Dixie’s Last Stand: Understanding the controversy over confederate statues with pragma-dialectics

(1)

Dixie’s Last Stand: Understanding the controversy over confederate statues

with pragma-dialectics

Austin Akers 11608390

Master’s Thesis

Discourse and Communication Studies University of Amsterdam, 2018

June, 15th₂₀₁₈

Supervisor: Dr. José Plug Second Reader: Dr. Bart Garssen

“TO PLUNGE SO DEEP TAKES MORE THAN ANY SWORD: SUCH GAPING WOUNDS BELONG TO CIVIC HANDS” -LUCAN (PHARSALIA)

(2)

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I thank my family for supporting me through my academic journey. It is truly a gift to be given the time to discover my interests in academia and the ability to explore them to the fullest. Thank you for your support and encouragement to not only take on a Master’s degree, but for allowing me to do it a continent away. I am forever grateful for the support.

I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all of the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric faculty members who I have had the opportunity to meet this year. Thank you to Dr. José Plug for your constant insights and patience as my thesis advisor. You have kept me motivated throughout this project and guided me

throughout the year. During my time at the University of Amsterdam, I have been fortunate to learn from extremely knowledgeable professors who have driven me greatly. Dr. Bart Garssen, dr. Jean Wagemans, dr. Corina Andone and dr. Francesca Snoeck Henkemans: the degree I strive for would have a limited utility without your abundant improvements to Argumentation Theory.

I am also indebted to a few teachers from my past. I would like to thank Dr. Rhonda Parker and Ann Tramontin Bruggeman for showing me the bright sides of education. I credit Dr. Parker for showing me how capable I am as a student, something I’m not sure I’d develop on my own, and Mrs. Bruggeman for showing me it’s actually safe to trust teachers. Both of these lessons I consider monumental to undertaking a Masters in Discourse and Communication Studies.

(3)

1. Introduction

Confederate statues are under attack in the United States as legislatures and citizens argue over the statues significance on public land. Many feel Confederate statues on public land are symbols of racism and white suppression while others deny such claims. The argument has resulted in protests, riots, and legislation at every level of American government. To understand the argumentation of the controversy over Confederate statues, this thesis turns to argumentation theory to illustrate its complexity.

This thesis is an attempt to answer the following two research questions: Can Confederate statues be symbols of racism? How can representatives be seen strategically

maneuvering in the complex controversy over Confederate statues? To answer these questions, I will look at the argumentation stage of legislative bills produced in response to the controversy. With the inclusion of pragma-dialectics (Van Eemeren and Grootendoorst, 2004), I will

reconstruct the argumentation of legislation defining interactions with Confederate statues as symbols of racism. To do this, a determination must be made to the communicative abilities of a Confederate statue. Once this determination is made, I can begin analyzing legislation defining Confederate statues with legislatures to try and understand the argumentation guiding the disagreement.

To fully understand the controversy over Confederate statues from the perspective of argumentation theory, this thesis explores the communicative phenomena using pragma-dialectics. Chapter 2 is a brief overview of the positions involved in the controversy over Confederate symbols. The goal of this chapter is to introduce the complexity of the claims advanced by the two principal perspectives of the debate to show. Chapter 3 provides an explanation of the theoretical notions of the pragma-dialectical approach to see how

argumentation theory can be used to conceptualize and reconstruct the claims. In Chapter 4, I apply the notions of pragma-dialectics to the arguments of the main perspectives to determine whether Confederate statues have the capacity to be considered racist symbols before exploring the legislation produced in the United States legislatures. This exploration begins in Chapter 5 with a description of the institutional constraints of political deliberation in the U.S. legislatures to show how the argumentation can be expected to change in institutionalized settings. In

(5)

Chapter 6, I reconstruct the argumentation stage of three public bills from three different levels of government in an attempt to see how publicly elected officials debate the controversy. Then, Chapter 7 is a discussion of the research findings of this thesis and considerations for further research.

(6)

2. Historical context on the controversy

In the last decade, important discussions on slavery in the United States have garnered the public’s attention on what is a difficult and painful past. The ongoing cultural conflict highlights the representations of the Confederate States of America, or the Confederacy, and relics of white supremacy since the end of the United States Civil War. Throughout the U.S., especially in the ‘South’1_{, there are numerous statues of the Confederacy in areas of prominence. Reactions in}

American society have sparked weighted controversy over the significance of these statues on public land. On August 17th,_{2017, those reactions collided when James Alex Fields, a}

white-supremacist and protestor of the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue on the campus of the University of Virginia, drove his car into a crowd of Black Lives Matter counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer. The debate on Confederate symbols has arrived at all levels of government in the United States, from city councils to the U.S. congress. Claims on the symbolism of Confederate statues have been advanced, leaving dissention between both, localities and states, and, states and the federal government. To have a complete understanding of the claims produced, the positions and symbols must be identified. Wright and Esses (2017) evaluate how two narrative-based perspectives have ascended: the ‘Southern heritage

perspective’ and the ‘racial ideology perspective’. Researchers evaluated those two competing views to explain attitudes toward Confederate symbols in the Southern United States. These two views lead the debate and show the complexity involved in this controversy. The ‘Southern heritage perspective’ dedicates their pride in the Confederacy as a historical, cultural

appreciation void from racial bigotry. The other, the ‘racial ideology perspective’ labels

Confederate statues as inherently racist and inappropriate on federal land. In this chapter, I will define these perspectives and the claims being advanced in the controversy over Confederate statues. The historical context supporting both perspectives needs to be identified to begin having an understanding of the positions of the controversy. These views on Confederate symbols continue a discussion on racial inequality in the U.S. after the U.S. Civil War and Civil Rights Movement.

1_{The ‘South’, here, refers to the states of the Confederacy and Border-states. Those include: AL, AR, DE, GA, KY,} LA, MS, MO, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA, and WV.

(7)

2.1 Confederate symbols

A differentiation between controversial Confederate symbols is helpful before exploring the conflicting perspectives. Identifying the difference between Confederate statues, the symbol of central concern to this research, and other Confederate symbols is the starting point of

understanding the controversy. The Confederate battle flag has a unique history worth

explaining to understand the early days of the controversy on all Confederate symbols. A flag is for many people a condensation symbol meaning much more than the materials and fabric used to create it. These symbols pack a lot of political power and can become tropes for larger meanings (Edelman 1964; 1971; 1988). Due to the controversy surrounding the battle flag, it is safe to say the battle flag has become just that. In 2015, protests broke out in Charleston, South Carolina, that led to the removal of the flag from atop the state courthouse, galvanizing the movement against Confederate symbols.

