Lee Chapel- Emily Stewart

During our visit to Lee Chapel today, I felt that our guide was rather guarded, careful, and diplomatic when it came to any controversy surrounding the site. I got the impression that she emphasized the backlash over the flag issue when students asked about the topic in order to demonstrate the complicated nature of the issue, perhaps feeling that we would have a one-sided view. I have been in the chapel, viewed the Lee monument, and visited the museum before out of curiosity and for class, but never all at the same time. Viewing these elements together, I was particularly struck by the nature of the museum. Despite being in such a controversial position, the site did not use the museum to contend with that at all. It seems like it would be wise to supplement the somewhat anachronistic memorial element with a more modern style of museum exhibition, one which would invite discourse and acknowledge difficult subjects, especially slavery. Instead, the museum feels equally shrine-like to the rest of the building and comes across like it hasn't changed a thing in a very long time. I think the way the school is making use of this museum element could use reconsideration.

Lee Chapel - Davis

In visiting the Lee chapel memorial, I expected for the tour to center around the recent conflict which ended with the removal of the confederate flags from Robert E. Lee’s statue. It is quite common for a memorial space to be a center of conflict because different people have vastly different opinions regarding how they believe that specific events or people should be remembered. In the case of Lee chapel, the controversy centered around the flags which flanked the Robert E. Lee statue and the different interpretations of what these flags represented.

 While the curator went into detail about the backlash from the controversy, she shied away from speaking directly about what the conflict itself was. It seemed as though that bit of history surrounding the memorial was not the story which she wanted to tell. In fact, she gleefully stated that they had a brick worker come in to hide the holes in the walls from which the flags once hung. In this moment, she relished in their ability to erase the presence of the conflict from the memorial site.

After viewing the memorial space on the main level of the chapel, we went downstairs to explore the museum. The museum contained many of Lee’s belongings as well as heirlooms from the early years of Washington and Lee. Interestingly, the museum space did not contain any reference to the fact that the school owned slaves. Just as the holes in the walls were removed, so was the memory of the Washington and Lee slave population. It became clear that the memorial sought to focus on the positive aspect of the school, as well as Lee’s life, and made a concerted effort to hide any negative associations.

Lee Chapel Response - Schloss

To start i think that everyone should be required to see the Lee chapel before graduating. i had never really understood what was there until today and it changed my prospective on Robert E Lee, as well as the history for the school. Coming from New york I had a very guarded view on the Robert E lee, the education i learned about the south was very narrowed. When applying here my grandfather was very confused how Lee could be in the name of our school but today i learned that without him we could'nt have the choice for majors and electives that we have now. Lee gave us the opportunity to pick our own paths in life, aside from a general he was the leader of our school and i think its important for every student to understand that. in terms of memorials it is interesting to see the contrast between the chapel as a community space and as a memorial, but the building itself besides Lee's memorial is a memorial of the last 150 years and i think that was an important fact i gained from today. i would like to continue to discuss the issues as flags as memorials and how does a replica have the same value as the original and the removal of the confederate flag from the chapel, are we removing apart of history and memorial when removing the flag?

Lee Chapel Response

Charley Warble

I really enjoyed my experience at Lee Chapel today. I have been to the museum once before with my father on parents weekend. However, I still got a lot out of today's visit because of the information we got from the tour.

As we discussed in class, I was a little thrown off by the lack of any mention of the details of contention surrounding the honoring of a controversial figure. I understand that Mrs. Wilkins has to remain neutral to such a heated issue, but it would have been interesting to hear more about the content of the issue, and less about the backlash the staff has faced.

Beyond that, it was very cool to hear the anecdotes that went along with the statue, paintings, and relics we viewed. I particularly enjoyed hearing the story and background information on the changes in the chapel. I feel as though our class has started to delve into the idea of how reaction and perception shapes a memorial, and how the viewer can actually impact the memorial by how they interpret the site.

