Public history/memory thought here: I have no love for the Confederacy, but at the same time, I think one of the reasons the Edmund Pettus bridge holds such significance as a monument and a part of a moment in history is precisely that it bears a Confederate general's name.

While you can frame the changing of the name from Edmund Pettus to a civil rights icon (such as John Lewis) as a symbol of triumph over Jim Crow/racism/etc., I do wonder if some of the symbolic power of the bridge will be lost when the symbolic victory of renaming is declared.

John Lewis and those who played a positive part in the civil rights movement, even down to the average, unnamed marchers, all deserve to be memorialized in some way, and statues and places named for them aren't enough.

But I do wonder if renaming the Edmund Pettus Bridge will diminish some of its significance as a historical monument.

Is the fact that it is named for Edmund Pettus an integral part of the Selma bridge's historic significance? Would changing it detract from that?

@robgreeneII

What I mean (if I haven't belabored things enough) is that, in some ways, the image of civil rights marchers crossing a bridge named for Edmund Pettus might carry more symbolic significance than a bridge named for, say, the Alabama River.

And if there is a certain menace or discomfort today about a bridge being named for Edmund Pettus, in this specific case, with this bridge and the history of what happened on it, it might well be a reminder that public monuments aren't there necessarily to make us comfortable.

The bridge and its name remain a reminder--a challenge--of the work left to be done.

(I do want to make it clear, of course, that I am not trying to justify the Confederacy, the Lost Cause, or the celebration of its "heroes".)

I am merely trying to point out that the Edmund Pettus name might be integral to the bridge's significance as a historical object and symbol that renaming might detract from.

Ultimately, I am not going to raise any objection to renaming the Edmund Pettus bridge. I am just wondering if something of symbolic significance might be lost concerning why it was important.

(this thread might also interest @BillCaraher given his metahistorical interests)