Confederate monuments and memorials have recently received national attention, notably in Virginia, where legislators debated a bill offering protection of Confederate monuments. Similarly, discussions have emerged around restoring Confederate names to US military bases. Given these public conversations, it reminds us to think back on the history of the Confederacy. In a 2010 book, “The Laws of Slavery in Texas: Historical Documents and Essays” edited by Randolph B. Campbell cited passages from the original “Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 1861,” authored by William Ernest Winkler:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States and of the confederacy itself, established exclusively for the white race and their prosperity, that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country could be beneficial or tolerable.*
Given these public conversations, Vincent Strategies also would like to share two relevant resources: a presentation Dr. Gregory Vincent gave in 2018 in Akron, Ohio, regarding public monuments, titled “Memories and Monuments in Public Spaces,” and the “Task Force on Historical Representation of Statuary at UT Austin,” prepared by a committee which reviewed the historical and artistic value of statuary on the University of Texas Campus, published in 2015. University President Greg Fenves appointed Dr. Vincent to lead the work of that committee after Student Government leaders presented a proposal for removing a statue of Jefferson Davis. As Dr. Vincent shared in his Akron presentation, “How we currently perceive a monument often holds more importance and weight than the intent of the creator or even the people or event being memorialized.”
* Read more of the “Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas” at the bottom of this post.
Often in public spaces we see monuments and statues. They depict a moment in time, a hero of yesteryear, or a point of remembrance. Monuments are built to last years, decades and beyond, and often their underlying meaning or purpose lasts just as long. They can be created for an aesthetic, historical remembrance, an aspirational purpose, or an educational outcome. A German playwright once said that “monuments are for the living, not the dead,” and I believe that is very true. How we currently perceive a monument often holds more importance and weight than the intent of the creator or even the people or event being memorialized.
In this day and age, it is important to distinguish between learning from and honoring the past. The memories that monuments evoke can be personal, societal or even global, but their placement is also important. When placed on a public or private college campus, what does that mean for the learning environment of the students? When placed in front of a city hall or a state capitol, what message is that sending to its citizens?
When we think about the placement and purpose of monuments and the memories they evoke, it is necessary that we consider the intentionality with which they were created as well as the audience they are intended for. When it comes to public spaces, it is even more important that these considerations are in place and are revisited often enough to keep pace with the changes in society.
Sometimes monuments create controversy, and for the past few years, the United States has seen this issue arise across the country. Unsurprising to me, the campuses of colleges and universities are hotbeds for such issues because we have students who advocate for inclusivity, respect and justice for all people. As an educator and college president, I strive to help all my students develop critical thinking skills, a sense of local and global citizenship, and a zeal for equity and justice.
I served at The University of Texas at Austin as the vice president for diversity and community engagement and W.K. Kellogg Professor for Community College Leadership for twelve years. I was honored to participate in the unveiling of both the Barbara Jordan and Caesar Chavez statues as well as to start the annual Austin MLK March at the foot of Archon King’s Statue. The university is one of only a handful of institutions with an MLK statue.
The university also had a number of statues in prominent places on campus that had direct links to the Confederacy and had been controversial since their inception. I want to recap what the process and experience was in finding a solution for the statues as a sort of case study today. It will help show what campuses are dealing with now, not only the surrounding issues of building names and monuments on campus but also how colleges and universities are addressing issues of concern that are happening simultaneously in society and on their campuses.
I always say that context matters, and the Confederate statuary on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin is no exception. Even in the 1930’s, when the six statues were placed in the main mall, a central and busy place on campus, controversy ensued. Of the six statues, four depicted leaders of the Confederacy, the most prominent of which were Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States, and Robert E. Lee, the general of the Confederate Army. Since their establishment, the statues have been vandalized, protested, discussed and defended. Many of the university’s presidents contemplated what should be done with the statues, including ideas about removing them, relocating them, or even contextualizing them.
It was not until the spring of 2015 that the incoming student government leaders, who campaigned under the platform for removing the Davis statue, made a strong push to begin the actual removal process. During that time the Davis statue was vandalized three times between March and June 2015 alone.
In June 2015, the mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, occurred. Nine people lost their lives in this terrorist act; the shooter admitted to trying to begin a race war through his attack. Among the many photographs that emerged were flags associated with white supremacy, including the Confederate battle flag – the same flag that was flying at full mast over the state capitol of South Carolina. The removal of that flag, after a well-publicized debate, in an area with high pro-Confederate feelings, marked an important shift in our nation’s tolerance for Confederate displays.
As I said before, context matters. The mass shooting in Charleston, coupled with the incidents on the UT campus and the growing sentiment regarding Confederate representations, led President Fenves to form the Task Force on Historical Representation of Statuary, of which I was appointed the chair. The task force was charged with identifying and evaluating options for dealing with the controversial statues. Specifically, there were three charges that President Fenves wanted addressed.
