Jim Limber Kidnapped and Brought to Beauvoir

Just to play Devil’s Advocate for a minute, I suppose it’s better that the people of Beauvoir use the statue to show Davis treating his “sons” equally regardless of race rather than promote the subordination of the black race. It might not be an accurate historical account, but it’s certainly not surprising that history is being reworked to fit the needs of today. Better that the statue represent a more equal view of race relations than promote white supremacy and glorify the subordination of the African American population. I don’t mean to undermine the great importance of history, especially accurate representations of history, but there are so many inaccuracies in statues, in history books, and in the American memory in general that it seems almost petty to point out this specific statue as being more offensive than the other inaccuracies in our portrayal of the past. But then again, what is truthful history? Undoubtedly there are some versions of history that are just plain wrong, but there are also many different versions of the truth. The same event can be experienced in entirely different ways by groups of people—case in point, the Civil War. But that doesn’t make one version of history more right than the other. It just makes it different, and this statue absolutely acknowledges a different point of view than is held in the North. We recognize that people manipulate historical events to fit the needs of the time—and maybe what Beauvoir needs is a picture of equal race relations. So the statue itself may not be incorrect—rather, the explanation of it is incorrect, if indeed the relations between Davis and Jim Limber were minimal.
I agree that this is (most likely) an extremely inaccurate attempt to show equality in race relations during the time of the Civil War. In a perfect world, we’d all be taught the “correct” version of history and there wouldn’t be these discrepancies. But sadly we live in a world where memory can be manipulated and stretched and fabricated and as a result we must live with inaccurate statues. C’est la vie.

Kathy,

Excellent points, but I wonder whether this really does reflect racial equality as you suggest. No doubt I am making a stretch here, but it is interesting that Davis is being depicted with a black child at a time when slaves were considered children by many and in the pro-slavery literature. I tend to see this as another example of the narrative of paternalism that pervaded pro-slavery ideology. The argument suggests that whites took care of slaves as part of their own family. Limber may have been free, but notice that the story implies that difficulties abound outside of the care of whites.

What do we care if the SCV places a statue of their “hero” on a piece of land they themselves own? Who are we to take away their constitutional right of free speech? You may not like the fact that they portray Davis in an innocent and “slave loving” manner, but that is not for us to decide. When the Civil War broke out, soldiers fought with the Confederates if they were from the South, and the Union if they lived in the North. There was not a real choice in who you fought for, and truth be told the founding fathers would have most likely sided with the South due to their southern roots. Also, the war was not originally fought about slaves, but Lincoln used slavery as a reason for why all these Union soldiers were fighting. States vs. Federal rights was not important enough in the eyes of the home front for 600,000 men to die, so slavery became the excuse. If the SCV wants to build a statue of U.S. Grant with his slaves, which, remember, he did have at one point, then they could do it. Under the constitution, they have the right to free speech and free expression. If your neighbor flies a Confederate flag in his front yard and has a Dixie doorbell, then that is his right. We cannot call something a propaganda stunt here in the 21st century regarding the Civil War. All I’m saying is that if they pay for it, and they own the land they are putting it on, then they have every right to do so. It is not taxpayer’s money and it is not on public land. One of the stipulations of the sale of Beauvoir to the SCV was that it acts as a memorial to Jefferson Davis, so what is wrong with the statue? It is not offensive in any way, and if we believe in the 1st amendment, then they have the right to do put up a statue of someone they respect.
The facts of the matter are that the statue was paid for by the SCV and put on their land. Yes, the original plan of placement fell through, but statues are not always placed in the desired location. Back home, in Providence, a statue of a WWI memorial was moved to a different location after it was already built and had been there for 50 years. Until recently, while researching the history of this monument, I couldn’t tell you what it was, who was on it, or what writing was displayed. All I knew was it was a large tower with something on top commemorating WWI. The point I am making is that the memory of certain “unimportant” memorials or monuments is soon forgotten or just disregarded all together. This statue is relatively small in scale and in a location that does not receive as much traffic as the memorials in D.C. The majority of the people who are going to visit the house and the statue are going to be people who already favor the Confederacy and who already praise Davis as a hero. The people who you claim they are attempting to attract are those who are uneducated, and that they want to sway those folks towards their side by suggesting Davis was a nice guy. Davis was fighting the war for states’ rights, and knew slavery was something that would not last. He even stated in a speech to congress that slavery would disappear in a generation or two. After the war was done, and Davis was no longer in such high political office, he and his wife rescued a black boy who was being beaten by his black guardian. The fact is that he did have a black boy he took care of, which shows he really was a generous soul. John Coski wrote a piece on Limber and notes that Davis’ wife said Limber was “happy as a lord.” If he was treated as a son, why is it so bad that the SVC wants to show a good, unknown side of Davis? Just because some people view Davis as a sign of the Confederacy, which died 150 years ago, doesn’t mean that everyone has to hate him. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I am not a supporter of the Confederacy or slavery, I am just someone who thinks that this is being made into a bigger deal than it needs to be, and am offering my honest and humble opinion, to which I am also entitled.

