Restricted Is there a possibility that all Confederate Statues and Monuments will be removed from Gettysburg

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
I'm not an attorney but I don't think Congress can just demand that laws be ignored; they have to change those laws. So, if the Antiquities Act isn't amended then there'd be a legal conflict. I think it would end up in the courts right away as the Department of The Interior would not be able to carry out such a law if it would then also be violating another.

We'll see I suppose but I really don't think this is going to go anywhere; just a symbolic gesture.

It's not a case of other laws being ignored, it's more a case of which law has the greater power (i.e. takes precedence over another law).

I'm fairly sure that Federal laws take precedence over State laws. [link]

Also, a newer Federal law (especially one where "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or policy to the contrary ..." is specified within it) will take precedence over an older one. The old law will then only apply to the point where it does not conflict with the newer law. The only thing that would 'outrank' the newer Federal law would be the Constitution, if the new law was seen (believed) to be unconstitutional then it would go to the Court to be resolved.

Regrettably, not a symbolic gesture. If the HR7608 bill becomes law [and it's already passed the House] it will be very real. Any inaction or failure by the National Park Service to abide by the terms of Section 442 will leave them liable to prosecution.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
According to the Gettysburg Foundation- "Of the 1,328 monuments and markers on the Gettysburg battlefield, approximately 350 are specifically Confederate."

How much would it cost to remove 350 monuments?

Will the ones that mention the CSA but are not specifically Confederate be removed?

How many Confederate monuments, markers, plaques, etc, are in all of the national battlefield parks?

2,000? 5,000? 10,000?

All of it has to be removed within six months.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Location
Spotsylvania Virginia
It's not a case of other laws being ignored, it's more a case of which law has the greater power (i.e. takes precedence over another law).

I'm fairly sure that Federal laws take precedence over State laws. [link]

Also, a newer Federal law (especially one where "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or policy to the contrary ..." is specified within it) will take precedence over an older one. The old law will then only apply to the point where it does not conflict with the newer law. The only thing that would 'outrank' the newer Federal law would be the Constitution, if the new law was seen (believed) to be unconstitutional then it would go to the Court to be resolved.

Regrettably, not a symbolic gesture. If the HR7608 bill becomes law [and it's already passed the House] it will be very real. Any inaction or failure by the National Park Service to abide by the terms of Section 442 will leave them liable to prosecution.
Good summary. I am no attorney or constutiinal scholar but I believe you are probably spot on, unfortunately. At least your thoughts are logical... whatever that means anymore.
Then attention very well could turn to those on private property or our nations founders on federal property and there are many of those!!!
Before you can rewrite history, you have to erase it. Sad isn’t it that there doesn’t seem to be a voice of reason or respect? Especially since President Lincoln wanted to heal our wounds and President Biden ran on bringing our nation together.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
What about all the groups (SCV, UDC) that have volunteered their time or donated money or other items of value to the park?...or any descendant of Confederates whose tax money has gone to support that park?

Will they be able to sue for their loss? Would this "law" amount to discrimination against those descendants?

What is the purpose of national parks?

National Park Service Organic Act​

54 U.S.C. 100101(a) et seq.

1916​

Congress created the National Park Service and prescribed that the fundamental purpose of national parks, monuments, and other reservations is "to conserve the scenery, and the natural and historic objects and wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same... as will leave them unimpaired."

Is that for all citizens?
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
It's not a case of other laws being ignored, it's more a case of which law has the greater power (i.e. takes precedence over another law).

I'm fairly sure that Federal laws take precedence over State laws. [link]

Also, a newer Federal law (especially one where "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or policy to the contrary ..." is specified within it) will take precedence over an older one. The old law will then only apply to the point where it does not conflict with the newer law. The only thing that would 'outrank' the newer Federal law would be the Constitution, if the new law was seen (believed) to be unconstitutional then it would go to the Court to be resolved.

