In 1914 the Talbot County Commissioners agreed to accept both the confederate and Union memorials on the courthouse lawn to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the US Civil War. Unfortunately, the monument to the Union men was never built. Priority of funding for Talbot’s memorial hospital and the advent of World War I kept that project from being completed. The Talbot Boys monument was meant to have its sister (Union) monument adjacent to it and placed in the position of honor.
The Talbot Boys monument was designed and built with its flag in the ceremonial position of surrender to give the proper respect and honor to both the Union men and to the flag of the United States if the final design of the Union monument included such. Though the Talbot Boys is not displayed with the context in which the project was envisioned – next to the Union monument, the citizens of that time did not need such context. One hundred years ago our citizens were multi-generational families that knew full well the terrible crisis Maryland and Talbot County citizens faced during that great conflict.
We again are facing the question of the Talbot Boys. However, today our citizens know extraordinarily little of that history or the crisis Marylanders faced. Though the monument has not changed, our citizens have, and some are promoting a vastly different narrative.
Today’s argument against the Talbot Boys is significantly different than recent past arguments. The accusations are no longer centered on the context of “telling the whole story” or on the display of objectionable symbols. The narrative now is against the men themselves – our Talbot County ancestors.
This has become an ongoing attack against Maryland and Talbot County history. Accusations are made that the only reason the monument was placed is to oppress, and the only reason our Talbot ancestors rose was for an immoral purpose. Maryland is portrayed as if she were a deep Southern State that seceded from the Union. Simply put it is a false narrative that our history is based on a belief that our citizens were solely motivated by malice and oppression towards people of color – it excludes and denies all other motivations and historical facts. Well and thoroughly researched articles from concerned citizens about our history are simply denied and dismissed as “myth”.
This false narrative has caused a great stir amongst our citizens, particularly those from multi-generational Maryland ancestry. Though Maryland’s Civil War history has also faded with them, many have an innate understanding passed down through the generations, that Maryland and Talbot County had a totally unique and different experience during that conflict.
The “Preserve Talbot History” coalition has been formed under a single guiding principle – Truth. Our motto is “Truth Shall be the Beacon to which We All are Drawn.” We believe truth should be our common ground in which we all can come together. The enormous upwelling of support we have received in such a short period of time can not be overstated. Two hundred of our yard signs that announce our mission have been placed by our members in approximately ten days. We are being contacted by citizens from all over our County giving us their support. We are also hearing that some of our citizens have feared voicing their opinions.
To forward our mission we are working diligently, not just to preserve our history, but to ensure our history is displayed and told with proper context, inclusiveness, and sensitivity to all groups in our County. This means telling the story of not only our Union soldiers, but also the incredible story of Talbot’s black citizens who fought for their Country in the regiments of the United States Colored Troops (USCT). We also want to focus on Maryland’s and Talbot County’s history by telling our shared story of the great crushing of Maryland’s Civil Rights and the Constitutional violations Maryland faced during that conflict. We have reached out to our local NAACP chapter to join with us on this quest.
The mission to preserve our history and provide proper context does not rest with the display of historical monuments. Our citizens must be given a means to learn our shared history so they can be empowered to discern truth from the accusations now portrayed. To accomplish this, we have launched the website www.preservetalbothistory.org. Within this website our citizens can read the actual Petitions and Proclamations published by our State Legislature during that crisis. They can read the actual words from our Governor and see the Legislative journal that records the arrest of the Maryland’s Legislature. They can review the written authorization Mr. Lincoln gave to his military to bombard Maryland’s civilians. Through these historical documents our citizens can learn of the Constitutional crisis Maryland faced through the actual words of the historical figures themselves.
Our website also hosts the Proclamations of President Lincoln and the US Congress stating the nature and intent of the war. We have included Mr. Lincoln’s proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would have forever protected slavery in our Nation. A narrative from the US Library of Congress that explains exactly what the Emancipation Proclamation did and when it did it is presented. Through these historical documents our citizens will come to understand the great Constitutional crisis our Nation faced, and more importantly, the specific Constitutional crisis faced by Marylanders. Through these documents they will come to understand why President Lincoln raised any army to re-unite the States and the incredible forces and events that impacted the people of Maryland.
