The debate over the Martha’s Vineyard NAACP’s proposal regarding the Union soldier statue has made me more aware of the statue and its reason for being.
The debate over the Martha’s Vineyard NAACP’s proposal regarding the Union soldier statue has made me more aware of the statue and its reason for being. As I understand it, this was made as a gift to Martha’s Vineyard as a good faith effort to exemplify the healing of wounds between union and confederate soldiers with an aim toward unification within the country. Indeed, this was a noble and honorable gesture. However, the NAACP debate is not about this lofty sentiment, but about words honoring confederate soldiers.
The Civil War ended in 1865. The dedication of the statue and affirmation by union veterans was 1925. During the intervening 60 years the divide between North and South was well on its way to unification thanks to gestures such as those of the Union soldier statue tribute. However, another divide and a remnant of the Civil War was over slavery and that divide between blacks and whites has been a far more intractable problem. In fact, the division for which the statue was designed to address is no longer a source of concern as much as the racial division we live with daily. Hence, I’m more concerned about now than then.
At the dedication in 1925, Charles Strahan said: “I was the first Confederate soldier to honor the Northern people, and the people of Martha’s Vineyard are the first to honor the Confederate soldier.” At the close of his speech, the band played Dixie, and it was reported that “a few rebel yells were heard among the general applause,” according to a 2013 account in the Martha’s Vineyard Magazine.
I have no knowledge of whether there were African Americans who gave input for the ceremony or whether African American veterans attended. There did exist at the time the Black 55th regiment of Massachusetts. Somehow the contextual juxtaposition of these soldiers engaged in a tribute honoring confederate soldiers while listening to Dixie and rebel yells seems dubious at best. Nonetheless, there is no way of knowing what their input was, if any.
Now in 2019, there can be significant input provided from African Americans, and I suspect many, if not most would support the NAACP proposal. Although this proposal revolves around the objectionable connotation of the words, “honor confederate soldiers,” my sense is that the real elephant in the room is race. Whatever the outcome about the plaque, there is at least one fact upon which we should all agree: Folks have the right to their opinions and position without vilification regarding this contentious issue.
The feelings of veterans and their supporters that they would be dishonoring fellow veterans if the plaque is removed is a valid concern. But so too is the wish by the NAACP not to dishonor the legacy of the millions of African Americans who lived and died for the right to live among their neighbors free of symbols that remind them of a horrific past and possibly arouse fears of a return to that past.
As with most opposing viewpoints wrought with emotional angst, a compromise should be sought to assuage the concerns of both groups in resolving this problem, because the genie is out of the bottle. In my opinion, the proposal by the NAACP is a reasonable compromise. The plaque would remain in public view within a museum context, preserving its historical status that neither denigrates nor dishonors those who support its sentiments. This action then removes the stigma and imposition of a symbol perceived as offensive by many Island residents, and possibly by thousands of vacationers.
Harry Seymour is an artist living in Oak Bluffs.
Comments
Doesn't a compromise find
Ted WTDoesn't a compromise find common ground between two positions? You can't really pick one side's position and call it a compromise.
Slavery is this country is a disgrace. The Confederacy was treason. But this statue commemorates neither. This is not a tribute to the Confederacy or their leaders. It recognizes the foot soldiers, many of whom had little or no choice. Less than a year after it began, the war was so unpopular in the South that they had to implement the first draft in "American" (I use that word very loosely) history. Not everyone was eligible, as the actual slave owners were exempt from the draft. The non-slave owner's were forced to fight the rich man's war against the North.
Perhaps more importantly, the statue honors healing and reconstruction, that perhaps "chasms" can be closed or that we should at the very least strive to. In an era where more and more Americans feel that their individual needs, opinions, and desires are the only ones that matter and everyone else be damned, it's valuable lesson that men and brothers who once shot at one another would able to get together and find some level of peace and common ground. It may be our only path forward.
Ted: Thanks for the common
Islander TooTed: Thanks for the common sense and additional historical perspective.
I feel that the grandstanding that is going on over this statue and the attempt to blot out, taint, and vilify the lofty ideals behind its creation are shameful.
