A federal appeals court in Jacksonville will soon revisit a question that has long plagued Southern public life: the fate of Confederate monuments. Attorney Eric Johnson Jr., whose father was the attorney of Martin Luther King Jr., argues that the display of Confederate monuments on public property violates the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that the city should stop investing in maintaining them.
The sticking point? Johnson bases his case on a “stigmatic injury,” holding that the monuments inflict “deep repulsion, disheartenment, and intimidation.” Unfortunately for him, sentiment rarely dictates legal precedent for removing public historical markers, no matter how Confederate they may be.
The early 2020s delivered sucker punches to Southern dignity as it did for the rest of the country. The controversial death of George Floyd ignited rampant protests and a wave of hysteria which forced a rapid and uncomfortable re-evaluation of public spaces and historical memory.
Whatever one’s personal views, statues stand as physical reminders of history, offering important insights into the time they were created. The statues in Jacksonville mostly date back to the era of Jim Crow, a time of discrimination and racial oppression. However, the public square needs, perhaps more than ever, a robust debate on such issues rather than trauma-informed responses.
Despite prevailing media narratives, these statues do not universally offend the average person. A 2024 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute on public perception of Confederate monuments confirms this. When asked about “Lost Cause” monuments, over one-quarter (26%) said they should be left alone. A larger segment (35%) advocated leaving them standing with proper historical context.
Notably, just 9% of respondents advocate the total removal of these monuments. This may indicate that the broader public either rejected the dominant narrative of 2020 or, more likely, values the role such monuments play in helping us understand history.
This issue isn’t about ignoring injustice; it’s about addressing it intelligently.
America — the South included — is a vast laboratory of democracy. It runs on keen historical memory, and these monuments, however controversial, offer tangible links to our contentious past. They not only glorify aspects of their subjects but also explicate the society that produced them.
In Jacksonville’s case, the concern isn’t about overtly repulsive symbols. Among the monuments still standing are a “Monument to Confederate Women,” “The Line of Entrenchment,” and a “Memorial to Confederate Ancestors.” These are not shrines to barbarity, but rather complex markers of historical identity and local memory.
Instead of tearing down statues and erasing history, why don’t we undertake an honest study of Southern life and institutions? As the survey suggested, contextual plaques, insightful documentaries, and supplementary monuments offer a far better path for the public square than reactive graffiti or wholesale defunding.
CONFEDERATE MONUMENT AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY CAN STAY FOR NOW, JUDGE RULES
As the 11th Circuit prepares to hear Johnson’s appeal, it must heed the risk of letting subjective experience reign over legal precedent. In such cases, thoughtful nuance must always prevail. In an age plagued by rampant cultural illiteracy, civil society demands context and not the concealment of historical reality.
Jacksonville can defund statues, but in doing so it will be on the wrong side of American history.