The Talbot County Council must move the Confederate monument from the grounds of the courthouse.
That is a necessary first step toward resolving a controversy that has been facing the council since at least 2015 and to recognize Talbot’s full history, which has included slavery, white supremacy, segregation, and racism.
In the past five years, the county council has voted three times against measures to move the statue dedicated in 1916 to the men from Talbot County who fought against the United States of America in the Civil War:
- in 2015, after a white supremacist killed nine people at an historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C.;
- in 2017, after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., left one counter-protester dead; and
- in 2020, amid the rising calls for racial equality during protests against police brutality against minorities.
One could argue that the issue actually has been broiling since 2004, when the county council narrowly approved the construction of a monument honoring Frederick Douglass.
In what should have been a no-brainer, council members dithered over the best site to honor Douglass as some argued the courthouse lawn was “sacred grounds” upon which only veterans should be remembered.
It also must be noted that the erection of the Douglass statue was to honor Talbot’s greatest native son, not to somehow provide balance to the Confederate monument. Because that is what statues and monuments are for — to honor those represented, not to give viewers a history lesson — despite the arguments across the nation that destroying or moving monuments erases history.
Since the county council voted 3-2 last summer against removing the Confederate monument, a majority of members have declined to meet with the local NAACP chapter and faith leaders to discuss the issue. Despite that, the monument’s removal has been a predominant topic for those calling in to council meetings to offer public comments.
On one side are those who argue that the monument honors those who fought to preserve slavery and white supremacy and should be moved off the courthouse lawn, where it sits in a place of honor just outside the entrance to the Talbot County Circuit Court.
Opponents also argue that having a Confederate battle flag — a symbol of racism and white supremacy — outside the courthouse suggests to African-Americans that they will not get equal justice there.
On the other side are those who argue that the monument honors those who fought against the tyranny of the federal government — particularly in Maryland — during the war and that the monument is history and should remain where it is on public property.
The current debate has pitted cousin against cousin, much like the Civil War divided some families among those who supported and fought for the United States of America and those who supported and fought for the Confederate States of America.
As we discuss the war and the Talbot Confederate monument, we must keep key facts in mind and also acknowledge what we don’t know.
The cause of the Civil War
One of the most important facts we know is that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery.
The Confederacy was formed in order to preserve and extend the institution of African-American chattel slavery.
There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that fact. The historical record makes it clear. Historians largely agree. Many of the seceding states made it clear in their articles of secession. The Confederacy spelled it out in the Articles of Confederacy and in the “Cornerstone” speech made by the Confederate vice president.
With the election of Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States, the Southern states feared that slavery — the foundation of the region’s economy and its white supremacist society — would be ended.
As a result of that fear, Southern slave-holding states made a violent, unconstitutional attempt to leave the Union.
Why did Talbot’s rebels fight for the Confederacy?
We don’t know.
We do know — based on a review of Census data and war records — that a number of Talbot’s Confederates were slaveholders, with several having connections to Wye House, the plantation that enslaved more than 1,000 people during its peak.
Those enslaved at Wye House included a young Frederick Douglass; former Confederate President Jefferson Davis visited and stayed there in 1867.
he Preserve Talbot History group claims that Talbot’s Confederates were motivated by the unconstitutional wartime actions of Lincoln and his subordinates.
According to that group, Talbot’s Confederates are different from other Confederate soldiers due to what happened in Maryland and the county during the Civil War, including the imprisonment of Confederate sympathizers and the beating and arrest of Talbot’s judge.
But that is just their opinion. There is no evidence as to why a number of Talbot men — far fewer than those who fought for the nation — decided to leave their homes and do battle against the United States.
We do not have their letters or diaries explaining their reasons to join the Confederacy.
But we know from the work of Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson in For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War — based on a review of more than 25,000 personal letters and 250 diaries — that “white supremacy and the right of property in slaves were at the core of the ideology for which Confederate soldiers fought.” (p. 106)
According to Wikipedia, “McPherson states that the Confederates did not discuss the issue of slavery as often as Union soldiers did, because most Confederate soldiers readily accepted as an obvious fact that they were fighting to perpetuate slavery, and thus did not feel a need to debate over it:
“‘[O]nly 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries. As one might expect, a much higher percentage of soldiers from slaveholding families than from nonslaveholding families expressed such a purpose: 33 percent, compared with 12 percent. Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was greater…. There is a ready explanation for this apparent paradox. Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern ‘rights’ and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.‘ — James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (1997), pp. 109–110″
It could be reasonably inferred that Talbot’s slaveholding Confederates fought for the same reason as most Confederates — to preserve slavery.
