Albert Pike Statue ISN'T a Confederate Statue
I have been asked my opinion about the statue of Albert Pike in Washington. I have been very outspoken that monuments to Confederate leaders be removed. However, I don't think the Pike stature is in the same category and should be left where it is.
I strongly agree with the move to take down Confederate statues, but this ISN'T a Confederate statue.
The statue was erected in 1900 by the Scottish Rite, a Masonic group. (Full disclosure: I am an active Scottish Rite Freemason.)
Pike had been a Confederate general. After the war, Pike settled in Washington, where he became an important leader in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. The D.C. City Council has asked for the removal of his statue, which is on Parks Department property.
Pike is different from the other cases which have come under review: Davis, Lee, Jackson and others, because his statue has nothing to do with his Confederate service at all. The others are honored for their role in the Confederacy; Pike is honored in spite of it.
Robert E. Lee had been an officer in the Mexican War, an engineer, the Superintendent at West Point and a college president. But he is primarily remembered as the commanding general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Jefferson Davis was a senator, a Secretary of Defense a lawyer, and an insurance executive, but he is remembered as the President of the Confederacy. Thomas Jackson was a churchman, a Mexican War veteran, a professor, and a school teacher, but is honored as a civil war general. Pike was many things, but his role in the civil war is among the least of them. His statue depicts him in civilian clothing holding his magnum opus "Morals and Dogmas." The only flag on the monument is Masonic. This isn't a Confederate memorial.
Pike was a Confederate general briefly and in all candor, he was a pretty bad one. He was a Freemason for decades and, by all measures, was an outstanding one. It is in that capacity that we honor him. That is what defines him.
He was also a poet, explorer, lawyer, Native American rights advocate and a school teacher. (I trust nobody has any objection to poets, explorers, rights advocates and teachers.)
His "Morals and Dogmas" isn't dogma for us. Scottish Rite masons are free to make of it what they will. But Pike's central role in the development of our Rite is irrefutable. He found it a shack and left it a palace. He enabled it to become what it is: a multi racial, multi ethnic, diverse brotherhood. And while Pike isn't dogma to us, commitment to diversity, progress and human rights IS our dogma. Pike made all that possible.
Pike was an imperfect person. We don't consider him to be saintly.
I have pointed out that there are other statues in Washington which make me blanche. There is a statue of "Good Queen Isabella" in front of the OAS. She expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492, destroying a community which went back to Roman times, which had become the most important Jewish community in the world. There is a statue of Martin Luther downtown. He was a vile antisemite and contributed to a religious culture that ended in Aushwitz.
The Lutheran church, while bearing the name of the great reformer has officially eschewed his Jew-hatred. The OAS is certainly not defending Ferdinand and Isabella's persecution of Jews and Moors. The Scottish Rite is not advocating or defending secession or slavery, on the contrary, we are highly patriotic and actively anti-racist. We stand firmly for all the values for which the union fought. Most Masons were and are northerners, but Masons fought on both sides of the civil war.
We would certainly oppose the erection of a statue honoring Pike as a Confederate general. But the statue isn't about that at all. There is no statue of a Confederate general in Washington, only of an older man who, briefly, served in that role and found his purpose and greatness elsewhere.
I have been asked my opinion about the statue of Albert Pike in Washington. I have been very outspoken that monuments to Confederate leaders be removed. However, I don't think the Pike stature is in the same category and should be left where it is.
I strongly agree with the move to take down Confederate statues, but this ISN'T a Confederate statue.
The statue was erected in 1900 by the Scottish Rite, a Masonic group. (Full disclosure: I am an active Scottish Rite Freemason.)
Pike had been a Confederate general. After the war, Pike settled in Washington, where he became an important leader in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. The D.C. City Council has asked for the removal of his statue, which is on Parks Department property.
Pike is different from the other cases which have come under review: Davis, Lee, Jackson and others, because his statue has nothing to do with his Confederate service at all. The others are honored for their role in the Confederacy; Pike is honored in spite of it.
Robert E. Lee had been an officer in the Mexican War, an engineer, the Superintendent at West Point and a college president. But he is primarily remembered as the commanding general of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Jefferson Davis was a senator, a Secretary of Defense a lawyer, and an insurance executive, but he is remembered as the President of the Confederacy. Thomas Jackson was a churchman, a Mexican War veteran, a professor, and a school teacher, but is honored as a civil war general. Pike was many things, but his role in the civil war is among the least of them. His statue depicts him in civilian clothing holding his magnum opus "Morals and Dogmas." The only flag on the monument is Masonic. This isn't a Confederate memorial.
Pike was a Confederate general briefly and in all candor, he was a pretty bad one. He was a Freemason for decades and, by all measures, was an outstanding one. It is in that capacity that we honor him. That is what defines him.
He was also a poet, explorer, lawyer, Native American rights advocate and a school teacher. (I trust nobody has any objection to poets, explorers, rights advocates and teachers.)
His "Morals and Dogmas" isn't dogma for us. Scottish Rite masons are free to make of it what they will. But Pike's central role in the development of our Rite is irrefutable. He found it a shack and left it a palace. He enabled it to become what it is: a multi racial, multi ethnic, diverse brotherhood. And while Pike isn't dogma to us, commitment to diversity, progress and human rights IS our dogma. Pike made all that possible.
Pike was an imperfect person. We don't consider him to be saintly.
