I hope everyone can agree that racism, white supremacy, prejudice in any form, along with government oppression against any person or people are evils that we need to remove from both our society and government. Additionally, the confederate flag and symbols have also become racial symbols of hate and offensive to not only people of color but to many Americans.
It is apparent that debating this monument the issues have exclusively been based on standard “confederacy versus Union” talking points developed by outside organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU. It is painfully obvious that the vast majority have little to no knowledge of the side of history that was most important to Marylanders at that time – Federal Government against Maryland. It is an ugly side to American history that many thought best not to highlight. It is a history, that in part could very well be repeated, if we refuse to learn the lessons from that time.
The Talbot Boys were unique in that Maryland, along with Talbot County, has a history completely different and independent from any other State – confederate or Union. Maryland experienced the greatest crushing of civil liberties ever conducted by a US President against people of a free State. What happened to Maryland and her citizens was unlawful, unconstitutional and brutal as described in my July 8th letter to the Spy. Attempting to apply the standard “Union versus confederate” talking points towards the Talbot Boys is attempting to place a square peg in a round hole – it does not fit.
I am very disheartened by many of the opponents to the Talbot Boys monument. I see people that will not take the time to understand people of a different culture and blindly believe the judgments of others. I cringe when I hear them talk about the people of that time to include their description of the County Council and Maryland society in general by saying “They were all ….”. Then give proof of this opinion due to a national movie that was playing at the time or the racists laws enacted by others. Saying “They were all” is just one tense away from saying “They are all.” I see this as a lack of understanding that the roots of racism and prejudice are the product of refusing to understand another culture, blindly following preconceived judgments proposed by others then blindly applying those preconceived judgments to any individual that they associate with that group. We do have a long way to go.
The opponents base their opposition on three main national talking points; offensiveness of confederate symbols, preservation of slavery as the motivation to rise against the Union, and the sole purpose of the monument is to intimidate people of color. I am in full agreement that confederate symbols have become symbols of racism and hate and should be removed from public property. Now let’s take a look at the other two talking points, without prejudging and stereotyping, while using the facts as they apply to Talbot and Maryland.
It is a national talking point that “they all” fought to preserve slavery, but Maryland did not secede, and slavery was protected by both the US and Maryland Constitutions when these men took arms. Additionally, abolition was not even in contention during the first years of the conflict. The opponents state that the Talbot Boys fought due to a fear that free people of color would exceed them in the social status of their society. This theory makes little sense on many levels not the least of which is that Talbot County already held one of the highest percentages of free people of color in the Country at that time. Additionally, data shows that as a percentage of population, a person from Talbot or Caroline county was 10 to 11 times more likely to take arms against the Union then the men just over the State line in Delaware. The difference was Maryland was subject to extreme Federal abuses where Delaware was spared.
The overwhelming historical evidence, along with the recent unearthing of General Tench Tilghman’s last order to his men before his arrest, overwhelmingly support that the men from Talbot were primarily motivated by the Federal oppression of their homeland. (as outlined in my July 8th letter to the Spy). These men did not have a crystal ball to tell them how things would turn out, all they knew is that their democracy and liberties, which their forefathers valiantly fought to give them, had been taken.
The national talking point about confederate monuments is that they were established by the Daughters of the Confederacy during the Jim Crow era for the purpose of intimidating people of color. Support of this view includes statements that Talbot county’s council of a century ago, along with most of Maryland’s society “were all” white supremacists. Lynn Mielke’s research, also published in the Spy, reveals that this monument was commissioned and paid for by local citizens. Someone, most likely members of the Talbot boys themselves, made a conscious choice on both the statue and the presentation of the flag. They chose an unarmed boy. The presentation of the flag is of extreme importance towards understanding the motivation of the citizens who commissioned this statue. A flag held on the left side, lowered and held tight to its staff is a symbol of submission and would only be presented in that manner during a ceremony of surrender. I would think if the intent were to intimidate then something other then a small unarmed boy holding a flag in the ceremonial position of surrender would have been selected. Why not a sabre wielding confederate charging on horseback? The selection speaks for itself. When the Union memorial is established the flag will be held on the right (sword arm side), held high and flying freely.
Instead of removing I would like to recommend that we modify and re-dedicate this monument to reflect the history of Maryland and Talbot County during that conflict. My recommendation is to modify the statue, through private funding, to remove all symbols of the confederacy. In discussion with a company that makes bronze statues the cost to modify would be a fraction of the cost of a new statue. If the funds cannot be raised by a specific date, then the statue could be removed with county funding and stored. It would be up to the county to remove the “CSA” from the base. Any excess funds raised would go towards a Union memorial.
When the monument returns it can be re-dedicated, not as a confederate monument, but to the men who rose against the Constitutional abuses committed against Maryland and her citizens. The purpose is to not only separate this monument from symbols of hate but to separate it from the confederacy, it’s cause and from any perceived intent of malice during the time of its original placement.