Failed comparison
One monument supporter even went so far in a call to the county council as to suggest the Confederate monument here is comparable to the preservation of Nazi concentration camps in Germany as a way to preserve history and ensure its atrocities aren’t repeated.
Other monument supporters have made the same ludicrous argument, not understanding or recognizing the difference between a statue meant to honor people and the preservation of sites that remind us of the horrors of the Holocaust.
The Confederate monument does not remind us of the horrific nature of slavery and the tremendous loss of thousands of innocent lives at the hands of white supremacists.
The current monument only serves to honor those men listed on its base, without any historical interpretation of their actions. It is a participation trophy as much as anything.
Unlike other war monuments on the courthouse lawn, which lists the local men who died in those conflicts, the Confederate monument lists the names of anyone with a connection to Talbot County who served in the military of the Confederate States of America. Those names include some men who were born here but had moved away before the war, as well as nearly a dozen men who moved to Talbot County after the war.
Certainly those Confederates from other states were not motivated by the “federal tyranny” in Maryland. They were fighting to maintain slavery.
A more fitting reminder of the evil of slavery — as suggested by Bishop Joel Johnson and others — would be interpretive panels at the site of the Confederate monument detailing the slave auctions that were held there on the courthouse lawn, the families that were torn apart, the thousands of people sent to be enslaved, raped, tortured, and killed.
Rather than honoring the Confederates who were born in Talbot County or moved here after the war with a participation trophy on the courthouse lawn, we need to recognize the full, true history of race relations in the county.
To do so, we must first remove the Confederate monument from the courthouse lawn. Then we can begin discussions on the best way to remember Talbot County’s involvement in the Civil War — and the county’s history of slavery, white supremacy, racism, and segregation.
This commentary was updated on February 27 for clarification.
John Griep is the public affairs editor for the Spy Newspapers. A native of Caroline County, John has spent more than 25 years as a reporter and editor covering Talbot County and the Mid-Shore, including county and town governments, courts, police, planning and zoning, business and real estate. He is a graduate of Washington College.
Henry Herr says
A great piece hitting the root of arguments on both sides. Thank you for this thoughtful concise piece.
Steve Shimko says
To the supporter of keeping the statue where it is who reportedly said “the Confederate monument here is comparable to the preservation of Nazi concentration camps in Germany as a way to preserve history and ensure its atrocities aren’t repeated”, I offer this.
The Nazi concentration camp memorials keep all of the horrors associated with them – the squalid living conditions; the gas chambers; the labs where horrific experiments were done on prisoners, to name just a few.
To be equivalent, the Talbot Boys memorial should be expanded to include other items that were part of the Lost Cause and the Jim Crow era (which is when the statue was erected), including a slave trading block, whipping post, noose hanging from a tree, a statue of a baby being torn from its mother’s arms to be sold, and maybe a depiction of a white hooded rider.
You know, all in the interest of historical accuracy.
Stephen Schaare says
Hi Steve, Pretty intense words. Well, in the interest of historical accuracy, as you say, would there also be a plaque reminding the public that the traders and hooded ones were all proud Democrats? For accuracy, you see.
P.R.Getson says
As I am sure you know, your reference to “proud Democrats” of the Jim Crow monument-erecting-era were the Southern democrats of the Southern Bloc. The Democratic party adopted its current name in the 1830s. In the 1840s and 50s the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the new Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories, most Northern disagreed. The party split in 1860 over the slavery issue. The Southern democrats then formed the powerful Southern Bloc which remained in control to 1930s. You were being facetious of course, but thankfully it sure would be hard to depict the now defunct SOUTHERN democrats…and even more an enigma why anyone would want to.
Steve Shimko says
Nice deflection, but I’m not the one running the “it’s history” flag up the flag pole and seeing who salutes. Or maybe you missed the sarcasm?
J. T. Smith says
John Griep offers the most thorough, thoughtful and persuasive analysis yet presented on this issue, which has occasioned much spilling of ink but pathetically no action. The argument that the Talbot Boys were fighting to vindicate Constitutional principle is risible and smacks of “States Rights” as a barrier to racial justice. Since three members of the County Council appear adamant in anachronistic opposition to removing the statue, the best remaining option should be removing at least one of the three, and preferably more, in the next election. The statue has blighted the courthouse for a century; another couple of years, while lamentable, would be tolerable.
Stephen Schaare says
J.T., Yes, when IS the next election? How long is the term of a council member? Now is the time to prepare at least two candidates. When is the next opening? Election? Ponder this: I’ll wager that whomever the next council member may (an opposition candidate) would have a decent chance of unseating Rep. Harris.