We ask all our citizens, particularly our elected officials, to join us in the rejection of the inappropriate narrative promoted by a few and to join us in the pursuit of Truth. We desire our citizens to come together, as a community, to tell our unique and joint history to be displayed and preserved under the guiding principle – That Truth Shall be the Beacon to which We All are Drawn.
Preserve Talbot History Coalition
Talbot County
Katherine Tillman says
My Letter published in SD on 1/31/21
A Vote for Unity Monument
Another opportunity for healing and healthy compromise is being presented with the upcoming resolution before the Talbot County Council regarding the Talbot Boys. The suggestion of a unity monument is again being discussed and at this particular time with a country divided, angry and frustrated, it presents the occasion for a new and more positive discussion going forward.
The history surrounding the Talbot Boys is unexplored by many and exploited by some. But it is not a time for past civil strife to be erased from American history. It is the shared history of the country and not solely of a unique group. History serves to remind us, with some degree of accuracy, of times past and warn us of future dangers to be avoided. Symbols of past wars and lives lost bring sorrow to any rational being. But isn’t that the value of history? The fact that we, as a country, honor and value life and liberty is something to be revered. To simply remove the Talbot Boys statue would certainly leave a reminder of a divided community -a painful and unnecessary scar. To replace the existing symbol with a show of unity and highlighting the community’s perseverance in finding a solution to an ongoing controversy would speak volumes about the people of Talbot County coming together and the richness of joining efforts for a positive cause to be celebrated together.
It is painful to hear political arguments from afar when there is indeed a local decision to be made. The value of history is profound to many but not to all, especially those responding to the political winds. It is Talbot County history and our decision whether we compromise for a unity monument or the perpetuation of more division.
Katherine Tillman
Easton, MD
Judy Wixted says
We cannot read the minds of the men and women who placed a Confederate Monument on our courthouse lawn, nor do we need to, because the issue is that in 2021, no Confederate Monument belongs in front of the Talbot County Courthouse. We need to move forward and move the monument.
Sheryl C Southwick says
I’m all for the preservation of history. However, it should be complete. Is there a movement to build the once proposed Union memorial which was to be in the position of honor? “The Talbot Boys monument was meant to have its sister (Union) monument adjacent to it and placed in the position of honor.”
Seems the Confederate veterans were more highly regarded than the Union veterans, since the priority was to build that monument first. The Confederacy lost the war. If the Talbot Boys monument is incomplete without it as described in this article, that should be rectified so that people would, immediately upon viewing the monuments together, get the full picture – that Talbot County was full of dedicated warriors on both sides. Without the Union memorial the Talbot Boys is not a complete monument.
The Talbot Boys would be better placed in a non-prominent position or in a history museum, instead of in front of the courthouse where all citizens of the U.S. are to get fair treatment. The Talbot Boys so proudly in front of the Courthouse may indicate to some that the Confederacy still reigns in the hearts and minds of Talbot citizens, since the Union “sister monument” is not there.
paul says
Shery, On the website mentioned wwww.preservetalbothistory.org the Preserve Talbot History coalition states that the history both of union men and that of the US Colored Troops from Talbot also needs to be told. I think if you look in the “Principles” section of that website it states about building a monument to the Union side and gives particular mention to honoring the black citizens of Talbot who served as USCT. I believe the call for a unity monument would resolve what you wisely stated above but goes even further, it would honor all Talbot Countians on both sides, white and black. It certainly would give much better context, but additionally narrative markers could also be used to provide additional context. I think that is an incredibly great idea.
Brenda says
Hm. What percentage of your Preserve Talbot History Coalition members are African American?
Paul says
I believe the article is about seeking Truth. Truth neither has nor sees race, so why would you ask such a question?
Brenda says
If this coalition does not have support from African-American descendants of ‘multi-generational Maryland families,’ then it’s a glaring red flag that the coalition isn’t the objective, fair, or neutral gatekeeper of the full breadth of Talbot Civil War history that it claims.
Gene Lopez says
My understanding of Maryland history is that most Marylanders, white and black, supported the United States of America and fought to preserve the Union. A smaller number of Maryland citizens decided that they agreed with the traitors who seceded to form the Confederate States. Consequently, some 4,000 or so Marylanders engaged in treason, and either joined other Confederate States’ armies or formed their own army to fight against the USA.