I envision a permanent plaque which would state why this monument is here along with Maryland’s and Talbot’s history during the conflict. It could include General Tilghman’s order to his militia warning that Maryland was being occupied against her will and to prepare for deployment to protect her citizens. That members of our legislature, a congressman and other elected officials were arrested by Lincoln due to their political views. It could mention Judge Carmichael who in this very courthouse was pistol whipped and drug from his bench by Federal troops for attempting to enforce the Constitutional protections of his citizens. It would mention the arrest and imprisonment of the editor of the Easton Star and how our militia’s guns and munitions were confiscated from the Easton Armory. It would state how our press was censored, vote suppressed and how Talbot countians feared imprisonment if they were suspected of harboring different political views. It would also state how Lincoln instructed his top commander to bombard our cities if Marylander’s rose against him. It could end with a quote from Douglass stating how deeds and not just verbiage is required to protect citizens liberties.
If you have followed these debates and have learned something about Maryland’s history that you have never heard before, then that is exactly why we need a monument remembering what happened to Maryland during that time. It is becoming apparent that with events we see every morning in the news history could very well repeat itself.
The corrected message of this monument would imply that our Constitutional rights and liberties are not given to us by our government but are secured by the sacrifices of our citizens. That at one time in our history our government denied Marylanders the rights and liberties which most now take for granted. That it has always been up to our citizens, through great efforts and sacrifice, to affect change in our government and it rests upon their shoulders to take action when our government oppresses us.
Such a monument would be unique not just in Maryland but throughout the Nation. It would provide positive exposure towards Talbot County and set an example of how our citizens came together to remove symbols of racism while at the same time protecting and cherishing our history.
Paul Callahan
Oxford
Dominic Terrone says
Paul, I’ve seen some extraordinary distortions and misrepresentations of fact in my time, but your most recent letter takes the cake.
Your over the top claims of the “greatest crushing of civil liberties” against a free people is utterly Lost Cause-inspired. Lincoln opposed slavery and that caused the deep south to frantically secede. If you’ve read “Crisis of Fear” by Stephen Channing, you’d understand this. I suppose for the minority of secessionists, Lincoln made it difficult for the secessionists’ actions aimed at undermining the state of Maryland’s decision to remain in the Union. Unionist leaders strongly supported Lincoln and very likely worked with him to control the secessionists. Lincoln was meeting often with Governor Hicks, John Garrett of the B&O RR, and other Baltimore’s business and civic leaders But for the majority of Talbot County residents, the US government was actually protecting the state from the treasonous actions of a wealthy, powerful minority of secessionists, some of whom were already in confederate uniforms and others who did everything possible to ram their political agenda down the throagts of the majority. They could not and would not acknowledge the democratic rule of law. Did you miss that or are you simply ignoring it because your entire line of distortion relies upon making Abraham Lincoln the great tryrant – the very essence of the abased Lost Cause myth distortions. Those distortions are the very basis of Lost Cause falsehoods and exaggerations that allow so many Marylanders to buy into this excuse for Maryland confederates’ behavior. Its time to blow this junk history out of the water.
You should be aware and acknowledge that the true tyranny occured in Talbot County when the minority of secessionists declared martial law and claimed Talbot as a confederate stronghold, threatening individual Unionists and prohibiting the free people of Talbot County from gathering or speaking out against the confederacy. This was in late April, 1861 as this state was deciding not to secede. You have made no note of this in this county. Why? Do you want to sweep it under the rug ? Does it belie your Lost Cause narrative about Lincoln? Your dear local confederate leaders perpetrated this ugly aggression against the majority in Talbot County. These men chose to disrespect their fellow citizens and their state. Further, men like General Tilghman willfully chose to organize militarily on behalf of the confederacy and levy a tax on the people to pay for it – ebven as he served as the state’s military leader in the county. Beyond that, the secessionist militia that Tilghman had been leader had long been ready to support the confederacy when the time came. The actions of Lincoln had not yet occurred before most of these men had left for the their confederate service, just as Bradley Johnston’s Frederick-based secessionist militia had abandoned their state via Harper’s Ferry.
When Union troops arrived in Talbot in mid-June, 1861, they came to disarm the secessionist militia – and rightly so. They arrested Tilghman and rightly so. They could have arrested many other secessionist fringleaders as well but did not. Men like The Star’s editor Robson continued their volatile secessionist falsehoods for another year before their subversive activities were halted. I don’t think it was so oppressive for Talbot’s slave holders as they made considerable profits from selling their produce to feed Union armies and Baltimore’s efforts to defeat the confederacy. And many of them were paid $300 each for slaves they were allowed to sell to Union officers to ecome Union soldiers and sailors. Did you know that? Did you forget? Or did you want to sweep that under the rug, too?