I have pointed out that there are other statues in Washington which make me blanche. There is a statue of "Good Queen Isabella" in front of the OAS. She expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492, destroying a community which went back to Roman times, which had become the most important Jewish community in the world. There is a statue of Martin Luther downtown. He was a vile antisemite and contributed to a religious culture that ended in Aushwitz.
The Lutheran church, while bearing the name of the great reformer has officially eschewed his Jew-hatred. The OAS is certainly not defending Ferdinand and Isabella's persecution of Jews and Moors. The Scottish Rite is not advocating or defending secession or slavery, on the contrary, we are highly patriotic and actively anti-racist. We stand firmly for all the values for which the union fought. Most Masons were and are northerners, but Masons fought on both sides of the civil war.
We would certainly oppose the erection of a statue honoring Pike as a Confederate general. But the statue isn't about that at all. There is no statue of a Confederate general in Washington, only of an older man who, briefly, served in that role and found his purpose and greatness elsewhere.
********
After mulling about this issue, over the weekend, I have changed my mind. (I do that.)
Something to consider:
Our distinguished archivist Arturo de Hoyos put it well (as he always does) today when he was quoted by the press that the Scottish Rite would not want the Pike statue to become a cause of racial division. That is exactly right.
While I have strong opinions that it was high time for monuments to Confederate heros should come down, it seems to me that the Pike monument is in a different category - it honors a great Freemason, who was briefly a Confederate general (and not a particularly good one, at that.) It is not a Confederate monument, but a monument to a man who had been a Confederate.
But we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Ours is a fraternity which prides itself on our remarkable diversity and tolerance. Do we really want to be in a position where people think of us as defending the opposite?
The other day I wrote about two other statues in Washington which have always made me cringe: the one of Queen Isabella of Spain, who expelled the Jews of her country, and Martin Luther, who was a vile Jew-hater whose breathtaking bile and unbridled hostility contributed to a religious and political culture which eventually found its way into the secular ideology which created Aushwitz. I acknowledged that the Lutheran Church, while bearing the name of the great reformer, has officially denounced his anti semitism. The Lutheran Church cannot be accused of Jew hatred, in no small part because it has taken “ownership” of the issue and reframed its theology.
Perhaps we need to do likewise?
We honor Pike, but we cannot deny that there are aspects of his legacy that we should not defend, viz. his racism and anti-Catholicism. I am not suggesting that, like the Lutherans, we necessarily issue a disclaimer (although, perhaps that should be discussed?) The ethos of our Rite, as now practiced, is so much at variance with that sort of intolerance, that it is immediately evident to all who observe us. But the world doesn't know that. Perhaps we, like the Lutherans, need to take ownership of the issue. Continuing to cherish that which is noble and good in Pike, but frankly acknowledging that, as a man from a different age, we cannot see him as an exemplar in the matters now being discussed.
We need to act in the interests of our Rite and, more importantly, in the interests of our society. Pike is important, but he expressly said that his thought should not become our dogma. We need to make it clear that the cause of human progress, justice and equality ARE dogma to us and not just platitudes.
We should consider that SR will not be harmed it the statue is relocated to the garden of the House of the Temple or another suitable place. In contrast, keeping it where it is has already become divisive and by resisting which is inevitable, we do harm to the Rite.
After mulling about this issue, over the weekend, I have changed my mind. (I do that.)
Something to consider:
Our distinguished archivist Arturo de Hoyos put it well (as he always does) today when he was quoted by the press that the Scottish Rite would not want the Pike statue to become a cause of racial division. That is exactly right.
While I have strong opinions that it was high time for monuments to Confederate heros should come down, it seems to me that the Pike monument is in a different category - it honors a great Freemason, who was briefly a Confederate general (and not a particularly good one, at that.) It is not a Confederate monument, but a monument to a man who had been a Confederate.
But we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Ours is a fraternity which prides itself on our remarkable diversity and tolerance. Do we really want to be in a position where people think of us as defending the opposite?
The other day I wrote about two other statues in Washington which have always made me cringe: the one of Queen Isabella of Spain, who expelled the Jews of her country, and Martin Luther, who was a vile Jew-hater whose breathtaking bile and unbridled hostility contributed to a religious and political culture which eventually found its way into the secular ideology which created Aushwitz. I acknowledged that the Lutheran Church, while bearing the name of the great reformer, has officially denounced his anti semitism. The Lutheran Church cannot be accused of Jew hatred, in no small part because it has taken “ownership” of the issue and reframed its theology.
Perhaps we need to do likewise?
We honor Pike, but we cannot deny that there are aspects of his legacy that we should not defend, viz. his racism and anti-Catholicism. I am not suggesting that, like the Lutherans, we necessarily issue a disclaimer (although, perhaps that should be discussed?) The ethos of our Rite, as now practiced, is so much at variance with that sort of intolerance, that it is immediately evident to all who observe us. But the world doesn't know that. Perhaps we, like the Lutherans, need to take ownership of the issue. Continuing to cherish that which is noble and good in Pike, but frankly acknowledging that, as a man from a different age, we cannot see him as an exemplar in the matters now being discussed.
We need to act in the interests of our Rite and, more importantly, in the interests of our society. Pike is important, but he expressly said that his thought should not become our dogma. We need to make it clear that the cause of human progress, justice and equality ARE dogma to us and not just platitudes.
We should consider that SR will not be harmed it the statue is relocated to the garden of the House of the Temple or another suitable place. In contrast, keeping it where it is has already become divisive and by resisting which is inevitable, we do harm to the Rite.
RSS Feed