Boarded-up memorial to American traitors.
A memorial to the 13 Confederate soldiers who died while held on Georges Island - out of some 1,000 kept prisoner there - is now covered with wooden boards as the Baker administration determines if and how they can just get rid of the thing.
The state can't simply remove the marker - placed there in 1963 by the now defunct Boston chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy - because Georges Island is considered a "national historic landmark" due to its role in US military history, from early coastal defense to housing all those Confederate soldiers, officers and even politicians during the Civil War.
When WGBH took a look at the only Confederate memorial in Massachusetts in June, a spokesperson for the governor said he'd rather the thing be gone, because it's hardly something that would "support liberty and equality for the people of Massachusetts."
Before it was boxed up, visitors to the island could see a relatively anodyne memorial that listed the names of the dead - but one with the Confederate seal and motto - the Latin for "With God as our defender."
As with other chapters, the Boston chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy did its part to drum up the legend of the Lost Cause, of a noble band of freedom fighters set upon by evil Northerners, rather than the South being a construct aimed at enslaving millions and starting a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
In 1927, for example, the Globe reported on the chapter's new president, Mrs. Cecil B. Taylor (ladies of means back then used only their husband's name), who said
I shall endeavor to serve faithfully and well this organization, and I promise the same degree of devotion which animated those who, 65 years ago, gave lasting evidence of such courage and high purpose that the world still holds in affection the men and women who fought for the "lost cause."
The year before, the chapter erected a flagpole on Deer Island to fly the Confederate flag, over the grave of a Southern naval officer shot while trying to escape Georges Island, according to a Globe account at the time.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
They fought against an army that was invading their communities
By necturus
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:36pm
Memorial Church, in Harvard Yard, was built to commemorate Harvard's war dead. Inside you'll find plaques remembering myriad Harvard alumni who died in the service of their country... including some German alumni who died in the service of theirs.
Memorial Church is not to be confused with Memorial Hall, a dining hall on the other side of Cambridge Street that was built in the 1880's to commemorate Harvard's Civil War dead.
Harvard university is a private institution
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:34pm
A private institution can honor whomever it wants, so long as it doesn't do so on my nickel. Someone wants to erect a statute of Adolf Hitler on his own nickel on his own property, bully for him. We the people (through the agency of our government) should not stand in the way of that.
Both contexts?
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:27am
The context of the failed slaver rebellion against the United States in the mid-19th century that lead to the imprisonment and death of those thirteen traitors, as well as the context of the neo-confederate whitewashing of the 20th century that put the blasphemous marker here in Boston?
So wrong
By anon²
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 10:12am
What's with the straw men? Is that what you believe is the reason to remove it?
It's not about ending racism or burying the past. It is about confronting history, specifically the revisionist history that the DOC actively pushed to remove slavery as a cause for the civil war.
These monuments and memorials we're put up for two reasons: To force people of color to recognize that the Confederacy power structure was still in place, hanging over their heads. And to rebrand their treason as the lost cause, to disassociate the Confederacy with everything it stood for in public, at least outside of back rooms. Wink. Nod.
FFS, Robert E Lee said they should not be build and would be seeking they be torn down.
He knew what was up. All you people playing coy do to.
Yes, it's confronting history.
By roadman
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 6:30pm
By REMOVING all traces of the history (in this case, the fallen soldiers, that a particular group has decided they don't happen to agree with.
That is NOT the way to teach people about the past.
Please
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 7:49pm
Read the thread before making these daft comments. Nobody is erasing anything but propaganda here. The museum and educational materials covering the role of the fort as a confederate POW camp are still in evidence and intact.
Throw it in the Ha'Bah
By anon²
Tue, 08/15/2017 - 10:21pm
Nt
Works for me
By LadyKatey
Tue, 08/15/2017 - 11:57pm
Lets leave it like this for a few years until both sides calm down a bit.
Perhaps in the meantime the decedents of the soldiers memorialized could be tracked down and offered a chance to give an opinion on what to do with the monument.
This anti-monument movement is misguided. Its like covering up the footprints behind you while you still keep walking in the same direction. Lets be angry about the actual present day experience of racism. Lets support the people living today, and make the world better for their decedents, instead of trying to erase the past we're embarrassed about.