You totally misunderstand the First Amendment. The same First Amendment that protects the SCV's right to erect that statue without government interference also protects Kevin's right to criticize them for doing it. The core value of the First Amendment is contending views making their case in the free marketplace of ideas.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. First, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the SCV's right to free speech should be suspended. The decision on the part of the American Civil War Museum at Tredegar to accept the statue on certain conditions was normal procedure and in no way violated the organization's First Amendment rights.

You said: "When the Civil War broke out, soldiers fought with the Confederates if they were from the South, and the Union if they lived in the North. There was not a real choice in who you fought for, and truth be told the founding fathers would have most likely sided with the South due to their southern roots."

That is simply not true. Allegiances of white southerners were much more complex than what you've stated and I urge you to read further.

You said: "Also, the war was not originally fought about slaves, but Lincoln used slavery as a reason for why all these Union soldiers were fighting. States vs. Federal rights was not important enough in the eyes of the home front for 600,000 men to die, so slavery became the excuse."

You are correct that Lincoln steered clear of the issue of slavery at the beginning of the war, but again I would urge you to read further since the evolution of the war to one that included the abolition of slavery was much more complex than what you indicate. The movement of armies into the Confederacy and the initiative of the slaves themselves to move into Union lines along with political shifts helped to steer the war by the summer of 1862. Start with David Donald's excellent biography of Lincoln.

Again, I am not arguing that the SCV does not have the right to place a statue of Davis on ground that they own. It's a moot point.

Finally, I would urge you not to use Coski's article to support this statue. He did not write that piece for that purpose. Yes, Jim Limber did stay with the Davis's for a brief period of time, but we know very little about the relationship and we know nothing about how Limber himself viewed things. Recent scholarly biographies of both Jefferson and Varina Davis say very little about this. It is interesting that the statue speaks for Limber. I find that troubling. The operative question is why a statue of Davis holding hands with Limber at all. You have not addressed what I think is the central question. To say that it represents what happened is to miss the point of public monuments/statues. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

The first thing I would like to point out is that the term “statue” is defined as a life size or larger replication of a person or animal, where a “monument” is defined as a statue of someone or thing that acts as a commemorative marker, thus implying that this marker will stay in one place. It seems as though your argument here is over the placement of the statue and the fact that it has been moved. The first point that I would like to make here is, so what? Some of the most amazing displays move around the globe, educating people everywhere that may not have had the chance to view or learn about it otherwise. For example, famous exhibits such as the remains from the Titanic or “Bodies.” The point being, I do not actually see the placement of this statue as much of an issue so long as the message behind it is portrayed in the same way no matter of its location.

Secondly, in the publishing of the June 4, 1907 edition of the New York Times, they quote General Clement A. Evans, the orator of the unavailing of a different statue of Jefferson Davis, stating, “He [Davis] is entitled to the generous American judgment of the present sober age, which will be rendered on consideration of the facts of his whole career. History will surely give him an honorable and distinguished place among the noble characters of past times.” The reason this is relevant is that in his short speech, he doesn’t mention anything about the location of this statue, but rather the memory of Davis and his accomplishments. All in all, the question that one has to ask, is when one is memorializing a person, is the location of that person important, or is it the message behind the man?