Ted, As I see it, there are
Harry Seymour Oak BluffsTed, As I see it, there are two parallel extreme positions 1) to keep the statue as it is, and 2) to take it down. The NAACP proposal is a compromise between these two extreme positions. As far as I know those who advocate keeping it as is have not expressed a compromising position.
Taking the entire statue down
Bob OBTaking the entire statue down is not even on the table, I don't know where you got the idea that it was. Leaving the monument alone is not an extreme position, it's the default position. In a town where we have a historic district commission that will tell you what color to paint your shutters in the name of historical preservation, it's laughable that we would even entertain the thought of removing something of actual historical value.
Who wants to take it down
Ted WTWho wants to take it down completely? It’s a statue of a Union soldier and it commerates their role in the war.
Ted, your historical
WillOverhead EdgartownTed, your historical perspective is spot on. Unfortunately today the truth and facts are not relevant or welcome in discussions involving race by many, like the gentleman angrily calling to remove the plaque or even the statue.
This is a statue about
John Aldeborgh Edgartown, MAThis is a statue about reconciliation and like all history, it must be taken in the context of its time. As the article noted, the dedication was given by soldiers who participated and reconciled, a meaningful accomplishment we could all stand to learn from. The politically correct today don’t appreciate is that 50 or 100 years from today they will no longer be politically correct, as future generations will believe they are smarter and wiser, as new generations always do. This is not new, and as the wise man said, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Wise people aren’t triggered by history, just the opposite, they seek to understand it and learn from it. Altering this statue will change nothing it will only satisfy the egos of a few attention seekers. As for me, I’ve learned something about the survivors of the Civil War, who actually made an imperfect reconciliation work, a lesson many could benefit from today.
You say the foot soldiers “
Paul Adler West tisburyYou say the foot soldiers “ had no choice”? Of course all soldiers have choice. There is always forgiveness but let’s not mistake that with choice. The Nuremberg trials proved that.
Paul,
Ted WTPaul,
If you didn’t own slaves, the choice was serve or buy your way out which most men could not come close to affording. When the Conscription Act was introduced so was the penalty of execution for refusing the call or deserting. Not a great time to be a conscientious objector.
By the way, Nuremberg was for the leaders, not foot soldiers, and was for war crimes, not fighting a war. Facts still matter.
Paul is certainly not one to
Vietnam Combat Veteran West TisburyPaul is certainly not one to talk about foot soldiers and I wish the Gazette would not censor enough so at least he will see my comment! (The Draft)
We are honorably bound to
Ken VHWe are honorably bound to steer the moral trajectory into the right direction. I wonder what those who serve and have served in our military like Marsha Anderson, John McCain or Colin Powell would counsel their fellow veterans as they continue to adhere to the military statutes written and authorized years ago at a time and place when no one of color had a seat at the table. The Confederacy, as I understand it, was a secession from the Union of the States and as such those Southern fighters were therefore not judged to be veterans of the democracy that they opposed nor accorded honor for that betrayal. We all honor veterans that serve with dignity to uphold the values of freedom from oppression and tyranny.
I find it alarmingly too
Hal EdgartownI find it alarmingly too common these days to have organizations become offended (even those with "Advancement" in their moniker) and demand that historical pieces be either torn down or "hidden" in some nondescript museum somewhere. The Vineyard has always been a place of true diversity for me and now, a few who are suddenly offended, feel obligated to bow to some "political correctness" and cover or remove historical artifacts. If this happens, before long, we can all deny their ever was slavery or a civil war.
Mr. Seymour, much of your
Susanna J Sturgis West TisburyMr. Seymour, much of your argument hangs on the idea that the statue was dedicated in 1925. It wasn't. It "was dedicated before a crowd of hundreds on August 13, 1891." That's from Tom Dunlop's excellent history of the statue, published in Martha's Vineyard Magazine in 2013. (URL: http://www.mvmagazine.com/news/2013/08/01/uniting-divided.) The controversial plaque, the one that begins "The chasm is closed," was indeed dedicated in 1925. I agree that the plaque is problematic. I suspect that the chasm was within the soul of Maryland-born Charles Strahan, sponsor of the statue. The chasm on the Vineyard and in the country at large certainly wasn't closed in 1925. It's not closed now. This is why I believe the plaque belongs in the MV Museum but I hope that the statue itself is allowed to stand as Strahan intended it, "to honor the Grand Army of the Republic, a fraternal organization of Civil War veterans" (quoting from Dunlop again).
