The Move the Monument Coalition (MtM) is continuing its fustian efforts to remove the Talbot Boys statute from the Talbot County courthouse grounds. It, along with some Talbot County small business owners and members of the faith community, have joined the ACLU/NAACP federal lawsuit against Talbot County for removal of the Talbot Boys statute as amici. Two national organizations also filed an amici brief: Public Justice Center and Caucus of African-American Leaders (“CAAL”). These latter organizations are represented by Covington and Burling in Washington, D.C. We wonder whether the firm knows its namesake (Covington) has a history here in Easton, Maryland, and a connection to the county political Democratic elites, including the chair of the committee to erect the Talbot Boys monument in 1913; but we digress.
The mission of the Preserve Talbot History coalition (PTH) is to do just what its name states: to ensure that the history of Talbot County is told completely, without ideological bias, by publishing objective, fact based, historically documented, research and intervening where needed to keep historically significant monuments in place. It is our belief that history is to be learned from both comfortable and uncomfortable records and symbols, and that erasing any of them, just makes it easier to rewrite that history to replace pursuit of truth with narratives that justify current political positions. Many of our members have written guest commentaries and letters to the editor regarding the Talbot Boys over the last six years. We write to highlight those points and to reveal the factual inaccuracies, rhetorical excesses and legal weaknesses of MtM’s, and the original Plaintiffs’, claims.
The campaign against the Talbot Boys started in 2015, after the Emanuel AME church slaying in Charleston. There was a national campaign to remove confederate monuments and symbols, instigated by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which published a community action guide, including form letters to local government officials and petitions prepared by moveon.org.
The SPLC even published a “hate” map identifying the confederate monuments throughout the country (mercifully the Talbot Boys were not on the map – at least not in 2015, but it is now). The SPLC had an agenda for publicity and profit making purposes. Potter and the local NAACP branch bought into it. The Talbot County Council after public hearings voted unanimously on June 7, 2016 not to remove the statute. The Black member of the Council, Corey Pack, did not support removing the monument and gave a lengthy speech in support of the Talbot Boys remaining. The Council noted that the original civil war memorial plan, back in 1913, was for two separate monuments one for the citizens who fought for the confederacy and one for those who fought for the union (more about that later). The County Council stated it would entertain a plan for a union monument to be erected. No efforts were made in that regard.
However, the crusade did not end there. In 2019, Richard Potter and the local chapter of the NAACP capitalized on the killing of George Floyd and the national movement which swept the nation, and revived the issue of the Talbot Boys. The MtM joined the crusade. MtM is a predominately white group. Many of its more prominent “movers” do not reside in Talbot County or are relative newcomers to Talbot County. They promoted the removal of the Talbot Boys statute (again following the SPLC orchestrated campaign). Richard Potter and the NAACP tweaked their plan. Potter stated on the MtM Facebook page in January, 2020, “[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.”
When public sentiment began to favor the concept of depicting the complete history by erecting either a unity monument or adding a Union monument (to include the USCT from Talbot County), Richard Potter and the NAACP backtracked on their proposal and pursued a campaign to just “move” the Talbot Boys statute off the court house green. In the years since neither the NAACP nor MtM provided the county with a plan of where and how it would be moved. We’ve just heard two years of bloviating on the issue. On August 11, 2020, the County Council once again voted to keep the Talbot Boys statute (although Councilman Pack reversed his position and voted for its removal). Having lost a second battle to have the Talbot Boys “removed”, Richard Potter, the NAACP and others filed a meritless lawsuit in federal court for removal of the statue.
PTH refutes Potter/ACLU and the amici revisionist history set forth in their pleadings.
First, the history of the Talbot Boys statute. Fortunately for Talbot countians, the truth is readily available to defeat the revisionist history movement espoused by Potter and the NAACP, and the Move the Monument (MtM) supporters and CAAL which they obviously influenced:
Lie #1: MtM supporters allege the Talbot Boys monument was erected to reinforce Jim Crow laws. FALSE. The Talbot Boys statue was not erected to exalt the “lost cause” of the Confederacy, Jim Crow laws, or white supremacy. See: 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.” It should be noted that a member of the committee formed to raise funds for the Union memorial was the wife of one of the Talbot Boys. It is not a generic statute of a Confederate leader, nor was it erected and financed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It is a totally local monument to local veterans who fought to preserve their constitutional rights and who were particularly incensed and motivated by an event on May 27, 1862 when 125 federal troops surrounded the Talbot County courthouse, entered the courtroom, bloodily beat Judge Carmichael senseless, dragged him off the bench and imprisoned him without charge or trial. By joining the CSA, these men resisted by the only means they had at their disposal. To these men they were fighting against the government that abused their democracy and their citizens, against the tyranny they witnessed for themselves personally.
Lie #2: MtM supporters allege the Talbot Boys inspired lynchings at the Talbot County Courthouse. FALSE. According to the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), there were no lynchings at the Courthouse or anywhere else in Talbot County for that matter. See here. It should be noted that the 1919 Isaac Fountain incident cited by CAAL is a misrepresentation of the case. While a mob did gather, the white Talbot County Sheriff and his deputies rescued him. He subsequently escaped. A large reward was offered, but only if he was brought back alive. He was recaptured, tried in Talbot County, and convicted, the conviction was reversed on appeal and he was retried in Baltimore County where he was convicted. Dickson Preston: Talbot County: A History. Casey Sep wrote an article about a hanging tree in Miles River Neck. Her contention was debunked. Thus when MtM and its cohorts cite her as some sort of local historian, their reliance on her allegations is misplaced and her credibility questioned.
