Posted on 08/14/2008 7:42:06 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...The decision comes with no guarantee of where or whether the statue might be displayed or how it is interpreted.
(Excerpt) Read more at inrich.com ...
But this one might be treated differently from other tributes.
The American Civil War Center announced yesterday that it would accept a life-size bronze statue of Davis from the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A final decision rests with NewMarket Corp. as owner of the museum site at Tredegar Iron Works.
Under the museum's collections policy, the decision comes with no guarantee of where or whether the statue might be displayed or how it is interpreted.
Officials said the statue would help fulfill the museum's mission to tell the story of the Civil War and its causes, conduct and legacies from the Union, Confederate and African-American perspectives.
A spokesman for NewMarket, parent company of Ethyl Corp., said the firm had not yet been briefed on the statue proposal and could not say when a decision would be made.
Christy S. Coleman, museum president, said the statue could be used to show how the Civil War is remembered. The museum includes a gallery that focuses on that, examining such popular cultural influences as "Gone With the Wind" and "The Dukes of Hazzard" television show.
"We are committed to telling the story. Are we committed to propaganda? No," Coleman said.
For now, the decision is good enough for the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Group members were angered in 2003, when a statue of Abraham Lincoln was placed on the Tredegar property by the National Park Service.
Brag Bowling, a Richmond resident and board member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said he's delighted by the museum's decision. He hopes to meet with museum officials soon to discuss how the piece may be used.
"The statue is not meant to be put in a basement, that's for sure," he said. "It's a tool that will help their program. . . . I think it's a great monument for Richmond."
The statue is being prepared by Lexington sculptor Gary Casteel, and it depicts the Confederate leader standing with his son Joe and with Jim Limber, a mixed-race orphan who was taken in by the Davis family. The sculpture is expected to be completed by late fall at a cost of more than $100,000.
Coleman said the statue is interesting because it depicts Davis as a paternal figure and was offered by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "This really became more of an opportunity [to show] how people choose to remember."
Museum officials expect some backlash. "To a certain degree, that would have come regardless of the decision," Coleman said.
King Salim Khalfani, executive director of the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP, called the museum's decision disappointing but understandable, given the criticism that likely would have come if the statue had been declined. He said Davis and the Confederacy are offensive to African-Americans because they represent a cause that was based on enslaving blacks.
"Now, it depends on how it's being deployed," Khalfani said, suggesting the statue be placed in permanent storage. "If it has a place of significance in the museum . . . we'll have to see."
Museum officials would not disclose the board's vote but Coleman said it wasn't unanimous.
"The board has made its decision," she said. "Bottom line, we can make this work to look at some pretty good legacy issues."
"We are committed to telling the story. Are we committed to propaganda? No political correctness? Yes," Coleman said.
There. Fixed it.
Any mention of how Yankees troops kidnapped the boy after the war and the Davis' never saw him again?
Goodness, to think that anyone would protest a statute of Jefferson Davis in a Civil War center is baffling even in this politically correct world. It is high time the PC Marxists be ridiculed and dismissed.
You'll have to see?
I don't even know why we try to deal with these people.
I say put up the statue of Davis - it's of historic interest in itself as the latest attempt to revise Davis' legacy.
Of course, it's a bit silly to say that Limber was Davis' "adopted son" - the closest modern analogy would be to say that Limber was a foster child whom the Davises allowed to stay with them in the company of their household slaves.
I guess "King Salim" wants to just pretend the Confederate side never existed. Just another radical waiting to be offended by something. It's a Civil War museum for gosh sakes, I don't care what "King Salim" thinks about it.
BTW, I was actually born in Jefferson Davis Hospital so I should have more of a say in this, lol.
Dixie ping!
...I’d be surprised if this statue sees the light of day...political power in Richmond is in the hands of African-American Democrats...a group not known for welcoming CSA memories.
Well given that they manumitted him and raised him with their own children I wouldn't call it silly. And what modern households have slaves?
Kidnapped?
He was fostered by the Saxton family as he had been by the Davis family.
Where should he have gone to stay? Davis' prison cell?
The Saxtons put Limber through school (which would have been illegal in Confederate Virginia).
As a free man after the war, he could have gone to visit the Davises whom he had briefly stayed with any time he liked.
He never chose to go.
Heaven forfend that Jefferson Davis or Varina Davis ever stooped so low as to go and pay him a visit.
Dixie ping
Putiing Lincoln's statue in Richmond is just another poke in the eye or agitation or bowing to political correctness or Yankee/NAACP arrogance.
Which I know when it comes to race or the South suits you but most us reject it.
Soon enough though, you can have Richmond. Like most formerly grand AND SAFE southern cities, it's got it's share of problems and folks like this psuedo African compadre of your's whining about Davis's PC statue are now running the henhouse ands the results are just dandy wouldn't ya say?
Why not just put up Mugabe, some Mau Maus, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X too while we're at it.
marking for a later read.
They never owned him in the first place and therefore did not have standing to manumit him. Basically, they "kidnapped" him from whomever did own him, and that owner never came looking for him.
He only lived with them for a year - saying they "raides him" is a bit much. They took him in, let him live in their house and - as was common - let him play with their son who was the same age.
I wouldn't call it silly
I would. He wasn't adopted. Tehre was no legal way to adopt him in Confederate Virginia anyway, and he was never legally named Davis, nor was he an heir to the Davis estate. Limber was not adopted by the Davises. He was briefly fostered by them.
And what modern households have slaves?
None in the US, despite the Davises' strenuous efforts to the contrary.
Yes kidnapped. From the article in Black History Month...
As the Union soldiers came to forcibly take young Jim, he put up a great struggle and tried to hold onto his family as they to him. Jim and his family cried uncontrollably as the child was taken. His family would never again see him or know what happened to him. The Davis' tried in later years to locate Jim but were unsuccessful. They prayed that he grew to manhood and did well in life.
Varina didn't go to prison and none of the Davis' other children were taken.
If questioned on the subject, of course, you would claim to have no racial animus whatever.
Abraham Lincoln was a famous American patriot and Jefferson Davis is a famous American patriot who turned traitor.
They are both essential personages in the history of this republic whose legacies should be of continuing interest to all Americans.
What Mugabe, the Mau Maus or Marcus Garvey have to do with essential US history is a mystery you apparently know the answer to.
I'm unfamiliar with this publication. Do you have a link to source it?
As the Union soldiers came to forcibly take young Jim, he put up a great struggle and tried to hold onto his family as they to him. Jim and his family cried uncontrollably as the child was taken. His family would never again see him or know what happened to him. The Davis' tried in later years to locate Jim but were unsuccessful. They prayed that he grew to manhood and did well in life.
Hmmm. Googling this text doesn't lead me to any publication called Black History Month - but to the website of "The Southern Party Of Georgia", which is apparently a disloyal separatist organization.
Again, Limber was not one of their children and legally could not be under the regime that Davis himself operated.
You're splitting hairs. They executed a legal custody arrangement through the court. The kid ate at their table and had his own room in the Confederate White House. You don't want to call that "adoption"? OK call it what you like. But I think the point being made by the sculpture stands.
It’s a shameful disservice to such a large population of our country to have revisionist politicians and academics defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazificaation of the Confederacy. Their way of thinking goes something like this: Slavery was evil. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought for a system that wished to preserve it. Therefore they were evil as well, and any attempt to honor their service is a veiled effort to glorify the cause of slavery.
It’s a blatant use of the “race card” in a seemingly endless game . And it dishonors hundreds of thousands of men who can defend themselves only through the voices of their descendants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.