Many people believe the movement to eliminate symbols of hatred and racism has gone too far. They are correct, to a point, for to state that the monument of a Black man kneeling before Lincoln represents subservience is to look too hard for fault. Kneeling to pay homage is a tradition as old as humans.
Demanding the removal of statues of Washington, Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers because they owned slaves is merely overlooking the proper perspective. Historian Jon Meachem, born, raised and educated in the South, stated his benchmark for the issue is to answer the question: “Was the person or institution being memorialized ultimately devoted to the pursuit of a more perfect union, or were they for ending the Constitutional experiment altogether?” If such devotion existed, “even the most flawed white American” can be memorialized, Meachem stated. In my opinion, this is a reasonable standard we can all agree on.
There are many who contend that the Confederate flag and the monuments to Confederate soldiers and leaders are nothing more than symbols of Southern heritage. Their reasoning is flawed. First, Southern states did not adapt the Confederate flag onto their state flags until the 1950s, and they did so in opposition to the civil rights movement, rather to honor their heritage. Realization of that fact is a major reason Southern states are eliminating that symbol of racial hatred today.
There are other problems with adopting the heritage argument. There are no statues or memorials for Hitler and his Nazi henchmen. I dare say that Southerners will likely agree that is a good thing. Modern Germans do not want to be reminded of their Nazi past. Why would any Southerner want to be reminded of the shameful portion of his or her Southern past?
A recent letter to the editor in the Daily Reporter offers an argument that is also greatly flawed. The Confederate flag and the monuments are justified, the writer said, because 90% of Southerners did not own slaves. Nevertheless, they fought — not in devotion to the pursuit of a more perfect union — but because they wanted to secede from the United States. If the letter writer is truly devoted to the U.S. Constitution, he should recognize that the Constitution does not provide for any means of secession. If, say, the Michigan Militia, for example, fought American troops in an effort to secede from the Union, would the writer grant those traitors the same honors as he gives the men of the Confederacy? As for the moot point that the Confederate flag included symbols of Christianity, the KKK utilizes the cross — as Christian a symbol as you can find — but that does not justify their actions, and it certainly does not make it a holy institution.
The president declared that it is nothing more than a free-speech issue. Certainly, any person has the right to say any stupid thing he or she thinks; any person can display personal emblems that are offensive to others, but that does not mean that governments may legally do so. It also does not mean that others cannot protest offensive symbols. Protest is as American as apple pie, if I may use a tired cliché.
Of the current movement, Jon Meachem declared it a “much overdue reckoning.” I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree that the movement can go too far, so let’s stop demanding that statues honoring Jefferson and Washington be removed and instead place our combined energies into the pursuit of a more perfect union.
Michael Adkins formerly was chairman of the Hancock County Democratic Party. Send comments to [email protected].