Lie #3: MtM supporters allege the Talbot Boys fought to keep the institution slavery. FALSE. Slavery was a legal institution. It was on the decline in Maryland. Repeatedly before and during the early part of the war, Lincoln made clear his goal was to preserve the Union and not interfere with slavery where it already existed.
But Lincoln did send federal troops to occupy Maryland and suppress the unalienable rights of her citizens. The Talbot Boys resisted this federal oppression.
Lie #4. The Talbot Boys were traitors. FALSE. All confederate soldiers were granted a presidential pardon by President Andrew Jackson on December 25, 1868.
For a brief but critical moment in Talbot history, some were faced with the choice between defending their homes, families and God-given rights versus subjugating themselves to the illegal acts of the federal government. It is better to Preserve Talbot History: 1) to remember the tyranny that our own federal government can bring to bear against us, if we allow it; and 2) to support a Talbot Union Boys monument to remember those who fought to preserve the Union and, for some, to gain their freedom.
Thus, the suggestion then that the Talbot Boys personified racism and white supremacy in Talbot County, were traitors, and the Talbot Boys statue is a monument to such and must be removed, is just wrong. The assertion that the statue is an exemplification of the segregationist Jim Crow period is a fallacious, baseless, assertion.
Second, the most infuriating and malicious assertion made by the Plaintiffs Potter/NAACP, et. al., and their amici, is the claim that the statue sends a message to people of color that they cannot get justice in Talbot County; that “for Black employees and litigants entering the courthouse, the statue is, in its least damaging capacity, intimidating and demoralizing.” They don’t cite any complaints or statistics in that regard; just self-serving, uncorroborated, statements by two of the Plaintiffs (Potter and Petticolas). This is a pure and unmitigated baseless allegation.
One of our members is a member of the Talbot County Bar and has practiced law in Talbot County and the Mid-Shore since 1979. In the 80’s she served as Assistant Public Defender for Talbot County. When the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (a co-Plaintiff with the ACLU/NAACP) insinuates in the lawsuit that our judicial system is racist and Blacks cannot obtain a fair trial because the Talbot Boys statute sends that message, it is untrue- a libelous allegation against the county judicial system: the Office of States Attorney, all the 5 Circuit Court Judges still living (on occasion the 4 retired judges are called to serve), our Magistrate, not to mention the Public Defender’s Office, and the County Clerk’s Office. Interesting, Potter and the NAACP do not mention that when the State created the judicial position of Master for the Mid-Shore in 1998, the first appointment to the position, serving in Talbot County, was one of the members of the local chapter of the NAACP, who is Black. She continues to serve, albeit, primarily in Caroline County now, because now each county has a Master/magistrate. She is part of the system which they now impugn. Talbot County is a small county of approximately 37,000 and the justice received spreads by word of mouth not by the presence of a statute on the courthouse green. Again they have adopted SPLC or BLM talking points which are irrelevant to our County. The Talbot County judicial system is not racist. Our citizens know that.
The MtM and others argue that the placement of the Talbot Boys was purposeful to intimidate those walking into the courthouse. What they do not realize is that it is only recently (when the metal detector was installed in the Courthouse after 9/11) that there has been only one entrance to the courthouse. Prior to that there were four entrances, two of which did not involve having to view the Talbot Boys.
Third, the most hypocritical and unsubstantiated argument asserted by MtM in its brief is that the Talbot Boys statute will have a detrimental effect on Talbot County economic development and small businesses. The skyrocketing real estate prices, the influx of new residents (about 60% of home purchases are by out of county residents); the development of the downtown by Prager, the Easton Point project, and the continuous opening of chain stores (Kohls, Big Lots, Target, etc. – soon Home Depot) all belie their allegations (in fact, chain/big box stores are probably more of a threat to the viability of small businesses than the Talbot Boys). It should be noted that one of the amici small businesses is The Race Thing, Inc. (“a media company whose objective is to discuss race and race relations”) formed by Councilman Corey Pack’s daughter in 2020.
Fourth, Talbot and Dorchester counties have sought, for years, to make this a tourist destination for civil war history. Our Mid Shore is a model for contextual history. We have the Talbot Boys statute and feet away the larger and more prominent statue of Frederick Douglass. More recently is the opening of the Frederick Douglass Park on the Tuckahoe, Operation Frederick Douglass on the Hill project, and, of course, The Hill itself. A few miles away are the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Visitor Center and the Harriet Tubman Museum & Educational Center Museum. The underground railway trail can be followed through 2 Mid Shore counties. In summary on this point, one has to be oblivious to the history depicted on the courthouse lawn – the history of the Talbot Boys statue, and the history of the Frederick Douglass statue – to conclude anything other than that the tableau presented on the courthouse lawn is one of Confederate defeat, and freedom from slavery, attributable in part to the influence of a notable person of color, Frederick Douglass.
