Historical Monuments: To Remove or Not to Remove

Should Controversial Monuments Be Removed or Are They Necessary Teaching Tools?

By Esther Wickham, Journalism Program Officer, The Fund for American Studies, and Sean Fischer, CEO of Common Sense Consulting

Renaming Institutions and Removing Historical Monuments Does Not Change the Past

By Esther Wickham – Journalism Program Officer, The Fund for American Studies

In the past decade, the question of renaming and removing historical monuments has drawn increased attention. Whether it’s on college campuses, in public parks, or by museums, there is increasing pressure to take these figureheads down. The primary justification is that these statues consist of Confederate soldiers, political figures that “embraced the racial hierarchy,” or had controversial policies. However, I believe that renaming or removing a namesake does not change the past, it only prevents us from educating future generations.

A Complex History

We should not subvert historical figures because history is complex and cannot be understood by denying it happened. If there is no place to learn, there is no place for reconciliation. At Clemson University, the former U.S. Vice President John Calhoun’s name was removed from its honors college; at Princeton University, former President Woodrow Wilson’s name was removed from the School of Public and International Affairs. Universities continue to uproot their historical monuments because they are seen as memorializing problematic historical figures.

This isn’t just happening on college campuses—it’s everywhere. In Jan. 2022, the statue of former President Theodore Roosevelt, which stood at the entrance of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City for over 80 years, was removed. In the video, “The Meaning of a Monument,” about the sculptor of the statue James Earle Fraser, a professor at Syracuse University pointed out that “we are so distant from his mind.” The professor suggests we cannot fully know the original interpretation of the art piece; we can only assume with our modern preconceptions. 

Historical Figures Are More than Their Mistakes

For years there was a debate at my university about whether Ronald Reagan should remain a namesake due to his controversial policies. Thankfully, no action was taken by the administration to remove him. Others argue we should remove a statue of a founding father who declared that “All men are created equal.” The point remains, that our first inclination should not be to remove something that makes us feel uncomfortable. Out of sight, out of mind is not the remedy. We cannot understand the past with a narrow 21st-century mindset. 

Let me be clear: my argument is not that I advocate for everything these figures stood for, rather I understand that history should not be taught through a nuanced lens. Historical figures should be remembered for more than their mistakes and we should strive to educate future generations on both the good and the bad. History is complex and it takes a great deal of patience to understand why it is important to learn about it. This notion of erasing any area of colonization or racism that we assume these monuments stand for will result in uneducated and coddled generations in the future.

Educating Future Generations Requires Context

By Sean Fischer – CEO of Common Sense Consulting

Ms. Wickham advocates for the preservation of historical monuments, not to endorse outdated ideologies, but to protect their value in teaching history. Ms. Wickham and I agree that learning from our nation’s past serves our collective benefit. However, presenting history devoid of relevant context undermines our nation’s history and our ability to learn from it.

Context within the Controversy

Ms. Wickham specifically references controversies over the removal of Confederate monuments in public squares, citing a well-trod conservative-media assertion that progressives are attempting to “erase history.” What this narrative fails to properly contextualize is that Confederate monuments were largely erected to promote a disingenuous interpretation of the Civil War known as the “Lost Cause.” The Lost Cause is a romanticized and sanitized interpretation of the Confederacy. This example is illustrative of the importance of context. Public historians seek to communicate historical lessons to broad audiences in public locations and museums, where it is essential to avoid contrived distortions—a standard hardly reflected by a movement to romanticize the Confederacy. 

Groups that erected Confederate monuments were looking to justify the illegal actions of their relatives and preserve a social order where people of color had to occupy inferior social and economic positions to white people. Therefore, far from being a teaching and learning device, these historical monuments perpetuate a distorted, harmful, and inaccurate version of the past which suggests the failed Confederate cause was somehow worthy of sustained public reverence. Whereas in context, it is fully understood that the Confederacy’s cause lacked legal standing much less any ethical or moral grounding. The Confederacy was unapologetically founded to maintain enslavement, using racist philosophy that even our founders at their most flawed did not believe. Thus, historians and we, the people, have every reason to reconsider the value of these statues in public locations. 

A More Holistic Look into Historical Monuments

Ms. Wickham also suggests the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs and John C. Calhoun’s name from Clemson University’s Honors College is evidence of overreaction. Yes, these men left behind conspicuous legacies through service in the highest ranks of government. However, President Wilson used thinly veiled racism to conduct domestic and internal affairs. Wilson’s beliefs are hardly worthy of emulation in the context of a public and international affairs program. Vice President Calhoun, regarded as a brilliant intellect by his peers, nevertheless adhered to sophism and twisted himself into duplicitous knots to rectify settled law with acute political concerns—in other words, he arguably abandoned academic sincerity. Is it not, therefore, appropriate to reconsider his name being listed on an honors academic program? Moreover, these changes neither “erased” Wilson nor Calhoun from the lexicon of U.S. history or the history of the respective institutions.