Gerry Early says
This is a great and much-needed discussion of the entire Talbot Boys issue.
Those who insist on keeping the monument at the courthouse keep dredging up a cherry-picked and distorted version of history. One that actually tries to make Lincoln (who I had thought was universally considered with Washington to be one of our two greatest presidents) into something of a bad guy for taking the steps necessary to save the Union.
In fact, none of that matters in 2021. Today, for good reason,the statue with Confederate flag at its present location is an affront and insult to our African American community–and therefore must be removed.
Tom McCall says
Good stuff! Well researched. I read every word.
I think of the Proud Boys unfurling old glory a month a ago at the Capitol and our Talbot Boy wrapped in the same emblem. The only difference is that our modern agitators are also using the US Flag as well. As if to hide that this isn’t really a white supremacy offensive.
Gren Whitman says
The so-called Talbot Boys statue is a running sore for Talbot County.
Because of the amoral majority on the county’s five-member board of commissioners, this neo-Confederate monument to slavery and white supremacy continues to be displayed directly in front of the courthouse in Easton.
This while so many other outdated and questionable totems in our nation are being unceremoniously removed. Case in point: Justice Roger Taney’s statue is gone from the Maryland State House. Another case in point: the double-equestrian statue of C.S.A. Generals Lee and Jackson is gone from Baltimore’s Wyman Park.
Some people in Talbot County want to salve this chronic sore on their body politic by putting up what they suggest might be a “unity” statue.
However, even die-hard defenders of the “Lost Cause” aren’t dim enough to argue there is a moral equivalence between chattel slavery and freedom, and between treason and patriotism.
Patricia Slagle says
I cannot believe some of my neighbors want to re-fight the Civil War by moving a statue. I don’t care how many so called “facts” you have one way or another, or how you “feel” about it.
It’s part of Talbot County and American history whether you like it or not. Don’t cause trouble. Leave it alone.
marian murphy says
John’s article is so well written and which gives us all the history and motives for erecting this monument to the confederacy. Now this monument only reflects the bigotry of who we are now. The fact that it’s still standing in front of our courthouse in 2021 is a reflection on who we are now and how we still accept the bigotry and hatred that it represents.
David Tull says
Don’t remove the statue it’s a part of the history of this
Great Nation.
P. Oliver says
Is it part of the history of the United States of America or of a group who tried to overthrow the United States and started a war that resulted in 620,000 deaths. It would seem that as a memorial to the Talbot Boys, a confederate group, it would be the latter. Not to mention what it says to Americans today, that as Marylanders and Americans we still continue to support the cause of the C.S.A.
P. Oliver says
I have never understood why any memorialization of the Confederate States of America exists anywhere in the United States of America. As a country we fought a horrible war over slavery and the C.S.A. lost. Where else in the world has the loser of a war been able to establish memorials to their cause and use names of their leaders on public buildings? The C.S.A. lost. As a country we decided that slavery is morally wrong yet we continue to fight over statues and names seemingly used to promote an ideology supported by the losing side. I know that I am naïve, prior to 2016 I actually believed that as a country we were making significant progress in the realization that all people are created equal, and should be treated as such. The vehemently strong opposition to removal of Confederate memorials seems to imply that we are still fighting the same war 150 years after it supposedly ended.
Stephen Schaare says
Hi P. Oliver, Remember , “all men are created equal” is an aspirational ideal. Be mindful of George Orwell, “1984”, where he reminded us: “all animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others”.
P. Oliver says
Stephen,
Can you clarify your comment please? Remember , “all men are created equal” is an aspirational ideal….are you implying that all people are not equal, that the quoted text is simply an ideal? There is certainly an abundance of inequality in the world today, notably racial, economic and academic. Continuing to support the existence of statues commemorating a group who felt/feels that the Caucasian race is superior to others does nothing to help rid the world of these inequalities. Removing them indeed makes a statement that as a country we do not support that ideology.
Stephen Schaare says
Hi P., Way too deep and intense. I have no interest in the statue.
I am a simple man, Life has taught me there are two key elements. There is Theory and there is Application. Application is the more difficult, things like human nature get in the way. Example, Communism is great in theory, but simply does not work in application with real people.
Stephen Schaare says
P, You must understand, there will always be inequalities. People must be treated equally. People are not literally the same. Some excel at math, some in athletics, others in chemistry. Some skills are rewarded more handsomely. Sadly , people are born in very poor areas, and will not realize their potential. Simply surviving comes first.
Yes. You and Mr. Griep have a considerable emotional investment in this statue issue. For whatever reason, I never found it particularly interesting. A major reason being the seemingly endless articles being written without resolution. I simply can’t take anymore.
