Restricted Jefferson Davis Name Removed From Fort Monroe Arch

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
I do love how you merely shrug your shoulders at the loss of history around us, regardless if it is history you agree with or not, it is still a part of this nation's history.
The question becomes is removing Davis' name from the park a "loss of history"? I suppose that those of us who have fond memories of visits to the park feel it is a loss of our history. But in the larger scope, history has not changed.
From a historical perspective, an argument can certainly be made that a more appropriate person to name the park after would be Major General Benjamin Butler. Although I have often been critical of his military record, his action in welcoming runaway slaves there in 1861 was a truly historic event with long-reaching consequences.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
The question becomes is removing Davis' name from the park a "loss of history"? I suppose that those of us who have fond memories of visits to the park feel it is a loss of our history. But in the larger scope, history has not changed.
From a historical perspective, an argument can certainly be made that a more appropriate person to name the park after would be Major General Benjamin Butler. Although I have often been critical of his military record, his action in welcoming runaway slaves there in 1861 was a truly historic event with long-reaching consequences.
Ahem, history certainly has changed if President Davis' name is removed and replaced with that of the "Beast."
 

lelliott19

Brigadier General
Moderator
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Regtl. Staff Chickamauga 2018
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
most of you deriding this would throw a stink if your municipality decided to rename a park
Brooke, I think most of the people "deriding this" would never be ones to suggest a park be renamed in the first place. If it was in their own municipality, they would be the ones fighting to keep the name the same. Neither would these people wish a monument of any kind (or anything else old/historical) be removed or altered - even if it was a monument to Wm T Sherman or Benjamin Butler :D (as @WJC suggests above.)

For these folks, it seems to be a philosophical thing....not about who the monument was for or why it was erected. Some folks are attached to historical things (buildings, monuments, statues, cemeteries, etc) in a way that others do not fully understand.
 

Yankee Brooke

First Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Location
PA
Brooke, I think most of the people "deriding this" would never be ones to suggest a park be renamed in the first place. If it was in their own municipality, they would be the ones fighting to keep the name the same. Neither would these people wish a monument of any kind (or anything else old/historical) be removed or altered - even if it was a monument to Wm T Sherman or Benjamin Butler :D (as @WJC suggests above.)

For these folks, it seems to be a philosophical thing....not about who the monument was for or why it was erected. Some folks are attached to historical things (buildings, monuments, statues, cemeteries, etc) in a way that others do not fully understand.

I wasn't necessarily meaning the name held any historical significance. It could simply be "Township Park" but since that's the name from the establishment in the 1920's, certain people might go "TRADITION!" and block any attempt to rename it after, say, the county sheriff.

How I see it, let the township do what it wishes, and let's stop pretending history was erased when it wasn't. A name was erased. It's still a historical landmark regardless.
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
With all do respect, they aren't erasing anything. They removed Jefferson Davis' name from the arch above a park entrance. What happened there still happened there, and I don't see anyone saying otherwise. I suspect it will remain a key attraction to tourists for that reason.

I have no copyright to that phrase, so you do you my dude.



This exactly.


I can see your point, so in your opinion it would be fine with you if all memorials, monuments, and historical names were removed? I am asking just for the record.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries

Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
The question becomes is removing Davis' name from the park a "loss of history"? I suppose that those of us who have fond memories of visits to the park feel it is a loss of our history. But in the larger scope, history has not changed.
From a historical perspective, an argument can certainly be made that a more appropriate person to name the park after would be Major General Benjamin Butler. Although I have often been critical of his military record, his action in welcoming runaway slaves there in 1861 was a truly historic event with long-reaching consequences.

I can't see the importance of naming it after Butler due to his welcoming runaway slaves there in 1861, for without naming it in Butler's honor, it still happen and history isn't changed by it not being named in his honor. Even though Butler did help runaway slaves, it really isn't important, "shrug of the shoulders" I suspect we will all live, right?

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The question becomes is removing Davis' name from the park a "loss of history"? I suppose that those of us who have fond memories of visits to the park feel it is a loss of our history. But in the larger scope, history has not changed.
From a historical perspective, an argument can certainly be made that a more appropriate person to name the park after would be Major General Benjamin Butler. Although I have often been critical of his military record, his action in welcoming runaway slaves there in 1861 was a truly historic event with long-reaching consequences.
No, it's not a loss of history, especially if no one knows why it was so named in the first place.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
I can't see the importance of naming it after Butler due to his welcoming runaway slaves there in 1861, for without naming it in Butler's honor, it still happen and history isn't changed by it not being named in his honor.
Thanks for your response.
I am not lobbying to change the name of the park in honor of Butler. I am pointing out that from a historical point of view, he has more of a claim to that honor than Davis.
Regardless of what happens to the park and arch, "history isn't changed by it not being named" for anyone.
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Location
Central Pennsylvania
When did we as Americans become so insular and fragmented we're incapable of recognizing this country is the result of myriad past experiences? We're supposedly here on CWT because history is important. It's frequently quite ugly. Slavery was ugly. To a large segment of the American population it's family history. Jefferson Davis represents awfully painful history and that it's not viewed as painful to all of us baffles me.

What gets dismissed as PC is really plain, old ( as in archaic ) respect; the shame of it lies in having to somehow enforce respect for each other. That's just crazy.

Arguing tends to be a matter of waiting for the other person to stop talking so you can start. Nothing gets accomplished, no one's point is genuinely heard. What if anyone listened to the reasons a lot of American citizens find this particular name out of our not-so-distant past disturbing? It probably won't happen. We've become the nation of Me First.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2016
We can't look at this as an isolated incident. If it was, it might not be a big deal. As part of a larger pattern of attempts to remove historical memorials from the landscape, it ought to disturb all of us.
Whether it ought to disturb "all of us" is your opinion.

Jefferson Davis is no less a figure in American history when this eyesore was removed (it just isn't very compelling, period), just as he became no more a figure in American history when it went up. The "monument"/memorial tells us far more about the people who put it up than it does about the person it's meant to commemorate.

Now that all of us have once more endlessly rehashed our positions, may we move on?
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Whether it ought to disturb "all of us" is your opinion.

Obviously. My point is that if it was an isolated incident, it wouldn't be all that noteworthy. But it's not isolated. As more and more of our shared American history disappears from the landscape, not just Confederate memorials, I would think all of us would have some concern about why this is happening, whether it's healthy for our society, and if it's going to get better or worse.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Ahem, history certainly has changed if President Davis' name is removed and replaced with that of the "Beast."
Thanks for your response.
History would still record that Davis spent time there regardless of whether a park was named for him and an arch erected in 1956. And the existence of that now removed 'memorial' to Davis will still be a part of history.
History will still record that Benjamin Butler commanded forces at Fort Monroe during the rebellion. And history will still record that Butler refused to return runaway slaves that came to the Fort, providing them sanctuary. He doesn't need a park or an arch to remind us of his historic act.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Thanks for your response.
History would still record that Davis spent time there regardless of whether a park was named for him and an arch erected in 1956. And the existence of that now removed 'memorial' to Davis will still be a part of history.
History will still record that Benjamin Butler commanded forces at Fort Monroe during the rebellion. And history will still record that Butler refused to return runaway slaves that came to the Fort, providing them sanctuary. He doesn't need a park or an arch to remind us of his historic act.

He certainly doesn't need one in the South; perhaps one in Massachusetts would be more appropriate in recognition of all those runaway slaves he took home with him
 
Top