Stone Mountain and the Debate Over Confederate Symbols in Georgia

Confederate flags are easy.

This illustration can only be used with Naomi Shavin piece that originally ran in the 8/1/2015 issue of National Journal magazine.
National Journal
July 31, 2015, 1:01 a.m.

LATE AT NIGHT on June 24, amid the de­bate over wheth­er South Car­o­lina should re­move the Con­fed­er­ate flag from its State­house grounds, a Face­book post by a Geor­gia coun­try ra­dio sta­tion star­ted a minor In­ter­net pan­ic that was, de­pend­ing on how you view it, either be­lated or pre­ma­ture. “A pe­ti­tion has be­gun, seek­ing to re­move the fam­ous Con­fed­er­ate me­mori­al carving from Stone Moun­tain. What do you think?” the post read. It re­ferred to a pe­ti­tion that called for the erad­ic­a­tion of a bas-re­lief de­pic­tion, carved in­to the side of Geor­gia’s Stone Moun­tain, of Con­fed­er­ate icons Stone­wall Jack­son, Jef­fer­son Dav­is, and Robert E. Lee.

Thou­sands of out­raged com­ments later, it be­came clear that the post was from 2013 and that the pe­ti­tion was moribund. But then on Ju­ly 13, the At­lanta NAACP re­leased a state­ment from chapter Pres­id­ent Richard Rose that really was a cur­rent call for the re­mov­al of the carving. “Those guys need to go,” Rose said. “They can be sand-blas­ted off, or some­body could care­fully re­move a slab of that and auc­tion it off to the highest bid­der. “¦ My tax dol­lars should not be used to com­mem­or­ate slavery.” (The carving is main­tained by the Stone Moun­tain Me­mori­al As­so­ci­ation, which does not re­ceive tax dol­lars.)

Rose’s com­ments and the ques­tions they raised were picked up by me­dia out­lets around the coun­try — “Art, monu­ment or em­bar­rass­ment?” one As­so­ci­ated Press story asked — of­fi­cially launch­ing a new phase of the battle over Con­fed­er­ate sym­bols: What do we do about em­blems that are harder to re­move than a mere flag?

And should we des­troy works of his­tor­ic pub­lic art in re­sponse to changes in the na­tion­al con­scious­ness?

What do we do about em­blems that are harder to re­move? Should we des­troy works of his­tor­ic art in re­sponse to changes in the na­tion­al con­scious­ness?

A re­cent un­scientif­ic poll of At­lanta Busi­ness Chron­icle read­ers found that 90 per­cent wanted to keep the carving be­cause it “is part of a me­mori­al to South­ern her­it­age.” But des­pite what the carving may mean to many today, it was not cre­ated to hon­or the Civil War dead or to pay homage to homegrown Con­fed­er­ate her­oes. (None of those de­pic­ted came from Geor­gia.) Its ori­gin story goes like this: In the 1910s, a man named Sam Ven­able owned Stone Moun­tain, which was used as a quarry and a ma­jor meet­ing place for the KKK, of which Ven­able was a power­ful mem­ber. Ven­able leased the north face of the moun­tain to the At­lanta chapter of the United Daugh­ters of the Con­fed­er­acy, which hired Gutzon Bor­glum to carve a trib­ute to Lee in­to the rock. But Bor­glum — who 12 years later began work on Mount Rush­more — wanted to ex­pand the UDC design. Ten­sions grew, and he was cut from the pro­ject. The next sculptor blas­ted Lee’s dis­em­bod­ied head off the moun­tain and began again, but the ef­fort stalled when money ran out just be­fore the Great De­pres­sion. Then, in the 1950s, in re­sponse to Brown v. Board of Edu­ca­tion and grow­ing pres­sure to de­seg­reg­ate the South, Geor­gia Gov­ernor Mar­vin Griffin over­saw the pur­chase of Stone Moun­tain by the state, in­tend­ing to see the carving com­pleted. Fi­nally, in 1963, work on the pro­ject re­sumed un­der Walk­er Han­cock. He un­veiled the me­mori­al in 1970; it was com­pleted in 1972. The fi­nal carving de­picts Lee, Dav­is, and Jack­son, all on horse­back.

Last week, I traveled to Stone Moun­tain to see what, if any­thing, vis­it­ors thought should be done about the monu­ment. I went in the even­ing and stayed for the 45-minute laser show, which is pro­jec­ted dir­ectly onto the carving. The show has sev­er­al seg­ments, in­clud­ing one about mu­sic from Geor­gia, which prom­in­ently fea­tures Afric­an-Amer­ic­an mu­si­cians, but the corner­stone is its homage to Jack­son, Lee, and Dav­is. At one point, the men and their horses ap­pear to shake free of their gran­ite con­fines and ride about on the moun­tain face, strik­ing battle poses.