I wish you the best on this issue. So often comes down to theory vs application.
Lynn Mielke says
Wrong book Stephen. The quote is from Animal Farm.
But we should be mindful of 1984 because all these move the monument comments are 2021 Newspeak…
Stephen Schaare says
Good catch Lynn. Good to know you are reading. Thanks
Eva M. Smorzaniuk, M.D. says
Excellent recap of the facts that are known, and a well-reasoned and logical argument about moving the monument and statue. Mr. Griep has given us the clearest picture of the true history of Talbot County that should be illuminated and preserved! Thank you!
Patricia Slagle says
🙄
Michael Davis says
John did a great job summarizing the arguments against moving the statue and what is wrong with them. The argument likening the statue to the preservation of death camps is particularly offensive. Steve Shimko listed some of the things that would have to be added like an auction block, whipping posts, etc. But there is so much more. A statue of a Talbot slave owner raping slaves would fit well. Or a fresco of enslaved people being worked to death on sugar cane plantations, or enslaved people being beaten to death then set on fire, a statue of an overlord castrating an enslaved man…and to keep things up to date, put up a realistic statue of the remains of Emit Till as he was beaten to death as a protest against Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions.
Someone should also write a summary of what is wrong with the absurd arguments for keeping the statue:
“It don’t bother me, what’s the problem?”
“Leave it because only outsiders who live in Talbot want to move it.”
“We want to honor Talbot’s (racist) history.”
“Love it {Tablot racist history} or move!”
“Leave it there because Trump would like it” (this one will probably be written soon.)
Pressure needs to be applied nonstop to the Talbot Council until that disgraceful monument to slavery is removed or until the next election when Council members honoring slavery can go back to private life.
Stephen Schaare says
Michael, Emmitt Till was a 14 year old hanged in Mississippi for allegedly offending a white woman. I do not believe Mr. Till was familiar with the situation in Maryland.
Susan Kemp says
BRAVO!!!
Darrell Parsons says
Thank you for this editorial. For those who think we should be quiet and simply “move on”, I would ask who they think will be moving on if the statue remains? And to what will they be moving? Moving on without healing first would not be moving on at all. It would leave us stuck with this representation of a horrific time in our Nation. We can’t move on until the statue is removed. After it is gone, as a sign that its removal is important to all people of Talbot County, maybe we can begin some healing conversations. Until it’s gone, the conversation can’t move on.
Patricia Slagle says
Well Darrell,
Is that so? It seems that a few people can’t “move on” until they have their way with history? And I have not read Any “conversation”. Just some people insisting that “WE must” refight the civil war with a statue.
What statue shall “we” remove next?
Will your opinion matter? I think not.
Lynn Mielke says
John – The quote about the concentration camps that you cite was a quote from Cory Pack. See the Talbot County Council Minutes, June 7, 2016, wherein he said, and I quote: “We all should be moved and inspired to ensure that the horrors of war, genocide and slavery never happen again, but tearing down monuments or casting them off in a closet benefits no one. So I applaud the brave men and women who survived the concentration camps and had the courage to say “no” let the camps remain, let the world see what was done here,for a people who forget the mistakes of their past are doomed to repeat them.”
Not very good or accurate reporting John; did you listen to the call to the county council that you reference in your piece or did you just copy the comment from Candice Spector,s piece last week for the Star Democrat that was retracted by her and the editor before it went to print because it was wrong?
John Griep says
Lynn, I’m not sure how I would have been able to copy a comment that was retracted before it went to print, but no, I had not read Candice’s article before writing my op-ed and did not read it until seeing your comment.
As for the concentration camp issue, here is what I wrote in my op-ed: “One monument supporter even went so far in a call to the county council as to suggest the Confederate monument here is comparable to the preservation of Nazi concentration camps in Germany as a way to preserve history and ensure its atrocities aren’t repeated.”
Here are some additional details for clarification:
During the Jan. 26, 2021, county council meeting, you, Lynn Mielke, a monument supporter who has called for a “unity memorial” by adding a Union soldier to the existing Confederate soldier, made the following comments according to a transcript of that Jan. 26 meeting:
“I’m Lynn Mielke, and I’m calling to encourage the Talbot County Council to enact an administrative resolution for 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.
“A unity memorial fulfills the original approval by the County Council in 1913 and ’14, a Confederate and a Union statue, which would now include the Talbot County (USCT) veterans and memorize 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. It was a war that forged a nation, as historian James McPherson has written. McPherson, perhaps the preeminent historian of the war, makes a case in his book “The War That Forged a Nation” that our current debates over federal authority, voting rights, citizenship, 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.