Finally to our faith leaders, do you not believe in forgiveness? Forgiveness and letting go can lead you down the path of healing and peace… Frederick Douglass did when he came to Talbot County in the 1870s and visited the families who had enslaved him, realizing the enslavers were as much victims of the system as he was. See: Dickson J. Preston: Young Frederick Douglass, The Maryland Years. The veterans of the Union and Confederate armies who returned home forgave each other and held joint reunions. President Andrew Johnson with his pardon started a process of national reconciliation.
The PTH Coalition seeks to promote Talbot County and the Mid Shore as a model of integrated and reconciled civil war history. Accordingly we seek and support adding a Union monument: build up rather than tear down. Fulfill the original plan approved by the County Council in 1913 – a union and confederate statue – with a 21st century view: including a memorial to the USCT, especially the Unionville 18. Why should recognition of them be segregated to only Unionville?
Preserve Talbot History
Lynn Leonhardt Mielke, Secretary
Gordon Chase says
On reading Lynn Leonhardt Mielke’s letter of September 1st promoting the Preserve Talbot History viewpoint, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the old adage about not being able to see the wood for the trees. Ms Mielke’s lengthy and detailed argument (which I do not critique here), seemed either by accident or by design, to completely ignore the obvious fact that the monument with the bold “C.S.A” prominently carved on the plinth and the somewhat less prominent confederate flag on the statue, is clearly a monument to the Confederate States of America and those who died supporting it. There is no getting away from this clearly depicted sentiment in the art work.
Also blindingly obvious to this reader and I’m sure many others, is that simply removing the statue to a suitable museum does nothing to eradicate either the history of Talbot County’s confederate leanings or the statue itself. However, keeping it in its current place on government property and in the center of town on the courthouse lawn no less, is clearly a deliberate attempt to keep the Confederate ideals in front of the Town and County population.
History is preserved in museums around the world and I’m sure one can find objects and depictions from Nazi Germany, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, Mussolini, Stalin and Genghis Khan in historical museums across the globe, but one does not find statues of Adolph Hitler displayed outside courthouses in Germany with the Swastika flying proudly beside it. Nor would anyone suggest it would be proper to do so in order to preserve Germany’s history. Why then do we think it is a valid historical argument to preserve the slave supporting Confederate States of America defeated in a bloody war with the United States of America, with a monument and flag on government property here in Talbot County? The Germans have meticulously preserved their history of both the Nazi’s and the Stasi without offending those who suffered under them. One could similarly preserve Talbot history by keeping it in an appropriate museum, where people can choose to view it. There is no such choice available at the court house lawn. I had thought that the only Republican controlled County left in Maryland would have valued this principle of choice rather than have government enforce a viewpoint on the population at large. It seems however as if the proud public display of a past enemy of the United States of America is more valued than the respect to the victims of slavery and their descendants who still have to encounter this monument on government property.
The fact that at this moment in time a suitable location for the monument has not been found is a red herring. Millions of historical objects lie stored in dusty museum archives across the globe awaiting a suitable place and time for display. Why should this object be any different? For sure it will be preserved by someone somewhere, so the history will without doubt be preserved, which presumably is the goal of the Preserve Talbot History movement. Why are they so determined to conserve it on the Court House lawn?
We do not fly the flag of the Union Jack on government property in Talbot County, even though many of the residents of the County in 1776 were strongly opposed to the revolutionary war and strongly protested it. Why then do we fly the Confederate flag from a century and a half ago, albeit frozen in bronze?
I would suggest that Ms Mielke try to concentrate less on all the many and detailed pieces of her argument and instead stand back and look at the big picture. Then she could see the forest in total and not just the many individual trees that comprise it.
Even the most southern of States, Mississippi, saw the light eventually and removed the confederate flag from its buildings and its state flag. Why does the last County in Maryland have such difficulty doing likewise?
Paul Callahan says
Gordon, Wow! You state that the Talbot Boys “Is clearly a monument to the confederacy” May I ask if you have ever seen this monument in person? I say this because those who commissioned the Talbot Boys inscribed upon it in very large letters exactly who this monument is for. It says right across the front “To the Talbot Boys”
I must presume that those who built it would have inscribed “To the confederacy” if they wanted it to be for the confederacy, but they did not. They purposely had that flag placed in the ceremonial position of surrender and they deliberately inscribed upon it exactly who this monument was for – “To the Talbot Boys” They did this in English, in very large and prominent letters, not on the back or underneath but right across the front for all to see and, by the way, it’s been written there from day one over 100 years ago.
So now over 100 years latter people write from all over Maryland claiming it is a “monument to the confederacy” and then they go on and on about everything else surrounding it’s history. I can only surmise these people are not even from Talbot and have never even seen this monument. This is because anyone who has seen it in person and who can read English, know exactly who this monument is for – “To the Talbot Boys”
The only other option would be someone who’s views are so extreme they refuse to believe the reality of what is carved on that block of granite, someone unable to accept in their mind any other purpose for that monument than to promote hatred. If someone is so extreme that they refuse to believe what is directly carved upon it by the men who created the monument, why would anyone give that person any credibility to the other opinions they assert?
I guess another reason someone would publicly ignore and deny what is inscribed upon it and claim it’s purpose is to memorialize something totally different, is because they are promoting an agenda that they believe is so worthy any means to obtain the end is justified, even changing and modifying history to support the agenda.