Regrettably, not a symbolic gesture. If the HR7608 bill becomes law [and it's already passed the House] it will be very real. Any inaction or failure by the National Park Service to abide by the terms of Section 442 will leave them liable to prosecution.
Like I said, I'm not an attorney but I'm not at all sure that a new piece of legislation can just state that it trumps (not pun intended) all other laws (i.e. without amending said laws). Maybe one of our attorney members can inform us.

Yes, federal law does trump state law but the national parks were never subject to state law so that's moot.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
I've been searching for Vicksburg facts. According to the National Battlefield Trust, there are more than 1,350 monuments and markers in the VNMP, but I haven't been able to find out how many are Confederate. Seems at least a comparable number to Gettysburg -- maybe more, since it's a Southern park.

It's been called "The Art Park of the World."

Removing Confederate art will not just cost the Park Service (thus all taxpayers, right?) a hefty amount. It'll have a huge impact on local businesses that provide services to tourists, domino-ing on into city hospitality business taxes and all city services those taxes fund.

Multiply that impact by all the Civil War battlefields. All because some people want to dictate to everyone what is acceptable for viewing.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
I've been searching for Vicksburg facts. According to the National Battlefield Trust, there are more than 1,350 monuments and markers in the VNMP, but I haven't been able to find out how many are Confederate. Seems at least a comparable number to Gettysburg -- maybe more, since it's a Southern park.

It's been called "The Art Park of the World."

Removing Confederate art will not just cost the Park Service (thus all taxpayers, right?) a hefty amount. It'll have a huge impact on local businesses that provide services to tourists, domino-ing on into city hospitality business taxes and all city services those taxes fund.

Multiply that impact by all the Civil War battlefields. All because some people want to dictate to everyone what is acceptable for viewing.
Exactly. As I said some time ago, removing monuments in these very popular battlefield parks would have great economic impact on the adjacent communities. I don't think the congressmen and senators from those places would just cave in. I suppose they might get outvoted but there'd be a fight for sure.

Also, there's the Environmental Protection Act which would require lengthy assessment as to how to remove said artifacts while protecting other park assets and the physical environment. How to remove is different than simply being directed to remove. Those studies could take years (and I've seen such).

And there is the issue of funding. There'd have to be a serious allocation to pay for removal of all those monuments. The proposed legislation only dictates removal - it doesn't exempt the NPS from protecting the monuments per se which are historic artifacts. So they'd have to store them - as required of any collected historic artifact over 50 years old - and that'd be expensive for sure. As we always said (in the DOI) "budget is the ultimate policy directive." Worst case scenario, if such a law were actually enacted then without funding it's quite possible nothing would happen. Hey - that was Ronald Reagan's solution to the EPA; forget changing the law, just don't fund it. Given the senate makeup I really don't think this will go anywhere. I'll pay anyone ten bucks who registers disagreement right now if it ends up becoming law. :D
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No, I didn't suggest anything about presenting history by merit or accomplishment.

I was reading about this initiative today. It fits in with the subject. From the site:
  • inspire students to want to become involved in their constitutional democracy and help to sustain our republic;
  • tell a full and complete narrative of America’s plural yet shared story;
  • celebrate the compromises needed to make our constitutional democracy work;
  • cultivate civic honesty and patriotism that leaves space to both love and critique this country;
  • teach history and civics both through a timeline of events and the themes that run through those events.
If your going by historical merit and accomplishments it actually has nothing to do with tokenism social engineering......because to include one B,C,D and E for every A.....causes you to leave out more deserving A's.....you aren't actually going by historical merit and accomplishments.

It can't be both, so I'll take actual historical importance over manufactured importance.
 
Last edited:

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
Given the senate makeup I really don't think this will go anywhere. I'll pay anyone ten bucks who registers disagreement right now if it ends up becoming law. :D
Do you know if the Senate bill would require 60 votes? Or is Joe Manchin the great hope? Today I heard him called the most powerful man in the world. 😆
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
If your going by historical merit and accomplishments it actually has nothing to do with tokenism social engineering......because to include one B,C,D and E for every A.....causes you to leave out more deserving A's.....you aren't actually going by historical merit and accomplishments.