The key feature resulting in the Confederate battle flag being one of the most controversial symbols of the Confederacy was the mere purpose of its creation. The first official flag of the Confederacy consists of three stripes of white and red, white in the middle, and a circle of seven white stars, representing the seven states to secede, in front of a blue backdrop. A picture is seen here:

The pattern and colors of this flag did not distinguish it sharply from the Stars and Stripes of the Union.

Consequently, considerable confusion was caused on the battlefield leading to the creation of the Confederate battle flag.

(8)

The Confederate battle flag was used specifically on the battlefield to reduce confusion over the similar flags (Webster and Leib, 2001). This distinct purpose for the Confederate battle flag to be used in battles defending the right to continue enslaving Blacks causes it to be the most controversial Confederate symbol and, therefore, the beginning of the controversy.

Beyond the Confederate battle flag, other Confederate symbols include but are not limited to: statues, monuments, school names, and titled, military installation. There are at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy on public property throughout the country (SPLC, 2017). These symbols can be found across the U.S., but the majority are in the ‘South’. A citizen can find 96 monuments celebrating the Confederacy in Virginia, 90 in Georgia, and 90 in North Carolina (www.congress.gov). Public schools have also come under attack for being named after Confederate soldiers, reports find 109 public schools named after prominent Confederates, many with a large African-American student population. And lastly, many U.S. military

installations have been named after Confederates. Ten major U.S. military installations are named in honor of Confederate military leaders. These include Fort Rucker (Gen. Edmund Rucker) in Alabama; Fort Benning (Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning) and Fort Gordon (Maj. Gen. John Brown Gordon) in Georgia; Camp Beauregard (Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard) and Fort Polk (Gen. Leonidas Polk) in Louisiana; Fort Bragg (Gen. Braxton Bragg) in North Carolina; Fort Hood (Gen. John Bell Hood) in Texas; and Fort A.P. Hill (Gen. A.P. Hill), Fort Lee (Gen. Robert E. Lee), and Fort Pickett (Gen. George Pickett) in Virginia (www.congress.gov).

An understanding of the different Confederate symbols on public land is the starting point of our research, moving forward, a focus is put on the controversy over the symbolism of an interaction with Confederate statues on public land.

2.2 The Racial Ideology Perspective

Arguments defining the symbolism of Confederate statues claim they are inherently linked to racism and white supremacy2_{. The Confederacy has a difficult past as it fought to preserve the}

right to enslave Blacks through attempted secession and the U.S. Civil War. Beyond the

Confederacy’s devotion to slavery, the number of statues and the timing of erection are used as a common means of support for this claim. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center

(9)

(2017), at least 700 monuments and statues honoring the Confederacy remain in public spaces. A visual representation of the year the statues were erected can be seen here:

As the graph shows, most Confederate symbols were erected in the early 1900’s, after

Reconstruction3_{, and again in the 1950’s during the Civil Rights Movement. For government}

institutions to erect these statues so long after the end of the Civil War is viewed as problematic and venerating relics of an illegitimate past. New Orleans mayor, Mitchell Landrieu, credits an infamous group as those whom pushed for the statues to be built:

“The historic record is clear: Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected to just honor these men, but as part of the movement which

became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This cult had one goal and one goal only: through monuments and through other means to rewrite history, to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.”

(www.americanrhetoric.com) The Lost Cause is best described as an ideological movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the ‘South’. The movement characterizes the actions of the Confederacy as heroic and a means of protecting the Southern way of life despite defeat. The Lost Cause often diminishes or negates the role of slavery in that way of life (Foster, 1988). Blacks have led the push to remove Confederate statues from public spaces in the last three decades. The group-based dominance

3_{Here, Reconstruction refers to the period following the Civil War from 1863 to 1877 when federal troops were} removed from the South.

(10)

perspective suggests that negative racial attitudes should be attached to Confederate symbols out of a desire for Whites to maintain their privileged position in the U.S. and reaffirm the historical hierarchy through symbolism (Wright and Esses, 2017). This perspective combines The Lost Cause’s intentions, the times the statues were erected, and the context in which they were erected to create claims defining the visual interaction between a citizen and a Confederate statue on public land as racist.

2.3 The Southern Heritage Perspective

Principal arguments against Confederate statues being symbols of racism converge on the ‘Southern heritage perspective’. This view continues to claim that the support for the

Confederacy stems from a deep pride in the culture of the ‘South’ of the United States (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Southern pride is linked to Confederate statues, independent of racism, by suggesting a distinct cultural ingroup. Support for Confederate symbolism links to Southern pride through a motivation to symbolically protect the idea of a glorious history in the Southern United States, which exhibits positive representations of the ingroup (Sibley, 2010). This ‘pride in the South’ is typically defended by the collective post-Reconstruction struggle in the South in which some of America’s most extreme poverty presented itself (Ayers, 2007). Regional affiliation research (Reed, 2008) suggests that we embed the importance of geography in the life space of individuals within our concept of Southern pride, which, ultimately, is defined by the cognitive act of being, the affective admiration for place and entity, and the geography of space and history. In support of the Southern Heritage perspective, the less infamous Victorious Cause represented by the Great Reunion of 1913 aims to show detractors a different explanation to the large number of statues erected in the first two decades of the 1900s. The Great Reunion of 1913 commemorated the 50th_{anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg and was the largest gathering of}

Civil War veterans in the history of the United States (Preston, 2011). Surviving soldiers of the Civil War reenacted the Battle of Gettysburg only to shake hands across ceremonial flags. President Woodrow Wilson echoed the enthusiastic American press’ decision that

“the Great Reunion was America’s strongest demonstration of national unity ever”. The Washington Post wrote:

“Nothing could possibly be more impressive or more inspiring to the younger generation than this gathering”.

(11)

And the New York Times continued with,

“But even more touching must be the emotions of these time-worn veterans, as they assemble on an occasion that in itself constitutes a greater victory than that of half a century ago, and one too, in which every section of a reunited country has common part” War commemorative statues being used as a means of reconciliation instead of racism gives the reader an idea of the historical arguments being used to support Confederate statues. The Southern Heritage perspective combines the post-Reconstruction struggle of Southerners, the pride one takes in the geography of their life space, and the aims of reconciliation to create claims defining the visual interaction taking place with Confederate statues as a historic symbol of reconciliation, not racism.

2.4 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have detailed the conflicting perspectives fueling the ongoing debate on the symbolic functions of Confederate statues on public land. A general overview of the principal claims of this debate give the reader a clearer understanding of the controversy. Two main claims have been identified through the overview of the perspectives. The racial ideology perspective has shown to provide the following claim:

‘Confederate statues on public land are symbols of racism’; the Southern Heritage perspective has shown to provide the following claim:

‘Confederate statues on public land are symbols of historical reconciliation, not racism’.