Nobody's erasing the past
By adamg
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:30am
The thing sits behind a visitor center (really a small museum, with artifacts and everything) that explains the context of why these men were on Georges Island - without glorifying them or implying God was on their side.
No need to "put in in a museum" then.
By Smart Arse
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 1:08pm
If it's already at one?
Georges Island isn't the easiest place to reach, by the way. It's not like this statue is on the Common where countless people would walk past it every day and be reminded of what it stands for (whatever that is).
Well then
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 2:41pm
No need for it to exist - especially when it was placed there as part of a campaign by Confederate children to deify their "values" at a time when those "negros" was getting way to demanding of things like voting and an end to Jim Crow!
Except there aren't two sides
By eekanotloggedin
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:32am
Racism is wrong. End of story.
I don't care what the great,
By Kinopio
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:22am
I don't care what the great, great grandkids of racist traitors have to say. If they want to put a monument on their own property then have at it, but people from Boston died fighting their terrible ancestors so they should not be honored on Boston public property.
both sides?
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:28am
You are pathetic.
Shades of Blue snd Grey
By MrZip
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:17am
We run a real risk when we reduce every issue to a dichotomy of good/evil. A visit to Gettysburg will quickly cure anyone of the urge to glorify any aspect of the Civil War. The shear horror of 50,000+ dead Americans in a single battle, under miserable conditions, most of whom were poor, ignorant, conscripted, duped or otherwise not there because they fully understood and supported the political philosophy for which they fought. Clearly, in 2017 we should fully reject and refute the institution of slavery and its beneficiaries in both the South and the North. But we should still find a way to recognize and honor the pawns in the larger politico/economic struggle, both soldier and slave. The men that died at Georges Island, like Gettysburg, were sons and fathers and brothers and husbands and they likely died horrible deaths under terrible, inhumane conditions. It's difficult to ascribe to them the ability to appreciate the larger philosophical and moral issues in the context of mid 19th century America, so lets stop fighting that war, slavery lost. In fact, in some ways, we all lost something from having slavery and from the war to end it.
You cannot and should not
By Kinopio
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:24am
You cannot and should not honor people who have no honor. They fought to enslave people based on the color of their skin. They ripped them from their homes, took away their children, tortured them, raped them and often murdered them. Then they betrayed and attacked the United States. Then they got their ass kicked in a war. You want to honor them?!?
Don't forget that the United States attacked them
By necturus
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:43pm
Confederate soldiers were, by and large, poor southern whites who owned no slaves and only wanted to protect their homes and families from an invading army. Yes, slavery was (and remains) evil, but you can't extend the blame for that to every rank-and-file soldier. Slavery was the institution of the great planters, the semi-feudal elite that lorded it over the south. They are the ones to blame, not the poor farmers whose sons made up the bulk of the armies.
Citation please.
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:30pm
Citation please.
Please don't blame the poor for slavery. How ignorant!
Ain't that the way it always goes
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:41pm
Elites have always been good at getting the poor slob, for whom they have no respect and with whom they really have no common cause, to take up arms on their behalf.
(sauce)
If I remember correctly, the
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:33am
If I remember correctly, the monument simply states that confederate prisoners of war were held there and 13 confederate of those soldiers died; along with other facts regarding the fort not the civil war. Hardly glorifying the civil war and\or the confederate soldiers.
Why, then, have a memorial
By whyaduck
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:16am
for only the confederate soldiers who died? Or more pointedly, why would one?
In fact, it is signalling out the confederate prisoners who died (or those who committed treason against the Union) and that, in itself, is a form of glorification and is not appropriate.
Because union soldiers didn't
By Omri
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:51am
Because union soldiers didn't die on George's Island?
I think the inscription should have enough context to show that 13 soldiers dying out of 1000 prisoners shows the fort was no Andersonville.
But a plaque to remember that the island was used for the war is perfectly appropriate.
Actually, at least two did
By adamg
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:35pm
In fact, they were executed for a particularly odious form of desertion (they'd sign up, get the bonus the government was then paying, desert, go to another state, sign up there, etc.).