The first charge was to analyze the artistic, social and political intent of the statuary, with a particular focus on the Jefferson Davis statue, keeping in mind the historical context the statuary represents. The second charge required the task force to review the previous controversies surrounding the statutes and analyze the similarities and differences from the most recent controversy. The last and most important charge was to develop an array of alternatives for the statues, with a specific focus on the Jefferson Davis statue, while giving special attention to artistic and historical factors considering the university’s role as an educational and research institution.
As vice president for diversity and community engagement, I had dealt with a similar situation where a dormitory named after a well-known KKK leader needed to be renamed. In that situation as well as with the statues, I made sure that the task force received as much input from the university’s community as possible and that community members had ample opportunities to share their thoughts. As a result, we held two public forums, created an online form, and documented emails and phone calls received over the matter.
More than 3,100 individuals shared their opinions about the statues. They included students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members. It was anticipated that a controversial topic about confederate statues, even in a state that saw no Civil War battles, would garner myriad opinions, suggestions and feedback. And that was no less true in this case. Overall, a third wanted the Jefferson Davis statue relocated, a third wanted to leave all the statues in their current locations, and almost another third wanted to remove all the statues from the main mall.
The most poignant sentiments expressed were those by people of color who reflected on the pain and sense of exclusion they felt by the presence of the statues on a university campus. They stood in front of a large assembly of people and shared their hurt about what the statues meant to them as well as to their ancestors. At the same time, there were those who vehemently expressed that the statues represented their heritage and the history of Texas and the South and, therefore, needed to be kept in their place.
Those who pushed for the importance of heritage cited the donor of the statues, Major George W. Littlefield, himself a Confederate Army officer and a member of the UT Board of Regents, and his wishes. He believed that the survivors of the Confederacy had to preserve their history so that future generations would remember, as he put it, “these grand patriots who gave up their lives for the cause of liberty and self-government.” While his original vision for the statues included “a massive bronze arch over the south entrance to the campus,” his will allowed for it to be changed in terms of artistic representation and placement. Although Littlefield died before the completion of the installation, in a codicil to his will, he stated his overall intent that “the trustees shall proceed to carry out the said contract and this whether there are different persons acting as trustees or not.” In the history of The University of Texas, Littlefield became the “largest single financial supporter in the first fifty years of the institution’s existence.”
I mention Littlefield’s will and philanthropic acts toward the university because donor intent played an important role in how the task force went about creating options for the president to consider. Now, understanding donor intent clarifies the fiduciary responsibility of the trustees not just at the time of the donation but in years to come. We recognized the importance of fiduciary duty and being able to make changes without compromising the intention of a donor.
The University of Texas was founded for the white citizens of Texas, and it was not until 1950 that African Americans, by law, were able to attend. The foundation of the institution aligned with Littlefield’s perspective: that gen- erations to come should learn about the South through a Confederate viewpoint. His actions were not without controversy, even at that time.
That, however, did not stop Littlefield from commissioning the statues or from including them in the memorial of President Woodrow Wilson and the Littlefield Fountain. According to historians, “Littlefield revised the theme of the memorial to become a monument of reconcilia- tion portraying World War I as the catalyst that inspired Americans to put aside differences lingering from the Civil War.” The inclusion of Wilson brought about another controversy as he was the first Southerner elected as President of the United States since 1869 and was known for resegregating the federal government. This reassertion of white supremacy culminated in an inscription placed to the west of the fountain. It read:
“To the men and women of the Confederacy who fought with valor and suffered with a fortitude that states’ rights be maintained and who, not dismayed by defeat nor dis- couraged by misrule, built from the ruins of devastating war a greater South. And to the men and women of the nation who gave of their possessions and of their lives that free government be made secure to the peoples of the earth this memorial is dedicated.”
Now, these statues are a part of history, and their value to a place needed to be considered in what would happen to them. At UT, they served a number of purposes. At their most basic, they were a part of the landscape of the university, with many unaware of whom they repre- sented. At the same time, they represented a particular time, and reasons by predecessors about what to honor. Understanding the intent behind that honor helped the task force in making its recommendations.
Honoring the past has its purposes. It can connect us to a bygone era or provoke feelings of gratitude and admiration for heroes and leaders. It can also depict a troubled time in our history, reminding us that in the not-so-distant past there were moments of injustice, inequality and hatred. For good or bad, we can learn from the past through the memories that monuments and statues arouse.
Yet there is a time and place for learning, and when we think of a university campus, a campus that lauds itself on being inclusive and accessible to all, then we need to consider the placement of statues that honor the past, especially those whose original intent was to glorify a confederate past. This is even more relevant when the statues in question take center stage in the university’s main quadrangle. The main quad, where commencement is held every spring, which the president’s office oversees, and through which prospective and current students walk to get to the epicenter of the campus.