The traitors lost the war. In many countries, when traitors are vanquished, monuments to such traitors are not placed in prominent and important locations, like Courthouses and public squares, especially when such traitors sought to ensure the continuation of enslaving fellow humans. I agree that the true history of the Civil War should be preserved, taught, and remembered by all of us. Civil War history has important lessons for us today.
A monument that glorifies traitors though is not preserving history. It is more an attempt to whitewash a terrible moment in the USA’s history. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any rational, 21st Century American would support a monument to traitors.
Paul says
The war has been over for over 150 years, but since you seem a bit passionate, their is a wonderful resource where you can easily learn about the Constitutional crisis Maryland faced during that terrible war. Please visit http://www.preservetalbothistory.org to learn and discover our history that very few have ever heard about.
Michael Estrella says
I had recently begun to notices those tiny blue signs saying PRESERVE TALBOT HISTORY popping up on Rt 33. At first they were easy to miss, hidden as they were in the shadow created by the larger TRUMP/PENCE campaign signs. But today I noticed that one of the final remaining TRUMP signs has bitten the dust so to speak, leaving in its wake the tiny blue Square. Perhaps now that the sun can get to it, it will grow to a normal sized readable sign. Oh, and NO, I am not claiming that everyone with a tiny blue sign in there yard had a TRUMP sign in their yard…just the ones I noticed.
David McQuay says
Let me know if I can help. One of my distant relatives, Reuben McQuay is listed on the monument.
Clive Ewing says
Mr. McQuay – thank you for supporting the Preserve Talbot History coalition. It was great speaking with you the other day!
Eva M. Smorzaniuk, M.D. says
The supporters of keeping the Talbot Boys keep referring to the Constitutional crisis that occurred in Talbot County and Maryland during the civil war. I agree that that part of our history should be known and remembered, along with all the other parts. However, linking this event to the erection of the Talbot Boys monument is a bit of a stretch. Ours was not the only statue in the USA exalting the “lost cause” of the Confederacy. Enough time had passed for the true, harsh, memories of the War to be white-washed, sugar-coated, and fed back to the populace as an alternate reality to cast the Confederacy in a more romanticized light. The 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson upholding the concept of “separate but equal” set the stage for ever increasing marginalization of Blacks. In the early 20th century, the height of the Jim Crow era, racial segregation laws had been passed, the KKK flourished, and lynchings occurred. This was the social consciousness that existed 50 years after the end of the Civil War. And it was in this time that the idea of the Talbot Boys monument, and the idea of placing it on the courthouse grounds, was conceived. The monument is the direct result of whites who chose to rewrite history, and whose desire was the continued systematic suppression of black people.
Paul says
The historical record does not support your assertion for this monument. Additionally, the erection of Union monuments also peaked at the Civil War’s 50th anniversary which was also during the Jim Crow years, so are you saying they should be torn down also? Are you stating that every monument built in that 100 year span should be torn down just because it was the Jim Crow era? We need a bit more evidence than that please. How about something about the Talbot Boys specifically?
Anne Stalfort says
Thank you, Eva. This is getting ridiculous and embarrassing. A monument that glorifies (that’s the purpose of a monument) men who fought for the Confederacy has no place on public property. My ancestors fought and died for the Confederacy. Not something I am proud of. And one more thing: please County Council, don’t you dare pretend to honor Black History month if you can’t even get rid of the symbol of the enslavement of Blacks that remains in the Courthouse Square.
paul says
Dr. Smorzaniuk, Dr. David Graham just did an interesting presentation concerning Civil War Maryland as part of the CBMM winter series program. Some points that he made, that we all should understand, is that some memorials were only meant to honor those who served and have nothing to do with other causes. Dr Graham also addressed the question if the suspension of civil liberties and Habeas Corpus in Maryland, along with the beating of Judge Carmichael, was a motivation. He fully agreed that there is no doubt that some Marylanders were motivated by the events within Maryland. At the end he recommends that each community that is dealing with a monument come together jointly to evaluate the historical context of their particular monument. He recommends that all stakeholders be involved in that discussion. I think this is good insight and advice.
