It's 2019, and a fresh new year full of promise for the future and what is my town doing? Holding a forum to argue, once again, over whether we should remove that stupid monument honoring Confederate soldiers from our historic downtown square.Back on August 30, 2017, I wrote a letter to the local newspaper, The Williamson County Sun, responding to their rather...meritless...editorial dismissing the entire perspective of those who would like to move that atrocity where it is less of an eyesore. And since it's too big for the trashbins around town, they could at least take it to one of those out-of-the-way Confederate graveyards we have throughout the county. It makes sense. Graveyards are where you bury the dead and this statue is akin to propping up a rotting corpse of our long deceased past on the front porch for everyone to admire—if they don't throw up first.
Well, the local paper chose not to run my letter. (No surprise.) So I published it online as an "Open Letter" on the topic.
What follows below is the letter as I wrote it in 2017. Just mentally substitute 2019, or whatever future year you want. The points do not waiver. If anything, with each passing year they only grow more substantive.
Enjoy
============================================================
August 30, 2017
The Williamson County Sun
Georgetown, TX
An Open Letter to the Editor in Reply to the editorial “Fight symbols—or problems?”
Dear Editor:
The August 30, 2017 editorial “Fight symbols—or problems?”
indicated a cloudy editorial attitude regarding the growing issue facing Williamson
County and the city of Georgetown over the United Daughters of the Confederacy
statue that defaces the lawn of our historic courthouse and downtown. I will address each major point made in the
editorial, and I apologize in advance for the length. Hopefully, the length will not be a deterrent
to reading with a mind open to hearing a more nuanced point of view on the
topic.
THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY SUN (TWCS) EDITORIAL POINT 1:
If the fight continues, it will give white
supremacists a local cause and publicity they did not have before and will
result in growing their numbers.
You are using a non sequitur here (something that does not
follow) to attempt to play on people’s fears.
The issue here revolves around a desire by some to move a statue that
venerates soldiers who were insurrectionists against our own country, seceded
from our own country, and fought (and killed) men from our country. These men were fighting for one singular
issue: To assert their own supremacy as
white men and continue the debased practice of enslaving people with brown
skin. As evidence, simply look at the
Declaration of Causes of Texas secession from February 2, 1861:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
[Emphasis Mine]
No matter how much the post-Reconstruction propagandists
have worked to reframe the conflict as some sort of divinely patriotic fight
against an over-reaching government, the bottom-line is that the moral
underpinning of their argument always goes back to the indisputably immoral
practice of slavery—a problem our country had been struggling with since before
the Constitution was even written. The
tide of history had finally turned and the southern states formed their own
government and then waged war on the United States of America. Those who participated were anything but
patriots to our country.
If we’re being charitable, perhaps they could be called
patriots of the Confederate States of America, but it stretches all concepts of
patriotism and love of our country to exalt enemies of the United States of
America even in light of Lincoln and his successors magnanimously pursuing a
sort-of surgical reattachment of the severed limb known as the CSA . Whether Reconstruction was the best way to
accomplish this is a separate debate. We
really can only speak to where we are now in terms of the issue at hand –
whether it continues to be appropriate in 2017 to maintain memorials in the
public arena that glorify the Confederacy.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 2:
Fighting for removal of the statue will bring in outsiders who just want
to cause trouble.
This is a commonly used argument that holds no merit. In fact, when local residents showed up to
address the issue with the city council, the knee-jerk response by those on
social media and in formal media was to make assertions, without evidence, that
these concerned citizens were “plants” or “transplants” or even “bussed here
from Austin.” This is another useless
argument that does nothing other than prop up some imaginary outsider “boogeyman”
as a villain to feed emotionality rather than rationality. Pushing the implication that anyone local
would be intrinsically opposed to positive change is not only false but absurd. And yet, it seems entrenched in the
commentary culture of Georgetown.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 3:
Posing the removal as a two-value question—for or against racism—turns
the issue into a litmus-test of goodness and creates a fake fight to polarize
people.
