Comments on: Jim Limber Kidnapped and Brought to Beauvoir

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:13:06 +0000

Hey Joe,

Let's be careful. Limber was not a slave.

I think we can all agree that the SCV has simplified and even distorted a complex history concerning race relations during the Civil War. The problem as I see it with a number of comments from students in the class is that we could provide the same analysis to practically any public monument/statue. Let's face it these objects have a message that is shaped by the individual/community/institution that organized and almost always reflects the group that holds political power and has the necessary financial resources.

Monuments and statues rarely attempt to capture the complexity that is our collective history. Most work to affect the visitor emotionally or impart a morally infused narrative. Should we be consistent and apply a similar analysis across the board or are we going to reserve this for the SCV? Just a thought.

By: joebobfat

joebobfat — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:53:26 +0000

The statue of Jefferson Davis and his “sons” is one of the most comical attempts by those who wish to dilute the past that I have been exposed to. Calling Jim Limber Davis’ son contradicts everything the South so vehemently defended; in example the Dred Scott Case which reaffirmed that slaves were property, not people nor citizens. Now if Davis could be the proud father of a piece of property, I can’t help but question if Mrs. Davis could give birth to a table or chair, to which the couple then would have given the name “Jeff Jr.”
Now aside from my ranting, the pose in which Casteel chose to immortalize Davis in is slightly less than convincing with regards to the intended purpose. Davis stands as if to shield his son Joe from view, looking as if he is pulling the boy behind him. On his other side however, Davis appears to be pulling Jim forward into view. Please tell me if I’m the only one who thinks this, but I can almost hear Davis saying “See everyone, look! I have a black son! I even love him more than my white son. How could I be considered racist or the war anything but the North oppressing the rights of integrated families like my own?” It seems as if there was a great stretch of the imagination in designing a statue to illustrate the inclusion of a slave into the Davis’ home life. Why? Something much less mediocre could have been created, such as the Davis’ watching their two “sons” play together.
The commissioning and construction of the statue was a valiant attempt on the part of the SCV’s part to bring a, unique, opinion into public view. A great many Americans are lazy, and would take the intended message for truth simply because it is in a tangible form. This is part of the past that people can see and touch, so why not believe it? However, looking at the statue objectively soon provokes a series of questions which with a minuscule amount of research can be answered. I can’t help but feel a little sorry for the SCV for pouring so much time and money into such an impotent tool of deceptive allusions.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:29:54 +0000

Hi Jesse,

Keep in mind that most monuments/statues are funded and placed "affect the public's opinion." That's not unique to the SCV's Davis-Limber statue. I am willing to accept that the statue is historically accurate in the sense that Limber was a part of the Davis household. The problem, as I've pointed out in a number of other comments, is that the statue is meant to say much more. This has been pointed out in a number of your comments. In short, it is meant to distance slavery from the Confederate experience. It's part of a continuing morality play.

You said: "Memorials of the Civil War should be made for no other reason than to commemorate the sacrifices made, and the achievements gained during the American Civil War. It is atrocious that any organization would create monuments in order to falsely influence our youth, and this statue does just that."

We remember and commemorate the past for a broad range of reasons that go beyond acknowledging the sacrifices made by our ancestors. Each generation decides what aspects of the past are worth remembering. Most monuments/statues are meant to influence the younger generation. Just walk down the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Are those sites any different?

By: Jesse Adler

Jesse Adler — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:15:23 +0000

This statue is a crime against Civil War memorials; not only because of the statues historical inaccuracy, but also because of the way it insults all Civil War memorials. Civil War memorials are meant to remind people in today’s society of the sacrifices, tribulations, and victories obtained by both the Union and the Confederacy during the Civil War. Many people nowadays don’t have significant education on the Civil War, so memorials are a form education for these people in a way. Memorials are meant to teach us what happened, who key people in the conflict were, and what they were like. However, this statue of Jefferson Davis has a completely different aim. This statue was made in order to serve an organizations desire to affect the public’s opinion on a vital character of the Civil War, and the confederacy’s goal as a whole.
The historical information backing the statue is inadequate at best. Since there is little information regarding Jim Limber, and by little I mean almost none, it is irresponsible to make a statue that depicts Jim Limber as extremely close with Jefferson Davis. By commissioning this statue, the SCV has made clear that they didn’t make this statue to educate people about the Civil War, but only to warp people’s perception of the Civil War in their favor. The SCV obviously hopes to alter the perception of anyone who sees the statue to that of the fact that Jefferson Davis, and the confederacy as a whole, did not see black people as inferior. By having Jefferson Davis as being close with Jim limber, the SCV obviously hopes to influence young uneducated people who see the statue, and give them a completely different impression of the Civil War than is the truth.
Memorials of the Civil War should be made for no other reason than to commemorate the sacrifices made, and the achievements gained during the American Civil War. It is atrocious that any organization would create monuments in order to falsely influence our youth, and this statue does just that.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:09:55 +0000

Bob,

I meant against their will, but in the case of MO that was clearly not the case and I suspect that MD would not have voted itself out of the Union. As I mentioned in my comment the question of why the federal government went against slavery more aggressively by the summer of 1862 is indeed complex.