As the claims advanced, the arguments center around this interaction between citizens and symbolic representations of the Confederacy. The central issue here is that both perspectives claim different representational functions of the statues in an interaction with a citizen on public land. So, can Confederate statues be symbols of racism? This chapter shows the complexity of the claims produced in the controversy over the symbolism of interacting with Confederate statues. In the next chapter, I turn to the pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation theory to provide the theoretical notions needed to answer this question.

(12)

3. Conceptualizing the argumentation over Confederate statues

In this chapter, the necessary theoretical notions to determine whether Confederate statues are capable of being a symbol of racism are provided. Pragma-dialectics is an idyllic approach for understanding the argumentative means of statues as it advocates for the inclusion of visual argumentation and provides a means to reconstruct implicit standpoints, both of which are needed to validate the claims. The reconstruction tool of pragma-dialects allows the analyst the opportunity to conceptualize the argumentation, despite how it is originally presented, to be analyzed in way that makes clear the argumentation underlying the controversy. This reconstruction tool will be used, here, in chapter 3 and, again, in chapter 6. Also, relevant context into the procedure of war commemorative statues help shape the argumentative function of statues. First, the conceptual notions from pragma-dialectics needed to reconstruct

argumentative discourse are provided, followed by the relevant concepts of the context needed to answer the question ‘Can Confederate statues be symbols of racism?’.

3.1 Reconstruction Tool

Van Eemeren and Grootendoorst (1982; 1992; 2004) published the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to emphasize the obligation of the arguer to coming to a resolution of the

difference of opinion. The pragma-dialectical theory is utilized by this research to determine whether Confederate statues are capable of being symbols of racism from the perspective of Argumentation Theory. The pragma-dialectical theory defines that in any argumentative discussion, both explicit and implicit, you will see speakers juggling their dialectical goal and their rhetorical goal (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). To determining whether Confederate statues are argumentatively capable of producing racist standpoints, the first step is to reconstruct the argumentative discourse for critical testing. The reconstruction method of pragma-dialectics used for the conceptual analysis of this thesis consists of the following steps, (a) identifying roles and standpoints, (b) determine the argumentation structure used to present the standpoint at discussion, (c) critically test the soundness of the argumentation through identifying the argument schemes employed by discussants, and (d) provide the communicative modes available to a statue during an interaction with the public. Using the pragma-dialectical reconstruction method will allow a clearer understanding of the argumentation advanced by both

(13)

perspectives. The reconstruction tool will be combined with contextual factors of war

commemorative memorials and used to determine the communicative functions of Confederate statues. Once a determination is made, this thesis will continue to understand the controversy within the processes of political deliberation.

Pragma-dialectics defines argumentation as a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint by putting forward a

constellation of propositions justifying or refuting the proposition expressed in the standpoint (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004). To understand the claims of both perspectives on Confederate statues, it is vital to identify the positions of discussants towards the claims produced. It is then not enough to produce a claim, that claim must be met with doubt from an antagonist for the process to begin. A difference of opinion has four basic forms: (a) single non-mixed; (b) single non-mixed; (c) multiple non-non-mixed; and, (d) multiple mixed. In a single difference of opinion only one standpoint regarding a proposition is adopted by the protagonist, whereas in a multiple difference of opinion, the standpoint relates to more than one proposition (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). Consider the difference in the following single (1) and multiple (2) difference of opinion:

(1) Tennis players are competitive;

(2) Tennis players are competitive and strategic.

Now, in a non-mixed difference of opinion, these standpoints would be met with doubt, but not objection. In a mixed difference of opinion, opposing standpoints are adopted with respect to the same proposition. Consider this example of a multiple mixed difference of opinion:

Alex: “Tennis players are too competitive and strategic so they make bad friends”

Caroline: “I don’t agree with you at all, tennis players are great friends.”

For Confederate statues to have the capability to produce standpoints, they will have to imply such standpoints as statues can’t explicitly produce communication. Pragma-dialectics proves to be the ideal approach to our research for the theory’s incorporation of implicit standpoints into the method of reconstruction. Usually, implicit standpoints and argumentation occur in a context

(14)

that helps clarify their function (Snoeck Henkemans and Van Eemeren, 2017). The example of ‘Alex and Caroline’ is provided:

1. Caroline doesn’t ever want to spend time with Alex again. She won’t text him.

A conversation could have just taken places on Alex wanting to spend time with Caroline again, or, just as easily, the conversation could have taken place on whether or not Caroline is going to text Alex this weekend. In a well-defined context it is not difficult to decide on the correct interpretation. Problems of interpretation will arise when a context is not well-defined, where there are no clues. Snoeck Henkemans and Van Eemeren (2017) continue to say a well-defined context can be provided by a reference to the standpoints to which the argumentation relates. If speakers do not explicitly express their standpoint, as a rule they expect the listener or reader to be able to infer this standpoint from the arguments advanced. When an argument lacks an explicit standpoint, it is not only immediately obvious that the standpoint is missing, but it is easier than in the case of other indirect speech acts to figure out what is really meant (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). Using the constraints of context to produce implicit standpoints that can be reconstructed explicitly raises the utility of pragma-dialectics to an analyst.

Argumentation can be as simple as one single argument connected to a single premise, however, more often than not, complex argumentation will consist of multiple means of defense to the same single standpoint. Through the presentation of the argumentation, evidence shows three types of complex argumentation structures: (1) multiple; (2) coordinative; and, (3)

subordinative (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). These types of argumentation are presented in reconstruction to show the types of defense produced in connection with the accepted position of a discussant in the conflict over Confederate statues. Multiple

argumentation consists of multiple layers of defense for the standpoint, each of which could defend the standpoint individually. Each defense in multiple argumentation could theoretically stand alone and is presented as if it were sufficient to defend the standpoint. An example of multiple argumentation from Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans (2017) is: ‘You can’t possibly have met my mother in Mark’s & Spence’rs in Sheringham last week, because

(15)

Coordinative argumentation is one single attempt at defending a standpoint that consists of a combination of arguments that taken together, constitute a conclusive defense. These lines of defense complement each other, sometimes because each separate argument by itself is too weak to conclusively support each standpoint. An example of coordinative argumentation is: ‘We had no choice but to go out to eat, because there was nothing to eat at home and all the stores were closed’. Subordinative argumentation consists of evidentiary support for a previous argument that can be made layer after layer if needed (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). The more layers provided, the thicker the defense of the standpoint. An example of subordinative argumentation is: ‘I can’t help you paint your room next week, because I have no time next week, because I have to study for an exam, because otherwise I will lose my scholarship, because I’m not making good progress in my studies....’ (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017).

