Memorial for Nathan Bedford Forrest Tribute or Aggression - Essay Example

Luke Dunn Mrs Dotson English 102 Section 26 [Publish Memorial for Nathan Bedford Forrest – tribute or aggression? Some residents of Selma, Alabama, want to create a monument to the legendary Civil War general Nathan Bedford Forrest in the town’s center. Forrest was known to the inhabitants of Selma as a defender who upheld his town’s defense in the hardest hour of the Civil War to protect people’s lives and honor. Once the war ended, Forrest proceeded to organize the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and is considered one of its earliest and most ferocious leaders. Under the KKK umbrella, Forrest and other advocates of violence against the African Americans unfurled a reign of terror incomparable to any other point in time in America’s history. Through his actions after the end of the Civil War, Forrest unleashed a systematic campaign of terror against African Americans and their advocates for equal racial rights. Nathan Bedford Forrest transformed from the defender of Selma to a racist apartheid leader set out to take away the life and liberty of African Americans and their advocates for equal racial rights. The Ku Klux Klan eroded over time and is considered one of the saddest chapters in American history. The issue of appreciating Forrest remained untouched for decades but has recently resurfaced. A public monument to Forrest had been proposed by some residents of Selma but the scheme was not provided land by the town authorities. In order to erect a monument to Forrest, these residents are proceeding to purchase private land near the town center. Friction exists between residents regarding the erection of such a monument even if done on private land. It is proposed that the monument to Forrest not be built near the town center but should be shifted to a remoter location so as to discourage public outrage on this issue. Proponents of the monument to Forrest contend that the monument can be erected on private land citing their First Amendment right to do so (McEvoy). Under the First Amendment, every American citizen is entitled to liberty and freedom including the right to express their ideas publicly (Monaghan). If the town government of Selma were to approve of the monument to Forrest, it could have been seen as a sign that there was official support behind such cause. However, this would lead to a new dimension of problems including support for finances from government coffers. In order to circumvent this position, proponents of the monument to Forrest have decided to purchase private land near the town center where the monument would be erected. Under the First Amendment, there is no stopping such behavior since the land’s owners are allowed to carry out any activity as long as it does not endanger the nation’s security or does not provoke public outrage. The owners of the subject land are prepared to erect a monument to Forrest citing that public outrage over such an issue is not expected since Forrest is considered a hero in the South. Rulings over the First Amendment under court trials point to the need for “evolution of procedure” regarding public expression that may cause friction in society (Mitchell). Courts of law have held that it is up to the judicial system to decide if certain acts carried out in private capacity under the First Amendment are publicly acceptable. Court rulings provide that private acts under the First Amendment are acceptable as long as they do not encroach on the rights of other citizens (Mitchell). For example, a person can decide to shed their clothes in private, but this behavior cannot take place in public since it leads to obscene behavior. Under the First Amendment and the right to public expression, a person could theoretically shed their clothes and go public, but under court rulings this has been exposed as public indecency (Mitchell). In the current situation, the monument to Forrest is being erected on private land, but this private land is publicly exposed to the town center. The monument to Forrest would be clearly visible from the town center, and so it would become a public affair. If Nathan Bedford Forrest was recognized as a hero by members of all communities living in Selma, it would be acceptable to erect such a monument to pay homage. However, Forrest is a disputed personality in terms of his historical acceptability to various communities and may provoke an outrage in African Americans living in the town. Erecting such a monument in Selma may lead to racial strife between black and anti-black groups, which may trigger violent outcomes. In order to prevent violence and racial friction, it would be pertinent to ensure that the monument to Forrest is not erected near major public centers. In order to avoid racial friction, it is proposed that the monument to Forrest be erected in some remote location where Forrest advocates could visit the monument without creating an object of public outrage. In case the monument to Forrest is created on private land near the town center, opposition to the monument may end up believing that official connivance led to such a decision (Percoco). In such a case, the opposition to the monument may even lose faith in public institutions such as the local law enforcement agencies, which could lead to a deficit in public trust. There are also chances that such a monument could trigger racial friction that would eventually end up in violence leaving both parties at loss. Public exposure of a personality such as Forrest may lead people to think that official policies may now become tinged to support racial segregation. On the other hand, if proponents of the monument are not allowed to build the monument at all, it would be tantamount to denying their First Amendment rights for freedom of expression (Thomas). The only real solution to this problem would be to build such a monument out of the public eye so that this issue does not assume wider political dimensions. If the monument proposed for Forrest is built away from public gaze, it would allow the proponents of the monument to exercise their First Amendment rights without causing massive public outrage. The bone of contention in this issue is the public exposure of a monument dedicated to a known racist leader. It is expected that public exposure of such a monument would cause massive political rifts as well as racial tension, which could lead to violent ends. However, the proponents of the monument cannot be stopped from exercising their First Amendment rights either. In case that the monument is built in a more remote location, it would not stand to symbolize political connivance or support for Forrest since such a monument would not become a public symbol (Dwyer and Alderman). Since the erection of a monument to Forrest cannot be denied outright, it must be manipulated to minimize political outfall and racial relations damage. Monuments in public space tend to symbolize support for one cause or the other and can be seen as galvanizing points for political opinion and support. Public symbols such as monuments can be taken as signs of an impending change in political positions and stand points (Caliendo). Erection of a monument to Forrest near public space would cause resentment and hostility in members of the African American community, which is undesirable, unwanted and uncalled for. The current problem can be dealt with strategically by offering a compromise to the involved parties so as to partially satisfy their interests. The proponents of the monument to Forrest should be allowed to build a monument since it cannot be denied in the longer run. In case such a request is denied by the town government of Selma, the proponents of this cause could resort to legal entanglement to ensure that their First Amendment rights are secured. If things come to such a junction, it might not be possible to stop the proponents from building a monument near the town center. On the other hand, the opponents to the monument for Forrest cannot be provided any guarantee that the monument will not be built altogether. However, the opponents of this cause can be ensured that the subject monument would be erected out of public gaze so that members of their community are not offended. Moreover, the opponents of the monument need to be educated that the First Amendment right of the proponents cannot be removed outright but this does not signify official connivance in erecting the subject monument. This would ensure that the opponents and proponents to such a monument would consult the town government of Selma as issues proceed without taking matters into their own hands. This would also strengthen public trust and credibility in institutions and their ability to find and implement fitting solutions to political problems. Works Cited Caliendo, Guillermo G. “MLK Boulevard: Material forms of memory and the social contestation of racial signification.” Journal of Black Studies 42(7) (2011): 1148-1170. Dwyer, Owen J. and Derek H. Alderman. “Memorial landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors.” GeoJournal 73 (2008): 165-178. McEvoy, Thom J. “Private property rights: A look at its history and future.” Farming: The Journal of Northeast Agriculture 4(12) (2001): 45-47. Mitchell, W. J. T. “The Violence of Public Art: "Do the Right Thing".” Critical Inquiry 16(4) (1990): 880-899. Monaghan, Henry P. “First Amendment "Due Process".” Harvard Law Review 83(3) (1970): 518-551. Percoco, James A. “Monumental history: Commemorating Americas Civil War Sesquicentennial.” OAH Magazine of History 25(2) (2012): 58-61. Thomas, Jeffrey E. “Statements of Fact, Statements of Opinion, and the First Amendment.” California Law Review 117(3) (1986): 1001-1056. Read More