Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Actually your point seems a herring.....as you ask "And is there any reason to believe that state legislators are going to appropriate sufficient money for that purpose? "

As weren't the majority of monuments actually raised by private groups then as well as even today? Certainly large numbers I have seen have plaques noting the efforts and donation from Union and Confederate veteran groups, then later heritage groups. There is nothing prohibiting current grass root efforts for monuments that I'm aware of.

Other then the current climate the anti memorial crowd themselves have engendered that may make public institutions less likely to accept a donated memorial in the future.
I didn't ask it, Brundage did. And you're right, the money doesn't have to come from the government.

Just keep in mind: if the public feels that the commemorative landscape misrepresents the entire community's experience, they will not support it. I think you've written recently about the need for local support of pubic policy.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

oldsouth46

Cadet
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Richmond doesn’t lose its historical significance without the statue. You can go to Richmond still. I presume there are things to do for regular tourists and civil war history buffs aside from looking at the statue of Lee. Furthermore, if your concern is the small businesses, there’s no reason to punish them over the removal of a statue. The statue isn’t, or at least, shouldn’t, be the deal breaker for visiting Richmond and patronizing its local businesses.
As a native Virginian and Richmond resident for some time, I made several walks along Monument Avenue to view the many statues especially Lee’s and yes, there are other sites to see from a historical perspective. But, it’s the sites in and around Richmond that are related to the WBTS that brings tourist into the city. After retiring to Arizona, I have been ask many times about Monument Avenue and how they wish they could see the monuments, I never realized how important and well known this street was until I left. Now, all that is left is a statue to Arthur Ashe. Are you going to go there to see that? Probably not! I was fortunate enough to go back a few years ago to walk the street again and take pictures but now the idiots in local government have destroyed a historical street for their own self interest without letting the people decide. Richmond has lost a big chunk of its history, like that history or not.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
Just as a side note, the Rumors of War statue does not "work" for me, being more of a Civil War "purist." It is a work of art that makes a statement about the war, but it's not a Civil War monument in my eyes. I've suggested to Richmonders that I've met that the city should install a monument which recalls that a USCT regiment was the first to enter the city when it fell to the Union; and that the monument should not only depict USCT, but also black residents who witnessed the arrival of the soldiers. That would work for me.

I think of the witnessing of the USCT by Richmond's enslaved population as one of the most profound and sublime moments in US history.

- Alan
Maybe a broader viewpoint would help.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I didn't ask it, Brundage did. And you're right, the money doesn't have to come from the government.

Just keep in mind: if the public feels that the commemorative landscape misrepresent the entire community's experience, they will not support it. I think you've written recently about the need for local support of pubic policy.

- Alan
As far as laws, certainly. As it's the local public that has to enforce, prosecute, and ultimately decide if conviction is warrented, as that is justice. Would say that is ultimately the point of being ensured a trial in the relevant jurisdiction by ones peers, to indeed allow local interpretation and moderation to be accounted for.

Though personally don't think our "commemorative landscape" should change based on partisanship, as would seem silly to me it should change every time an office changed parties. And to be honest this is an issue their seems little bipartisan consensus.....the acting without bipartisan support I would suggest is part of the increasing division of the country, as their is increasingly little moderation or consideration of other views.

Allowing for something, obviously allows for choice to visit or not visit something........removal seems rather intended to specifically not allow choice.
 

Joshua Cude

Cadet
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Location
North Carolina
Robert E. Lee waged war against the United States. Which is treason.
I cannot go along with the idea that Gen. Lee, or any of the Confederates were traitors or committed treason. Treason is a crime committed against ones' own country. The people of the south (mainly of the Democratic party) could not agree on the issue of slavery with the incoming (Republican) Lincoln administration, and seceded from the United States.
They formed their own government and their own military. They did "not" try to overthrow Lincoln's administration (Which would have been treason,) but wanted to form their "own" nation and Government.
This is precisely how the United States began, when while under British control, were formed our own government, our own colonial militia, and wrote our Declaration of Independence (secession document.)
If secession did sever the south from the north, then no treason was committed. If it did not, then all of our "Colonial Patriots" were traitors.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
As far as laws, certainly. As it's the local public that has to enforce, prosecute, and ultimately decide if conviction is warrented, as that is justice. Would say that is ultimately the point of being ensured a trial in the relevant jurisdiction by ones peers, to indeed allow local interpretation and moderation to be accounted for.

Yes, earlier you said this:

The reality is jury nullification is legal in the United States, and is the means a local majority can resist what they see an unjust law or prosecution. Whether one agrees or disagree's with the view of the jury or community, doesn't change it was their view......and is why a law needs public support.
The commemorative landscape is a function of public policy. If the policy doesn't have public support, it will, as you suggest, be resisted. It does not appear to me that there was a groundswell of support for the monuments in question in Richmond, and that would become problematic.