We don’t need extremism, or zealots fighting for a cause, the Truth works just fine. If you ever come to Talbot county stop by the courthouse and read what’s on it for yourself.
Henry Herr says
It says To the Talbot Boys C.S.A. though. So everything you wrote isn’t true. Where is it written that the flag is in a position of ceremonial position of surrender?
jeanne says
What businesses support removing the statue. I will not shop at these businesses
Roger Yoerges says
Most all of them do, Jeanne. So you’ll need to go naked and hungry. Nothing like a naked, hungry racist. Makes them easier to identify.
Alan Boisvert says
I doubt they would appreciate your patronage.
Henry Herr says
Fact: PTH has still not produced any historians that agree that the Talbot Boys should stay on courthouse grounds. How can a group so focused on history ignore historians? It should be noted that this is writing is a point of view, definitely not actual facts.
Paul Callahan says
I noticed the MtM coalition totally ignored Dr. Clara Smalls, a black local historian, when she told them in her lecture that it was a gross misunderstanding to believe the US Civil war was all about slavery.
So the readers understand Mr. Herr is not, and never has been, a Talbot resident.
Henry Herr says
So did Dr. Smalls agree the monument should be moved or no?
Also, I’m not sure where I’m from matters? It doesn’t seem to matter that Franklin Buchanan, the “local” Admiral was born in Baltimore and only lived in Talbot a few years after the war. I believe that facts matter more than using ad homienem arguments.
Paul Callahan says
Didn’t mean to pick on you Henry, you are just the example of the vast majority of the MtM coalition. Liberal white folks who do not even live in Talbot or have only been here a short while. In fact it seems many are Northerners who recently came to Talbot with their pre-conceived notions and biases.
Nobody is asking historians if they think the monument should stay or go. The monument is not for historians, it is for the citizens to remember that war and the men who fought in it. Oh let me correct that – it is for Talbot County citizens which you and many MtM’rs are not.
Which is why you and the MtM coalition opposes putting the issue to a vote…. 70% of the MtM crowd can’t even vote in Talbot since they are not from here.
Henry Herr says
Also, just one of the many easily disproven facts: “However, the crusade did not end there. In 2019, Richard Potter and the local chapter of the NAACP capitalized on the killing of George Floyd and the national movement which swept the nation, and revived the issue of the Talbot Boys.” George Floyd was killed in 2020…
J T Smith says
I seriously doubt that President “ Andrew Jackson” pardoned Confederate soldiers in 1868. ( See discussion of so called Lie #4.) Also, it is well established that acceptance of a Presidential Pardon constitutes admission to the offense pardoned, and hence Confederate soldiers were and remain traitors. Those who strenuously strive to “ preserve Talbot history” should be more careful in their historical assertions,
Paul says
Mr. Smith, I would agree with you if you were correct but in this case you are not. They were all pardoned and no admission of guilt was applied.
Let’s not forget that this nation was founded by a bunch of men who were traitors to their nation – so your point is?
Anyone who deliberately violates the US Constitution certainly could be and has been labeled a “Traitor”. Mr. Lincoln did this repeatedly, throwing anyone in prison who did not agree with his political views, our legislature, our congressman, the Baltimore Mayor, and Talbot County’s judge, yet in the end Mr. Lincoln was forgiven.
As a former Marine officer my oath was to the Constitution of the United States, not to the president, “the Nation” or anyone else but to the US Constitution and to protect the same from all enemies foreign and domestic.
The Talbot Boys were forgiven officially by our government, by our citizens and by the union men they fought against. Why can you not?
Henry Herr says
“The following oath was required under Johnson’s 1865 proclamation:
I, _____, do solemnly swear or affirm, in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder. And that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves, so help me God.”
There were exceptions to the granting of general amnesty:
“The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation:
First – All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate Government.
Second – All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion.
Third – All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the navy.
Fourth – All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion.
Fifth – All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States, to evade duty in resisting the rebellion.
Sixth – All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.
Seventh – All persons who have been or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.
Eighth – All military and naval officers in the rebel service who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point, or the United States Naval Academy.
Ninth – All persons who held the pretended offices of Governors of States in insurrection against the United States.
Tenth – All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the so-called Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.
Eleventh – All parties who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.
Twelfth – All persons who at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military or naval authorities or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind either before or after conviction.
Thirteenth – All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.
Fourteenth – All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s Proclamation of December 8, A.D., 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States since the dates of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate – provided that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”
So this took 30 seconds to Google. This is who was pardoned, what they had to agree to, and how the United States government pardoned everyone is just, again, blatantly false.
David Tull says
Don’t erase your history it’s a part of who we are.
Michael Davis says
This is sophistry – a lot of words but all false. Shakespeare’s words perfectly characterize the PTH letter: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
As pointed out by others, she completely misses the point. That statue is racist. The initials C.S.A. and the Confederate Battle Flag are racist symbols of hatred. Even NASCAR recognized that.
The idea that Talbot history will disappear if the monument is moved (much less melted down for doorknobs) is unbelievably absurd. All history books about Talbot will disappear? Really? Where will they go. PTH should tell us that.
I hate to pick on typos since I’m such a terrible typist, but this one calls for action: ” Lie #4. The Talbot Boys were traitors. FALSE. All confederate soldiers were granted a presidential pardon by President Andrew Jackson on December 25, 1868.” The fact that someone has been pardoned does not mean they did not commit the crime. Also, President Andrew Jackson was long gone in 1868. It was Andrew Johnson that issued the pardon of all Confederate traitors. He did so as a racist act to restore White power in the South.