Yes. Posing the
removal as a “for or against racism” certainly is a polarizing way to approach
it. However, the people I speak with
about this topic do not frame it in those ways.
I mostly only hear that argument from the side that wants to keep the
statue as they attempt to dubiously reframe the issue as a way of buttressing
their own shaky position. It is similar
to the pattern of reframing the issue as one about weak sensitive types being
indefinably “offended” as a way of devaluing and dismissing the other side
without actually hearing their concerns.
Those of us arguing to move the statue to a more appropriate
location—such as a local museum or cemetery—are not framing the issue as a
two-value question for or against racism.
We are framing it as an issue about societal growth and cultural appropriateness. The racism that undergirded the war between
the USA and the CSA is not actually the issue, although it is not irrelevant to
the issue either. There is a profound
inappropriateness to the idea of maintaining a monument venerating those who
fought against our country with imagery of (1) an armed Confederate soldier,
(2) a branding image of “CSA” which was a country formed in rebellion against
the USA, (3) the battle flag of the Confederacy which has evolved to become a
symbol of hate flown as a mark of intimidation towards other Americans and to
elevate the insurrectionist Confederacy as some sort of divinely right cause,
and (4) “No Braver Patriots Ever Fought. No Braver Deeds Were Ever Wrought.” engraved
prominently. This is not only offensive
to everyone who fought for the Union and were killed by the insurrectionists
but also with the hindsight of a hundred years it has become increasingly
offensive as the only downtown marker we have honoring our soldiers. It leaves the Georgetown historic downtown looking
as if the only soldiers this community values are those who fought against our country rather than those
who fought for it.
And as a sidebar, it occurs to me after doing some research,
that it is extremely odd that we in Georgetown
and Williamson Country have chosen to allow and maintain this blight on our historic
courthouse lawn in light of the fact that Williamson County was one of the few
counties who actually voted against secession.
That is historic and well worth erecting a monument in recognition of
our forebearers for being on the right side of history at that important
moment. Rather than glorifying those who
fought against our country for the right to keep owning slaves, perhaps we
might want to consider lifting up those in our county who did not agree with
that decision.
Just a thought.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 4:
Fighting over the courthouse statue is just attacking symbols and
hardening opinions and will lead to less calm and less respectful discussion.
I disagree. A hundred
years of having that statue standing there and people like me walking by and
just rolling our eyes or tsk-tsk-ing
about it have done nothing to encourage respectful debate or bring any
change. Avoiding the topic does not make
it go away—it just keeps the cover on a silently simmering pot until one day
the pot starts boiling over and then it is too late.
The key point here is that I have noticed and muttered about that statue. And so have many others. The events in Charlottesville brought our
attention back to that simmering pot and we are not content to just ignore it
anymore and wait for the boil. It’s an
embarrassment to have the “most beautiful downtown in America” where the single
most prominent marker is one that lifts up and glorifies the Confederacy. That
should prompt action at this point in our country’s history to stop the southern
whitewashing of our history and be clear and honest about our shared past.
I know how difficult it is to change. Change is not easy. We have a built-in safety valve as human
beings to resist change. For example, the
Supreme Court uses stare decisis to
hold onto past decisions even when they seem out of step with the times. But even the Supreme Court has made profound reversals
in their thinking when the issue is substantively important. One of the important factors considered by
the Court is whether the current state of the country and our perceptions of
facts have changed (ending segregated schools, for example). To believe that we,
in 2017, have the same prejudicial mindset as the United Daughters of the
Confederacy in 1916 is absurd to the point of being joke-worthy. But the fact that so many stubbornly choose
to keep two fingers in their ears and their eyes closed so as to avoid having to
admit that perhaps they’ve been thinking about this issue wrongly for most of
their life should bother anyone who is open to self-growth and community
growth.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 5:
Those who push for removal of the statue are elevating the moral
authority of the supremacist by placing them into defensive mode.
