Let Raleigh's Confederate monuments fall, too

Self-described white nationalists, carrying tiki torches and chanting, among other things, “blood and soil,” surrounded the statue of Thomas Jefferson on the University of Virginia’s campus and took to the streets of Charlottesville on August 11 and 12.  This particular slogan lays bare the leanings of many participants of the so-called “Unite the Right” rally; it was a Nazi slogan supporting the “purity” of Aryan blood and the virtues of working the land.  Today it is turned against African Americans and immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants living here as undocumented residents.  Among the many emblems seen in crowd shots were swastikas and the Confederate battle flag, often flown alongside the Stars and Stripes.

The focal point of Saturday’s activity, which was declared an unlawful assembly by Charlottesville police as violence broke out, with a 20 year-old Ohio man injuring 19 and killing one as he plowed his car into a crowd, was a statue of Robert E. Lee, slated for removal from the city’s Emancipation Park.  Following, as it does, the politically-charged removal of monuments to the Confederacy and white supremacy in New Orleans, it’s hard to deny the symbolic power and comfort such monuments offer to modern-day white supremacists.

And why not?  The monuments were and are emblems of white supremacy, even when the words aren’t explicitly used, as they were in the removed Liberty Place monument in New Orleans, erected to commemorate a white supremacist uprising against the Reconstruction government there. 

All of the hubbub around these monuments suggest that maybe it would be a good time for us here in the Old North State to rethink our relationship to our Confederate monuments.  Citizens of Durham did this spontaneously on August 14, tearing down the monument dedicated “In the memory of the boys who wore the gray” that stood in front of the courthouse.  This is the only way to bring the monuments down at the moment; the General Assembly in 2015 passed a law requiring state permission for the removal of such monuments.  And so still, on Union Square, where our state Capitol building sits, there are four explicitly Confederate monuments.

Pride of place goes to the 1895 Soldiers and Sailors monument that stands prominently at the end of Hillsborough Street, so that anyone approaching the Capitol is put face-to-face with it.  Dedicated “To our Confederate Dead,” it is emblazoned with the seal of the Confederate States of America, its 75 feet capped with a bronze statue of a Confederate soldier.  North Carolina gave more sons to the Confederate cause than any other states and this celebrates that legacy. 

Nowhere on Union Square is a monument to the 1,000 or so Tar Heels who gave their lives fighting for the Union, people who ultimately contributed to the liberation of the 4 million African Americans held as property in the sixteen states.

On the Morgan Street side is a monument to the Women of the Confederacy, gifted by a Confederate veteran and unveiled in 1914.  On the statue we see a Confederate matron, her face fixed in a mask of determination, steely gaze looking out.  Beside her a child, holding on to a sword, destined to be the next defender of Southern womanhood or some such.

Deeper in the Capitol grounds there is a monument to Henry Lawson Wyatt, the North Carolinan who was the first Confederate solider to die in the war.  A small thing to celebrate, I suppose, but the monument itself has a big name attached to it—Gutzon Borglum, who created the North Carolina monument at Gettysburg and the monument at Mount Rushmore.  Who knows why Wyatt fought?  Was he coerced?  Did he support slavery as an institution?  Whatever the case, he laid down his life that others might keep their fellow humans as animals.

Perhaps most insidious is the marker dedicated to Samuel A’Court Ashe, dedicated in 1940.  Ashe was the last surviving Confederate officer, and died in 1938.  His memorial lists his many accomplishments, and there are a few worthy ones.  He is eulogized as a “patriot, soldier, historian, legislator, editor, Christian citizen.”  However the first “accomplishment” listed is that he was “Captain and Assistant Adjutant General of Pender’s Staff.”  This “patriot” is being celebrated for his efforts on behalf of treason. 

It gets better.

The next line lionizes him as the “Heroic defender of Fort Wagner,” a reference to the Battle of  Fort Wagner in 1863, in which Union forces made a concerted effort to capture the strategic location, failing with heavy loss of life.  Among the fallen were members of the 54^th Massachusetts, the unit featured in the movie Glory, a unit made up of African Americans.  So, for defending the white blood and soil of the Confederacy against African Americans, Samuel A’Court Ashe got a monument at the metaphorical heart of the state. 

What sort of message does that send to African American Tar Heels?

Here, then, is the crux of the matter.  These monuments, all of them, are intended to tell a story and educate the public.  The story here is that of the Lost Cause, the idea that the South fought to defend itself against the overreaching federal government.  That it lost only because it was overwhelmed by northern industrial might.  That the struggle to defend slavery was somehow noble.

They were intended to intimidate African Americans, and any who might work with them to build a better North Carolina, as well as to provide comfort to the white supremacist, a function they sadly still fulfill.  The year after the Soldiers and Sailors monument was dedicated, a Republican governor was elected and progress was possible under a multiracial coalition that controlled the entire state government. 