Excellent points. First, I want to make it clear that I do not advocate the destruction or movement of monuments and statues. In this case it was the SCV that decided to relocate after hearing the conditions under which the American Civil War Museum at Tredegar would accept the statue. The SCV was under the impression that it would be placed on the grounds near the Lincoln-Tad statue. What they did not understand is that the museum would have the right to display it in any way it chose, including the use of a panel that would place the statue in historic context. The SCV balked at this, which is why it is at Beauvoir. The state of Mississippi also rejected it for placement on capital grounds.

I think both location and message are important. Do you think it would be appropriate to place a statue of Jefferson Davis in a predominantly black neighborhood regardless of its message? You've raised some interesting questions.

It is truly amazing what the Sons of Confederate Veterans get away with. I’m sure that you’ve read the SCV’s “education” materials but for those people who might read this that have not, it is really an eye-opening look into the ways that they try to misdirect the public by taking advantage of usable history. I wrote a paper about these fact-sheets recently so when I saw that the SCV commissioned the statue; they immediately popped into my head.

The fact sheet that they have about black people and the Civil War attempts to give anecdotes where the Confederate cause was supported by blacks at the time and also challenges the popular idea of Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator.” Many of these “facts” should be considered only partly true. One such piece of information on the sheet says that “Slavery continued throughout the entire war in five Union-held states: DE, MD, WV, KY and MO.” I would love to hear whether or not you believe that these boarder states should be considered “Union-held” but it seems to me that it is a bit of a stretch to call them by that term. There are many other, mostly anecdotal, references to African Americans and Hispanics who helped the South during the war. These fact-sheets, which purposely focus on the many “great” things that the Confederacy did for African Americans and Hispanics and the ways that those groups helped the Confederate cause show that the SCV is trying to be more politically correct and are trying to reshape the image of the South during the war.

I was reading some of your older articles on the subject of the Jefferson Davis/Jim Limber statue and I completely agree with your argument that this is a thinly veiled piece of propaganda to try and spin a cute story of a southern man’s relationship with one black boy into a picture of Jefferson Davis as a pioneer of race relations. It is also being used as a tool to distance the issue of slavery from the motives of the South during the war. It seems as though the Jim Limber story is mostly based in hard facts and it is definitely a heart-warming anecdote from Davis’ life but one act of charity for one mulatto boy does not a tolerant person make. As much as the SCV and others will try to move the slavery and race questions as far out of the eyes of those who study the Civil War, it is virtually impossible to separate them from the South’s reasons for fighting after being even a little bit educated on the subject.

My issue with this statue is, I think, the same as yours. People who study the war and know the facts are not the people who are going to be adversely affected by what the statue is trying to present. They can see it for what it really is. What is worrisome about the statue is the fact that it will let people who want to believe that Davis was a humanitarian when it came to blacks literally have concrete evidence that he was willing to care for a mulatto boy in the same way he did his own son. It will also affect the people who have no bias one way or another: how can someone not smile and think good thoughts when they see a man with his sons? I am also worried by how much liberty the SCV is able to take with their public outreach. The statue and what it is supposed to represent is nothing more than propaganda that twists up the truth with lies to create their own picture of the person that Jefferson Davis was and it also is proof of their efforts to create their own history that will further their goals.

Hi Adam,

The only state that could be argued to have been "Union held" was Maryland and that can be questioned as well. The SCV has made a conscious effort to present the Confederacy as ethnically diverse and, no doubt, sections of it were. The attempt to control/shape public perceptions of the Confederacy and antebellum South go back at least to the work of Mildred Rutherford of the UDC: http://cwmemory.com/2009/01/15/long-legged-yank...

The statue raises more questions for me than answers. As I've already stated we know nothing about what Jim Limber thought of all of this. As you know he was separated from the family at the end of the war and apparently made no attempt to reunite with them after the war. As you well know race relations were very complex throughout the South and the rest of the country. I am very interested in how representative this story is at the time and even before the war. Are there other examples of white families taking in black children? Perhaps this is another example of how war alters those relationships, but perhaps this was not so uncommon in other urban areas.