“As President Biden said at the memorial ceremony on the Mall for the COVID-19 victims, to heal, we must remember.
“Indeed, Councilman Pack said on June 7th of 2016 when he voted that the Talbot Boys statue remain in its existing location and by the erection of a Union monument commemorating the soldiers, he stated, and this is in the record, ‘the Talbot Boys statue is not promoting slavery or the values of the Confederacy. It’s memorializing young men of Talbot County who fought in battle and died. The Talbot Boys statue is a part of the history of Talbot County, and removing it weakens that story.
‘The Talbot Boys, along with the Union soldiers, Frederick Douglass, the Wye House, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the town that fooled the British, and the newly-discovered Hill community in Easton all tell the story of Talbot County, the good, the bad, and the ugly. If every time we remove a statue, a monument, or book because it offended us, there would be nothing left.
‘Some have said that statues and monuments are symbolic and stir emotions of the observer. And that’s fine. We all should be moved and inspired to ensure that the horrors of war, genocide, and slavery never happen again. But tearing down monuments or casting them off in a closet benefits no one.
‘So I applaud the brave men and women who survived the concentration camps and had the courage to say no. Let the camps remain. Let the world see what was done here, for people who forget the mistakes of their past are doomed to repeat them.'”
So you, Lynn Mielke, a supporter of keeping the monument, read a 2016 statement from Pack, then a supporter of keeping the monument, that suggested, as I wrote in my op-ed, that “the Confederate monument here is comparable to the preservation of Nazi concentration camps in Germany as a way to preserve history and ensure its atrocities aren’t repeated.”
Did you read Pack’s statement because you disagree with what he said in 2016? Or because you agree with what he said in 2016 and disagree with his current position that the Confederate monument should be moved off the courthouse grounds?
Lynn Mielke says
In answer to your questions John, to paraphrase Dragnet’s Joe Friday, I was reciting “just the facts”, that is, Corey Pack’s argument, which he had authored and read into the record at the June 7, 2016 County Council meeting, and is printed in the minutes of that meeting, setting forth his reasons for voting to keep the Talbot Boys statue and supporting the erection a companion Union statue. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is no getting around it, it was Corey Pack who, as you wrote, “suggested…that “the Confederate monument here is comparable to the preservation of Nazi concentration camps in Germany as a way to preserve history and ensure its atrocities aren’t repeated”, not me. He owns it – not me.
No matter how you try to spin my correction(s) of your “Op Ed” John, as I and others have pointed out, your “Op Ed” was riddled with errors, misstatements and cherry picked facts, and quotes from secondary sources, not the original source. For example, your references to James McPherson’s book “For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War” were taken from Wikipedia not from the book itself. You did not read those quotes in context. For example, you don’t mention, because it appears that you did not read the book, McPherson’s statement (on p. 106 of his book, the same page which you quoted from Wikipedia): “[i]n a letter to his Unionist father early in 1863, the son of a Baltimore merchant [unlikely a slave owner] tried to explain why he was fighting for the Confederacy as a private in the 44th Virginia. The war, he wrote, was ‘a struggle between Liberty on one side, and Tyranny on the other’ and he had decided to espouse the holy cause of Southern freedom”. Sorta sums up why some in a border state such as Maryland, who endured threats to their liberty, and viewed Lincoln and the Union as tyrannical, joined the confederate army against the Union army, including the Talbot Boys. A reasonable inference, to borrow a phrase you have used to justify some of your arguments.
John Griep says
Actually, I have read McPherson’s book “For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War.” (I have it in my digital library.)
The quote I used (and properly cited as from Wikipedia since I included the synopsis paragraph from Wikipedia that appears before the quote from McPherson’s book) is the conclusion that McPherson, a preeminent Civil War historian, reached after reviewing more than 25,000 letters and 250 diaries.
Let’s repeat McPherson’s conclusion: “Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern ‘rights’ and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.” (emphasis added by me)
In that same chapter, McPherson also makes the conclusion that nonslaveholding Confederate soldiers, although lacking a property interest in slaves, had another form of property they did own.
“That property was their white skins, which put them on a plane of civil equality with slaveholders and far above those who did not possess that property,” McPherson wrote. “Herrenvolk democracy — the equality of all who belonged to the master race — was a powerful motivator for many Confederate soldiers.”
McPherson later concluded that “Such sentiments were not confined to nonslaveholders. Many slaveholding soldiers also fought for white supremacy as well as for the right of property in slaves.”
The letter you cite from McPherson’s book was from the son of a Baltimore merchant. And I have no doubt that there were other Confederate soldiers who would have expressed similar sentiments about why they fought.