By: Bob_Pollock

Bob_Pollock — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:59:00 +0000

Kevin and Adam,
I think you need to define “Union held.” Do you mean these states were kept in the Union against their will or just that they stayed under Union control because the majority of their citizens were against secession? I won't speak for the other border states, but in the case of Missouri, it would be the latter. Simply taken on its face, the statement that these border states retained the institution of slavery throughout the war would be true, but as always it was more complicated than that. We all know that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not cover the border states, for reasons, Kevin, I'm sure you are aware of. However, early on, Lincoln tried to negotiate compensated emancipation with the border states. It was obvious to some like Grant from the very beginning of the rebellion that slavery would be a casualty of the war, and it only became increasingly apparent as the war progressed, despite the fact that the original reason the North went to war was to suppress secession.
My point is that to simply state that the border states retained slavery throughout the war as some kind of proof that the war was not about slavery is to not tell the whole story.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:45:13 +0000

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It is interesting that the SCV chose to depict Jefferson Davis with Limber as opposed to his wife who you accurately note was the one who brought him in. That choice alone is worth analysis. The reference to him as a “pet Negro” is also important and may reveal something about the boy's place in the Davis family. Was he treated as one of their own? if not, what were the boundaries that functioned to distinguish Limber from the rest of the family? All of these are important questions in addition to Limber's perspective, which is unavailable. One of the questions I have is why did Limber apparently never write about his experience in the Davis home during the war? It would have made for an interesting story and my guess is that he would have been financially compensated for it. Of course, the lack of an account can be explained any number of ways, but its absence is interesting.

I should point out that I have no reason to believe that Limber's time in the home was not a pleasant experience. That's not my concern. My concern is that the monument reflects much more than the Davis-Limber relationship, which has been pointed out by many of you in the class. Thanks again.

By: rmeyer

rmeyer — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:25:11 +0000

Civil War memories can be distorted for many reasons, but the statue created by Ron Casteel for the SCV to stand next to Freeh’s statue, Lincoln and his Son, Tad, represents a revisionist portrayal of life in the household of Jefferson Davis. In your blog post, “Jim Limber Kidnapped and Brought to Beauvoir” you made the point that the SCV’s statue was meant to educate; I agree that if its purpose was to educate then it is rewriting history to depict Confederate’s associations with race during the Civil War in a way that is contradictory to history of the time.
Jim Limber, whose real name was James Henry Brooks, was a free, mixed race child who was living in the Confederate capitol of Richmond during the American Civil War. According to the Encyclopedia of Virginia, Varina Davis, the wife of the Confederate President, brought the child into the Davis household where he lived for just about a year. This hardly represents the “adoption” that is supposedly being represented by the statue. Moreover, in the diary of a confederate woman, Mary Boykin Chesnut, she wrote on February 16, 1864 that “she saw in the Confederate executive mansion ‘the little negro Mrs. Davis rescued yesterday from his brutal negro guardian. The child is an orphan. He was dressed up in little Joe’s clothes and happy as a lord.’” (www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Limber_Jim). For the year that Jim lived with the Davis family he was a constant playmate for the Davis children. In fact, many called Jim Limber by the term, “pet negro” suggesting that Varina Davis took in Jim Limber as a toy for their own child. If Jim Limber was really an adopted child for whom the family cared, they would never have given him up to Union general Rufus Saxon when Jefferson Davis was arrested and the family fled further south.
However, the story of Jim Limber can be retold from a different perspective; one might suggest that the Davis family really cared for this young child, wanted to change his life so they took him in to be a member of their family. Such a portrayal suggests that revisionist’s historians think that the Civil War had nothing to do with the issue of slavery or race relations. Therefore, since this is not the case, to place the Casteel statue next to the Freeh statue would belittle the statue of Lincoln and his Son, Tad, and would depict history by its inaccurate portrayal of real events.
This one statue deserves this much controversy because it is representing something that is factually inaccurate as developed by the SCV. What message is the SCV trying to portray except to rewrite history and the American understanding of race relationships of that time? Had it been just Davis with his child and wife, it might have been accepted to reside next to the Lincoln statue.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:32:20 +0000

Hi Marie,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful comment. I wish I was there in class with all of you. Let me take your last point first. You make some excellent points. That particular statue reflects a pervasive view of Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator”. Interestingly, many black Americans at the time it was dedicated would have identified with that particular strand of Civil War memory. Interestingly, during the civil rights movement there was a push away from that interpretation because it seemed to imply a more general dependence on white Americans for freedom and civil rights. The best example of this competing view is Lerome Bennett Jr.'s Ebony magazine piece that was eventually expanded and published as “Forced Into Glory”: http://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham... In recent years scholars have tended to challenge the traditional view of Lincoln by noting the actions that tens of thousands of slaves took during the war that helped to steer first the Union army and then the federal government/Lincoln down the road to emancipation. In this view Lincoln was more a reactor than actor in this drama.

