Confederate statue removed from Jacksonville park by city crews overnight

[Ken_FSU]

We're having a difficult discussion on this kind of thing at UF. There have been a lot of protests calling for buildings like our student union and arena to be renamed because of the history of their namesakes. The Union was named after a university president who helped the Johns Committee hunt down LGBTQ students and faculty. The Arena was named after a university president who forced the withdrawal of dozens of black students seeking acceptance. Then you have residence halls named after the wives of Confederate cabinet members, or famous confederate figures. It's messy.

Torch it all, I say.

Things should not be named or placed commemoratively if their namesake was involved in any form of systematic discrimination or oppression.

"Because they've always been called that" isn't a good enough excuse to keep them intact.

What we've been doing since the founding of this country in terms of racial relations clearly hasn't worked.

Time for a change.

Perhaps even school mascots named after and depicting oppressed natives...

[Steve]

Of course, there was nothing stopping them from heading North and fighting for the union either.

Assuming that these folks (who were not wealthy) not only had not only means of education to truly understand the issues at hand and not what the wealthy slaveowners were telling them, but also that they had the financial means to move.

[Ken_FSU]

RE: Where the line is.

I don't think the line between memorials and markers is as fine as others seem to.

Neutrality would be a decent litmus test.

Does the marker describe, in a neutral way, a historical event that took place at a certain site? If so, it's probably fine. We need to be reminded of our history.

Does the memorial in any way celebrate or bolster a person or group known primarily for oppressing or discriminating others? Take it down. Its existence is an implicit endorsement of the beliefs that person held.

Hemming statue is a no brainer. It celebrated the Confederacy and used language like "heroes."

Jefferson Davis Middle School? Again, an absolute no brainer. The name honors him, and it's patently insane that we, as a city, expect minorities to walk into a school every day named after the head of the Confederacy.

Buildings at colleges named after people that history looks back on pretty badly for racist or discriminatory actions? Rename them. Again, what person in those groups should be expected to feel comfortable and feel like they have social equity residing in or taking classes in a building named after someone who intentionally tried to keep people like them down.

You mention city names, like Washington DC and Jacksonville.

It's impossible to separate slavery from the history of our nation, and it'd be stupid to rename every city named after a founding father or important historical figure just because they owned slaves during a period where such a thing was sadly acceptable.

To me, again, the litmus test is whether racial discrimination is what they were primarily known for.

Generals and leaders primarily known for support the confederacy? Klan members? Take them down.

Former Presidents and leaders who helped establish the national, write the Constitution, advance the nation, etc, even though they were slave owners? It's easier to justify celebrating their accomplishments, though the history books, museums, and monuments should make a real effort to paint a full picture of these men as well.

At the end of the day, feels like common sense is the best indicator for whether something is appropriate or not.

[Steve]

RE: Where the line is.

I don't think the line between memorials and markers is as fine as others seem to.

Neutrality would be a decent litmus test.

Does the marker describe, in a neutral way, a historical event that took place at a certain site? If so, it's probably fine. We need to be reminded of our history.

Does the memorial in any way celebrate or bolster a person or group known primarily for oppressing or discriminating others? Take it down. Its existence is an implicit endorsement of the beliefs that person held.

Hemming statue is a no brainer. It celebrated the Confederacy and used language like "heroes."

Jefferson Davis Middle School? Again, an absolute no brainer. The name honors him, and it's patently insane that we, as a city, expect minorities to walk into a school every day named after the head of the Confederacy.

Buildings at colleges named after people that history looks back on pretty badly for racist or discriminatory actions? Rename them. Again, what person in those groups should be expected to feel comfortable and feel like they have social equity residing in or taking classes in a building named after someone who intentionally tried to keep people like them down.

You mention city names, like Washington DC and Jacksonville.

It's impossible to separate slavery from the history of our nation, and it'd be stupid to rename every city named after a founding father or important historical figure just because they owned slaves during a period where such a thing was sadly acceptable.

To me, again, the litmus test is whether racial discrimination is what they were primarily known for.

