Speaking of things Calhoun: In “Naming
rights and wrongs” I remarked on a suggestion from Rich Miller to rename
Calhoun County. That bucolic corner of the state, you might know, was named to
honor South
Carolinian senator John C. Calhoun, who in his later years was an apologist for
slavery and a preacher of secession. Miller argued that the state of Illinois
does itself and history a dishonor by allowing one of its counties to honor
him; I concluded that the way to come to terms with the state’s past is to
understand it, not change it. “The study of John C. Calhoun won’t teach us much
about secession or slavery we need to know,” I wrote, “but understanding why
the people of 1825 Calhoun County chose to name their home after him can teach
us about Illinois’ past that we do need to know.”
In its print edition of Oct. 3, 2015, The
Economist took up the naming issue editorially. The editors support the
right to adorn oneself and one’s property with, say, Confederate symbols. They
also argue that American children must know about these figures, but that “does not
mean they should occupy space in town squares and on the walls of capitols.”
As to what to do about places and things named for the likes of slaver owners like
George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or the Indian-hater Andrew Jackson, the
magazine insists, “It is possible to distinguish between someone whose
principal contribution to history was ultimately baleful and someone, such as
Washington, whose failings were subordinate to their claim to greatness.”
Concludes The Economist, “the memorials . . . that are
features of many small towns should be left alone. But it would be better if
state and city authorities chose to retire their state-sponsored likenesses of
Confederate leaders and vocal segregationists to museums, where they can be
studied but not celebrated.”
This article appears in Oct 15-21, 2015.
