1. Communities across the United States continue to debate what to do with contested historical monuments. Options on the table often include removing a monument, relocating it, adding historical context nearby, or leaving it in place unchanged. These decisions involve questions of history, public memory, racial justice, local identity, artistic and historic preservation, and who should have authority over symbols displayed in shared public spaces.

Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an essay that synthesizes material from at least three of the sources and develops your position on how communities should decide the fate of contested historical monuments.

Southern Poverty Law Center. "Activists in Alabama City Continue Fight to Contextualize Confederate Monument." SPLC, 30 Aug. 2024, www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/activists-alabama-city-continue-fight-contextualize-confederate-monument/.

In 2021, PSS and the city had come to a compromise. They would contextualize the memorial by installing a historical marker nearby that would give the public a better understanding of what wasn’t visible: the injustices suffered by enslaved Black people at the hands of Southerners seeking to preserve slavery.

A historical marker committee was formed, comprising Council Member Blake Edwards, then-Council President William Jordan and, later, Kaytrina Simmons, the council’s only Black member, along with Bennett and another PSS member. A city historian later joined and then left the group. Bennett said Mayor Andy Betterton, who had campaigned in 2020 on a promise to relocate the memorial, attended some meetings, as well as Council Member Michelle Rupe Eubanks. Council Member Jimmy Oliver said he attended several meetings when the group was first formed but attended only one this year– the very last meeting preceding the vote.

Back and forth

For several months, the committee proposed and deliberated the language of the marker. PSS suggested the inclusion of the phrase “the city of Florence denounces racism,” but somehow, Bennett said, that seemed controversial. There were calls to “soften” the wording in various drafts, with one council member taking issue, because his own relative, a great-great-uncle, had served in the Confederate army.

Bennett said that time and time again, council members would agree on a draft, then ask for more changes, further delaying the goal of putting the marker up for a vote.

But at the final meeting on April 30, PSS made further concessions to change the marker’s language and the group reached a consensus, Bennett said.

Yet, at a public meeting on May 7, council members Jordan, Oliver and Edwards voted against approving the marker. One council member, Bill Griffin, was not present for the vote. Only members Rupe Eubanks and Simmons voted in its favor.

“If you truly felt like that and we are sitting there all these months and continuing to work on this – if you were not satisfied with it, why didn’t you say so then?” Simmons said in an interview with the SPLC after the vote.

When reached for comment about his decision to vote no, Oliver said his choice was to avoid enflaming what was already a “divisive” issue.

“My vote of no was not a vote against the marker but a vote against the words on the marker which were forcing the citizens of Florence to accept and agree with the opinion of PSS regarding the Confederate statue,” he said. “I could not in good conscience vote to have something etched into a marker that wasn’t felt accurate by some citizens of Florence. There are those that agree with the opinions of PSS but there are those that see the statue as nothing more than a memorial to fallen soldiers and family members, some who may have been forced to fight in a war that they didn’t agree with and lost their lives. There’s another group of people that have no opinion at all about the statue. I cannot agree to force citizens to pay for and maintain a marker they don’t agree with.

Monument Lab. National Monument Audit. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 2021, monumentlab.com/audit.

Trump, Donald J. "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." Executive Order 14253, The White House, 27 Mar. 2025.

Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light. Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed. Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe.

The prior administration advanced this corrosive ideology. At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — where our Nation declared that all men are created equal — the prior administration sponsored training by an organization that advocates dismantling “Western foundations” and “interrogating institutional racism” and pressured National Historical Park rangers that their racial identity should dictate how they convey history to visiting Americans because America is purportedly racist.

Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology. This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive. For example, the Smithsonian American Art Museum today features “The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture,” an exhibit representing that “[s]ocieties including the United States have used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement.” The exhibit further claims that “sculpture has been a powerful tool in promoting scientific racism” and promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating “Race is a human invention.”

The National Museum of African American History and Culture has proclaimed that “hard work,” “individualism,” and “the nuclear family” are aspects of “White culture.” The forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum plans on celebrating the exploits of male athletes participating in women’s sports. These are just a few examples.

It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing. Museums in our Nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.

To advance this policy, we will restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness –- igniting the imagination of young minds, honoring the richness of American history and innovation, and instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans.

American Historical Association. "AHA Statement on Confederate Monuments." Approved by AHA Council, 28 Aug. 2017.

President Donald Trump was correct in his tweet of August 16: “You can’t change history, but you can learn from it.” That is a good beginning, because to learn from history, one must first learn what actually happened in the past. Debates over removal of monuments should consider chronology and other evidence that provide context for why an individual or event has been commemorated. Knowledge of such facts enables debate that learns “from history.”