Generals and leaders primarily known for support the confederacy? Klan members? Take them down.

Former Presidents and leaders who helped establish the national, write the Constitution, advance the nation, etc, even though they were slave owners? It's easier to justify celebrating their accomplishments, though the history books, museums, and monuments should make a real effort to paint a full picture of these men as well.

At the end of the day, feels like common sense is the best indicator for whether something is appropriate or not.

I disagree it's that simple. In some cases it's simple. I agree historic markers that declare that an event occurred should not be removed. I do agree that neutrality is a good start, but it isn't the end all-be all. For example, the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial are two things that inherently aren't neutral. It celebrates these folks. Who is going to be the overarching arbiter on whether, "history looks back on pretty badly for racist or discriminatory actions" or whether or not their good outweighs their bad?

- Many would argue that Andrew Jackson's most noteworthy action was the Trail of Tears.
- John C. Calhoun has some pretty strong black eyes in terms of slavery. But he also has some good accomplishments too.
- Robert E. Lee is one that to me is particularly difficult. He was the commanding General of the confederate forces. After the Civil War he led what is now Washington and Lee University and was known for expelling white students for physical attacks on blacks. He really didn't view blacks as equals (he was opposed to them voting), but he didn't hold them as slaves like Washington or Jefferson. He also opposed the type of memorials like what was in Hemming Park. But, he was also promoted by the Lost Cause folks after his death.

Who decides who is right or who is wrong? These people don't have Facebook or Twitter account so it's hard to know how they really felt. We can rely on historians but just like economists, you can talk to two different ones and get radically different answers. It can't be because someone is uncomfortable. There are likely many folks that are uncomfortable with the removal of the Confederate Soldier in Hemming. Does that make them right automatically because they're uncomfortable?

[JeffreyS]

I think we should stop including other past figures actions as part of the Confederate conversation.  Others were our flawed countrymen Confederates were enemies of the country. Celebrating even the noblest of Confederates seems odd when done by the country they were determined to break apart. I like the Facebook meme that points out Nirvana had hits longer than the Confederacy was a thing can we just let it go already.

[Tacachale]

As Lake said the real issue is the Confederate stuff has less to do with the Civil War than the later Jim Crow era they were erected in. They were intended to send a message advancing a particular viewpoint. The historical markers and other memorials to flawed individuals were not, and aren't.

[thelakelander]

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200612/throwing-baby-out-with-bath-water-controversy-surrounds-currys-plan-to-take-down-historic-markers

[Snaketoz]

Curry just loves tearing down stuff.

[Steve]

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200612/throwing-baby-out-with-bath-water-controversy-surrounds-currys-plan-to-take-down-historic-markers

Holy long article from the T-U. I have to agree with Ennis here-if we are thinking of a confederate monument in the same vein as a historical marker about an event the confederacy was part of, then I think we're missing the point here. In no way does a marker glorify the other or take a side in the battle.

[jaxlongtimer]

^The article summarized well the concerns over markers vs. monuments.  Ennis and others did a great job distinguishing between the two and Ennis's quote about throwing the baby out with the bath water made for an eye catching headline.

What I didn't see is why some of those quoted had an issue with the markers... seemed they accepted lumping anything connected with Civil War history in the same category.  I would like to hear more about why they specifically object to the markers or, if they better understood others concerns, would they agree they should stay.  Hope there is more outreach to them to amicably save appropriate markers.

By example, the Maple Leaf was a Union war ship.  Yes, it was sunk by a Confederate mine but the USS Arizona, a similar National Historic Landmark, is honored without controversy and it was sunk by the Japanese. The Maple Leaf also carried 4 African American crew who perished with it.  It would seem appropriate to note the sinking and memorialize honorably those who perished with historic markers.

The Auschwitz concentration camp, the site of heinous crimes against humanity and built by the evil Nazi's, continues to stand as a memorial to all who perished there and as a reminder to the world that we should be ever vigilant so that such crimes are never repeated.  Similarly, should not the crimes and hate in our U.S. history be presented in the open so we are educated and reminded to never repeat that history again?  It appears that historical markers and sites with appropriate context play this role by bringing home the reality of our country's past for all to learn from.