Is the only reason we have the past, to justify our present? Although this might not be the only reason, in this case the SCV seems to believe so. With such a small part of Jefferson Davis’s life, they have attempted to “educate” people on his feelings about the “inferior race.” In effect, according to historian David Blight, they have given meaning to the Lost Cause through memorializing; using the past to meet their present needs. But isn’t this idea of “educating” the public the intent of every monument? Perhaps statues are created to not just commemorate a piece of history but to defend it as well. The statue of Davis and Limber might not represent the true feelings Davis had towards slaves, but can one say that this is straight out propaganda? Memory is such that it allows for many different perspectives and accounts of what really happened, there is no “one” history. For all we know, every statue could be some sort of plot to carry out an agenda. Even if the statue is promoting an agenda through misinformation, would visitors to the statue see it that way? Many might see this statue as the only insight into Jefferson’s personal life. Maybe Jefferson was respectful of slaves…highly unlikely due to lack of information known on Limber, but some may see it as such. If the SCV wanted people to learn about the “real” history of the South’s view of slavery or at least Jefferson’s, would they only be able to do that through using propaganda?
If it is in fact propaganda, might the SCV have bigger problems at hand such as preserving their own cause and what they stand for? In agreement with Blight, the SCV is fighting an ideological war with competing pasts about the memory of the Civil War and how it should be portrayed. Without use of good persuasion and even propaganda, their memories of the Lost Cause and what the South really stood for might be lost forever. This brings into the question of how much of history has been made using propaganda. Surely, a lot more than we think. Is this statue more about keeping the SCV’s memories of the war relevant in the 21st century or is it really just about attempting to “educate” those about Davis’s view on race relations?

I guess it depends on what kind of education you mean. There is nothing about a monument that necessarily forces the visitor to reflect or ask questions. In fact, it would be more accurate to suggest that the purpose of the monument is to affect/shape the visitor's perception about the subject in question - more emotional than analytical. The SCV clearly has a view of the war that they hope to impart to the general public and one way in which they've done so is through the funding of monuments.

You make an excellent point in trying to pinpoint the line between history and propaganda. In most cases public monuments reflect both and that is the challenge for students of public history and more reflective folks in the general public. Again, the purpose of monuments is to shape a certain view of the past that the individual or group behind the site believes has value. There is a complex story concerning race that should be addressed in this particular case, but as you can see the SCV is clearly not interested in such an interpretation. They reduce the relationship down to friendship, loyalty, etc. The most tragic element in all of this is that we don't have anything from Limber himself on the relationship. How did he view the Davis family and the rest of the white community that he would have been in contact with as a result of his presence in the Confederate White House? These questions are worthy of further study, though it is unlikely that we will ever be able to say much.

Kevin,
I wholeheartedly agree that unfortunately there is nothing which forces people to critically evaluate the texts they read, the TV shows they watch, the books they read, or the monuments they come across in their cities or their travels. It takes being educated in the importance or as I would argue, the necessity of being critical of the message or agenda of any form of media to see a monument and not just accept it at face value, which I suppose is the most obvious message that it imparts). Hopefully most people will take a moment and think before accepting Jefferson Davis’ seemingly openness and love for blacks including his adopted son.

It is unfortunate that so many have such a disregard for the past as it actually was as the historian David Blight explains; they continue to press their own agendas and reform history and shape their memories and understandings to fit with their political agendas and feelings. Future generations are influenced greatly by such monuments and though we will likely never know what Jon Limber thought about Jefferson Davis; let’s suppose hypothetically that he did love Davis as his father and had a wonderful relationship with him. If this was the case and it is certainly a possibility, then Limber was ignorant as to state of affairs in the world or was willing or kind of forced by familial ties to put aside the fact that his race had been and really was still being treated as less than human or at best maybe 3rd class citizens after the War and the passing of the 13th-15th amendments. It is certain that this statue doesn’t reflect the times and is a disgrace to the monument of Lincoln and Tad which represent an incredible political legend and American who championed the human good and was a wonderful role model for his son. Surely the South has the right to promote its sentiments and ideas about the Confederacy but it’s sad that in this enlightened age of the 21st Century they are doing so continuously by supporting such public displays of misinformation and perpetuating a continued biased view of history which distorts and twists it into something wholly unrecognizable as truthful to what actually happened during the second half of the 19th century in America.