I agree with much of the rest of what you have to say though I'm not sure I understand your distinction between “propaganda” and “intentional propaganda”. As I understand it the SCV has inherited a Lost Cause view of the war that has traditionally worked to dismiss the role of slavery in the Confederate cause. In recent years the SCV has made an effort to reshape its public image, in large part, because the racial and cultural identity of the South has changed so dramatically. This is in part about public relations. One of the more popular approaches by the SCV has been to suggest and even acknowledge so-called “black Confederates” who fought in Confederate ranks. it would be interesting to have a membership profile of the organization. Will the organization continue to be viable in the coming years? Thanks again.

By: marielbazil

marielbazil — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:10:22 +0000

It seems like the statute of Davis and his sons wish to depict Jefferson Davis as a non-racist, in support of racial integration, and in acceptance of blacks. The statute refutes and asserts that Davis was not a racist although part of leading racist states and in defense of the institution of slavery and maltreatment of blacks—he adopted a black child, evidence enough that he was not a racist. It also seems to seek to avoid and deny slavery on the part of Davis and reiterate the exhausted argument that the rebellion was not issued because of the sought destruction of the institution of slavery by the Union; it denies that slavery was central to the southern states’ rebellion and their cause for the war. As you suggested, the statute serves to demonstrate that the confederacy has become part of some sort of civil rights movement, ironically. As you (Kevin Levin) have suggested in your earlier posts on the interpretations of this statute, Davis never in the past acknowledged his relationship with Jim Limber. Davis sudden and recent acknowledgement of his adopted son presents SCV’s effort to meet present social demands of reconciliation over the issue of slavery and race after the Civil War; therefore, embracing nationalism.
The statute of Davis and his black son is a manipulation of history. It serves to allow the general public to view the confederacy in a different light, a perspective presently socially acceptable in the larger portion of the nation (since the South is still fighting the war). You are right in saying that this statute of Jefferson Davis is not solid history. However, this is not just propaganda as you suggest. It is intentional propaganda from the part of SCV, which seeks to allow the general public to refute all negative commentary of Davis and the issue of race. Most importantly, this statute serves to meet present social demands of unity and nationhood embedded in the re-birth of the nation after the Civil War, which can allow Davis to be accepted by slavery abolitionists and blacks in the midst of reconciliation and union. In seeking reconciliation and unity it is inevitable that SCV will try to underpin the real racist and slave owning Davis, or the Confederacy for that matter, in order to seek acceptance of the Confederacy and Davis in the nation at large. The very purpose of history is to serve as a tool to create and prepare the present and the future, the statute of Davis and his sons is just one example of individuals using the past to meet present needs.
Regardless of whether the statute of Davis with both his biological and adopted son may be an inaccurate portrayal of Davis in acceptance of blacks, which is always questionable being that he was the leader of the Confederacy and in support of slavery, comparing both statutes provides a critical, contradicting depiction of Lincoln. My point is, depicting Davis as a nonracist serves to meet present needs.
Commemorating the Civil War with statuary worthy of nation recognition and support, Like the Jefferson Davis statute in question here, can result problematic and inaccurate or as you suggested sometimes fail to interpret solid history. Statutes of the Civil War serve to force the public to remember the causes of the Civil War as interpreted by the North and South respectively, but others may present inaccurate depictions, as best demonstrated by the statute in question here. The perhaps inaccurate depiction of Davis is necessary in order for the general public to accept Davis a part of a nation that desires to discount race as an issue. What best to achieve this then by depicting Davis as in favor of race relations.
This is perhaps a tangent, but it is important. The statute of Jefferson Davis and Jim Limber when compared to the “Freedmans Monument” in Lincoln Park portrays Davis as the great emancipator, not Lincoln. By just looking at and analyzing both statutes, one can see how Davis is being depicted as in favor of race relations, a nonracist, and in acceptance of blacks. Jefferson Davis appears content with his son and proud to have fathered him. Lincoln who holds the emancipation of proclamation at the “Freedmans Monument” appears a racist, assuming his superiority over the shackled slave, and in disgust of the slave kneeling in front of him. The statute does not portray Lincoln as content with freeing the slave. Lincoln, the great emancipator looks on assuming his power as the black slave kneels in a servile position making obvious his subordinate position and dependence on Lincoln for freedom. Lincoln’s posture reminds former slaves that they will remain slaves, metaphorically. Blacks will remain subordinate, powerless and Whites, as best portrayed by Lincoln in his statute will remain superior. Thus, reminding and reassuring the nation that racial equality is not supported and will never be achieved even after the liberation of black slaves. This statute projects Lincoln as contradicting his proposition that all men are created equal. In this statute he is advocating the opposite: not all men are created equal, all white men are created equal. Such a portrayal of emancipation is detrimental to blacks, but it is significant in challenging perceptions of Lincoln. Issuing such comparison proves that Lincoln was not as nice as we think and Jefferson was not a bad person. What do you have to say about making such comparison?