Your effort to dismiss my original response as trivia was, I believe, your attempt to dismiss the many aspects of your Lost Cause fallacies.
Your letters read like the Sons of Confederate Veterans web site. What you consider trivia is actually strong evidence of truth and reality. The Union Army could indeed claim a moral basis for its actions. They were fighting against slavery because slavery was the prime reason for secession and war. One side could claim it was fighting for the sanctity of marriage, for the sanctity of family and against the terrible brutality of slavery. The confederates supported those inhuman aspects of slavery – in the name of twisted Christianity. You should read “Gospel of Disunion” by Mitchell Snay. It describes how the clergy in the deep south literally broke away from their national organizations over slavery at the behest of their overlords, the planter aristocracy. If you want to get some better perspectives on common confederate soldiers’ attitudes toward blacks, read “Marching Masters” by Colin Woodward. Clearly average poor white non-slaveholders feared abolition under the influence of anti-abolitionists like Rev. James Furman of SC. If you’ve read McPherson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom”, you’d know what I’m writing about.
You would have known that secessionists’ claim of the legality of secession is BS if you knew about the Hartford Convention, the Nullification Crisis and the Compromise of 1850, in each case, southern leaders condemned secession as a state right and/or indicated non-support for fellow slave states threatening to secede.
Confederate Marylanders who participated in the invasions of Maryland and Pennsylvania sought to kill their fellow Marylanders who were faithful to their state and country. They sought to destroy property, steal livestock, destroy infrsatructure and otherwise do damage to their state. There is no reason whatsoever to honor these men. They were paroled as the war ended but their acts against their fellow citizens should be forgiven but never forgotten, and certainly not honored on public property such as our county court house.grounds.
Paul Callahan says
Mickey, you still just don’t get it. I have not even spoken in any way on behalf of the confederacy… but you keep going on and on and on about the confederacy and your lost cause theory. I don’t care one iota about the confederacy, its cause or your theories about such. Can you PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN. Can you not just read my words and maybe gain a little insight and understanding?
What I care about is the Constitution of the United States. That is why I spent my younger years climbing into a F/A -18 fighter being shot off the pointy end of a floating runway and not seeing my children for 6 months at a time. You see I believe in our Constitution and what it stands for. I believe in a free society for all, and that is why I risked my ass. When that Constitution is taken from us we better darn well hope there are Americans who will stand and fight for those values. I am confident there will be, and it will be men an woman of all orientations and races who will. I am also certain it would not be you since you will think it all a “myth”.
It appears you have quickly attempted to catch up on Maryland history, but it seems only to support your pre-conceived biases and notions. In past writings I clearly showed your complete lack of knowledge of our State’s history. I apologize for previously stating you were an army Officer when you were not. That is unfortunate since you would have been trained on unlawful orders and that as an Officer we protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. That we are directed not to follow unlawful orders and to take positive action to prevent crimes against humanity.
So let’s go back to a previous post where I personally challenged you to show all of us the Constitutionality of Lincoln’s direction to his top commander to bombard our civilians if Maryland resisted. You failed to do that, in fact you completely ignored that. You stated that you didn’t believe it true, nor did you believe Lincoln had members of the Maryland Legislature and our US congressman jailed. You thought it all a “myth.”
Let me explain something that I don’t think you understand. Our founding Fathers attempted to create a form of government that would not turn against and abuse her citizens. To do this they separated the power onto three branches installing checks and balances. The idea was to prevent any President from consolidating too much power upon himself – he would be kept in check. As a backstop they added the 2nd Amendment “a well regulated militia being necessary for a free State…”
In his actions towards Maryland this system failed miserably. Lincoln took powers he did not Constitutionally have, he took powers reserved only for Congress, he ignored the judicial branch, and he immediately neutralized Maryland’s militias. Many things he did against Maryland were blatantly unconstitutional with his authorization to bombard our cites to keep her submissive the most grievous. This is not “myth” this was our history. Our Constitution however, has one last and final check against tyranny and that is the people. When Mr. Lincoln authorized the killing of innocent men, women and children to keep Maryland submissive he was no longer protecting and acting within the Constitution. He was no longer the National President for Marylanders and our men had the Constitutional right to resist.
So before you attempt to justify all these actions by Lincoln attempting to abolish the evils of slavery, why don’t you first read Lincoln’s inauguration speech he gave just six weeks before he authorized the bombardment of Maryland cities. That will tell you exactly where Mr Lincoln stood on slavery at that time. Do you not think the men of Talbot read Lincoln’s words where he stated that he had no intention, purpose or lawful right to interfere with slavery?
Slavery, white supremacy, racism, and prejudice are evils – I have said that many times. Government oppression is also an evil. The historical evidence is overwhelming that the men from Talbot were not motivated by slavery but by the oppression of their liberties, their democracy and their homeland.