First, let me say thank you for allowing us, meaning myself and my fellow classmates, to bombard your blog with our posts. That being said, I agree with you totally in your view of the statue being a failure in its approach to Civil War history as well as being totally out of line if it is meant to “educate” the public about Jefferson Davis’ life and race relations.

I feel that the most interesting aspect of this statue is not the proposed and later constructed design, but rather the purpose behind the statue itself, more specifically the real purpose for the creation of a new Davis monument funded by the SCV. As other bloggers have noted, this statue is blatant in its rationale: to distance the Confederacy from the issue of slavery and to embrace the notion of white Southerners during the American Civil War as benevolent humanitarians over hardened slave owners. Thomas Nelson Page, a 19th century sentimental fiction writer, set forth these views in his writings during the reconstruction period that emphasized an “untroubled and affectionate relationship between slaves and their masters.” This monument is the physical embodiment of Page’s white supremacist views and, following in his footsteps, is a piece of historical fiction as well.

The Davis and Limber statue also serves as displaying white Southerners as being the true victims of the war; without the slavery “issue” the Confederacy was fighting for “states rights and liberty.” Be that as it may, Frederick Douglass put it best by stating “The South has suffered to be sure…but she has been the author of her own suffering.”

This statue is simply one in a long line of Confederate monuments meant to create a useable past that the SCV and other Confederate supporters can continue to mold and recreate to serve the purpose of recruiting more to honor and defend their “heritage,” albeit a constructed one.

On a side note, why didn’t the SCV chose any of Davis’ five other biological children if they wished to place the monument near Abe and Tad? I understand that many of his children did not live long lives, but this, at the least, would have been historically accurate.

Good points. As you note, the original destination for the monument was to be the Tredegar Iron Works where a statue of Lincoln sitting with his son Tad is located. The SCV viewed this as a violation of sacred ground and hoped to place the monument there to counter Lincoln's presence. Though there is no evidence that Lincoln visited that particular location he did visit Richmond just after the capitol was abandoned and he did so in triumph as scores of black Richmonders crowded the streets to greet the president. It seems to me that in arguing against the placement of the Lincoln statue in Richmond they are denying an aspect of the city's history as well as an important thread of its Civil War memory.

Memory is a pretty remarkable thing. It not only gives one the ability to save and recount aspects of their own lives, but memories can also be handed down through generations, like sand deposits on a beach. Each wave brings a new layer of history that crashes into one’s consciousness, filling them with memories of the past. But, what happens if the water becomes polluted? The waves will continue to crash, and the sand will continue to layer, however the beach will be forever tainted by poisoned ideas.

Each new generation who walks along this beach, or strolls through the Beauvoir yard, will see their surroundings as natural and accurate. The pollution will forever affect the memories that remain, and, through the recycling of memories, the lies will eventually be perceived as fact.

This is the corruption of memories that the Sons of the Confederate Veterans are attempting to achieve through the statue of Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber. The horror of this slanderous monument is not the offense it causes to the Civil War savvy, but the manipulation it will have on the uninformed youth. The children's minds will be polluted by the SCV to believe that Jefferson Davis was a man who supported racial equality, as opposed to a leader of the fight to defend slavery. In this vein, the Civil War's relation to slavery will eventually be blurred by such propaganda.

Our memories are too malleable to resist the tainted water washing over our consciousness through such events as the Ron Casteel statue. However, with enough educational defense, future generations may have a chance at inheriting unpolluted memories of the War, and the immoralities that much of this country once fought for. As Frederick Douglass once said, "The people cannot and will not forget the issues of this rebellion. The Democratic party must continue to face the music of the past as well as the present." (Frederick Douglas to Gerrit Smith, Aug. 24, 1898, in "Life and Writings of Frederick Douglas", ed. Foner, IV, 210; "New National Era", Nov. 24, 1870.)

Hi Robin,

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I share your concerns, but I am comforted by the fact that all of our collective and self narratives are "poisoned" to a certain extent. Think about the stories you tell yourself about yourself as well as those stories you share with others about yourself. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett argues, spiders spin webs by instinct and we spin stories. At my age I can see clearly in some cases how certain narrative threads have evolved over time and how they tend to reflect the time in which they are "spun".