But that letter was not from one of the men named on Talbot’s Confederate monument. And we have seen no primary source evidence that any of the men listed on that monument — in letters or diaries, etc. — said they joined the Confederacy to fight federal tyranny in Maryland.
The Confederacy was formed to preserve and maintain slavery and white supremacy (Cornerstone speech, articles of secession, Confederate constitution). Many Confederates, whether slaveholders or not, fought for that cause (McPherson’s conclusions after reviewing more than 25,000 Civil War letters and 250 diaries).
Regardless of their personal reasons, that was the cause the men from Talbot County joined when they chose to fight for the C.S.A.
Shari Wilcoxon says
Give it a rest. Stop trying to divide Talbot County. You are one of the main reasons I dropped my subscription to the Spy. Enough.
Patricia Slagle says
Is that so? It seems that a few people can’t “move on” until they have their way with history. And I have not read Any “conversation”. Just some people insisting that “WE must” refight the civil war with a statue.
What statue shall “we” remove next?
Will your opinion matter? I think not.
Patricia Slagle says
Hi Shari!
My comment was NOT in response to you!
Paul Callahan says
John, well written but with so many omitted facts, opinions presented as facts, false inferences, and outright errors. This article is poorly researched and is obviously based upon Casey Cep’s article published in the “New Yorker” without credit given.
First, myself and Clive Ewing are NOT the designated leaders of the Preserve Talbot History coalition. In fact, the core group was well established before we were invited. How does calling us out by name add to your opinion presented?
I call into question why you feel the need to opinion the “dithering” on establishing the Frederick Douglass statue (copied from Ms. Cep’s article) and your attempt to degrade the process of that decision. It appears the County Council listened to many groups, to include the veteran groups, in their decision-making process. The process of not immediately acquiescing to a single group’s desire, listening to many, and debating the issue, is called – Democracy.
You state that “many” of the Southern states mentioned slavery as a cause for secession. The actual number is four. But you failed to mention that there were four additional States that proclaimed the unconstitutionality of Federal forces invading the States as their reason for secession. Why leave that out?
In your description of what Maryland experienced in the Civil War, why did you fail to mention the arrest of the Maryland Legislature, US Congressman Mays, the Baltimore council and police chief, the occupation of Maryland, the executions of Maryland citizens, the revocation of the 1st and 2nd amendments and Habeas Corpus?
You also failed to mention that Mr. Lincoln, the US Congress, and the Maryland State legislature were publicly proclaiming during the war’s first two years, that slavery would remain after the Southern States were brought back. How do you account for your “opinion” that Talbot men went to fight to preserve slavery when their leaders at all levels were telling them that abolition was not even the objective? Regardless, how would this in anyway impact slavery here in Maryland – a State that did not secede?
I do not defend the confederacy except for basic explanations to bring the “Maryland Experience” into context. With that said, I will put your opinion of the “unconstitutional attempt to leave the Union” into proper context of the “Maryland Experience” by quoting a resolution published by the Maryland Legislature in June of 1861.
“That the right of separation from the Federal Union is a right neither arising under nor prohibited by the Constitution, but a sovereign right, independent of the Constitution.” The State Legislature asserted that this sovereign right is based in the Declaration of Independence. This is what Marylanders were reading from their leaders at that time.
Since your opinion editorial is based upon the research of Casey Cep, let me quote Ms. Cep, “At least fourteen of the men whose names appear on the confederate monument in Easton owned slaves or belonged to slave-owning families…” Cep includes men who were not slave owners but just “belonged to slave-owning families.” Ms. Cep appears to attribute character traits of a person based upon the circumstances into which they were born. Would you agree we also should apply “character traits” to someone born in our deepest city ghettos? – I hope not. The reality is that of the 105 names on the monument, well less than ten percent were slave owners – an extremely weak argument to support your “opinion.”
Then you state that it is “reasonable to infer” the motivations of Talbot’s men by McPherson’s analysis of 429 letters and journals of confederates – not from Maryland. McPherson states only 20% (about 83 men) mentioned slavery as a motivation. Really? Nearly one million men fought for the confederacy, but your “proof” for the motivations of our Talbot men is based on the journals of 83 men from some other State? This is not a “reasonable” inference.
Since you believe journal entries are “proof” let us look at actual journals that we all can read today, such as those of Maryland’s Governor and Legislature recorded in our State’s archives. Reviewing hundreds of pages of journal entries, letters, resolutions, proclamations, and petitions, how many times do they mention the preservation of slavery as a concern or even mention the word slavery? The answer is zero, nada, zilch – it was not even in their consciousness. How many times do they discuss and address the concern of the Constitutional crisis facing Marylanders and the Constitutionality of Mr. Lincolns actions? Too numerous to count. What “inference” should we make from these journal entries by your reasoning?
