Ambiguity in Richmond

A life-size bronze statue of Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad has recently been erected in Richmond, Va., to commemorate their visit to the Confederate capital in April 1865. The purpose of this statue is to celebrate the reconciliation of the North and South following the war, and apparently Lincoln embodies this connection. But is this really the most appropriate symbol of reconciliation to place in Richmond, of all cities?\nThe statue will be a rarity of Lincoln built in any of the southern states, and for a reason. Right or wrong, many southerners still view Lincoln as a tyrant, a war criminal and the man responsible for invading and ravaging their homes. Most of us living in the North today wouldn't go so far in our criticism of the man who is sometimes referred to as our greatest president. But of course that opinion has no bearing since the statue resides amongst Virginians. That being said, placing the statue of a man thought of as the conqueror in the capital of the "invaded" land probably wasn't the most sensitive move.\nA more accepted symbol of reconciliation might have been a statue of the famous scene where Grant tips his hat to Lee as a sign of respect following the surrender at Appomattox. That simple motion resulted in a mutual respect and pacification between two great armies that had been butchering each other for four years. It's a well-understood symbol, and there's no ambiguity in its meaning. The only problem here is that Richmond has enough statues of Civil War heroes to make Jefferson Davis himself cringe.\nThis brings me to another point worth making. Richmond has plenty of Virginian heroes remembered in statue form throughout the city, but it's lacking in symbols that would identify it as part of the Union today. The mayor of Richmond, and certain other high ranking officials, were probably a little self-conscious of the fact that Richmond still seems to be living in the past. On this point I agree.\nBut the most important implication behind any symbol isn't what can be interpreted, but what it was intended to mean. To Richmond's large African-American population, Lincoln is usually viewed as the Great Emancipator. Despite the exact facts of how and why he turned the war into a fight to end slavery, he can still be seen as the symbol of liberation. This is a symbol that Richmond should feel proud to place on display. It should want the opportunity to boast about the changes it has struggled to make over the last 138 years.\nThe statue's unveiling brought out both welcoming parties and protests. According to the April 11 Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.), some carried signs that read, "Saddam Bin Lincoln, Our Blood on His Hands, Murderer." An airplane over head pulled behind it a banner quoting Virginia's state motto: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus always to Tyrants). Of course it is more probable that he was referring to John Wilkes Booth's use of the phrase immediately following his assassination of Lincoln. These types of protests do their cause more harm than good. Most rational Americans who see Virginians trying to compare Lincoln and Bin Laden would be repulsed by such an analogy.\nThe statue of Lincoln and his son visiting Richmond near the end of the Civil War might not be seen as the symbol of reconciliation that it appears to most northerners. To some in Richmond it serves as a symbol of freedom and liberation, while others view Lincoln as the antithesis of such ideals. But in this case, the statue should be given the respect that the intended meaning deserves.