Most of those I met were either loc­als there for re­cre­ation or tour­ists with edu­ca­tion­al groups. Many were Afric­an-Amer­ic­an — the area is 75 per­cent black, and Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans make up a sig­ni­fic­ant por­tion of vis­it­ors to the park. A 19-year-old Afric­an-Amer­ic­an col­lege stu­dent named Selena told me she was home for the sum­mer and had come to Stone Moun­tain to ex­er­cise and watch the sun­set. “I didn’t think much about it be­fore,” but ever since Char­le­ston, “I think about it a lot,” she said, adding that she’s “in the middle about it. I think it should come down; however, this is a part of his­tory. “¦ I think it should come down, but I don’t think it is go­ing to.” Two black teens, one from North Car­o­lina and one from New York City, who were there with a Geor­gia Tech pro­gram for high school stu­dents, ad­mit­ted they hadn’t heard about the de­bate pri­or to speak­ing with me, but they had opin­ions. “I don’t agree with the flag be­ing there, but I don’t think you should blow up part of the moun­tain,” said one young man. “It’s part of his­tory,” con­curred the oth­er. Both noted dis­ap­prov­ingly, however, that they hadn’t been told any­thing about the con­text of the carving dur­ing their vis­it. One Afric­an-Amer­ic­an vis­it­or I en­countered provided his own con­text: Dur­ing my cable-car ride to the top of the moun­tain, I heard a man quietly tell his young son, “Look now and you’ll see the dev­ils.”

I also called Rep. Hank John­son of Geor­gia, the Demo­crat who rep­res­ents the dis­trict that Stone Moun­tain is in, to see what he thought. “It’s his­tor­ic and it’s also a man-made mar­vel,” he said. “It’s a work of hu­man in­genu­ity. It’s to be pre­served just for that fact — but the fact that it’s pre­served does not mean that it should be left without re­vi­sion in­to per­petu­ity.” He sug­ges­ted that carvings of Fre­d­er­ick Dou­glass, Har­riet Tub­man, and Mar­tin Luth­er King be ad­ded to the moun­tain’s face. Oth­ers have also ad­voc­ated al­ter­ing rather than re­mov­ing the work; King comes up of­ten as a pos­sible ad­di­tion, but Jimmy Carter has been men­tioned as well. A Brook­lyn-based artist has pro­posed adding Big Boi and An­dré 3000 from Out­kast. The At­lanta City Coun­cil has come out in sup­port of adding fig­ures to the moun­tain and has asked Geor­gia Gov­ernor Nath­an Deal to con­sider the pro­pos­al.

Derek Al­der­man, a cul­tur­al geo­graph­er at the Uni­versity of Ten­ness­ee, says a rel­ev­ant phrase that comes up of­ten in his work on memory and me­mori­als is “sym­bol­ic ac­cre­tion.” “It means that you lay­er memor­ies on top of each oth­er, or you lay­er mes­sages on top of each oth­er,” he says. “We can get a lot of value polit­ic­ally and edu­ca­tion­ally by think­ing about jux­ta­pos­ing memor­ies against each oth­er.” Adding an im­age of King to the cur­rent carving, for ex­ample, would raise ques­tions such as, “What does the Con­fed­er­acy have to do with the civil rights move­ment? What does that have to do with King’s vis­ion of the South? “¦ It auto­mat­ic­ally draws people to talk about, ‘What does that his­tory have to do with

this his­tory?‘“Š”

Even Richard Rose of the NAACP seemed open to this sort of solu­tion. When I asked him if he thought the carving would be re­moved, he said: “I don’t think it’s likely, but we want something to hap­pen. No syn­thes­is without thes­is and an­ti­thes­is.”

Na­omi Shav­in is a re­port­er-re­search­er at The New Re­pub­lic.

What We're Following See More »
Dept. of Education Opens Probe into College Admissions Scandal
9 hours ago
House Intel Postpones Testimony by Felix Sater
12 hours ago
McConnell Blocks Vote on Making Mueller Report Public
12 hours ago
Nadler Intends to Call Barr to Testify
20 hours ago
Mueller: No Evidence of Collusion
1 days ago

"The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr. The summary also said that the special counsel’s team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that President Trump illegally obstructed justice, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump." Read Barr's summary here.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.