The internal structure of these arguments reveal which argumentative mechanism is connecting the standpoint and premise. This connection is determined by the argument scheme. Different types of argument schemes arise connecting a discussants standpoint and premise(s). This internal argumentative mechanism determines the soundness of an argument. There are three main categories of argument schemes characterized by three different types of

argumentation, (a) causal (b) symptomatic; and, (c) analogous. For each type of argumentation, there is a particular relation between the reason put forward in the argumentation and the

standpoint (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans 2017). These types of argumentation are based on the internal relationship between the standpoint and the premises given. Take the following argument from analogy as an example:

1. Hunter has the same color eyes as Claire, b/c: Hunter is identical twins with Claire, and: Claire is comparable to Hunter.

This standpoint and the subsequent premises show how the standpoint, ‘Hunter has the same eyes as Claire’, is reliant on the comparable nature of Hunter to Claire. The internal relationship employed to support the argument is one of analogy. In causal argumentation, the acceptability of the reason is transferred to the conclusion by making it understood that there is a relation of

(16)

causality between the argument and the standpoint (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992: 97). Garssen (1997) says by presenting something that is introduced as an accepted fact in the argument, as something that inevitably leads to the event that is mentioned in the standpoint, or the other way around, a causal relationship is created that transfers the acceptability from the argument to the standpoint. Indicators in the presentation of causal argumentation include but are not limited to “X causes Y”, “X is the means to/the way to Y”, “X leads to Y”, “Y is caused by X”, and “Y through X”. The argument scheme for a causal relationship is as follows (van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans 2017):

Y is true of X, b/c: Z is true of X, and: Z leads to Y

In symptomatic argumentation, a standpoint is defended by citing in the argument a certain sign, symptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint. Whether the trait

mentioned in the argument is presented as typical of a certain group, as characteristic of a certain situation, or as an inherent quality of a certain personality, in all these cases the defense employs an argument scheme based on a symptomatic relationship (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans 2017). The argument scheme for a causal relationship is as follows:

Y is true of X, b/c: Z is true of X,

and: Z is symptomatic of Y

Identifying the schemes within an argumentative interaction between a citizen and a Confederate statue allows the analyst to critically test the standpoints. For a discussant to make the claim ‘Confederate statues are symbols of racism’, an argument scheme must be employed to defend such a claim. Different schemes provide different types of defense and, therefore, need to be determined to identify the strength of such an argument.

To determine the argumentative capabilities of Confederate statues, an understanding of the communicative modes available to a discussant is necessary. To do this, theoretical insights

(17)

from argumentation theory which include visual argumentation, must be incorporated. In previous chapters, the modes of communication available to an interaction with Confederate symbols was clarified, but here we look at the modes from the perspective of argumentation theory. Blair’s (2012) point of departure is that arguments are not themselves verbal or visual. Such forms of expression are simply means of communicating arguments. When someone attributes an argument to a text or an image, the argument is a construct of the interpreter; entitlement to accept reasons or infer conclusions are not a function of the mode they are expressed but of the nature of the reasons of the inference. Rather than seeking to place “visual argument” or “visual rhetoric” under a single perspective on the study of argumentation, its propose instead is to begin by acknowledging that communication is multimodal, in the sense that, more often than not, messages are communicated by a combination of semiotic modes (Kress, 2010; Klug and Stöckl, 2016; Tseronis, 2018).

These are then the instances of multimodal argumentation: a rational and social activity, in which two or more modes play a role in the procedure of advancing a standpoint and testing its acceptability (Tseronis and Forceville, 2017). The inclusion and distinction of visual, verbal, and multimodal argumentation allows implicit arguments made by visuals to be reconstructed into an explicit standpoint. Kjeldsen answers the call of how an analyst reconstructs a standpoint through images as visual argumentation. In combination with its verbal counterpart, Kjeldsen (2015) argues for the visual aesthetics of pictures that are able to function as an integral part of argumentation, often only reconstructed verbally as thin propositions. However, the visual aesthetics are important precisely because their thickness can create presence and evoke the importance and urgency of a situation. In this way, visual argumentation may help people understand the gravity and importance of the issue at hand. This is essential in argumentation because you cannot truly evaluate the strength and value of a deliberative argument if you do not fully understand the character and consequences of the actions the argument proposes (Kjeldsen, 2015). Groarke (2002) frames the three principles guiding the reconstruction of visual

arguments. They are:

(A) Images designed for argument are communicative acts that are in principle understandable;

(B) Argumentative images should be interpreted in a way that makes sense of the major elements they contain; and

(18)

(C) Argumentative images should be interpreted in a way that makes sense from an ‘external’ point of view, that is, one that fits the social, critical, political, and aesthetic discourse in which the image is located.

Groarke suggests that the default use of visuals in argumentative communication is to provide evidence; a claim to proceed with while noting the use of visuals extends beyond the ‘default’ use. This research diverges from visual argumentation scholars here and seeks to include war commemorative statues. So far, argumentation scholars have included 2-dimentional visuals such as cartoons (Groark, 1996), political advertising (Kjeldsen, 2007), protest ‘image events’ (Delicath and Deluca, 2003), and films (Alcolea-Banegas, 2009), but not interactions with 3-dimentional visual representations. Moving forward, I understand visual argumentation as being a tool on behalf of a discussant that is common and pervasive in argumentative discourse.

3.2 Contextual factors on the argumentation of Confederate statues

For Confederate statues to adhere to either claim, they must first have the ability to communicate implicitly, something introduced in the reconstruction tool of this chapter. To determine if Confederate statues can communicate, the Supreme Court ruling on Pleasant Grove City v. Summun is exact. Pioneer Park in Pleasant Grove City is a public park located in the Historic District of Pleasant Grove City, Utah. The park became the center of legal debate in the Supreme Court of the United States when Summun, a religious organization, requested the addition of a privately funded monument which would contain the “Seven Aphorisms of Summun”, but was twice rejected by the mayor and City. This case presents the question whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution entitles a private group to insist that a municipality permit it to place a permanent monument in a city park in which other donated monuments were previously erected (www.supremecourt.gov). The opinion of the court delivered by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. defines the speech of monuments on public land, the central problem of this thesis. The opinion says the following:

The Court of Appeals held that the municipality was required to accept the monument because a public park is a traditional public forum. We conclude, however, that

although a park is a traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to

(19)

which forum analysis applies. Instead, the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.