Serious question
By Scratchie
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:32am
Can anyone provide another example of a public memorial to enemy prisoners of war?
Lots in MA
By BostonDog
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:38am
Many markers and monuments regarding the British from the revolutionary war, the most famous of which are in Concord, MA.
Markers, not monuments
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:58am
Marking the graves of fallen combatants is different. Very different. If these were grave markers for those 13 soldiers, then that would be a discussion like the one you think you are in, but aren't
This monument was a glorification of hatred, slavery, and white supremacy put up right after the civil rights act passed.
Very different.
Sure
By anon²
Thu, 08/17/2017 - 9:39am
But does it have Georges seal on it and was it put there by British folk claiming they we're just trying to keep the peace and uphold law and order?
Again, the issue isn't a marker of history or the actual history.
The issue is it was put there by the DOC for a very specific campaign to distort, retard, and rewrite history. That's wrong, and we should correct that Injustice.
It's wrong to have propaganda on public land, it's wrong to the Massachusetts sons that died for us, and it's even wrong to the Confederate soldiers that died and are having their own history rewritten for them.
Commemorating POWs? Can you
By Scratchie
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 10:53am
Commemorating POWs? Can you give me an example of what they say?
I was in Johannesburg for
By Denheels
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:39am
I was in Johannesburg for work a few years back. I went to a museum the first weekend that I was there. The brochure said, "Apartheid is in a museum where it belongs." I think that's the model to follow.
Have they covered any of the Washington Street signs?
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:40am
George Washington, 56 year owner of slaves. Plan?
Gosh, the ancient Romans
By LadyKatey
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:47am
Gosh, the ancient Romans owned slaves, too. Should we just abandon Democracy entirely, to be safe?
Yeah
By BostonDog
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 6:21am
"Abandon Democracy" is a key plank of Trump's platform.
The Greeks are probably a bit
By angrydroid
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:02am
The Greeks are probably a bit more what you were aiming for seeing how they are generally credited with having the first democratic society. On the other hand, the Romans are where we get the root word for fascism from their word fasces.
The Greeks owned slaves too
By necturus
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:45pm
Most of the population of ancient Athens were slaves.
Oh, Fishy...
By whyaduck
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:16am
Yes, he owned slaves and this point should always be discussed when discussing the founders who did own slaves. But Washington worked, as our first President, to keep the new and delicate union of the states together as one and did not commit treason to tear it apart.
Harrumph to you, sir.
in other words
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:30am
Washington was not a TRAITOR actively engaged in TREASON like Fishy.
Anon..
By whyaduck
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:00pm
You are so far a field that I can't even see you anymore.
big difference
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 10:26am
If you are walking by a statue of George Washington in a public park and you son/daughter asks who he was, you say "this man was our first president and revolutionary war hero". If you walk by a Robert E Lee statue what do you say? "this is a man who lead battles of treason against the United States in an effort to keep slaves". Theres nuances to the history for sure, but what do they stand for? One is for liberty and our nation, the other is a traitor.
Now imagine if your son or daughter is a person of color? "Daddy why is a person fighting for slaves put in our park?!" See the kind of message that sends?
Big difference
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 2:15pm
Did. not. take. up. arms. against. America.
Capisce?
Took up arms against his
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 3:36pm
Took up arms against his government, a traitor just like Lee.
Except he was on the winning side.
Did not take up arms against *MY* government
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:11pm
Was on MY side.
Not just the winning side
By Kaz
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 7:04pm
I bet there aren't too many statues of George Washington in England.
PS - The one in Trafalgar Square didn't arrive until after WWI when we were buddies again.
Hitler owned no slaves
By Kaz
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 3:45pm
I think we're desperately lacking a statue of him if that's the go/no-go criteria that you seem hell-bent on following.
tu quoque
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:02pm
tu quoque
Yes, that was my point
By Kaz
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:13pm
For FISH to suggest that we need to deal with Washington's many streets of Boston because he's also a slaveholder, is his attempt to tu quoque people's disdain for a Confederate memorial in Boston Harbor. It is even founded on the fallacy of red herring that the reason for wanting the Confederate memorial gone is just that the South was defending slavery, thus we must take up cause against all slaveholders. Nobody has said that, FISH is inferring it in his argument regarding Washington (which he's cribbed from Trump and I'm sure some moron at Fox News and/or Alex Jones).
