Returning Home to Memphis, Where Two Confederate Statues Are No More

I was born and raised in Memphis, Tennessee. I returned home this month for my brother’s memorial service. The city looked different.

The Memphis State University of my youth is now the University of Memphis. The mayor no longer owns a barbecue chain. The city, bordered by the Mississippi River on the west, still spreads out to the east, but what used to be the beginning of farms and wooded areas is now part of a developed extension of city and county. A park that used to be called Nathan Bedford Forrest Park is now called Health Sciences Park.

But Memphis is still Memphis.

The economic and social divide of today looks like that of my childhood. The city’s history of racial division goes back to at least 1819, when the city was founded. Memphis was a hub for slave trading before the Civil War. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated here. My niece has white high school friends who refer to the city as “Memphrica” — an allusion to Africa that reflects the fact the Memphis is 64 percent Black.

So I was surprised when I heard about Confederate statues in Memphis coming down. I thought back to when I was 5 years old and first asked my parents about them.

My parents, my older brother, and I were driving downtown. We had gotten barbecue and chitlins (“chitterlings” – if you don’t know, don’t ask) at a place by the river and were heading home. We passed what I now know was Nathan Bedford Forrest Park. I saw a statute of a man riding the biggest horse I had ever seen. I asked, “Who is that on that big horse?”

My young parents, then in their 30s, got quiet. Something was wrong.

I now realize they probably had no idea what to say. How could they explain America’s legacy of slavery, racial hatred, and oppression to a 5-year-old boy? How much detail was enough for a young child? What facts could explain honoring the man on the horse if he sold people as property and killed American soldiers to keep doing it?

The horse and the man were still there when I arrived in Memphis this month, but just days after I left monuments to Confederate heroes Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest were removed from places of honor in the city. I had new questions about the man and horse. How did the removal happen? And what does it mean?

The City Council, which is made up of seven Black and six white members, voted unanimously to sell the parks where the monuments stood to a nonprofit entity that quickly removed them. The Chamber of Commerce supported the removal. The New York Times quoted Mayor Jim Strickland, the city’s first white mayor in nearly a quarter-century, crediting a “unified effort” that “stands in stark contrast to what happened in 1968,” when Dr. King was fatally shot.

It is not that simple. Memphis politicians seem uncomfortable admitting the critical role played by Tami Sawyer, a Black woman who is a director of Teach for America. Sawyer lead a movement that empowered community voices to tell city government that it was time for the monuments to go. The New York Times described Sawyer’s advocacy as “persistent and sometimes disruptive.”

Well, it takes persistence to disrupt a false racial narrative that has for decades blocked “unified efforts” for racial justice.

“I think there’s a lot of people that are trying in Memphis to bridge this racial divide,” Sawyer said. “But I think that we have to have honest conversations about why that divide exists. Too often people want to say, ‘Let’s get to the healing,’ but not call out the years of systemic oppression that continue to exist.”

America clings to a false narrative about slavery — that it wasn’t that bad or that extensive, that it ended conclusively more than a century ago, that the Civil War was about states’ rights or something else — because we are desperate to avoid confronting the truth about our history.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I learned people are rarely just one thing. They can be wonderful in one way, contemptable in another. A historical marker at the site of Forrest’s home in Memphis notes, “Following marriage in 1845 he came to Memphis, where his business enterprises made him wealthy.”

“Business enterprises.” Forrest was a slave trader. He peddled human flesh for a price and he got filthy rich from it. His home in Memphis was right across the street from his slave market, so he could sell human beings into bondage and then stroll home to be a Southern gentleman. Any wonderful personal qualities were greatly outweighed by his defense of and contribution to white supremacy.

Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. Secession statements from Confederate states make that clear. Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy said, “Our new government is founded 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.” Forrest is quoted in a foreword to his own biography as saying, “If we ain’t fightin’ to keep slavery, then what the hell are we fightin’ for?”

Some say Forrest changed his views at the end of his life, but it really doesn’t matter. There was no engraving on the foundation of his monument saying “he was a white supremacist who changed his views and tried to do penance for his sins against humanity.” The monuments to Forrest and Davis honored them simply as warriors for the Confederacy.

The truth is that removal of these monuments will not educate, feed, or free from prison even one person of color. But the admission of the true nature of our racialized past is a necessary part of real structural change leading to racial justice.

They owe penance for their sins, but all that’s left of them are statues. The legacy of the sins remain, so it is just that the statues come down.

Add a comment (53)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

Who was picking the cotton? And what would happen if you could no longer make the cotton pickers pick cotton?

Bill Black

Actually virtually all the cotton went from New Orleans to Liverpool via New York. Plenty of northerners, especially Wall Street financiers, got rich off the cotton trade. And a lot of northern farmers, especially in the Midwest, made a living selling produce to southern plantations (because, as profitable as cotton may be, you cannot eat it).

The war occurred because white southerners were alienated by the election of a Republican president who opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories. White slaveholders (rightly!) saw this as a slippery slope to the eventual abolition of slavery. (After all, if a slaveholder was not free to bring all his property into a federal territory, whereas a non-slaveholder was, then at some level the right to own slaves was *not* protected or recognized by the federal government.)

Mark Schirmer

Wrong. The motivating (and really only cause) was the fear that ther federal government would curtail and and slavery. Cotton is a nice was of saying plantation economics, which depended on slavery. Any attempt to whitewash this (and that term is used advisedly) ignores reality to avoid the uncomfortable truth and often to bolster the mythic lost cause story.

kahmd

That is a factually incorrect statement. The northern mills, especially in New England were milling the cotton and weaving it into cloth. Both the north and the south were benefiting from an economy which was undeniably based on the free (slave) labor of enslaved Africans. This in inarguable. All the efforts to deflect the cause from the civil war from slavery fail to recognize that 80% of the economy of the entire United States depended on free, forced labor. Your argument is specious and perpetuates the myth of Southern victimization by the North.

Dr. Timothy Leary

Slavery wasn't all bad. If it wasn't for slavery all these African-Americans would be back in Africa living in a grass shack. with a bone in their nose, and saying "bo-la, bo-la, bo-la".

Mike W.

Glad to know Forrest never did anything decent in his life. Read Bio of Forrest by Jack Hurst. I know these acts will change race relations ib our country.

Anonymous

No it won't ,people can take down statues and rename parks all they want to it doesn't change history what is the difference of it being there when it will always be there in memory

Kelly Barnes

"America clings to a false narrative about slavery — because we are desperate to avoid confronting the truth about our history."

This article is a gem among baubles.

Thank you.

Anonymous

Ya, because tearing down war monuments really solves anything... People are f&#king stupid... you included OP...

Anonymous

I doubt he changed his views at any time. During the war he was noted for slaughtering hundreds of black soldiers who had already surrendered . He was a member of the KKK his whole life. A hero he was not.

Pages

Stay Informed