The Replacements

In one of my little essays yesterday what I thought of as the key words,

Of those who feel the need to tear down Confederate memorials, with what will you replace them? Choose wisely. Not only should we not forget that the war was fought, we shouldn’t relinquish the opportunity to remember why it was fought: it was fought over the abolition of slavery.

appear to have been mostly ignored. In that passage I was attempting to accomplish two things. First, I was acknowledging that removing Confederate memorials could be benign. But I was also suggesting that removal is a negative act. It is not courageous. It delegates telling the story of the past to someone else.

In his Washington Post column today Charles Lane proposes some alternatives for the Confederate statues that are being removed in Maryland:

Obvious candidates include African American abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, who have been belatedly but appropriately honored with a public sculpture in Baltimore and a museum in Dorchester, respectively. New statues of Douglass and Tubman for Annapolis and the U.S. Capitol have also been proposed.

Less famous but no less worthy is Judge Hugh Lennox Bond, the Baltimorean who did as much as any other white Marylander of his time for the anti-slavery and Union causes, and perhaps more.

Born in 1828, Bond was a judge in Baltimore’s criminal court when the Civil War broke out, and in that position he supported murder indictments against pro-rebel rioters who attacked the Union troops rushing to defend Washington in 1861. Amid the crisis, he also upheld the right of loyalists to fly the stars and stripes, despite a ban by the Southern-sympathizing city’s administration.

Still a judge in 1864, he welcomed Maryland’s new constitution, with its ban on slavery, by urging his fellow citizens to “let us now bow at the shrine of freedom.” Maryland courts nevertheless ordered thousands of black children declared “orphans” and assigned them to white planters as “apprentices,” but Bond issued writs of habeas corpus so they could return to their parents.

Obvious candidates include African American abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, who have been belatedly but appropriately honored with a public sculpture in Baltimore and a museum in Dorchester, respectively. New statues of Douglass and Tubman for Annapolis and the U.S. Capitol have also been proposed.

Less famous but no less worthy is Judge Hugh Lennox Bond, the Baltimorean who did as much as any other white Marylander of his time for the anti-slavery and Union causes, and perhaps more.

Born in 1828, Bond was a judge in Baltimore’s criminal court when the Civil War broke out, and in that position he supported murder indictments against pro-rebel rioters who attacked the Union troops rushing to defend Washington in 1861. Amid the crisis, he also upheld the right of loyalists to fly the stars and stripes, despite a ban by the Southern-sympathizing city’s administration.

Still a judge in 1864, he welcomed Maryland’s new constitution, with its ban on slavery, by urging his fellow citizens to “let us now bow at the shrine of freedom.” Maryland courts nevertheless ordered thousands of black children declared “orphans” and assigned them to white planters as “apprentices,” but Bond issued writs of habeas corpus so they could return to their parents.

After the Civil War, he campaigned for African American voting rights; when supporters of the newly ratified 15th Amendment paraded in celebration through Baltimore on May 19, 1870, Bond stood with Douglass on the speakers’ platform.

“He rejoiced with them over their freedom,” the Baltimore American reported. Bond said it was “not alone theirs, but also of the white race.”

Two months later, on July 13, 1870, the Senate confirmed Bond as the first judge of the newly created federal court for the 4th Circuit, encompassing Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas.

In that capacity, his greatest moment came as the presiding judge in trials of hundreds of Ku Klux Klan terrorists in North and South Carolina during 1871 and 1872.

The Klan’s defense lawyers — including Marylander Reverdy Johnson, a former associate of Taney who represented Dred Scott’s enslaver in the famous case — moved to dismiss the Klan indictments on constitutional grounds.

Bond upheld the relevant statute and later sentenced convicted Klan leaders to prison — a true legal revolution. Fifteen years after Taney purported to strip black Americans of their rights in Dred Scott, Bond declared that they were entitled to federal protection against violence by whites in the South.

This earned Bond hatred and threats, which he courageously brushed off. Bond could not, alas, overcome later Supreme Court decisions that tended to undermine the stand he took at the Klan trials.

Still, Bond deserves far better treatment from history than the obscurity that set in almost from the moment of his death in 1893. No public installation in Maryland — not a park, school or courthouse — bears his name.

I’m going to open this question to the floor. What lessons would be taught by the choices Mr. Lane has proposed?

14 comments… add one
  • Modulo Myself Link

    I would go with statues commemorating slave rebellions. In Charleston there’s been a debate about a statue for Denmark Vessey, a freed slave who attempted to kill slaveowners and take the liberated slaves to Haiti. It didn’t work out, unfortunately, and he was hanged, along with others.

  • Who is to decide? The majority? The most outraged?

  • PD Shaw Link

    I’m not familiar with Bond, but he certainly seems like the type of person of secondary-importance that a state might want to spotlight.

    The Baltimore Confederate Memorial Commission started off its report by asking this question:

    “During the Civil War, approximately 65,000 Marylanders fought for the Union, and close to 22,000 fought for the Confederacy. Nearly half of all Maryland units for the Union formed in Baltimore, and the total number of Union units outnumbered the Confederate Units from Maryland approximately three to one. Nevertheless, Baltimore has three public monuments to the Confederacy and only one to the Union. The question is often posed: if Maryland, particularly Baltimore, produced three times more Union soldiers and regiments than Confederate soldiers and regiments, why does Baltimore have only one monument to the Union and three monuments to the Confederacy?”