Bottom line is your opinion editorial is poorly researched and strongly biased. There is no excuse for your failure to conduct proper research since so many historical documents are right there for your review at http://www.preservetalbothistory.org.
John Griep says
Paul, thanks for the suggestion that I took anything from Casey Cep, who is an outstanding writer from a wonderful Talbot County family. However, your false claim of plagiarism is particularly ludicrous since I was the reporter who covered the Frederick Douglass statue debate in 2004 and am well aware of the process of that decision and how close the county council was to denying Douglass a place of honor on the courthouse lawn.
And any research, whether poor or not, is my own, not Casey’s.
I don’t plan to debate the issue in the comments section, but I will touch upon one comment that you continually bring up — the statements of President Lincoln and other Union leaders early in the war that slavery would remain. Yes, the North was fighting to preserve the Union, but it was the Confederate states that began the war for the purposes of maintaining and extending slavery. If a man breaks into your house and shoots at you and you shoot back, the reason for the exchange of gunfire was because he broke into your house. If he had not done so, you would not have needed to defend yourself and your home. Without the Confederate states seceding and firing on U.S. troops, the North had no need to preserve the Union because the Union would have remained intact.
Paul Callahan says
Wow! John you statement above shows your complete lack of knowledge of the US Civil War! Incredible….
John Griep says
Wow, Paul! Are you honestly saying that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War?
Maybe you missed the Cornerstone speech by the Confederate vice president in which he said: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” That speech was made a few weeks before Confederate forces fired on U.S. troops at Fort Sumter.
Or perhaps you didn’t read the Confederate Constitution and its declaration that “negro slavery” would be recognized and protected by the Confederacy in any new territory that may be added?
But surely you have read Jan. 13, 1864, speech by Frederick Douglass, in which he made clear that slavery was the reason for the war and that everyone at the time knew that.
Douglass said: “Now, for what is all this desolation, ruin, shame suffering and sorrow? Can anybody want the answer? Can anybody be ignorant of the answer? It has been given a thousand times from this and other platforms. We all know it is slavery. Less than a half a million of Southern slaveholders—holding in bondage four million slaves—finding themselves outvoted in the effort to get possession of the United States government, in order to serve the interests of slavery, have madly resorted to the sword—have undertaken to accomplish by bullets what they failed to accomplish by ballots. That is the answer.”
Did you not read the 1894 letter from Confederate Col. John Mosby in which he said one Lost Cause apologist’s “charge that the South went to war for slavery is ‘a slanderous accusation.’ I always understood that we went to War on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.”
Henry Herr says
Mr. Griep, don’t get too bogged down with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Callahan, they refuse to provide actual evidence on their site and will continue to post it as often as they can. They have both posted gotcha quotes with no context. It’s simple really, those who continue to say it’s just history, aren’t historians. It’s as if I was trying to diagnose a sickness with no medical background. They refuse to listen, no matter how hard we try. The group that have joined includes those who have hurled death threats and threats of violence at me. That’s where they want to side. This isn’t an argument of history. It’s just a disguise for continued racism.
Paul Callahan says
No John I am not saying that – I am saying that the issue of slavery, particularly since our men were being told that the conflict is NOT about abolishing slavery when they left Talbot – was not why our Talbot ancestors fought. Time to get off the civil war cause and look at actual events that these men experienced in Maryland and Talbot County. That’s just how it is, that is Talbots history.
Its time for the Move the Monument folks to just accept this fact and to work towards a unity monument that tells our – Meaning TALBOT COUNTY History.
John Griep says
Paul, we do not know why the men from Talbot County fought for the Confederacy. If you have diaries or letters from any of the men listed on the monument explaining why they fought for the Confederacy, please present those. In my own research, I have not found any such primary sources.
If any descendants of the men named on the monument have any such documents, those would be valuable historical information and I would hope you might share those with the public and provide the documents to the Talbot County Historical Society for preservation.
You wrote in a previous comment: “The reality is that of the 105 names on the monument, well less than ten percent were slave owners – an extremely weak argument to support your ‘opinion.'”
I haven’t yet researched every single name on the monument, so I can’t confirm the 10% statistic, but let’s assume that is correct.
As far as I know, there has been no evidence presented from any primary sources — letters, diaries, journals, etc. from the men named on the monument — detailing the reason(s) they fought.
So of the 80+ names of Talbot natives listed on the monument, we have evidence of zero (0) percent saying in their own words why they fought for the Confederacy.