Lynn says
The Talbot Boys statue was not erected to exalt the “lost cause” of the Confederacy. Read the Maryland and Talbot County history, including but not limited to: “T-934 Easton Confederate Monument”, Maryland Historical Trust: “[a]t the Battle of Gettysburg, the Union’s First Eastern Shore Regiment included men of Trappe’s Company H, who were sent to Culp’s Hill on July 3, 1863. There they fought troops of the First Maryland Confederate Regiment, which also included men from the Trappe area. The color sergeants for each side were cousins, both from Trappe: Robert W. Ross for the Union and P. M. Moore, fatally wounded, for the Confederates. The monument was sponsored by a committee formed in 1913 [the 50th anniversary of that Battle], chaired by Gen. Joseph B. Stein [sic Seth]. After consideration of a statue of local Adm. Franklin Buchanan, it was agreed to honor “all the boys in gray.” The base was erected in July 1914; the statue was dedicated in June, 1916. Efforts in 1914 to raise funds for a Union monument were unsuccessful.”
As for Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark case which upheld racial segregation – the “separate but equal” doctrine – it was a 7-1 decision (a newly appointed justice recused himself). 6 of the 7 judges were Northerns. The “lost cause” narrative and Jim Crow were promulgated by the “Dunning School”, by Professor William Archibald Dunning of Columbia University in New York City (he was born in Princeton NJ), The Dunning School was influential until the early 1950’s. Many Southerners (and some Northerners) took PhDs in History under Dunning and returned to the South for academic careers, where they dominated the major history departments. Their interpretation of post-Civil War Reconstruction was the dominant theory taught in American universities through much of the first half of the 20th century. The Dunning school condemned Reconstruction “as a conspiracy by vindictive radical Republicans to subjugate southern whites at bayonet point, using federal troops to prop up corrupt state regimes led by an unholy trinity of carpetbaggers, scalawags and freedmen”. So it wasn’t General Seth or the veterans of the confederacy who rewrote history or “exalted” the “lost cause”. It was the predominant academic view of the time emanating from the North.
However, General Seth and his committee sought to commemorate their local comrades who fought in the “War that Forged a Nation” As historian James MacPherson, perhaps the preeminent historian of the Civil War, wrote in his book The War That Forged a Nation, our current debates over federal authority, voting rights, citizenship and racial progress are difficult to understand without coming to terms with the 19th century conflict that tore the country apart and the war, which, as a consequence, freed 4 million slaves and led to constitutional amendments guaranteeing their rights as citizens. Some historians have viewed the Civil War as the completion of the American Revolution and the beginning of our modern nation.
The premier goal of the Preserve Talbot History coalition is to facilitate the completion and creation of a Civil War Unity Memorial: augment the existing statue by adding a Union soldier adjacent to the existing Confederate soldier. Build up rather than tear down. Commemorate ALL who fought to forge a nation. A Unity Memorial fulfills the original approval by the County Council in 1913 – 14 – a confederate and a union statue – which would include memorializing the USCT and in particular the Unionville 18. Why should recognition of them be segregated to only Unionville? Talbot County should, like Kent County, pay tribute to all of our county’s civil war history.
Finally, a Unity Memorial is consistent with the goal Talbot County branch NAACP President Richard Potter posted on the “Move the Confederate Talbot Boys Monument” Facebook page on or about January 14, 2021, and I quote “[t]he present monument does nothing to depict the accuracy of the civil war. What about the Union soldiers? It’s the Move the monument coalition and the NAACP who is working to get the complete history preserved.” So is the Preserve Talbot History coalition. Doing so is consistent with our county motto “Tempus Praeteritim Et Futurum”: Times Past and Future.
paul says
Lynn, A wonderful and complete revelation of historical facts! Thank you so much for taking the time and participating in this conversation. Some people just don’t care about facts, so don’t be surprised if they attempt to find a way to disagree. (though I don’t how they could – on an intellectual level anyway).
Dan Watson says
Paul–
Your commitment to capital T Truth is laudable, but always so difficult, as if it is singular and one sided. Literature is full of stories about those who claim Truth to be their domain exclusively.