    I guess their answer was more cowbell, fewer monuments. As far as the Civil War is concerned, the Maryland names that stand out are “the Blairs,” particularly Francis Preston Blair and his son Montgomery who were strong supporters of Lincoln and used their wealth of connections to help Lincoln find political and military appointees. The Blairs were essentially the Republican party in Maryland, and probably had their hand in appointing every one from Maryland.

    Other interesting connections, their estate located about 30 miles south of Baltimore was burned to the ground by Lost-Cause cultist General Jubal Early. Also, Elizabeth Blair married Robert E. Lee’s cousin, whom quipped when asked about his allegiance that “When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy.”

  • walt moffett Link

    Generally, the most outraged have been a majority because everyone else was too busy living and working to care.

    Lessons learned, outrage works (have you paid a stamp tax lately), the white mainstream can only think of other whites as worthy and Madame Defarge is still knitting.

    As to replacements, while Bond is worthy of a statue, I would propose selling the statues to highest bidder and leaving the area empty until the outraged have a replacement. Of course, what the new owner does with the statue on his land is of course, his problem.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    I don’t know. Living historians? People who actually care about history? Who are interested in all people, not just generals and battles?

    Conservatives seem to be on the verge of saying explicitly that Americans need the myth of white supremacy in order for this country to work. It’s a great message, one that should motivate all of us, except for the outraged.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    I mean, who is more heroic–a guy who fought and died trying to free people from captivity, or a couple of military leaders who ordered others to die in order to keep people in captivity?

  • Guarneri Link

    I think statues to ant-slavery heros are fine. But you correctly point out “who decides?” And of course that’s a problem with all these issues. Broad, flowery concepts are fine for virtue signaling. Specifics are hard. Ask someone exactly what words Trump should have used in his two dozen criticisms of white supremacists band you will get a blank stare or some painfully moronic explanation imputing motives to him. This isn’t about skinheads, it’s about politics. Heard Chris Mathews wringing his hands and calling for public expunging references to FDR for interning Japanese? I didn’t think so.

  • Guarneri Link

    As for the ignored statement, I’ve been traveling and in and out of touch. But my reaction is that you are taking the long and more thoughtful view as opposed to the politically opportunistic and hysterical view.

    If you really listen to what Trump said he is correct. Plenty of blood on multiple hands. But pols and pundits are so gotcha oriented and are so conditioned to distance themselves from controversy (talk about mealy mouthed) that no rational discourse can be had. Trumps problem is he is so bull-headed and arrogant that despite the furor he must know he creates, he can’t help but get into it with the press. Better to let it pass and let them make fools of themselves. It’s just not in his nature.

  • gray shambler Link

    One of my heroes is James Meredith, who was not a racist, but understood, that white people were as trapped in their own way as black people by institutional segregation, and said so. In the end, he took a shotgun blast for daring to walk down the road in Mississippi, but survived and it took the intervention of federal troops for him to finish the trek.
    Try to imagine, being a shop owner in 1960, in the south, even if you have black people you know and like, serve them at the FRONT door, and your’e finished,(like racist Trump :)) . Meredith understood this, and acted, at the risk of his life. STATUE!!

  • PD Shaw Link

    “What lessons would be taught by the choices Mr. Lane has proposed?”

    I guess I overlooked the question, while something troubled me at the back of my mind about the crediting Bond with “a true legal revolution” in upholding a statute. The true legal revolution was performed by the legislature, which passed (what I assume was) the KKK Act, signed by U.S. Grant (who appointed Bond). This has all of the hallmarks of emphasizing the role of appointed judges in interpreting civil rights laws passed through the political process.

    Also: the implicit criticism of the defense lawyers for the acts of their client is objectionable.

  • steve Link

    Why do we need to replace them at all? If we desperately need artwork just add a few more frolicking nudes. Still waiting for Drew to tell us what constitutes a good neo-Nazi.

    Steve

  • Guarneri Link

    I don’t respond to pathetically stupid inquiries, steve. But if you can get your head out of your ass long enough, and you actually care about the truth, go to the edited tape comment at the end of Dave’s posts. I’m sure the tape is still up somewhere and you can watch it with your own eyes.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  • steve Link

    Already did. Already heard the claim that “good” people were marching alongside the neo-Nazis. Don’t buy it. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

    Steve

  • gray shambler Link

    Before this good post is removed, I would like to add the name of Standing Bear. A Pawnee, removed with his people to the Oklahoma territories, He violated federal law, When his young son died, he asked his father to bury him back home, by the Niobrara river in northern Nebraska, so with a small party, and his son’s body, he went. They were apprehended by cavalry and held at a military post until some lawyers from Omaha took notice and went to court on his behalf. At issue was the status of native Americans, were they human, or no. This case, the trial of Standing Bear, resolved the issue. Yes, they are human. Remember, before this ruling, white people could and did shoot them for fun.
    Standing Bear was no activist, he only wanted to fulfill his young son’s final request. He would have accepted any outcome that Wahconda, (God) delivered. But, like Rosa Parks, no activist either, (just too tired to move to the back of the bus), his actions made history, my wife, children, and grandchildren are legally human because of them. STATUE!

Leave a Comment