Were this argument valid, then any attempt to aggressively
right a wrong or fight a war for a right cause would be defeated by this same
sort of illogical proposition. Pushing
white supremacists so that they are figuratively “on the ropes” in no way
elevates them morally. In truth, the
fact that there even is a fight over this issue is the result of obstinate people
unwilling to even consider the reality that cultural standards have changed and
what was, at best, arguably appropriate in 1916 is not necessarily appropriate
in 2017. This “fight” you speak of is
only a “fight” because those who want to keep the statue find it easier to
force a fight than have the difficult conversation. And the only reason someone forces a fight to
avoid a conversation is because deep-down they know their position is rooted in
questionable nostalgia rather than a foundation of rational reason.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 6:
Fighting over symbols is a distraction from the more important work of
healing.
This is not ultimately a fight over symbols. And this issue is also not a distraction from
the important work of healing. In fact,
the courageous conversation being pushed right now is of the height of
importance to the substantive work of healing.
When secession happened, it was as if someone severed a limb
from our collective body. The
Reconstruction Era was an attempt to graft that limb back on and begin
healing. But a few decades later, with
the rise of the new Ku Klux Klan and other segregationist organizations that
glorified the cause of the Confederacy, that healing process was stunted as the
Jim Crow era began and these generic pro-Confederacy monuments were erected en masse across the South. Every time a citizen of our country saw a “Whites”
and “Colored” sign distinction; every time a citizen of our country watched
fellow citizens forced to the back of the bus; and every time a citizen of our
country has had to walk around town squares seeing Confederate soldiers and
flags raised up in pseudo-worship it has picked at the scabs and kept that
surgical wound raw and infected. This is
where we are now. To keep these types of
monuments in place is to accept cultural gangrene rather than remove the
infection and allow the wound to finally heal.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 7:
Speaking up about this is political and is an example of the Democrats
falling into a Republican trap.
This is overly simplistic and wrong because this is not
actually a political issue—this is a cultural and moral issue. It does not matter if the president frames it
as “taking away our history.” He is
objectively wrong on this topic. Aside
from the anarchists (who are not actually on either side of the issue) who are
just feeding the flames of chaos that they need to exist, this is not about
Democrats or Republicans. Those who push
that dichotomy are using it as a way to avoid thinking about the issue. As soon as someone starts hurling the
Democrat or Republican label around with this issue it becomes an epithet and
is a way of halting the conversation and I am unwilling to allow that. Politicizing this issue is simply a way of
avoiding it. Media claims of political
bandwagoning actually distract from the substance of the issue and impede the
healing.
TWCS EDITORIAL POINT 8:
Fighting over symbols prevents us from tackling substance and will set
back race relations.
Symbols are substantive.
If you do not believe me then take an American flag to a Veterans
Memorial celebration on Memorial Day and stand up in front of everyone and start
burning it. The reaction would be swift
and strong. Why? Because symbols mean
things and they are substantive. And
more importantly, symbols can change. As
I mentioned earlier, a symbol that might arguably be appropriate at one time in
history does not guarantee it is appropriate forever.
The courageous conversation is not about symbols in the
abstract. It is about the substance behind
the symbols. And the only way that
symbols override that substance is if we allow the conversation to stop and devolve
into chants and riots. When I listen to
the voices raised in support of moving the statue, I do not hear support for
illegal actions or vandalism. That sort
of behavior is the purview of anarchists who have no moral high ground to stand
on. I see and hear people in our
community who are desperately seeking a real conversation and opportunities to
be heard on this issue without being shut down by closed-off thinking and
propagandist slogans. And it is
particularly disturbing when the journalistic voice for the area becomes
tone-deaf to the situation and misses the point entirely.
What will “set back race relations” is to continue pretending
there is a moral equivalency between the
Union and the Confederacy. We all know
that the issues that led to the War Between the States were more complicated than
just slavery. However, by the time secession occurred, as evidenced above by
Texas’ language in their Declaration of
Causes of Secession, the explicit reason for the War was to assert the
supremacy of the “White Race” and the inferiority of the “Black Race.” And that should be universally abhorrent to
any thinking American as should flying the Confederate battle flag and especially to erecting
monuments lionizing that despicable cause.
Sincerely,
Keith Howell
Georgetown
Resident