Lee Chapel - Sam Joseph

Walking into Lee Chapel recalls memories from all of the functions I have attended there throughout the past three years.
For me, the chapel has always felt somewhat separate from the Recumbent Lee, regardless of his visibility, and certainly separate from the Lee Chapel museum below.
Today, as we toured both the chapel and museum with Lucy Wilkins, we learned about the history of the chapel and the space below, and, reservedly, about the contemporary history and current climate of the memorialized space.
Understanding the architectural flow of the space matters. There is a sudden break in the architectural form. The ending which contains the Recumbent Lee was an addition whereby altering the original features of the chapel focalized Lee and his importance to and within the school's functions. Since this original change from simple chapel to memorial, the ending has contained in itself a narrative of national conflict. Lee's history alone stimulates conflict (between North and South, as a symbol of both progressivism and recalcitrance, etc.), but the manner in which he is depicted (in Confederate uniform) reveals a greater conflict in a modern narrative of remembering and forgetting and how symbols become violent.
Alone, the Recumbent Lee's dress makes less of a claim about Southern supremacy, though that's not to say that message is absent, and instead seeks to memorialize a man in repose as he was similarly depicted in a picture. However, the later addition of Confederate flags, in combination with Lee's depiction in military garb, does articulate a certain violent or at the very least exclusionary message.
What I found most interesting was that while the additions of the flags did not cause controversy, their removal did and continues to spur conflict around the public and private understanding of the memorial. While the museum and chapel neglected (and still does - though the school now has a placard of acknowledgement) to concomitantly recognize slavery or recognize the negative effects of forgetting unequal treatment, the Confederate flags were a symbolic addition in remembrance that would have charged the space with a violent energy. Moreover, the removal of the flags from the chapel has not erased their presence, which still exists on cyclical loan in the museum below, where their presence no longer nurtures a violent atmosphere (albeit not without continued discomfort from both pro and anti Confederate flag parties).

R.E. Lee Chapel - Annie Jeckovich

As we walked away from the Chapel today, I felt a sense of guilt for not visiting previously. I understood the history behind our school but never comprehended the historical significance of the Chapel itself. Today, I was able to appreciate the history that surrounds and incorporates our school more.

Like we’ve discussed in class, people tend to normalize memorials and statues they pass on daily. Like the sunbathers at the foot of Lee’s statue in Richmond, the meaning of the memorial transforms depending on the views exposure to it.

Our group posed some interesting questions and made several observations throughout the tour. An observation made by Ralston as the two of us left the area with Lee’s statue, regarded the Virginia State Seal. On the state flag, traditionally, the left breast is exposed, while both breasts are covered on Lee’s statue. When Ralston asked Mrs. Wilkins her thoughts, she claimed it was an artist choice, but I think it would be interesting to analyze the conscious, if any, choice to covering both breasts.

I do not have any pictures for this blog post today, as I decided not to bring my phone to the Chapel so that I could focus more on the site itself.  Overall, I really enjoyed our class visit to the R.E. Chapel and plan to return with my friends and peers so that they can experience the unique history our school has to offer.

Lee Chapel Thoughts- Ralston Hartness

I found our time at Lee Chapel today to be quite interesting and salient in particular to our reading last night from Doss and Shanken regarding memorialization and living memory. These thoughts emerged and connected in my mind as I thought about the stark contrast between the "Shrine of the South" and Washington Hall, though they stand mere feet apart. I understand that there are profoundly different cultural-historical contexts from which these structures and memorials emerged, but I find it curious that Washington's memorialization in Washington Hall has been absorbed by and coalesced with learning, intellection, and leadership. There is a didactic exhibit in the entry to the building that memorializes Washington and explains his relationship to this place, but because most students have classes and administrators have offices in this place, it feels that the memorialization falls away as daily life picks up. However, even as we may bemoan the loss of memory in this place, it seems to be (and this is merely speculative, but moderately well-founded, I believe) the case that Washington's memory is preserved in a productive way that Lee probably (or even could have) wished his memory to be preserved. That being said, although the school maintains the name of the hall, the exhibits upon entry, and other memorialization measures, it is Lee's memorial that is evocative, compelling, and contested- not Washington's living memorial. I believe that this is a display of the way that living memory is absorbed, constructed, and adapted to social and individual affect, as Washington Hall now means as much or little to us as group of individuals as we wish for it to mean. Lee chapel is much, much different, and Shanken's reading leads me to suggest that this is due to its contrasting approach to memorialization in a much more traditional and sacred way.