It's healthy to at least take a step back to reflect on this process even if that step back is a part of that process itself. I don't mean to imply historical relativism in any form. I do believe it is possible to examine our collective narratives to see how they have evolved over time and in some cases how they became distorted. At the same time, however, I try to remain humble in the knowledge that we are all engaged in the very same process.

Thanks again.

Who at the National SCV could you ask Kevin?

To be honest, I have little interest in asking the SCV much of anything re: this statue. I followed this story closely over the past year and read their statements. Their message is crystal clear.

Because, as the comments to your earlier articles demonstrate, it wants to completely misrepresent the relationship and give the impression, for which I know of no historical evidence, that Jefferson Davis really adopted Limber and treated him as an equal to his other children. In the real antebellum South, it wasn't unusual for the matriarchs of white slaveowning families to take a fancy to an exceptional slave child and act as his/her protecter. It was also very common, in those slaveowning families who could manage it, to "give" a slave of equivalent age to a newborn or young child of the slave-owning family to act as a companion and future "body servant."-sort of a talking pet with benefits for the white child and a way of getting some value out of an asset who was too young to do more physical labor for the owner.

This story is just part of a larger push on the part of the SCV to distance slavery from the history of the Civil War and the Confederacy in particular. One blogger in particular continues to reference a recent essay by John Coski on Jim Limber and his relationship to the Davis family. John would be horrified to learn that his essay is being used for such purposes. Nothing in that piece is meant to justify the SCV's depiction of Davis and Limber in their statue.

http://cwmemory.com/2008/06/20/john-coski-on-je...

Nothing John Coski has written or ever could write could reasonably serve as support for what the SCV is attempting. He's too good a historian for that. I have friends & acquaintances through the Longstreet Memorial Fund, who had been very active in the South Carolina chapter of the SCV at the time. Some even held office. However, the North Carolina SCV fiercely resisted the ultimately successful takeover of the SCV by the extreme Lost Causer faction led by Kirk Lyons (of the League of the South or whatever it's currently calling itself)/Brag Bowling/Wilson. As a result, pretty much anyone in NC who didn't support the current policy either resigned in disgust or, if they didn't, they were literally purged by the extremists. One of those purged was someone with whom I had some heated debate over the cause of the war in prior years. When I got that news, I remember thinking with horror that, if this man was too liberal for them, the thought of what was acceptable to them was terrifying.

Is there any indication that the Davises looked for Jim or made inquiries into what happened to him? ISTM that the story the SCV is pushing requires this---not that lack of evidence has stopped them before ...

There is no evidence that much of anything was done to track Limber down after the war. I should point out that both William Cooper (author of the best biography of J.Davis) and Joan Cashin (author of the best recent study of V.Davis) have next to nothing to say about the Limber story. My guess is that the amount of attention is directly related to the amount of evidence available to interpret. The SCV's statue suggests a robust picture of Limber's place within the family. In the end, this statue has very little to do with Davis and Limber.

While I agree it could be seen as a PR failure; to me it is where it belongs at the Davis home. That is where Davis spent his latter years. Plus Kevin in our PC world most would never want to have a Davis statue of any kind near the Perfect spotless Honest Abe.

A good question for CW reseachers would be what ever happend to Jim Limber Davis after Union soldiers took him from his adopted family.

Given that the SCV is in charge of Beauvoir it is indeed in its rightful place. Richmond already has two Davis statues so there is clearly no shortage. The Lincoln statue commemorates a visit that Lincoln in fact made with his son.

No one knows what happened to Limber after the war and that is part of the problem with this statue. The symbolism is based on how the SCV has chosen to portray the relationship even though we know very little about. Don't you think Limber's own view is relevant? It's a classic example of the butchering of the past to serve a modern-day agenda.

Seeing that Mrs. Davis saved the boy from a abusive relationship He would have been greatful that the Davis's had taken him in and treated him like a son and not a house slave.

The available evidence does indeed support such a claim, but if that is the case why not acknowledge it in the statue? In other words, why is Jefferson Davis holding hands with Limber rather than Varina?

We need to ask Ron that since he made the statue.

Casteel may have crafted the statue, but he was commissioned by the SCV. They decided the form it should take. As far as I know, Casteel is not a historian.