I chose to challenge Ms. Wickham’s specific citations, not to create a back-and-forth over specific examples, but to illustrate the point that the removal of out-of-context honorifics does not change or erase history. Often these changes can inspire a more serious and holistic look into the past, one that promotes unity and healing, and one that does not leave alone the papering over of uncomfortable truths. 

We Need to Face Uncomfortable Truths 

By Esther Wickham – Journalism Program Officer, The Fund for American Studies

While Mr. Fischer brings up an important point that relevant context is necessary to learn about history, I would argue that removing historical monuments will not invite conversation about change or reconciliation, even if the history or context is already known. Mr. Fischer argues that the removal of monuments can prompt healing and unity, yet he gives no examples of how that has happened so far.

Mr. Fischer suggests that these monuments provide a distorted and harmful view of the past. I don’t think either of us believe that the Confederacy is something to be praised today, and I would also argue that most Americans recognize its shortcomings. Monuments are not all intended to honor an individual, but simply detailing the events of history. It is up to us to acknowledge history’s mistakes, while not letting it affect us personally. Placing a deeper meaning on every statue encourages the false narrative that these monuments are causing emotional harm to an individual. The statue is deeper than just a guy on a horse, but facing uncomfortable truths is necessary so that we do not repeat the mistakes of our past.

Removing Statues Will Not Encourage Unity and Understanding

Mr. Fischer believes that removing monuments will not erase history but inspire change. However, removing historic monuments cannot solve the inner conflict that individuals face; only civil discourse and open understanding can do that. Reconciliation cannot happen if names are changed and statues removed. It is not hyperbolic to state that parts of history will be erased if we continue to feed into the narrative that removing statues or renaming institutions is the solution that will provide unity and understanding. 

History is complex, and the specific examples can be debated for eternity, but Mr. Fischer does not address the notion that continuing down this path of removing historical monuments may lead to uneducated future generations. That said, Mr. Fischer is correct in stating that we should not paper over uncomfortable truths. Future generations need to learn from the good and the bad of the past.

It Is Time to Reconsider Historical Value

By Sean Fischer –  CEO of Common Sense Consulting

Ms. Wickham’s goal is to prevent the thoughtless removal of monuments and honorifics which, warts-and-all, tell a story of our past. We share plenty of common ground in this respect. It is likely that we also agree that the figures of American history need to be judged holistically and that it is possible to revere them for their contributions, while also reconciling with their (at times magnanimous) failures.

Controversial Monuments Create False Narratives

Despite where we agree, we have a clear difference in our perception of the value many of these controversial monuments (or controversial styling of such monuments) have on our ability to faithfully interpret the past. I previously covered the causes of the Civil War (the politics, economics, and morality of human enslavement), and discussed how the dubious “Lost Cause” narrative was wedged into our public squares. Ms. Wickham is correct when she indicates most Americans seem aware of the War’s causes, yet nearly one-quarter of the population believes both the North and South were “equally justified” in fighting the war. That same percentage does not recognize the Confederate movement as treason (the only crime specifically defined in the original United States Constitution). Moreover, to this day Confederate leaders—Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson—men who illegally took up arms against the United States, have overall net positive favorability ratings among Americans.

Modern-Day Consequences

In this respect, there is an obvious correlation between the preservation of historical monuments, which suggests there is some nebulous glory in the Confederate’s treason, and the shocking developments in our recent history. In 2017, white nationalists marched openly with torches in the streets of Charlottesville, VA in support of a memorial of Robert E. Lee. On Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionists waved the Confederate battle flag in the halls of the Capitol building after illegally breaking into it. Thus, the argument that such memorials are necessary to protect our ability to learn from the past is betrayed by their obvious failure to communicate those lessons thus far. Moreover, the argument downplays how the preservation of false narratives has arguably given coverage to conspiracy and fringe groups seeking to justify their lawless behavior.

Ms. Wickham and I agree that the revisiting of monuments and honorifics should be done thoughtfully, and with contextual consideration, not via renegade vandalism. Where we break is over the expressed resistance to reconsider historical value. Without room for reconsideration, we arguably fail to uphold the methodology of historical study, and potentially validate an intrusion of nostalgia and esoteric heritage as a substitute for a more circumspect, thoughtful, and accurate interpretation of our past.

If you enjoyed this article, please make sure to like, comment, and share below. You can also read more of our Political Pen Pals debates here.

Esther Wickham

Journalism Program Officer, The Fund for American Studies

Esther graduated with honors from The King's College in New York City with a major in Journalism, Culture, and Society and a Pre-law minor. She has interned at AMNY metro publications and served her student newspaper, The Empire State Tribune, as campus editor and managing editor of the magazine. Esther joined The Fund for American Studies (TFAS) summer program in 2022, where she interned at the Washington Examiner on the commentary and opinion desk. She currently lives in Washington, D.C., working for TFAS in their Center for Excellence in Journalism.

Sean Fischer

CEO of Common Sense Consulting

Sean M. Fischer is the CEO of Common Sense Consulting and has previously produced a public affairs radio show (Spotlight on Atlantic City, 96.1 WTTH). He teaches American history and government at several colleges and is a veteran of numerous political campaigns.