It can't be both, so I'll take actual historical importance over manufactured importance.
The study of history is not about awarding trophies. And nowhere did I say anything about "tokenism social engineering."
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The study of history is not about awarding trophies. And nowhere did I say anything about "tokenism social engineering."
I actually agree, as racial presentism shouldn't influence the presentation of history, as there is indeed no racial trophies to be handed out......
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Exactly. As I said some time ago, removing monuments in these very popular battlefield parks would have great economic impact on the adjacent communities. I don't think the congressmen and senators from those places would just cave in. I suppose they might get outvoted but there'd be a fight for sure.

Also, there's the Environmental Protection Act which would require lengthy assessment as to how to remove said artifacts while protecting other park assets and the physical environment. How to remove is different than simply being directed to remove. Those studies could take years (and I've seen such).

And there is the issue of funding. There'd have to be a serious allocation to pay for removal of all those monuments. The proposed legislation only dictates removal - it doesn't exempt the NPS from protecting the monuments per se which are historic artifacts. So they'd have to store them - as required of any collected historic artifact over 50 years old - and that'd be expensive for sure. As we always said (in the DOI) "budget is the ultimate policy directive." Worst case scenario, if such a law were actually enacted then without funding it's quite possible nothing would happen. Hey - that was Ronald Reagan's solution to the EPA; forget changing the law, just don't fund it. Given the senate makeup I really don't think this will go anywhere. I'll pay anyone ten bucks who registers disagreement right now if it ends up becoming law. :D

You're quite correct in saying that section only "dictates removal" as it says "the National Park Service shall remove from display". Provided that is achieved then other laws would impact on whether they are preserved or not. I doubt the NPS can frustrate the process for years as Section 442 is quite specific - they have "180 days" to do it.
I think that removing them and displaying them somewhere else lessens their impact and worth. Some, like the informational marker I referred to in Post #249, are virtually meaningless once removed from their locations.

As for funding, it is an Appropriations bill so I presume that the NPS must comply with Section 442 using the funds made available to them by that same instrument. I would have thought that generally these laws that fund government agencies are usually passed without too much trouble except perhaps minor changes to some wording. [I could be thinking incorrectly in that as your political process may differ greatly from Australia in this respect - the only time our Senate refused to pass such an Act was in 1975 and that led to a major constitutional crisis.]

Given what is allowed to happen to statues etc. in places other than NPS battle parks I would be rather surprised if more than half the US Senate pointedly refused to pass an Appropriations bill because they wanted to support the retention of "Confederate commemorative works, such as statues, monuments, sculptures, memorials, and plaques".
I think it will become law but don't bother sending me the $10 if I'm correct, I hope I am wrong.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
@John Winn, Bennie Thompson, Mississippi congressman from the district that includes Vicksburg, voted in favor of this measure in the House last year. 😕

It seems clear to me that many view the removal of Confederate memorials as a "moral crusade" that supersedes all other concerns, including economics.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
Do you know if the Senate bill would require 60 votes? Or is Joe Manchin the great hope? Today I heard him called the most powerful man in the world. 😆
I'm not sure. Normally it would but I think there's a reconciliation process where the bill would only require a simple majority. I don't know if that's in the works. I don't generally follow legislation to that degree.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
I really don't understand the "logic" of removing things Confederate from a Civil War battlefield park. If one will be so offended by seeing some monuments at such a park then one should just not visit said park. Why would one want to visit such a park if one is so offended ? Seems a bit masochistic to me (hey honey, I'm feelin' like some outrage - how 'bout we go see that park where they have all the offensive monuments ?) It's also just absurd to have a battlefield park and to remove all evidence of one side. The whole point is that there was a battle between two sides.

This is entirely different than something out on the street or in front of the courthouse. These parks are outdoor museums. I just don't get it but I think it's an example of the cancel culture; just remove all traces of things you don't like.
 
Last edited:
Top