Therefore, while we are teaching our students about equity, access and social justice in the classrooms that line the main quad, we have statues that honor the opposite posted throughout it. This seemed counterintuitive to the core purpose of the university, which is to transform lives for the benefit of society. I believe that the mission statement of any university or college needs to be conveyed inside and outside the classroom, including its physical campus.
Coming up with solutions to the statues was not an easy task. It required input from many and the need to understand the various viewpoints about the statues. Supporters of the statues often promoted contextual- izing them by adding signage that would explain the historical context of the confederate leaders and their actions – thus, in a way, creating a learning moment from the statuary.
However, those opposed explained that the statues glorified the history of the Confederacy and affected campus climate by reminding African American students of their exclusion from the university until the 1950’s. We in higher education recognize the need to learn from the past and not to whitewash it, and that we do, in fact, teach subjects that might upset a student’s feelings or beliefs.
But that is, in fact, the point of higher education: to push students beyond their comfort zones of learning to understand issues and matters that might not always be comforting. As a result, those who opposed keeping the statues recognized that students and the community still can and, indeed, should learn from them, but only in a proper setting. Statues are like any other art piece, and the best way to examine them is, more often than not, in a museum or educational center.
In addition, the university had a special duty not only to its students but also to all its constituents. The task force recognized that we needed to be conservative in our recommendations but also critical of the role the statuary played on the campus. There were a number of goals to reach in making recommendations. First, we wanted to preserve the aesthetic appeal and design of the Main Mall. Second, we wanted to validate to all of our constituents that the university was a welcoming place. We also wanted to respect the intent of the orig- inal donor, at the same time respecting all members of the UT community, of Texans, and of soldiers who have given their lives during combat.
Most importantly, we aimed to accomplish three goals: preserve a full account of who we were and are without whitewashing the past; promote educationally valuable debate and discourse; and finally, represent accurately the mission and vision of the university today.
As you can imagine, this was no small feat and one the president wanted completed in a very short time. We developed six options for the president to consider, with the task force unanimous in the belief that doing nothing was not feasible. The majority of the task force recommended that however the statues were to be relocated, including the inscription near the fountain, they should be placed on campus in an educational exhibition, such as in UT’s Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, where most of the statues now reside.
After the task force made its recommendations in August 2015, President Fenves decided to remove the statues of Jefferson Davis and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. The following year, he had the inscription removed as well. Most recently, after the violent protests and overt displays of hatred in Charlottesville, President Fenves relocated the remaining four statues. In a statement, he explained that “now more than ever, Confederate monuments have become symbols of modern white supremacy and neo-Nazism.” Speaking as the chair of the task force two years ago, we warned against the continued effect such statues would hold for the institution and society.
There is a fine line that universities have to walk, especially public ones that have a public role and serve a public good. However, it has become apparent that with the current climate in our nation, with white supremacy surfacing in every dimension of public spaces, higher education needs to ensure that the foundational purpose of institutions is maintained. Continuing to allow monuments built during the Jim Crow Era, under the guise of national pride, in prominent places on campuses compromises the role of an educational institution.
The same can be said for the city of New Orleans, where Mayor Mitch Landrieu removed a number of Confederate statues across the city. The mayor and the city recognized the message that these Jim Crow Era statues sent to the community and decided to remove these symbols of white supremacy, even under great resistance, protests, and unrest in the city.
As I have said before, statues are created for a number of reasons but most specially to honor and recognize people and their accomplishments. When such statues represent racism and oppression, they are not only offensive but also harmful to our society. The Reverend Jay Augustine, the national chaplain of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, eloquently explained the situation in New Orleans:
“I understand their historical significance, and I understand they should be appropriately relegated to a museum or left in history books, but for the purpose of plain line of sight within the city of New Orleans, with the diversity of this community, they have absolutely no place anymore.” Of course, we should learn from our past, lest we repeat the same mistakes again. But commemorating the past that abused a large proportion of our society should not be part of the American present or future.
When the statues were removed on the UT campus and in New Orleans, backlash ensued. With the growing presence of white supremacy and the acts of hatred as seen in Charlottesville, public spaces need to serve the public good and not cater to long-ago sentiments of oppression and hate. This is not an easy road ahead of us, but it is one that merits our full attention so that our nation does not slip back to a time when Jim Crow was the norm.
I leave you with this point: Monuments serve a purpose, and as human beings, we will continue to strive to honor those who came before us. But we need to ask ourselves, what memories do we want to leave future generations with?
Passages from “Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 1861”
These are the passages as quoted in “The Laws of Slavery in Texas: Historical Documents and Essays,” edited by Randolph B. Campbell, published by the University of Texas Press, 2010. The original journal
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility, and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people.
… She received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery, the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relationship that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. . .
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States and of the confederacy itself, established exclusively for the white race and their prosperity, that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country could be beneficial or tolerable.