Week 8

Starting off this week, I shifted my focus from working mainly on the Aftermath of the Battle to the Contemporary Action. I thought it was a good time to change the primary focus of what I was working on. Now the Contemporary action group focused their work on the work done with the battleground recently. This week I have been slowly working my way through their sources. I have enjoyed reading the news articles they have collected. Many of which bring up an interesting discussion for the future of the field. 

There have been discussions over putting a Union monument on the field. Now, this was a few years back, but it relates to some newer articles written about various monuments. With the prospect of putting up a sole union monument down on the land, there were many people who did not like the idea. The Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War submitted the proposal for the union monument. Some felt that there was no need for a sole Union monument since the Confederate one mentions Union casualties. Another group simply didn't want a Union monument within the three acres that the United Daughters of the Confederacy placed their monument. There is a New York Times article that covers it more in-depth. In this article, they bring the idea of revisionist history up. 

This is a concern that local has brought up when the fate of another Confederate monument in Lake City. There has been a proposal to move it to the battlefield. Which again, many do not agree with. It's their local history. However, in many other states, people have successfully gotten other confederate monuments removed. Some feel as if this is removing their local history. However, the nature of the civil war is something to consider. It was about slavery. There have been some who argue that they should be in a museum, so the monument still lives but can educate about America's past with more context. Which I find to be a suitable solution since many do not want them out and celebrated and others want them to remain. 

If the monument is upsetting to people in the community, moving it to a museum setting would be a suitable compromise. Now, this varies from community to community. With reading through these articles, it's clear some people deeply care about what happens to these monuments and see them as part of their communities. That there are many people who care about the land of Olustee itself. The question of the monument isn't an easy one and certainly brings up the question about if moving a monument is rewriting history. I don't believe it does. We see many pieces of the Berlin Wall around the world and it carries the history with it but does not remove the history from Berlin. When we see these monuments, it's important to know what leads to a monument and the history it represents. I'm sure I will continue to think about this question as I continue reading the articles about such monuments.