This definition of permanent monuments in public parks as a form of governmental speech gives an analyst two, main conclusions. First, monuments are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as speech. The court, through the ruling, officially recognizes that statues in public spaces are participating in a communicative event with the public. Second, the court determines the role of the government initiating the communicative event by ‘the placement’ of a monument in a public space.

The process of erection is notable in this decision and available as concrete judgement for an interaction with a Confederate statue on public land. The United States divides control of parks through the National Park Service (NPS), State Park System, and local government (Isne, 2013). Parks are designated National, State, or Local which range from Yosemite National Park to the children’s playground down the street. These levels rely on either tax-payer funds, or private donations, which need to be approved. So, the responsibility of the speech generated by Confederate statues on public land is connected to the citizens of the jurisdiction in which the park is situated. This process of erection constitutes governmental speech because the

representatives necessary to erect a monument on public land are determined through democratically elected officials.

3.3 Conclusion

This chapter has provided two insights to determine if Confederate statues are capable of being racist symbols. First, a reconstruction tool from pragma-dialectics was presented to include (a) roles and positions; (b) the argumentation structure; (c) the argument schemes; and (d) mode(s) of communication. This tool provides the reader with a method to conceptualize the

argumentation used in this thesis. Second, two main contextual factors were identified effecting the argumentation of Confederate statues. The first contextual factor identified was the Supreme Ruling of Pleasant Grove City v. Summun to show that statues on public land are considered government speech. The second contextual factor identified was the democratic processes used

(20)

in erecting a statue to show the level of government responsible for generating speech through statues correlates with citizens within that jurisdiction.

(21)

4. Confederate statues as symbols of racism

Now, this research has provided a reconstruction tool to be used here in Chapter 4. The analyst can begin to apply the notions of pragma-dialectics to the controversy over the symbolism of an interaction with Confederate statues. This conceptual analysis starts by identifying the roles of the discussants and the standpoint at issue. Once the positions are identified, the argumentation is reconstructed to make clear the argument schemes used. Through the reconstruction, a discussion will take place on the argumentative capabilities of an interaction with Confederate statues on public land, within the context of their erection. For the purposes of this thesis, I continue with argumentation supporting the racial ideology perspective as the protagonists since they assume such a role in the legislation analyzed in forthcoming chapters. The conflict centers around the standpoint, ‘Confederate statues are symbols of racism’. The position is represented by the perspectives presented in chapter 2, the racial ideology perspective and the Southern heritage perspective.

4.1 Reconstruction

The racial ideology perspective represents the position of the protagonist in support of the standpoint, while the Southern heritage perspective represents the antagonist of the standpoint. This single, mixed difference of opinion between protagonists and antagonists of the standpoint ‘Confederate statues on public land are symbols of racism’ is schematically represented by the following argumentation structure:

1. Confederate statues on public land are symbols of racism; b/c

1.1 Confederate statues on public land were erected during the early 1900s and the Civil Rights Movement;

(1.1’) if Confederate statues on public land were erected during the early 1900s and Civil Rights Movement, then they are symbols of racism. 1.2 they were erected by the Lost Cause of the Confederacy;

(1.2’) if Confederate statues were erected by the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, then they are symbols of racism;

1.2.1 the Lost Cause had one goal, to rewrite history through symbols; 1.3 Confederate statues on public land are considered government speech; (1.3’) if Confederate statues on public land are considered government

speech, then they are symbols of racism

(22)

The arguments supporting the standpoint defining an interaction with a Confederate statue on public land as a symbol of racism form multiple argumentation. The argumentation advanced supplies three lines of support presented independently and, therefore, reconstructed in the maximally argumentative interpretation. Each premise has an implicit connection to the standpoint and one subordinative argument supporting each line of the multiple argumentation. The implicit premises connecting the support say the following:

(1.1’): ‘if Confederate statues on public land were erected during the early 1900s and Civil Rights Movement, then they are symbols of racism’;

(1.2’): ‘if Confederate statues on public land were erected by the Lost Cause, then they are symbols of racism;

(1.3’): ‘if Confederate statues on public land are considered government speech, then they are symbols of racism’.

A key finding from reconstructing the argumentation on such an interaction is the argument scheme from a symptomatic relation being used to connect premises to the standpoint. The following answers to the corresponding critical question shows the strength of support given:

1 Being racist is true of interactions with Confederate statues;

b/c: Being erected during the early 1900s and Civil Rights Movement, being erected by the Lost Cause, and being government speech is true of interactions with Confederate statues.

and: Being erected during the early 1900s and Civil Rights Movement, being erected by the Lost Cause, and being government speech is symptomatic of being a symbol of racism.

This argumentation based on a symptomatic relationship begs the critical question:

‘Is being a racist statue indeed symptomatic of being erected during the early 1900s and Civil Rights Movement, being erected by the Lost Cause, and being government speech?’

(23)

With the inclusion of visual argumentation, it’s considered here to be a sound argument as the critical question can be answered in a way that satisfies the protagonist. An interaction with a Confederate statue should be considered capable of communicating implicit standpoints viewed by citizens as racist. A visual interaction with a statue is capable of eliciting feelings as elected representatives are responsible for the communication prompted from erecting such a

commemorative memorial in a public space. For a visual argument to be advanced in an interaction with a Confederate statue, implicit standpoints must be able to be reconstructed. Argumentation theory has yet to solidify a method for visual argument schemes, but by applying Groarke’s principles of reconstruction to the interaction with Confederate statues, I advocate for commemorative war statues to have the capacity to produce implicit standpoints. The first principle, (a) Images designed for argument are communicative acts that are in principle understandable, is fulfilled through the Supreme Court Ruling of Pleasant Grove City v.

Summuns. The court’s opinion defined statues on public land as government speech. Next, (b) Argumentative images should be interpreted in a way that makes sense of the major elements they contain, the historical perspectives expressed in earlier chapters fulfill this requirement, however, it is important to note the two competing perspectives rely on the implied historical context that makes sense of their position. And, (c) Argumentative images should be interpreted in a way that makes sense from an ‘external’ point of view, that is, one that fits the social,

critical, political, and aesthetic discourse in which the image is located, this requirement remains unfulfilled as the argumentative interaction is being interpreted inconsistently based on the very social, critical, political, and aesthetic discourse active within the controversy. Depending on the citizen’s version of historical context to support their claim, the interaction becomes subjective. This principle aim still needed in visual reconstruction will be challenged in the analysis of legislation produced in response to the controversy in chapter 6.