This progress was halted in the elections of 1898 by internal squabbling and a resurgent Democratic party campaigning on white supremacy, and its last vestiges were removed two days later by the Wilmington Insurrection, where whites threw out the Republican mayor and drove about 2,100 black citizens from the city, killing as many as 100, in a coup d’état.  A coup encouraged, it should be noted, by future governor Charles Aycock, also memorialized on the Capitol grounds.

They are, then, a statement that Black lives don’t matter.

Time to re-think our monuments indeed.  It’s hard to say these things in some ways.  I work in history, I have a preservationist impulse, though one that grows weaker all the time.  These monuments need to go.

Some cry “erasure” as these monuments fall.  But supporters ignore the act of historical erasure that they already represent.  For a long time, the dominant narrative of the Civil War was the “states’ rights” lie and the Lost Cause that went along with it.  That is what the monuments document.  What they are is a celebration of traitors who thought the defense of slavery a worthy act.  No just society celebrates injustice, and no sane society celebrates men who tried to destroy it.

Pull them down, Governor Cooper, Mayor McFarlane, members of the General Assembly.  Put the artistically significant ones in the North Carolina Museum of history with a full explanation (I’d love to see the damaged Durham statue in there…what an exhibit).  Grind the rest down and let African American artists make something worthwhile of them.  

When something bad happens, we so often shake our heads and say, “We’re better than this.”  Now’s a good time to put up or shut up.  Monuments are expressions of who we were and who we wanted to be when they were erected.  By leaving them in place, we leave the door open to being those people again, if we aren’t already.  

Let’s aspire to something better, and shout it to the world with something new.

Trump Isn't Going Anywhere--Let's use the opportunity

Okay, fellow liberals, time to cut it out.  If I had a quarter for every time some smart person online has declared the imminent end of the Trump administration, I’d have enough cash to get my family out of this country until such time as it regains its senses.  Every day some revelation, some embarrassment, is heralded as the straw that will break the back of the man with the camel-colored hair.  But here’s the ugly truth—unless the man resigns, we’re stuck with him in the Oval Office until at least January 20, 2021.  This is an opportunity.

Forget about impeachment.  In order to impeach the President, 218 House members have to vote on articles, essentially indicting the President.  The trial is then conducted by the Senate, where 67 members have to agree on his removal. The House is currently split 239-193 (with 3 vacancies) in favor of Republicans; the Senate contains 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats (including two independents who caucus with Democrats).  So 25 GOP representatives and 19 GOP senators would have to cross lines.

On top of this is that the criteria for impeachment are vague.  The Constitution says the president can be removed upon conviction for “Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Those seem solid enough, and I’d bet all those quarters I earned in the first paragraph that Trump has taken more than one each from columns A, B and C.  But of course, the decision in this case of what bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors actually mean is left to the political class. 

Politicians are, of course, subject to public pressure, but given that only 13 out of 382 House incumbents were defeated in 2016, it seems safe to say that most Republicans won’t have a whole lot of impetus to turn on their own.  2018 isn’t looking much better. On top of the incumbency advantage in the House, there are only eight Republican Senate seats up for re-election, meaning that if Democrats held every one of their seats and swept Republican seats, they still end up eleven votes short of the 67 needed to convict, even assuming they do the unlikely and flip the House.

The so-called “25^th Amendment option,” whereby the Vice President and Cabinet join to remove a president who is deemed incapacitated crashes on the same partisan shoals.  Republicans at this time seem unwilling to police themselves and since they control the government entire there are no watchers for the watchmen.  Unless Donald Trump is filmed wearing a hijab made of cat skins, fellating Vladimir Putin while kneeling on a Bible and urinating on an American flag, he’s not going anywhere.

Or, less likely, if he resigns, of course.

That’s the bad news—time for the good.

For decades, Republicans have been playing a very long political game.  They have captured 33 governorships, control both legislative houses in 26, and control the lower legislative House in 29 and the Senate in 29.  This has given them control of redistricting, which they have used for partisan purpose, though the results of this are debated.  It has also given them control of state voting regulations, which they have used to purge hundreds of thousands from voter rolls.

Democrats need to counteract this, and they need to do it fast—I am intentionally referring to Democrats here, since as long as we decide the highest election through the Electoral College, third parties are viable only as spoilers—to make up for the unfortunate fact that Democrats have focused on federal elections.  Control of state houses in 2018 and 2020 means control of redistricting after the 2020 census and a chance to roll back Republican-led voter suppression efforts. 