If less than ten percent makes for “an extremely weak argument,” then what should we make of that zero percent?
Carolyn Ewing says
John, this is over the top even for you. Furthermore, you certainly are no scholar of the Civil War; if you were, you could not make the over-simplified statement contained in this editorial. Furthermore, history is just that: history. We must learn from it,not obliterate it, obfuscate and use it to shame those who are alive now. What we should learn from everything that occurred during that horrible war and from what is hapapening throughout our country now is the importance of honesty and of forgiveness. We do not continue to hate the Germans. Why must we continue to hate those who fought, many as a means of restoring their Constitutional rights after suspension of Habeus Corpus? It is a disservice to our community, an afront to God who repeatedly told us that there is no everlasting life without forgiveness, and a disservice to the young people who are being taught to see themselves as victims.
Donald Martin says
Mr. Griep’s labeling of the Talbot Boys sitting on the Courthouse lawn as a participation trophy Is most appropriate. His point that we have no direct evidence of the reasons why these young men joined the Confederacy, only conjecture, helps to undercut the desperate rationale that their cause was any different and perhaps more noble than maintains slavery. Likewise, for the lame attempt to liken it to something of value as an example of evil to be preserved.
But what is missing from his otherwise excellent essay and in many of the published recommendations for the removal of the statue is that maintaining it on public land and especially in the presence of a court house is using the police power of the County to force African Americans and others deeply offended, to pay through their tax obligations, the support of the very symbol of evil and oppression that 400 + years slavery cannot deny. It is forcing them to pay so that they can be reminded every day, as they attempt to seek justice, that justice has been denied to their forebears.
This enough reason to remove it to some other private place.
Susan Olsen says
Terrific commentary, Mr. Griep! I loved the “participation trophy” image you created.
Dick Deerin says
There is no valid question that the eleven southern states that attempted to secede from the United States in 1860-61 did so because those states were terrified that the right to own slaves would be abolished. Although many sought to cloak the right to keep slaves under the nicer sounding “states’ rights”, the fact is that slavery was the driving force behind the move of slave states to secede from the Union.
“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that the “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
According to the U.S. Census, there were 3,725 enslaved Africans residing in Talbot County in 1860. They were owned by white citizens Talbot County, working for and subject to harsh treatment at the hands of their “masters”. The right to “own” slaves and the use of slave labor were important elements of life in Talbot County. The Eastern Shore was by and large predominantly pro-slavery, and the Federal government did in fact step in to keep order and ensure that the state of Maryland did not allow a minority to continue to support secession. Those from Talbot County who chose to fight against the United States of America certainly knew that they were fighting for and supporting a regime whose predominant justification was the preservation of the right of one human being to own another human being.
The Talbot Boys statue and monument were not constructed in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War to mourn those Talbot Countians who lost their lives. It was conceived and constructed 50 years after the end of the Civil War (between in 1914 and 1916) – a time when the country was experiencing a revival of the KKK, watching the 1915 movie “Birth of a Nation”, and seeing the passage of Jim Crow laws in many southern states. It was part of a spike in construction of confederate statues and monuments, led by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and based on the “Lost Cause” ideology that has been called a “pseudo-historical, negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate states … was a just and heroic one.” The confederacy was neither just nor heroic.
The time is long past due for the Confederate Monument to be removed from the lawn of the Talbot County Courthouse.
Paul Callahan says
Dick, You continue to put forth the narrative that has been shown false. There is no longer a question on the issue as to why the monument was placed and the events that caused the men from Talbot to fight.
The placement of the monument has been thoroughly researched and it has nothing to do with the 100 year Jim Crowe era. It has been revealed that the monument’s placement and theme is directly tied to the theme of the Gettysburg reunion – about reconciliation, brotherhood and moving forward to build a better Nation, along with the 50th Anniversary of the end of the Civil War.
The motivation and events causing these men to rise has also been well researched and documented. Hundreds of pages of journal entries, public proclamations and petitions by Maryland’s governor and Legislature have been reviewed. The issue was solely the Constitutional crisis the Nation, and Maryland in particular, faced. Slavery was not even mentioned and was not a consideration for these men – the Constitutional Crisis was. The Constitutional crisis Marylanders faced was the overwhelming concern.
There is just no debating this any more, the documents are right there for you to review at http://www.preservetalbothistory.org. These documents are the actual documents from the Maryland and National archives along with original newspaper accounts.
The continuance of the false narrative that you put forth means either you haven’t reviewed the research, or you just don’t care about historical truth and just want to keep the false narrative going to support another agenda. This only causes a loss of credibility and integrity both for the person who keeps furthering this false narrative and for the agenda itself.