By using that same argument in a more absurd way (I clearly don't think we need a statue to Hitler) back at him, I expose the stupidity of his argument...because it looks ever so slightly more stupid the second time.
Good catch. You're learning well.
I really respect your comment
By starstrewn
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:26pm
I really respect your comment, and I'm actually interested in hearing a more in-depth explanation of "tu quoque." (Aside from what Wikipedia can tell me.)
While many of us disagree with what FISH says, I hope that we can continue to unpack this conversation to reach a point of understanding without name calling or accusations. As a hard-left Democrat who often plays devil's advocate, I think we can gain a lot of knowledge from each other without resorting to speech that causes both sides to shut down the conversation.
I think that if we each try to view things from the others' perspective, we can gain a much deeper understanding of our own beliefs. I often try to argue against my own beliefs (in safe company, not with the intention of causing violence with my words), and find myself with a greater depth of the convictions that I stand beside.
Would you be willing to give a few more examples of "tu quoque" so that I might better understand the concept, and be able to apply it in the future? The pursuit of knowledge is something I really value, and I'd love to hear more of your input.
It is a simple plaque that
By Mark Jaquith
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 1:24am
It is a simple plaque that lists the names of the thirteen Greys that died while imprisoned there. Thirteen. In Avdersonville almost thirteen thousand died at the hands of the slave holders. This should be remade as a monument to our humanity and compassion.
No
By lbb
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:54am
If the intent was simply to memorialize the dead, why was it erected in 1963? Why was the Lee statue in Charlottesville erected in the 1920s? The timing is significant and says much about motive.
The Battle Road in Lexington has memorials to fallen Redcoats
By Ron Newman
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 6:56am
If we can do that, we can acknowledge that some Confederate prisoners of war died at Georges Island. Perhaps with a different memorial than the one covered up here.
Except...
By statler
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 6:59am
The Redcoats were defending their right to tax their colonies as they saw fit, whereas the Confederates were defending the right to own human chattel. Not exactly analogous.
Except
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:31am
The end of owning people as chattel slaves in MA ended with the revolution.
And...
By lbb
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:59am
...the memorials were not erected by the British in a time when they were using terrorism and a corrupt legal and judicial system to regain/reassert their control over their former colonial possessions. The same cannot be said of Confederate monuments.
Not to mention
By Neal
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 11:18am
Some of them are graves to the fallen and are kept in memoriam as an act of reconciliation with a former adversary who is, and has been for a very long time, a great friend and ally to this nation (not to mention, many of the British soldiers were either conscripted (many were poor Irish, Welsh, and Scots), or had no other choice but to serve the Crown).
Also except
By Roslindaler
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:00am
Also except that the memorial to the redcoats was not put in place by a group whose intent was to legitimize the cause for which those redcoats fought. The issue with the civil war memorials is that they were erected during the heart of Jim
Crow or in the midst of the civil rights movement to undo Jim Crow as a way of trying to assert control over the changing balance of social power caused first by the civil war and emancipation and then further by the civil rights act of 1964. These are not memorials to the memory of the people featured. They are political symbols to those who erected them and for their sympathizers of a time when they enjoyed racially based hegemony and as a rallying point to try to justify that cause politically.
Gravesites
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:35am
These are gravesites. The colonists defended their property, but they had the decency to document the people who were killed, give them a decent burial, and contact their relatives.
They are not memorials to the valiant cause of monarchy.
Out of sheer curiosity, what
By starstrewn
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:30pm
Out of sheer curiosity, what do you think people's reactions would be if the monument were replaced with headstones?
That makes no sense
By anon
Thu, 08/17/2017 - 2:40pm
They are not actually buried there. The redcoats were buried there.
I have an idea
By merlinmurph
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 7:22am
Give it to the guy driving the pickup I saw on rte 2 in Westminster, with big Confederate and USA flags flying, and the tailgate painted like a Confederate flag. This was on Sunday, the day after the Charlottesville mess. I mean, really?