It won’t be easy.  The Republican message is easier to sell because it doesn’t ask anything directly of us.  Yes, the poor and the vulnerable will suffer under their policies, but what is sold is lower taxes, family values, standing up for the common man, patriotism, freedom.  They speak of rights without responsibility.  Playing to aggrieved whites fearful of losing unearned privilege they demonize racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.  That Republican policies, whenever they are enacted, restrict the freedoms of people who aren’t white, Christian, or male isn’t a bug, but a feature.  So, too, is the upward distribution of wealth that inevitable ensues, a theft then justified by the ideology that the wealthy are somehow more deserving than the rest of us.

We also have another opportunity.  In the wake of our withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change, a remarkable alliance of governors and mayors has emerged to say that they will stick to their commitments under the agreement.  We need more groups like this that allow us to circumvent or mitigate some of the damage this administration is doing. Perhaps a shadow government as is often seen in parliamentary systems, where the opposition party appoints “cabinet secretaries” to counter the message coming from government, is called for.  We need mechanisms to hold media to account, so that following the folly of the moment doesn’t continue to obscure the larger stories.

Only by coming together to present a unified message and to counter the rank dishonesty coming from the administration, can we hope to break the Republican stranglehold at all levels of government and get the United States moving forward.  Trump has given us the challenge, and the opportunity.  It’s on us to take up both.

Go back to school, Betsy Devos

I'd be shocked by the latest stupidity from Betsy Devos, but I suppose we shouldn't expect any better from an administration that appoints Jeff Sessions, who finds the Voting Rights Act "intrusive" and cheered its gutting in Shelby County vs. Holder, as a guardian of civil rights.

The Devos nomination was even worse in its way; Sessions is at least qualified on paper to hold his job. All Devos has done is run a charter school company that has done nothing to improve test scores in Detroit. But that's how it works...faith in the markets says that competition is good for schools and you KNOW how the school choice crowd feels about faith. I mean, let's face it, the magical market is their one true god, curing all ills, lifting all boats, and so on. And in the magical market everything is made better with choice.* Hey, those schools Devos' company ran in Detroit may suck, but at least parents could choose to send their kids to them. Who could have seen that an education company run by someone with no interest or experience in education might have been a catastrophe?

Given this I should have been prepared for the statement the Department of Education issued after Devos met with presidents of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Instead of some anodyne statement about cooperation and progress, Devos (or whoever wrote the statement for her) used the opportunity to beat the drum of "choice." After evincing a desire to help communities that are undeserved, Devos speaks of the need for making "tangible, structural reforms that will allow students to reach their full potential," continuing, 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have done this since their founding. They started from the fact that there were too many students in America who did not have access to education. They saw that the system wasn't working, that there was an absence of opportunity, so they took it on themselves to provide the solution.

HBCUs are real pioneers when it comes to school choice. They are living proof that when more options are provided to students, they are afforded greater success and greater quality. Their success has shown that more options help students flourish. (emphasis added)

Say again, Betsy?

Look, I'm a teacher by trade. I teach history, and have taught it at some small colleges locally and now I am a full-time faculty member at an HBCU. I feel privileged to teach my students, and they certainly come here because they choose to come to an HBCU, a choice they make for as many reasons as they are students. And it's great that they have that choice.

But Devos is showing her ignorance here, or perhaps how captive she is to her idée fixe. Choice, remember, is the ultimate good.* Therefore any choice, no matter what circumstances, is good, irrespective of the historical circumstances that necessitated it and, given her company's track record, how good the outcome is. Again, we can relate this to those who see the market as the solution to everything, ignoring the weight individual participants bring and how that skews market forces.

Shaw University, where I teach, was founded in 1865. Think about that for a minute. It was founded in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, its first students people who had only recently been enslaved and who wanted to make a better life for themselves, their families, and their communities. Yes, they chose to come here, but what other choices did they have if they wanted to attend college? St. Augustine's College opened on the other side of downtown in 1867. Fayetteville State College opened that same year, and other North Carolina HBCUs opened their doors in 1891, 1892. and 1909.

Which is great, right? Lots of choices for African American students! Except they couldn't attend the state's flagship institution, the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, until 1951. Or other, white schools. The choice extended to African American students, then, was limited. And it wasn't limited by market forces, or the inability of African American students to achieve, or by an inability to afford the cost, but by racism pure and simple. It was limited by an unwillingness on the part of the white power structure to treat African Americans as equal citizens and human beings. It was limited by Jim Crow, and Redemption, and the Ku Klux Klan. This is what Devos, perhaps inadvertently since she seems ignorant on so many things, is celebrating. 

Again, though, that shouldn't be surprising. As we ponder the possible outcomes of a Jeff Sessions as attorney general and see the outbreak of antisemitic and Islamophobic violence perpetrated by the racist fringe emboldened by the current political environment, why should we expect any better of Devos? 

Except we should be able to and that we can't is a real tragedy.

*Unless you're a woman who wants control over her own reproduction.