I am a small businessman but didn’t get to join the lawsuit. I wish I did. Still, I welcome Jeannie not shopping at my place.
In an earlier comment Paul Callahan of the PTH group directed at me, he implied I could say nothing worthhile about the statue since I didn’t read Civil War history books. Actually, I’ve read every book Paul recommended and more. But that is irrelevant. Hundreds of people who demonstrated against the monument know it is racist regardless of what they read. As Bob Dylan wrote, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
Paul Callahan says
Racism, racism racism with a lot of hatred and some white supremacy thrown in. Was there no ability 100 years ago to construct a simple memorial to veterans of the most horrific war our nation ever endured?
The extremist view promoted by a few is that anything and everything was about racism and supremacy regardless of historical texts, regardless of the incredible research that has proven the opposite. Research that showed Oswald Tilghman at the Gettysburg reunion and participated in a joint committee to construct monuments for both sides and six days after returning to Talbot founded the Talbot Boys committee. But this history is denied because the Talbot Boys was built in the 100 years of Jim Crow so it has to be about racism, which by the way nicely supports the social agenda they are peddling.
The PTH found documents directly tying the Talbot Boys monument to the Gettysburg reunion and it’s spirit of reconciliation but this history is denied. They also showed that nearly two thirds of the Talbot Boys enlisted directly after judge Carmichael was beat and imprisoned, directly tying their motivation to fight with the government’s tyranny against Maryland, but this is denied also.
The MtM denies all the research done that has countered their false historical narrative while at the same time has provided NO historical documentation relating to Talbot or Maryland that supports their narrative.
Why must the MtM coalition only support a history of extreme hatred? Why can they not accept the plain historical facts about these men, this monument and the people who built it? What is better for us as a community – promoting an extremist version of our history that everything was meant to oppress black people and the monument was only placed to oppress OR embracing the historical research that strongly reveals that this is not the case and just a simple war memorial?
Let’s not forget the dangers of extremism, of believing in a cause so righteous that people who profess to be men of God crash planes into buildings for their cause. Extremism leads to hatred and violence and pits neighbor against neighbor…
Just Say no to extremism…..
Henry Herr says
I mean these are just false statements about the MtM. We can disagree but lying about what one group says or doesn’t does not accomplish anything. I have personally addressed your claims about the Gettysburg reunion where no Blacks were invited (specifically they were not allowed to be there) and the speeches made by the president at the time, who was in the process of segregating the government. I am not sure why you continue to badger everyone who disagrees with you, using ad hominem arguments, false equivalences and false statements.
Paul Callahan says
Henry – You are absolutely incorrect in your statement that blacks were not allowed at the Gettysburg reunion. There is absolutely nothing that supports your incorrect statement.
I believe the MtM coalition started this fals narrative when they saw an old photo of the reunion. Out of a couple hundred faces they said they could not find a black face. There was over 150,000 people at the reunion.
Please give us your sources for this unfounded accusation.
Henry Herr says
My source is from Mr. Mitchell’s book: Maryland Voices of the Civil War which has won the Founders Award from the American Civil War Museum. Mr. Mitchell is a well respected Maryland historian. His words are very important to this argument. After all his research and quotations from news articles, legislations, and Marylanders who fought, Mr. Mitchell writes, “In 1913, when white organizers put together an ambitious fiftieth reunion of the battle, they pointedly excluded black veterans and studiously avoided mention of emancipation. The Baltimore Afro-American Ledger was moved to wonder whether Licoln’s phrase, as he dedicated the national cemetery there in 1863, ‘by the ‘People’’ really meant ‘only white people’ – an observation made just as President Woodrow Wilson began segregating agencies of the federal government.” Woodrow Wilson was President of the United States in 1913 and spoke at the fiftieth anniversary.
I am always happy to provide my sources. This fact is not too hard to find. Not sure how a false narrative can be created from a book that was published and researched in the mid 2000s.
John Griep says
Paul, you may also want to take a look at what Professor David Blight said during the National Park Service Symposium on the Civil War. I trust you would agree that Professor Blight is one of the preeminent historians of the Civil War.
In a speech entitled “Healing and History: Battlefields and the Problem of Civil War Memory,” as reported by the National Park Service, Blight said:
“The ‘Peace Jubilee,’ as the (Gettysburg) reunion was called, was a Jim Crow reunion. There is no evidence that any black veterans attended or were welcome in spite of what you see in episode eleven of Ken Burns’s film series on the Civil War. So far as can be determined, there were no black veterans at the 1913 gathering of the Blue and the Gray. The only blacks in attendance were laborers who helped build the tent city, who constructed and cleaned the latrines, and who dispensed blankets to the white veterans. (emphasis added) This stunning and photogenic gathering of old veterans, which was covered by the national and international press for several days, featured an enfeebled re-enactment by actual participants of part of Pickett’s Charge and the familiar handshakes across the stone walls on Cemetery Ridge. There had never been such a spectacle of resolution and patriotism on this scale in America. “Thank God for Gettysburg, Hosanna!” proclaimed the Louisville Courier Journal. “God bless us everyone, alike the Blue and the Gray…. The world ne’er witnessed such a site as this. Beholding, can we say happy is the nation that hath no history.”