Equally important is awareness of what we mean by “history.” History comprises both facts and interpretations of those facts. To remove a monument, or to change the name of a school or street, is not to erase history, but rather to alter or call attention to a previous interpretation of history. A monument is not history itself; a monument commemorates an aspect of history, representing a moment in the past when a public or private decision defined who would be honored in a community’s public spaces.

Understanding the specific historical context of Confederate monuments in America is imperative to informed public debate. Historians who specialize in this period have done careful and nuanced research to understand and explain this context. Drawing on their expertise enables us to assess the original intentions of those who erected the monuments, and how the monuments have functioned as symbols over time. The bulk of the monument building took place not in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War but from the close of the 19th century into the second decade of the 20th. Commemorating not just the Confederacy but also the “Redemption” of the South after Reconstruction, this enterprise was part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South. Memorials to the Confederacy were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life. A reprise of commemoration during the mid-20th century coincided with the Civil Rights Movement and included a wave of renaming and the popularization of the Confederate flag as a political symbol. Events in Charlottesville and elsewhere indicate that these symbols of white supremacy are still being invoked for similar purposes.

To remove such monuments is neither to “change” history nor “erase” it. What changes with such removals is what American communities decide is worthy of civic honor. Historians and others will continue to disagree about the meanings and implications of events and the appropriate commemoration of those events. The AHA encourages such discussions in publications, in other venues of scholarship and teaching, and more broadly in public culture; historical scholarship itself is a conversation rooted in evidence and disciplinary standards. We urge communities faced with decisions about monuments to draw on the expertise of historians both for understanding the facts and chronology underlying such monuments and for deriving interpretive conclusions based on evidence. Indeed, any governmental unit, at any level, may request from the AHA a historian to provide consultation. We expect to be able to fill any such request.

Southern Poverty Law Center. "Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy" (Third Edition). SPLC, 1 Feb. 2022.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Confederate Monuments—Frequently Asked Questions." savingplaces.org, National Trust for Historic Preservation, accessed 2026 (position statement first issued June 2020).

What about Confederate monuments on Civil War battlefields? Does the National Trust support their removal?

There are a number of different types of monuments at Civil War battlefields that reference the Confederacy, including monuments to specific Confederate military leaders or units, memorials of individual and collective deaths in battle, and markers that identify the locations of military units and their movements within the landscape. In some cases, monuments have been installed on battlefields for the primary purpose of glorifying, promoting, and reinforcing the ideology of white supremacy. But many others serve as true memorials or monuments to historic events or people engaged in those events. And some are a hybrid: they recognize battlefield action, and even details of individual units, but also feature text or graphic elements that reflect aspects of “Lost Cause” ideology.

Consistent with the National Trust position on Confederate monuments in public spaces it is also appropriate to remove Confederate monuments on battlefields that were primarily intended to glorify, promote, and reinforce white supremacy. This will help to ensure that our public spaces—including National Parks and other state and local publicly-owned Civil War battlefields—are welcoming spaces to all Americans. At the same time, we recognize that battlefields are different from courthouse squares or other civic spaces, because they were the places where soldiers of both sides fought and died, and sometimes where their remains still lie. Battlefields of any era are meaningful and sacred places of education, memorialization, and reflection. As such, they are places where monuments and memorials can be powerful tools for education and memorialization, as well as fostering recognition and inviting reconciliation.

Within this context, and acknowledging the many different meanings of battlefield monuments, the National Trust strongly supports a process of inclusive public engagement, through which the National Park Service and other stewards of publicly-owned Civil War battlefields should fully consider options for the future treatment of Confederate monuments, including removal, relocation, or retention with additional contextualization—such as interpretation by experienced park rangers to ensure that these monuments are understood and are historically and accurately presented.

Whether or not Confederate monuments are removed from battlefields or other public spaces, it is imperative that robust additional interpretation (and, as appropriate, commemorative works) be added to our National Parks and historic sites around the country that more fully recognizes the tremendous human cost of and courageous resistance to the institution of slavery, as well as the full stories of Reconstruction, Jim Crow segregation, and the Civil Rights Movement.

How does the National Trust’s position on Confederate monuments translate to other types of monuments and memorials, such as those to Christopher Columbus?

This debate has sparked cascading conversations nationwide about the origin and meaning of other monuments, landmarks, or objects. We also acknowledge that not all monuments are the same. The National Trust’s statement refers specifically to Confederate monuments, their unique context, and their relationship to this moment in time. That said, we encourage all communities to review, consider, and grapple with their full complex histories, and the way those histories are represented by monuments in public places, to help move us toward greater understanding and acknowledgement of our often-difficult history.