A number of reference materials about the Civil War are cited on your website, but I’m interested in the assertions made in your first two paragraphs–not because I am disputing them, but I’ve just never seen source materials and am anxious to do so to gain a full understanding. As to “the Commissioners agreed to accept…,” transcripts of meetings is too much to ask, and probably minutes too. Can you provide a link to whatever exists? Was the failure to erect a dominant statue to the Union seen as unfortunate then, or just unfortunate now?
WWI and Hospital funding were no doubt issues at the time, but beyond that is there some evidence showing cause and effect: that these were the reasons the Union monument was not funded? Some surmise that the wealthy and powerful in the County, Democrats all (the party expressly committed to White Supremacy at the time), funded the Talbot Boys more as a Jim Crow statement than anything (but who knows Truth?). The less wealthy, and certainly the black community at the time, perhaps were in no position to fund a monument…..especially if the core of the effort was not truly centered on honoring the deceased. But maybe there is clear evidence on this?
The lead sentence to the second paragraph I had to read twice, as at first I thought it was capital N News! The first clause could stand alone as a declarative sentence: “The Talbot Boys monument was designed and built with its flag in the ceremonial position of surrender to give the proper respect and honor to both the Union men and to the flag of the United States….” Had a period followed (as Sherry Southwick seems also to have read it), that would have implied the Talbot Boys Statue was designed with the INTENTION that it be subordinate to a Union monument– impactful news indeed! If there is a scintilla of evidence for that, I and many others would be anxious to review it.
But the sentence goers on: “…if the final design of the Union monument included such.” Such a big IF. Do you know if any designs were offered? Multiple designs but a “final” never settled upon? Can you show us anything at all about a proposed Union monument that bolsters the idea that the Confederate Monument was intended to be subordinate? Or does the first clause really just mean not that the TBS was designed with the INTENTION to be subordinate as you imply, but that it could have been made subordinate IF a Union monument 50% larger was placed beside and forward of it–no doubt with the names of African American soldiers prominently displayed. Ha! Many would be anxious to see whatever evidence exists, absent which this idea seems to be a post hoc argument fabricated out of whole cloth.
The second point I would address has to do with your accusation that we who oppose the Talbot Boys Statue remaining in a place of honor on the Courthouse lawn are claiming that the “ONLY reason” this, and the “ONLY reason” that. I have argued, and continue to argue, that the monument stands for Jim Crow and has little to do with the Civil War per se. Motivations are very often mixed, and, in the case in point, naming Talbot’s Confederate soldiers (traitors to the Union every one) was indeed a way for their progeny to honor those men–and it felt good, no doubt. But, with its bold inscription “CSA”, did that monument not simultaneously proclaim to all that saw it then and now, that here in Talbot County, on the Courthouse lawn, we honor not just individuals, but a system that holds a portion of the community in deep subjugation. A mixed motivation sure, but the second element disqualifies that monument from any right to stand in a place of honor on our public grounds. And I acknowledge I have no proof of that motivation–nor have you proof to the contrary. We are trying to evaluate history–not 1865, but 1915.
And how often must those of us calling for the removal of this monument from a place of honor say we are not attacking, erasing, or denying history? The issue is the HONOR of the thing, being countenanced on the Courthouse lawn. That monument was dishonorable in 1916 when Jim Crow was ascendent. But those were different times for which we are not responsible. But times have changed, Jim Crow is as dead as the institution of slavery, and we are responsible for our actions–or inactions–today. Letting the Talbot Boys remain in a place of honor on our Courthouse lawn dishonors Talbot County and all of us who call it home. It must be moved.
Dan Watson
Easton
paul says
Dan, Thank you for the discussion. It is important to understand that it is not “my” article and certainly not “my” website. Many Talbot citizens are involved in both. I am glad that you are interested in source documents since they are very important. Our website hosts the actual County Council minutes concerning the history of Talbot’s Civil War memorials. You may not recall but Mr. Pack had the county attorney research this and present his findings to the County council before Mr. Pack voted to keep the monument in 2016. Those actual minutes with that testimony are on the website for you, and everyone else who is interested, to review.
As for the position of the Talbot Boys flag – it is what it is, and I would refer you to the US Flag manual.
As for proof of motivation – yes we know citizens from Talbot had participated in a Joint Union & Confederate association to begin monuments for both sides. You need to check back with our website often since that may not be published yet. We also know that the erection of both confederate and Union monuments peaked at the 50th anniversary of the Civil War.
