, some of both
motivations, along with others, were part of the mix; people are complicated. At
least with economics, it is easier to prove. Just look at the numbers. Perhaps
Dr. Dailey's remarks have been taken out of context or truncated. It is possible her original words were more
complicated, reflective of a more complex view of the past than the article
demonstrates. While we cannot quantify how good or bad people are, how pure or
evil their hearts may have been, we can look at their finances. Unfortunately,
early twentieth-century economics doesn't grab readers and viewers, but if the
media were more focused on telling a whole picture than on promoting division
and fomenting conflict, maybe we would all view ourselves, and our past, with
more nuance, and maybe we would be more interested in hearing those complicated
stories than in calling names and making assumptions.
You can read the original article
here.