“At a time when lynching had developed into a social ritual of its own horrifying kind (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People counted 70 in 1913), and when the American apartheid had become fully entrenched, many black leaders and editors found the sectional love feast at Gettysburg more than they could bear. “A Reunion of whom?” asked the Washington Bee. Only those who “fought for the preservation of the Union and the extinction of slavery,” or also those who “fought to destroy the Union and perpetuate slavery, and who are now employing every artifice… known to deceit… to propagate a national sentiment in favor of their nefarious contention that emancipation, reconstruction and enfranchisement are a dismal failure.” Black responses to such reunions as that at Gettysburg in 1913 and a host of other similar events demonstrated how fundamentally at odds black memories were by then from the spirit and character of the national reunion. In that contradiction lay an American tragedy not yet fully told by 1913 and considered out of place at Blue-Gray reunions.
“African American responses to the 1913 Gettysburg reunion were especially telling in the context of the Wilson administration’s efforts that very summer to aggressively re-segregate federal agencies in Washington, D.C.”
Henry Herr says
Also, for the record, this fact has been pointed out to you personally more than once, as I thought. Here is your letter to the editor about the Gettysburg connections, with comments that you responded to with sources of how this was an all white event. The article is dated Feb 14 2021.
https://talbotspy.org/letter-to-editor-talbot-boys-monument-tied-to-gettysburg-reunion-of-1913/
I have to wonder why you keep lying about MtM making things up with no sources at this point. I furthermore have to wonder why The Talbot Spy feels obligated to give an organization a platform that clearly does not provide facts and tries to debase another organization while using false statements. I mean give citizens a platform for points of view but why continue to give organizations a platform that repeat falsehoods and just plain inaccurate facts.
Paul W Callahan says
To reply to Henry Herr and to John Greip Below. Author David Blight does attempt to state that blacks “were not welcome or did not attend” the Gettysburg reunion, which is totally different then Henry Herr’s false statement above that they were “not allowed” at the reunion.
Dixon Preston once wrote that history is modified and changed by the biases and prejudices of the author who writes it. David Blights assertion that they “were not welcome” may well be his insertion of his bias or his opinion and is contrary to the reunion’s advertisement that “All Are Welcome”. This is further interpreted by Henry Herr and John Greip that they were “not allowed”
But many other historians fully disagree with David Blight – Carol Reardon asserts that black veterans were both invited to and attended the 1913 reunion at Gettysburg. Reardon states the organizers of the reunion in Gettysburg invited black veterans to participate fully in the celebrations, and a few went, but in Jim Crow America, they were housed on their own separate street in the tent camp. Reardon also states that the white veterans were glad they were there.
Historian James Weeks also records “first-person accounts of black veterans attending the spectacle of reunions in Gettysburg”
The reality is that very few (is any) USCT soldiers fought at Gettysburg so many black veterans were not tied to that battle and not motivated to attend. The re-union also allowed for the re-unions of individual units and re-uniting with the soldiers you were with was a strong factor which would not apply if no USCT units fought at Gettysburg. Additionally, many States provided financial assistance for veterans to attend, but only veterans who were actually at the battle.
Obviously the sad state of race relations at that time certainly would have discourage blacks from attending. But this is totally different from the false narrative asserted by Henry and John that they were “not allowed”
Attempting to make the Gettysburg reunion into another racial hatred issue is just another example that some want to modify American history where everything is based on racism, hatred, and supremacy. For what purpose does this serve? Do you think this will somehow make things better? Modifying our history is only meant to inflame and to divide our citizens, to pit neighbor against neighbor.
Henry Herr says
Honestly I’m very confused with your statement. You assert that PTH does not need the opinions of historians to keep the monument but then cite historians as sources. Do you respect historians opinions on everything or just those that fit your narrative?
Furthermore, you state “Reardon states the organizers of the reunion in Gettysburg invited black veterans to participate fully in the celebrations, and a few went, but in Jim Crow America, they were housed on their own separate street in the tent camp.” But you’ve stated many times that the Gettysburg Reunion was the reason for the creation of the monument and the Jim Crow era had nothing to do with it. But you’ve just admitted to how the Gettysburg reunion was very much effected by the Jim Crow era.
Honestly, at this point I’ve made it abundantly clear the hypocrisy and falseness of your assertions. I would ask that you stop trying to degrade other organizations with flase accusations. If you disagree with something you should be welcome to explain why. I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to attack another organization, claiming false accusations and lies instead of just stating your opinion.
As it’s been made abundantly clear PTH does not find it prudent to give clear accurate statements. Just see the reference to the George Floyd killing in 2019 (instead of 2020) and how Andrew Jackson pardoned Confederates (not Andrew Johnson). I hope any more statements by the group are more throughly researched for accuracy…especially if history is the most important thing. Not how POC view the statue today.
John Griep says
Paul,
I don’t believe I have ever stated that blacks were “not allowed” at the Gettysburg 50th anniversary reunion. If you can provide me with evidence of having done so, I will stand corrected. Otherwise, your claims that I have asserted such a fact are complete and utter falsehoods and should be noted as such.
As for your comments about Carol Reardon and James Weeks disagreeing with David Blight, here is another source for you and others to read.