Susanna, thank you for the
Harry Seymour Oak BluffsSusanna, thank you for the additional information regarding the 1891 dedication. However, the focus and objection of the NAACP is on the 1925 tribute "honoring confederate soldiers." If in fact the confederate soldiers were honored prior to 1925 the same objection would hold.
Mr. Seymour, thanks for your
Susanna J Sturgis West TisburyMr. Seymour, thanks for your reply. My goal was to make a distinction between the "Chasm Is Closed" plaque and the statue itself. As I understand it, the MV NAACP has objected primarily to the plaque. I agree with their objections and believe the plaque should be removed to the museum, along with the story behind it. As I read it, your essay objected to the statue itself and seemed to suggest that it was dedicated in 1925. The statue and the plaque have different histories, and I wanted to make that clear. It's very possible to support removing the plaque but oppose removing the statue.
Over the years millions of
Peter Pfluger Vineyard HavenOver the years millions of people will get off the ferry, walk over to the statue, read the line, "IN HONOR OF THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS," and then walk away disgusted with a very bad first impression of Martha's Vineyard. Very few people will bother to read the whole explanation. The words may have helped to serve their purpose almost 130 years ago, but all they do now is cause trouble. My suggestion is to take out the two words, "Confederate soldiers," and replace them with "ALL THE INNOCENT SOULS THAT WERE LOST." Then under that 1st plaque in smaller letters on the 2nd plaque tell the full story of the statue. Wouldn't that make everyone happy?
For what it's worth, and as I
Susanna J Sturgis West TisburyFor what it's worth, and as I recall, I'd been living on the Vineyard year-round for at least 10 years before I was aware of the statue at all, and it was another 20 years before I got close enough to read the plaques that ring its base. Somehow I doubt that either the statue or the plaques are going to be many visitors' first impression of Martha's Vineyard. Anyone who disembarks at the OB ferry dock and makes a beeline for the statue probably already has a first impression of the Vineyard, along with a healthy dose of curiosity.
Amen.
Margaret Vero BeachAmen.
I don't care about race one
charlie callahan so boston/edgartownI don't care about race one way or another,everyone is the same. But I can't see honoring people you have fought against. They lost and the north won. The south almost destroyed this country.Just like we shouldn't honor japanese or german soldiers who died. They started the wars and lost,so be it. If we had lost they would have slaughtered us.
Again, what I don't see in
Carol formerly ChilmarkAgain, what I don't see in these comments is, importantly, why "honor" to the Confederate soldiers is so repugnant. Here it is: they didn't fight to defend our country; they were traitors who killed our soldiers; and they did it to preserve their awful practice of keeping other human beings in bondage through terror, violence, murder & rape, all so that they had a free workforce to increase their wealth. That's why. All respect to Charlie Callahan, but this isn't a case of "color", per se. It's about the honest history of the Confederacy - what it was, and why they had to be defeated.
What a shame the NAACP, C
J. Chapman Tisbury / Lancaster PaWhat a shame the NAACP, C. King, Tucker and Chief Blake have it all wrong it is definitely not about race! It has absolutely nothing to do with it!
Please do your homework and read a little more before it gets to be a really bad problem this summer. All the information is online just Google it!
I have read all the previous
Al Johnson Oak BluffsI have read all the previous comments and it seems most (not all) who have taken the time to respond are opposed to removing the plaque to the museum. I am not! I am surprised by inflated reaction from out of the blue ideas that someone suggested completely removing the statue. The NAACP only asked to remove the plaque and appropriately placing it on display at the MV Museum. An approach not used for many of the statues completely removed in several southern states. The exaggeration of fact is even more concerning because if brings into view an attempt to falsely shape public opinion. In this current political environment it is increasingly clear to me just how many americans are holding on to completely racist opinions about our present and our past. If one did not know the location of this debate and were question as to the location my guess is they would reply naming places in the deep south. I am surprised responses to Mr. Seymour's opinion are initiating debate of this nature in of all places Oak Bluffs on Martha's Vineyard where I have always seen one of the most diversity sensitive places on earth. Surprise, surprise or maybe not?
Add new comment