One key comment to make on the modality of the argumentation. Confederates statues can be accompanied by plaques of text. These plaques change the interaction from a verbal interaction, to a multimodal interaction. The combination of visual arguments and verbal arguments allow multiple modes of communication to be active in an interaction. In direct response to the comments made by Mayor Mitchell Landrieu, the New Orleans city council suggested these interactions become multimodal by putting the statues in the correct context via plaques. This opportunity for a multimodal interaction as a means of controlling the context

(24)

should be noted. Though Mayor Landrieu didn’t advocate for such, from the perspective of argumentation theory, it is considered, here, a missed opportunity to re-contextualize the interaction. Multimodality should be a tool used on behalf of the government produced speech and its use warrants advocation.

This conceptual analysis has applied the theoretical notions of pragma-dialectics needed to determine Confederate statues are capable of producing implicit, racist standpoints when a citizen interacts with them, however, the political and social view of the interaction with statues isn’t consistent. This inconsistency is based on the differing historical contexts. The roles of the discussants and the type of difference of opinion were identified before a reconstructed

argumentation structure was presented to show the arguments identified in the controversy. The argument scheme was determined to be one from a symptomatic relation then presented by a multiple argumentation structure where each line of defense for the standpoint is presented as independently sound. The conceptual analysis allowed for an argumentative reconstruction which determined the critical question of the scheme employed to be answered soundly and concluded with a call to include commemorative war statues as capable of producing visual arguments considered racist. This chapter has reconstructed the argumentation identified from the historical perspectives on the controversy to determine that within the context of war commemorative statues on public land, Confederate statues are capable of being symbols of racism to many. Also, this chapter has identified an opportunity to incorporate multimodal argumentation to re-contextualize the interaction to be uniform to all. Multimodal argumentation through plaques is a tool on behalf of the government to properly contextualize monuments on public land in attempt to construct non-racist communicative interactions.

As the complexity of this controversy lies in defining the symbolism of a statue based on historical context, the next chapter continues this research to determine how the argumentation proceeds to different levels of U.S. legislatures to see how politicians debate the issue within the constraints of a legislature. As the controversy becomes politicized, the argumentation can be expected to differ based on the constraints imposed by political deliberation in a legislature. Through these differences, we begin to have an understanding of the complexity of the

argumentation over the controversy. In the next chapter, the institutional constraints of political deliberation through legislation are identified.

(25)

5. Institutional constraints on legislative debate

At this point in this research, I have identified the two historical perspectives guiding the

argumentation, identified the theoretical insights from argumentation theory, and determined that an interaction with Confederate statues can indeed be a symbol of racism within the accurate context. In this chapter, the argumentation over an interaction with Confederate statues enter political institutions for deliberation. The institutional preconditions for argumentation in

Congress are realized, here, through the institutional rationale of the argumentative activity type. Also, in this chapter, anticipated results from these constraints are identified as the

argumentation over the controversy reaches the federal government.

5.1 Institutional preconditions of legislative debate in Congress

According to Levinson (1992), the term “activity type” can be used to refer to institutionalized settings of communication. In the realm of argumentation, the analyst can go a step further to identify argumentative activity types to distinguish between particular institutionalized

communicative practices in which argumentation directly affects the discourse. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2005, 2010) coined the term and go on to state, the type of interaction or activity that influences what kind of standpoints may be under discussion, which arguers will participate in the discussion, which means they will use to reach their dialectical and rhetorical goals, and what rules the arguers must comply with. For example, Prime Minister’s Question Time in Britain can be expected to produce a question-and-answer format, agreed upon prior to the event, to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his actions. This institutionalized format can be expected due to the argumentative activity type.

Van Eemeren (2010) asserts that argumentative practices such as political interviews, political speeches, or presidential debates are usually associated with particular institutional contexts, or “domains”, and serve a specific purpose within that context in realizing the institutional point of the activity. For example, political speeches given to the U.S. Congress should be seen within the political domain. More established domains include, legal

communication, health communication, commercial communication, and academic communication (Van Eemeren 2010).

(26)

The rationale within each activity type can be discovered by which genre is active. Legislative bills in the U.S. Congress are aimed at deliberating with participating representatives to determine the most desirable course of action. Speeches given to the U.S. Congress

consistently involve a representative of the nation’s legislative branch initiating discourse in regards to a proposed action with the intent of securing or deterring enough votes from the participating representatives. Van Eemeren (2010) refers to these concrete representations in reality as speech events. For example, a speech given by a republican politician to the senate on immigration reform is a concrete speech event within the argumentative activity type of political speeches using the genre of deliberation in the political domain of communication.

5.1.1 Path of a legislative bill

Legislative bills must go through a number of set procedures before advancing to other chambers of government for passage. Each of these procedural stages attempt to fulfil specific roles in the process of deliberating the potential consequences of the text.

In the confrontation stage of a critical discussion, doubt is cast on a proposition and the roles are determined for the difference of opinion. The initial situation of a legislative bill provides the following two available positions for discussants once a bill is sponsored, possibly, co-sponsored, and introduced into congress: (1) single and; (a) mixed or (b) non-mixed. A congressional debate on a legislative bill is always a single difference of opinion (mixed or non-mixed), since there is only one bill discussed each time (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). After a bill is introduced, the proposed bill is sent to committee. In this committee debate, amendments can be made to the bill so it is acceptable to proceed to a vote. In this debate, committee members in support of the bill are protagonists defending the bill against criticism, and committee members against the bill have the opportunity to cast doubt and ask questions as the antagonists. Once a bill has passed through the criticisms and support of

committee, a House of Representatives (HR) bill is sent to a vote in the House of Representatives and Senate before being sent to the president’s desk for approval. This is always the same

procedure, which is described on the website of the U.S. congress (www.senate.gov). An example of a mixed difference of opinion being determined is H.R. 3530 the Industrial Hemp Act of 2017, removing industrial hemp from the Controlled Substances Act (www.congress.gov). The bill was sponsored by Rep. James Comer (KY) and 43 other

(27)

co-sponsors, then introduced into session of the House of Representatives. The bill then was debated and amended by antagonists in the House Committee of Energy and Commerce. In this debate, critical questions were answered on the non-narcotic use of industrialized hemp in many products including those related to anxiety, stress, and pain relief (House of Representatives, congressional year 2017-2018, H.R. 3530). These co-sponsors become protagonists accepting the standpoint ‘Industrialized hemp should be removed from the Controlled Substances Act’ and those producing doubt by not accepting the standpoint or continuing to doubt the standpoint, become antagonists. The sponsorship and doubt brought in the initial situation is a principal goal before entering the next pragma-dialectical stages of the speech event. This paragraph makes clear the path of a legislative bill where the difference of opinion is determined before being sent on in the political debate process.