As noted, the sinking of the Maple Leaf was an event.  It is a central exhibit in the Mandarin Museum and at MOSH.  The bulk of its retrieved artifacts, as I recall, are in the State's Museum of Florida History in Tallahassee and in the National Museum of the U.S. Army in Virginia.  It has been said the Maple Leaf wreck contains the greatest collection of Union Army artifacts in the world.  It is estimated that less than 1 or 2% have been recovered.

Because of the amount and variety of items that were on-board, this shipwreck site is considered a cultural treasure chest. According to Edwin C. Bearss, former Chief Historian of the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service:

"The wreck of the Maple Leaf is unsurpassed as a source for Civil War material culture. The site combines one of the largest ships sunk during the war, carrying all the worldly goods of more than a thousand soldiers, with a river bottom environment that perfectly preserved the ship and cargo. It is the most important repository of Civil War artifacts ever found and probably will remain so."

https://www.mandarinmuseum.net/mandarin-history/maple-leaf

Most importantly, the Maple Leaf is a U.S. National Historic Landmark and one of only 7 shipwrecks so designated.  Here is the illustrious company it keeps:

1. Antonio Lopez
2. USS Arizona
3. Land Tortoise
4. USS Monitor
5. Truk Lagoon Fleet
6. USS Utah

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._National_Historic_Landmark_ships,_shipwrecks,_and_shipyards

Interestingly, the ship hosted both African American crewmen who perished with its sinking and Confederate prisoners:

The Maple Leaf sank quickly in twenty feet of water. Fifty eight passengers and the crew climbed into three lifeboats with only the clothes on their backs and rowed off to Jacksonville, fifteen miles away. Four African-American crewmen were killed in the forecastle by the explosion, and four Confederate prisoners were left behind, perched on the hurricane deck which was above water, because there was not room for them in their life boats.

https://www.mandarinmuseum.net/mandarin-history/maple-leaf

For more info and links see:

https://www.nps.gov/articles/mapleleaf.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Leaf_(shipwreck)
http://www.mapleleafshipwreck.com/Book/other/contents.htm

[jaxlongtimer]

Worldwide coverage of the Maple Leaf on National Geographic last week:

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200616/mandarins-historic-civil-war-shipwreck-leads-national-geographic-episode

More than 300 million viewers worldwide learned about Jacksonville's 156-year-old wreck of the Maple Leaf during the first 12 minutes of a recent National Geographic's "Drain the Ocean" episode.

In fact, they got a much better view of the Union steamship that Confederate Army mines sank on April 1, 1864, than Keith Holland ever did after his team's years of up-close work recovering artifacts from the wreck off Mandarin Point.

The Jacksonville archaeologist found the wreck in 1984 under 30 feet of St. Johns River water and mud. He and divers from St. Johns Archaeological Expeditions excavated 4,500 artifacts from what is now a National Historic Landmark for museum display.

The "Drain the Ocean" episode on June 9 removed the mud and murk to show what the wreck looks like without the river atop it, images assembled from scans over the wreck done July 30 by a maritime archaeology research firm. Combined with records and wreck photos done by Holland's teams during research years ago, it showed details never seen like twin smokestacks, the paddle wheel shaft and wooden decking....

[Bill Hoff]

Fyi - City Council is set to vote today on changing the name of Confederate Park to Springfield Park.

[Peter Griffin]

I was wondering if they'd do something like that. Springfield Park makes a lot of sense, considering it's in...Springfield

[thelakelander]

Most of those parks lining the creek were named Springfield Park decades ago. I wish they remove those ugly iron fences. Makes it look like a jail instead of being an inviting destination.

[Bill Hoff]

Fyi - City Council is set to vote today on changing the name of Confederate Park to Springfield Park.

Sorry, not the final vote. A preamble to the deed.