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=gcjcwe
Here are some excerpts:
“Carol Reardon is the most eminent modern historian to embrace the idea that black veterans were both invited to and attended the 1913 reunion at Gettysburg. Reardon claims the organizers of the reunion in Gettysburg invited black veterans to participate fully in the celebrations, and a few went, but in Jim Crow America, they were housed on their own separate street in the tent camp. Reardon further notes that white veterans enjoyed the behavior of the African-Americans in the camp. Reardon’s only apparent source for this assertion is Civil War veteran Walter Blake’s account of his journey to Gettysburg, Hand Grips.
“Reardon is not the only prominent historian to recently address the question of black veterans in 1913 Gettysburg. In his analysis of race in the memory of the American Civil War, David Blight propounds a conclusion contradictory to Reardon’s claim. Blight argues that while according to the main organizers, the Pennsylvania Commission, black veterans were implicitly eligible to attend the reunion, “research has turned up no evidence that any [black veterans] did attend.”
“Writing on earlier reunions at Gettysburg along with 1913, James Weeks writes that “first-person accounts describe black veterans attending the spectacle” of reunions in Gettysburg. Weeks is unclear as to whether he believes the accounts but he also observes “the ceremonies and official pronouncements disregarded racial matters altogether.” In fact, Weeks never directly cites a primary source concerning the 1913 reunion at Gettysburg. Instead, Weeks appears to cite only other works by David Blight in reference to the 1913 reunion in particular. In spite of his reliance on Blight’s work, Weeks conveys a subtly different message than Blight by being less declarative about the lack of reliable evidence to substantiate claims of black veterans‟ attendance in 1913.
“At the core of this historiographical debate is the single contemporary account involving black veterans at the reunion. Walter Herbert Blake was a Union veteran of the Civil War from New Jersey. In 1913, he and other veterans embarked on an expedition to the Gettysburg reunion. Blake wrote a travel narrative of his group‟s experiences….
“Blake identified a single street of the tent camp for veterans “devoted entirely to negro soldiers”. These black men encountered no discrimination and “they were treated just like the others and had the time of their lives”, according to Blake. Such men proved entertaining as the “great attraction” to their area of the camp since they regularly played “old plantation melodies”….
“The possibility that the black men were some of the many laborers in the camp never appears in Blake’s writing. Blake’s observations deserve some context in the geography of Gettysburg. Most of the African-American residents of Gettysburg lived in the southwestern district of the town, the Third Ward, proximate to the edge of the veterans’ camp. When this fact is considered alongside the well-documented evidence of blacks working in the camp during the reunion, a clear possibility emerges to suggest the black men Blake observed were not invited veterans attending the reunion but simply black people who happened to be in or near the camp as workers or local residents….
“Organization of the semi-centennial reunion was a joint venture between the Federal government and each individual state government, though the vast majority of responsibility was split between the Federal government and Pennsylvania. The Federal government appropriated money to provide tents and supplies for an estimated 40,000 veterans. In an April, 3, 1912 Concurrent Resolution of Congress, the government planned to provide “material support and accommodation of veterans, including sewage, water, hospital services and policing”. A “big camp” with centralized latrines and medical care would house the veterans during their stay. Nowhere in the War Department’s report are African-Americans mentioned and no trace of a “separate street” for black veterans remains on the maps detailing the layout of the tent camp.”
Rev Julie Hart says
From the Gospel of St Mark: One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which Commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “‘The First, Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.'” MARK 12:28-31
What I just read had nothing to do with the two greatest commandments by which we are to live, if we are followers of Jesus. Similar laws or commandments are found in Torah, from which Jesus often quoted; along with the Prophets.
Imagine if we really tried to live by the two greatest commandments.
The Talbot Boys monument has nothing to do with forgiveness. Jesus himself is forgiveness. And we are called to that same forgiveness in the Second Commandment. However, it does not mean accepting any representations of injustice or supremacy of any type. If we really believed in Jesus’ kind of self-sacrificing forgiveness, there would be no discussion on the removal of this monument which does not represent forgiveness of any kind.
Peace,
Rev Julie Hart
Jim Richardson says
Ms. Mielke’s letter is just one more example of present-day “Lost Cause” revisionist history supported by the Preserve Talbot History coalition.
Near the end of her letter, the writer mentions how Frederick Douglass came back to the Eastern Shore to meet with his enslavers to forgive them, and then asks the reader why religious leaders can’t do the same. She takes it one step further and implies that Douglass believed “the enslavers were as much as victims of the system as he was.” Really? What well-known historian supports that notion?
One Frederick Douglass historian, David W. Blight, in his recent biography of Talbot County’s most famous son entitled, Frederick Douglass, Prophet of Freedom, writes about how Douglass constantly feared the revisionist history that was already being formulated during Reconstruction (pages 530-31).
“Douglass believed the political struggle over Reconstruction depended on winning the fight over the memory of the war.