5.1.2 Structure of a legislative bill

In the structure of a legislative bill, a prototypical bill will begin with a title as an identifier of the legislation. The title of a bill begins with “An Act to...” and then goes on to state the purpose of the legislation (Princeton Model Congress, 2011). This is followed by a list of sponsors and co-sponsors attached to the bill. Then, a formal preamble beginning with “Be it enacted by the House of Representatives.” starts off every bill in the House. The most substantial portion of the bill are the Sections. Section 1 is typically used to define any ambiguous terms followed by detailed sections described the specifics of the proposed action. These are smaller sections titled a., b., and so on, within a larger section. They elaborate on what is said in the main section. And, Ending Sections to address the feasibility involved in the proposed actions and the timeline, be the bill enacted, for the implementation of the proposed action (Princeton Model Congress, 2011). This prototypical organization of legislation in the House is shown in HR3660 (see: appendix). The structure of a legislative bill in Congress can be visualized using the stages of argumentative discourse provided by pragma-dialectics in previous chapters. For the purposes of this research, the argumentation stage of a legislative bill in legislatures is of key interest. The standpoints debated are located in the argumentation stage, therefore, the phenomena this research aims to identify will be located there.

(28)

5.2 Constraints on the language of legislation

Arguments in defined contexts with preconditions imposing the argumentation will result in trends, allowing the analyst to anticipate what he or she will encounter. Pragmatic

argumentation is pervasive and expected in political debate. What is already known about EU parliamentary debates is the conventionalization of pragmatic argumentation. This subtype of argument can also be predicted for legislative debates in the United States. Pragmatic

argumentation is a type of argumentation based on a causal relation, in which a standpoint is defended by mentioning the positive results of the proposed action (Van Eemeren and Garssen, 2013). These patterns were specifically found in plenary debates on legislation in the EU parliament, but pragmatic argumentation is a pattern that occurs in all kinds of policy debates, since they are all problem-solving debates (Garssen, 2016). This means pragmatic

Stages of a critical discussion

Confrontation Stage

Opening Stage Argumentation Stage

Concluding Stage

Legislative Bill

Title (“An Act to…) and Sponsorship Preamble (“Be it enacted by the House of Representatives”) Sections and Sub-Sections Ending Sections (feasibility and details) Goal by Stage Discussants determine the difference of opinion Arguers distribute the burden of proof and explore whether they share enough starting points to make an effort to solve the difference of opinion The protagonist advances argumentation to overcome the antagonist’s doubts and the antagonist determines to what extent he deems the argumentation acceptable and, if necessary, provides critical reactions. Discussants determine whether the difference of opinion is solved, and, if so, in who’s favor.

(29)

argumentation is expected in policy debates in the United States at the local, state, and federal level.

When expecting pragmatic argumentation, two variants will appear in support of a legislative bill. One variant highlights the positive consequences that will be produced by supporting the bill. The other variant highlights the negative consequences that will be produced by not supporting the bill. Highlighting these variants is critical in realizing an analysis of the argumentation in the political domain of communication. These two variants will be referred to as ‘positive pragmatic argumentation’ and ‘negative pragmatic argumentation’, and are

schematically represented by the following:

(1) + 1 You should carry out action A;

1.1 Carrying out action A leads to the consequence Y; 1.1’ Consequence Y is desirable

(2) - 1 You should carry out action A;

1.1 Not carrying out action A leads to consequence Z; 1.1’ Consequence Z is not desirable

In 2010, Van Eemeren extended the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to include rhetorical insights to supplement the conception of reasonableness with persuasiveness (Van Eemeren, 2010). These insights allow the analyst to identify communicative choices of discussant attempting to have the difference of opinion resolved in their favor. Representatives at all levels of government attempt to persuade antagonists in the controversy over Confederate statues and can be expected to make some of these communicative choices. Arguers over Confederate statues are seen juggling these two goals, but sometimes the rhetorical goal of persuasion compromises the dialectical goal of reasonableness causing a derailment of the resolution process. When evaluating argumentative discourse, fallacies are violations of the rules for critical discussion which derail the resolution of a difference of opinion (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017). Van Eemeren and Grootendoorst (2010) created ten rules for

(30)

discussants to follow in an attempt to resolve the difference of opinion without derailment. An example of Rule 7, the Validity Rule:

7. Validity Rule: (1) Reasoning that treats a sufficient condition as a necessary condition; and, (2) Reasoning that confuses the properties of parts and wholes.

Whenever a fallacy has been utilized, no matter by whom, it “is thus systematically connected with the rules for critical discussion” (Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 1996). Decisions made in an attempt to juggle the speaker’s rhetorical goal of persuasion and dialectical goal of reasonableness that are not fallacious derailments are examples of strategic maneuvering (Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017).

The three types of strategic maneuvering, which represent the types of choices that are made throughout a speech event, present themselves in all stages of the argumentative process of resolving a difference of opinion and are as follows:

1) The topical potential is seen as a collection of topical options that can be made at a particular point in the discourse;

2) The adaptation to audience demands refers to the adjustment to the frame of reference and attitude of the listeners or reader the writer intends to reach;

3) The exploitation of presentational devices utilizes stylistic means and the linguistic presentation of their argumentative moves.

(Van Eemeren and Snoeck Henkemans, 2017)

Paying attention to one of these or all of these ways of making opportune moves, will make the discussant maneuver strategically in an effective manner (Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 2002). So, to maneuver strategically a discussant would avoid derailment by balancing their dialectical goal of reasonableness and their rhetorical goal of effectiveness through making selections on the topical potential, adaptations to audience demand, and presentational devices that do not break the Rules for Critical Discussion at any stage of the discourse.

5.2.1 Fallacy of division in pragma-dialectics

Protagonists of the standpoint ‘Confederate statues are symbols of racisms’ are attempting to logically transfer characteristics of the Confederacy to statues of men within the Confederacy. This makes the fallacy of division must be investigated. The fallacy of division as defined by Garssen and Van Eemeren (2009) is when a discussant acts by “unjustifiably assigning a

(31)

property of a whole to the constituent parts”. This constitutes a violation of the Validity Rule. The properties of parts and wholes are not always reasonably interchangeable. To illustrate the difference, I will provide the following examples:

(1) a. This chair is white

b. Therefore: The legs of this chair are white Sometimes, however, the transfer leads to invalid reasoning:

(2) a. This chair is heavy

b. Therefore: The lining of this chair is heavy

(Garssen and Van Eemeren, 2009) Through examples (1) and (2) you can see how transferring properties from the whole to its parts can lead to both acceptable reasoning and unacceptable reasoning. The validity of arguments in which the scheme is applied is dependent on the transferability of the properties concerned. This transferability is determined by two factors: (a) the nature of the properties which are transferred and (b) the relation between the parts and wholes (Garssen and Van Eemeren, 2009).