I would refer you to my remarks to Dr. Smorzaniuk above where Dr. Graham in his presentation for the CBMM, fully acknowledged that many monument were just to honor the men and for no other reason. He also state that many Maryland men were motivated by the events happening in Maryland.
As a final note which you may or may not recall, a month or two ago you published an article wherein you totally misstated the purpose and intent of the Emancipation Proclamation and which I pointed such out to you in my comments. (which I recall you acknowledged that fact) This is not to ding you personally but to make the point that many (Including you in that article) just don’t have a understanding of some very important historical events or documents. That is a main purpose of the website – to inform. Please visit http://www.preservetalbothistory.org to lean more about what you asked above and check back often since we update it almost daily as original source documents are uncovered.
Eva M. Smorzaniuk says
I would refer members of PTH to a more recent academic document. The Statement on Confederate Monuments approved by the American Historical Association (www.historians.org) in 2017 acknowledges that the abundance of monument building took place in the early 20th century to commemorate the “redemption of the South after Reconstruction”. It also states that this was “part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South…to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life.” It also comments on the more recent wave of confederate commemoration during the civil rights movement in the mid 20th century. And, all too recently, we have seen the resurgence of the Confederate flag as a symbol of white supremacy in Charleston, and even in our nation’s capitol. Symbols matter today as much as they did in 1916!
Also, in response to Paul’s comment to consult a “flag manual” – please specify which one? As far as I know it is disrespectful to drape a flag over ones shoulders, as it is not to be treated as an article of clothing.
paul says
Dr. Smorzaniuk, I would refer you to chapter 8 of Dr. Ibram X Kendi’s book “How to be an Antiracist” where he states that you don’t judge an individual by the group. This certainly would apply in this case and would apply whether you judging a single person or a single monument.
Dan Watson says
Paul–
I don’t recall writing anything about the Emancipation Proclamation in connection with TBS or otherwise–but remind me if I’ve simply forgotten. I last wrote about the TBS here-https://talbotspy.org/op-ed-to-understand-the-statue-watch-birth-of-a-nation-by-dan-watson/–and you commented, but not to correct me on the chronology of the Emancipation.
I’m curious about something Paul. The passionate resolve of the “Preserve Talbot History” group seems at least as committed to that monument remaining exactly where it is, untouched, as to the monument itself.
First, is that true? If yes, then can you tell me why that is? Here is a thought-experiment: picture some benefactor comes up with a plan to create a prominent, first class Talbot History display of which that granite and bronze piece is a central part–supplemented by a host of other materials delving into so many other fascinating aspects of Talbot History. Judge Carmichael’s story for instance! Assume the TBS is not demeaned in any manner, just moved from the Courthouse lawn. What do you think the “Preserve Talbot History” group would think of that? What do you think personally?
I’m sure you know many see this not as zero sum; I, for one, want to both Move the Monument and Preserve Talbot History. “Both/and,” not “either/or.”
DW
Paul says
Dan, It is obvious by your comments that you haven’t reviewed the website’s content and the principles which we have published. I am very disappointed that you have not. You regularly write and people read what you say, but just as you misstated the Emancipation Proclamation, you need to do some basic due diligence before hand or our citizens will view you as non credible. Though you do not remember your past article we do.
paul says
Dan, The “passionate resolve” you refer to is a commitment to historical truth and accuracy and to move forward to honor all who served. This means our citizens who fought for the Union and those that served in the USCT regiments. This is listed on the Preserve Talbot History website. Had you taken a few minutes to review that site you would have realized this already.
As a veteran my personal view is if you make accusations against past veterans you better have better evidence than what you and other’s have presented – such as what movie was playing at the time, which you presented.
Dan Watson says
Enough.
Paul, I have several regrets here. I regret having expected answers to straight questions, none predicated on a false premise (e.g., “When did you stop beating your wife?”). Mostly I regret entering into this exchange, as if volleying comments with the spokesman of a group who claims an exclusive understanding of TRUTH could be other than a waste of time. I’ve may have embarrassed myself, as I hope readers would have expected better of me. Being patronized is the least of my concerns.
I resist going on–that’s been my problem, eh?
DW