The energized editor realized the power of the “Lost Cause” as both a historical argument and a racial ideology. The Lost Cause was in these early years essentially an explanation of defeat and a set of beliefs in search of a history – ex-Confederates’ contentions that they had never been defeated on battlefields but by the Northern leviathan of industrial might; that they had never fought for slavery but for state sovereignty and homeland; that the South’s racially ordered civilization had been tragically crushed by Yankee invasion; and that “just” causes can lose militarily but with time regain the moral and political high ground. Douglass vehemently resisted the rapid emergence in national political circles of these ideas. He was appalled at the national veneration of Robert E. Lee when he died in 1870. Disgusted at what he called the “bombastic laudation” and the “nauseating flatteries” of the “rebel chief,” Douglass attacked the Lost Cause as a betrayal of the verdicts of the war. “It would seem,” he wrote in a biting editorial, “that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven.” By early 1871, after so much romance about Lee’s death and the sentiment that he had “died of a broken heart,” Douglass expressed a precise verdict: “He was a traitor and can be made nothing else.”
Dick Deerin says
Well said. The Talbot Confederate Boy statute and memorial is an attempt to perpetuate the myth that somehow those who supported the confederacy were fighting for an honorable and just cause. Fighting to preserve slavery is neither just nor honorable. Remove the statue and memorial from the courthouse grounds.
Judy A Wixted says
A Confederate Monument does not belong on a Courthouse lawn in 2021. The United States didn’t UNIFY with the Confederacy, we defeated it. Anyone who wants to memorialize and praise men who fought to preserve slavery are welcome to do it on private, not public ground.
Cynthia Pyron says
Well said. Thank you for the facts. The names on the base are everywhere in this area. Without those families, we probably would not have Easton. If I were a member of those families, I would like for the monument to stay where it is. The descendants of those families should take pride in what their relatives did to create Easton and the principals they gave their lives for. Enough is enough! Everyone just take a deep breathe and chill out.
Linda Baker says
Lynn Leonhardt Mielke, I applaud your editorial and the time and research you put into this. I have always thought it very appropriate to have the Talbot Boys statue and the Frederick Douglass statue across from each other. It tells the story.
Our children are not taught true history anymore, mostly false tales. Gordon Chase, the flag and name “Confederate States of America” are also part of our history. It was, it happened, whether you like it or not. It’s history. People have started removing history and look what is happening, people are being pitted against each other again. Who starts this? The media? The politicians? Private groups? Leaders who want things their way? Maybe someone who has an agenda to cause strife between the people? So we repeat the same old history.
We need to teach our young people TRUE history and how we moved forward, what we learned from it, not the idealism being taught in our educational schools and colleges today. Most young people today believe all history is bad! Remove it! Very sad, so many things to learn and understand to what has led us to today. Thank you again Lynn for one of the most informed editorials regarding this controversy.
Deirdre LaMotte says
What does your defending of history have anything to do with a statue honoring traitors on the ground of a US Government Courthouse?
If you want everyone in your group to read about the attempted coup of our nation, why not buy them books? Let the courthouse be welcoming to all US Citizens, not just those who attempted to overthrow it.
Chuck Rand says
Arguments made to remove the Talbot Boys monument are based on dishonesty, believing a false narrative and not having an understanding of history.
The monument is a monument to the love that those that risked their lives to defend their homes and families and those of others who were under attack made. No one shows greater love than to lay ones life down for another. The soldiers, sailors and marines of the CSA did this and Rev. Julie Hart should recognize this.
The acted to defend against the criminals that invaded their sister states. I see in the comments there are false accusations ( also a violation of the Commandments ) about CSA soldiers being traitors. This is obviously false based on the historical record. It one wishes to use the term traitor is more appropriately applies to Lincoln. The most basic principle of the founding was that people have the right to a government based on the “Consent of the Governed”. Lincoln attacked and destroyed this principal. Jefferson Davis said that he would rather be out of the Union with the Constitution than in the union without it. That is the position we find ourselves in .. the union as it now exists is not the Union of the Founders.. and the Constitution has ceased to serve its function as a document defining the division of powers between the Federal and State governments.
Anyone that believes the Constitution is in force now has not been paying attention for the last 160 years.There is also mention that no historians have been cited by PTH. I am an historian and support their efforts to have the statue remain where it is.
Henry Herr says
So you disagree with the American Historical Association? You disagree with the many Maryland historians that agree that the monument should be moved? Are you arguing that the Constitution is not in effect today? I’d love you know more. Truthfully. I know comments come across with the wrong connotation sometimes, but you are the first historian I have seen that has defended this monument.
Paul says
Thank You Chuck Rand!!
Carol Voyles says
Gordon Chase said it all. Our courthouse is not the place for a
Confederate monument.
HUgh (Jock) Beebe says
Thank you for a moderate and clearly stated perspective on the facts and relevant opinions advanced by both local citizens and external interventionists. Your highly relevant concluding emphasis on the power of forgiveness shows how a path to reconciliation can be found through active listening to those with whom one disagrees.
Jill Poe says
I believe the actual business of the court should be moved out of downtown Easton. The old Black and Decker facility were the Sherriffs department is would be perfect. Easy access, plenty of parking and if the location is ever targeted by terrorists, historic Easton will be spared. Make the old facility into a museum for everyone.
Totch Hartge says
Your history is not threatened at all.
Monuments and symbols are coming down all over the country. We hear no wailing or crying about lost history. Things are changing for the better in America. New awareness to our neighbors’ pain is a good thing. It brings us together as a community to tweak a few bad traditions and grow as humans.
Yes, please remove the insulting Confederate flag from our courthouse lawn for the common good.