The first distinction made in order to determine the nature of the properties being transferred is between absolute properties and relative properties. In the case of an absolute property it can, in principle, be determined independently whether or not someone or something has that property. In the case of relative properties, there is always an explicit or implicit comparison involved either directly with something else or indirectly with a standard, norm or criterion (Garssen and Van Eemeren, 2009). Statements referring to absolute properties would include (3) This sweatshirt is made of cotton or (4) The door is blue, while statements referring to relative properties would include (5) That boy is weak or (6) That building is thin. This is because properties such as “being blue” or “made of cotton” are independently determined to have that property or not, but properties such as “being weak” or “being thin” would be compared against a standard norm of that object or something else presented in the context.

The second distinction made in order to determine the relation between the parts and wholes is amongst structured wholes and unstructured wholes. Some properties that can be attributed to wholes are independent of the structure of these wholes while other properties are dependent on the structure of the whole (Garssen and Van Eemeren, 2009). Examples of unstructured wholes include: (7) drops in a pool of water or (8) grains in a heap of sand. An unstructured whole is no more than the sum of the parts, while a structured whole is more than

(32)

the sum of the parts. Garssen and Van Eemeren (2009) clarify that “it is different in the sense that there is a qualitative difference between the collection of elements and the whole constituted by these elements”. Examples of structured wholes include: (9) the sentences in a novel or (10) the players of a soccer team. Not just any collection of sentences constitutes a novel, the sentences would be dependent on the structured whole of novels.

The relation between the absolute or relative character and the structure-independency or structure-dependency of a property on the one hand and the transferability of this property between parts and wholes on the other hand, is indicated in figure (9):

Variants of valid property transfer (+) and unreasonable property transfer (-) Structure-independent properties ex:(7)/ (8) Structure-dependent properties ex:(9)/ (10) Absolute properties ex:(3)/ (4) Variant A

Ex: red, white blue, glass, iron, wooden

(+)

Variant B

Ex: round, rectangular, edible, poisonous

(-)

Relative properties

ex:(5)/ (6)

Variant C

Ex: heavy, small, light, big, fat, slim

(-)

Variant D

Ex: good, expensive, strong, poor

(-)

(Van Eemeren and Garssen 2009) Variant A, consisting of absolute and structure-independent properties, is the lone variant that would meet the soundness criteria of the transferability of properties. In Variants B, C, and D, the soundness criteria for such a transfer is not reasonable and considered a break in the Validity Rule. This means that because the Validity Rule would be broken in Variants B, C, and D, any transfer of these properties would be considered a fallacy employed by the discussant. It’s important to note the identification of these fallacies in active discourse can be difficult as slight linguistic modifications could render the argumentation reasonable. This fallacy is a parasite taking unjustified advantage of its reasonable counterpart involving on the transference of absolute and structure-independent properties (Garssen and Van Eemeren, 2009).

5.3 Conclusion

This chapter has provided the institutional constraints relevant to the argumentation on

legislative bills defining the symbolism of Confederate statues on public land. Politicians aiming to define such symbols can be seen balancing their dialectical and rhetorical goals in Congress.

(33)

This allows the analyst opportunities to reconstruct the argumentation to see how the impositions change the argumentation and, therefore, the controversy. This chapter prepares the reader for the analysis in chapter 6 to determine how the constraints of political deliberation in Congress effect the argumentation over Confederate statues.

(34)

6. Analysis of legislation

This chapter analyzes the argumentation stage of three legislative bills introduced at three different levels of government. Dissention at the state and local levels of government have vaulted the controversy into the U.S. Senate through Senate bill no. 1772 (S1772). As tensions continue to rise, the public is divided on the best future for Confederate statues. To answer the research aims of this thesis a reconstruction of the argumentation stage is necessary. First, the argumentation stage of a Baltimore City Council bill is reconstructed to show how the

controversy enters local legislatures. Next, the response from state legislature is reconstructed to show the complexity of the issue and the need for federal intervention. Finally, Senate bill no. 1772 (S1772) will be introduced to show the culmination of this difference of opinion through the political process of deliberation. Senator Cory Booker provides an introduction to his bill that will be reconstructed to view how federal legislatures aim to deliberate the issue but fail to be effective.

6.1 Baltimore City Council Bill 17

The first legislative bill comes from the City of Baltimore Council Bill 17-0041R. The

argumentation stage of the bill is represented through Section A where politicians in support of the standpoint ‘Confederate statues are symbols of racism’ advance argumentation to overcome the politicians in doubt, and these politicians determine to what extent he or she deems the argumentation acceptable and, if necessary, provides critical reactions. The argumentation stage reads:

‘Monuments with ties to the dark side of America’s past have come under increased scrutiny in recent years with cities across the country debating on whether they should be removed. Following the acts of domestic terrorism carried out by white supremacist terrorist groups in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend, cites must act decisively and immediately by removing these monuments. Baltimore has had more than enough time to think on the issue, it is time to act. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of Baltimore, that the Council calls for the immediate deconstruction of all Confederate Monuments in Baltimore so that they are unable to be placed on public display.’

(35)

The following is a reconstruction of the argumentation stage of Baltimore Council Bill 17-0041R (BCB-17):

(1) Representative should vote in favor of BCB-17: b/c

(1.1) Confederate statues should be immediately deconstructed; and, (1.1’) if you vote in favor of BCB-17, then Confederate statues will be

immediately deconstructed

1.1.1 Confederate statues on public display should be immediately deconstructed; b/c

1.1.1.1 there were acts of domestic terrorism carried out by white supremacist terrorist groups in Charlottesville Virginia this past week; and

(1.1.1’) if there were act of domestic terrorism carried out by white supremacist terrorist groups in Charlottesville Virginia this past week, then they should be immediately deconstructed.

1.1.1.1.1 Cities must act decisively and immediately;

1.1.1.1.1.1 Baltimore has had more than enough time to think on the issues; 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 It is time to act.

Key notes from this reconstruction are the implicit standpoint of all legislative bills, ‘Representative should vote for bill X(BCB-17)’ and the change in standpoint once the controversy enters political legislatures. Instead of the standpoint ‘Confederate statues are symbols of racism’, the standpoint is changed to ‘Confederate statues on public display should be immediately deconstructed’. This change is due to the constraints put on argumentation in legislatures. Pragmatic argumentation is needed to deliberate in political legislatures. Also, identifying the scheme active in the argumentation as one from a symptomatic relation is helpful

Dixie’s Last Stand: Understanding the controversy over confederate statues with pragma-dialectics