Imagine being so dumb and
By Kinopio
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 9:28am
Imagine being so dumb and ignorant of history that you fly the American flag and also the flag of the traitors who attacked America. The better place for this monument is at this guy's trailer next to crushed cans of Bud Light and discarded Marlboro's and Big Macs.
If we are up for the
By starstrewn
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:41pm
If we are up for the challenge - and it is an exhausting challenge - what could we do to open the doors to conversation with these people? Perhaps there are some things we can do or say to help them better recognize that symbols like the Confederate flag can signify a history of violence (and a present day of violence, too).
It's really hard to keep pushing for good when the other side seems so firmly rooted in the beliefs that harm so many. I hope we can continue to try to engage and enlighten them, rather than dismissing all racists/sexists/ageists/classists/etc. as lost causes.
We've been shouting at each other for so long, and it hasn't worked yet. Maybe some compassion, some empathy, would bring us all some peace. An institution such as slavery, and its modern-day forms in institutionalized racism, have painful connotations of an entire peoples brutalized, silenced, and stripped of their humanity. What good do we do when we enact violence? What good do we bring into the world by silencing the other side, degrading them, name calling, and treating them with disregard?
Slavery is wrong. Racism is wrong. We do not have to view these things as "right" in order to engage people that may consciously or unconsciously hold these beliefs. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," seems to come to mind, although I am by no means a person of faith. However, it does strike me that it is far easier to hate than it is to love. I think that both sides can agree that love, beyond anything, is crucial.
What do you think some beneficial tactics of combating hate would be? I'm really interested to hear your opinion.
Conversation?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 7:55pm
What they need is deprogramming.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xd5ywk/formers-...
There are similar programs to reduce radicalizing of young people ala ISIS and AlQaida.
Endless
By Bugs Bunny
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 7:57am
So after all the monuments are down all the guilt-laden white people will look for their next target, say the Mark Twain House in Hartford, he used the "N" word in Huckleberry Finn.
You're
By anon²
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 1:45pm
One stupid motherfuckers bugs...
What else did you steal off someone's talking points memo that is rattling around up there?
The distinction is obvious, unless you refuse to see it.
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 2:17pm
Maybe my history is a little fuzzy, but I have no particularly awareness of Mark Twain taking up arms against my country or killing any of my fellow countrymen.
That's not
By SamWack
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 3:01pm
the best of arguments. Have you ever read A Private History of a Campaign That Failed?
Don't get me wrong, the rabbit's argument is moronic, but there's no need to attribute to Twain a righteousness he did not claim. He knew quite well how easy it is to delude yourself into believing in a wicked cause. He had done it himself.
It's who put it there
By Just walkin'
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:08am
This isn't just about the soldiers on the monument. This is about the UDC, who has perpetuated the cause of the Confederacy rather than allow the wounds of war to heal since it's inception.
The UDC and other similar groups have frequently located monuments to the South in southern towns that were neutral or Union aligned for the express purposely of reshaping history. Over time, memories fade, and residents of those towns came to believe their town was South aligned.
A good book called "Lies Across America" looks at countless examples of this kind of thing, and at the power of monuments to shape history in general.
Somewhat telling of underlying motives: most UDC monuments were placed in the 1920s and the 1960s, two of the worst eras for race relations in the US.
I actually agree that the story of the fallen soldiers deserves to be told with respect and in the context of events far beyond them. But the UDC's manipulation of history perverts their story in the name of what is truly a "lost cause".
Thank you for the book
By starstrewn
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 5:43pm
Thank you for the book suggestion! I am eager to read it, and I think it will bring a lot of brevity to this conversation.
Why not leave it alone, but
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:15am
Why not leave it alone, but put another memorial right next to it for context? One dedicated to the 1483 (http://www.massachusettscivilwar.com/statistics.asp) Massachusetts natives who died in Confederate Prisoner of War camps.
What context?
By lbb
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 4:15pm
In what way would this give the context of the DOC attempting to glorify a mythical Southern past at a time when the South was pushing back hard against African-American civil rights?
Honor the dead
By anon
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 8:41am
It is one thing to tear down the statues of slave masters and traitors it is another thing to cover up memorials to the dead. Lechmere station is named after a slave master as is Fanueil Hall where is the outrage.
Pages
Add comment