Perhaps we can call what's happening "monument nullification."

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
If it did not, then all of our "Colonial Patriots" were traitors.

The colonists who fought against the crown were indeed traitors. As Benjamin Franklin allegedly said: “we must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

You can also make a case they were terrorists. Tarring and feathering and all that.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Yes, earlier you said this:


The commemorative landscape is a function of public policy. If the policy doesn't have public support, it will, as you suggest, be resisted. It does not appear to me that there was a groundswell of support for the monuments in question in Richmond, and that would become problematic.

- Alan
Perhaps eventually, however there's little evidence of a groundswell of bi partisan opposition currently either.

Guess I'm fine with whatever standard is adopted if it's indeed a standard which I suspect it isn't.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Since the monument and land it sits on was a bequest to the state why wasn't it simply returned to the heirs of those who gave it.
IIRC correctly, the plaintiffs did not request return of the land, as that would have undercut their argument that there was an enforceable covenant in the first instance (which is what they really wanted). Instead, they sought specific performance of the language about holding the monument perpetually sacred. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that that language was not enforceable, because it sought to limit/constrain government expression against public policy: "A restrictive covenant against the government is unreasonable if it compels the government to contract away, abridge, or weaken any sovereign right because such a restrictive covenant would interfere with the interest of the public."

So, the underlying grant/deed remained in force, but the covenant was unenforceable.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I have seen the word "divisive" used a lot. I would agree that this issue of monuments is divisive. But it seems like some people are saying that the issue is so divisive now, as if there was unity regarding these monuments sometime before. That is an incorrect understanding of the past. There was no unity among whites and African Americans in the Jim Crow South when these monuments were created.

The thing is, in the past, the voices of African Americans were muted due to fear and powerlessness. But things that were unimaginable before are possible now. In the past, nobody would even think of removing Lee's statue, it was ridiculous idea. Meanwhile, the people who created those monuments never thought that black support might be needed to maintain those monuments in the public square... the idea that black southerners might have a say about it never occurred to them. (Or to be more precise, the idea did occur to them, and segregation took care of that potential problem).
I suppose that is a matter of perspective, & or time frame you're talking about. I can't help but disagree. I'm 50 years old, & a native of Virginia. My entire life AA's have had a say. I grew up in Northern Virginia, went to school in Fairfax County. This was a very diverse area, even in the 70's. I grew up poor, & was surrounded by families, & people, of every ethnicity, & race possible. We all got along.

VA had the first Black Governor of any US state, nearly 20 years before 44. My point is, AA's had a voice in Virginia. I have zero memories of them not. The reason we all got along for most of my lifetime, was respect for others, & respect for opposing viewpoints. That's the difference. These monuments weren't untouchable because of lack of a voice, they were left in place out of respect for others.

That respect for others, & their viewpoints, has disappeared in large part. Disagreeing today comes with virtue signals, & accusations of racism, & moral judgement. That will never be a formula for unity, or mutual respect.
The divisiveness we see today is a legacy of the unvoiced divisiveness of the past. I've said this before, we inherited a mess, it's not our fault, but it is our problem. This is a reckoning with our past.

- Alan
Again I disagree. The divisiveness we see today, is a direct result of modern politics. Politicians have been able to leverage divisiveness for political gain. You know, & I know, the real problems in many urban areas of the South, isn't these monuments. Their removal isn't going to solve any problems, or bring anybody together.

Five years from now, downtown Richmond will not be any less violent, or crime ridden than it is now. However, the politicians who've benefited from stirring the pot, yeah.... they'll still be living the good life.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
I cannot go along with the idea that Gen. Lee, or any of the Confederates were traitors or committed treason. Treason is a crime committed against ones' own country. The people of the south (mainly of the Democratic party) could not agree on the issue of slavery with the incoming (Republican) Lincoln administration, and seceded from the United States.
They formed their own government and their own military. They did "not" try to overthrow Lincoln's administration (Which would have been treason,) but wanted to form their "own" nation and Government.
This is precisely how the United States began, when while under British control, were formed our own government, our own colonial militia, and wrote our Declaration of Independence (secession document.)
If secession did sever the south from the north, then no treason was committed. If it did not, then all of our "Colonial Patriots" were traitors.
"As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." Robert E. Lee letter to his son Jan 1861
<J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert Edward Lee, Soldier and Man. (New York: Neale Publishing Company, 1906), pp. 120-121.>

The founding fathers never claimed they were seceding from England, they knew they were rebelling and knew they would most likely be hanged if they lost. They were traitors to England. I'm not English so I don't care that they were traitors to them (I also happen to believe they had valid reasons to revolt).

I am American so I care that Lee and the rest of the confederates committed treason against America. I also happen to believe there reasons for doing so were bad.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
If taking down just one commemorative plaque would free just one black man/woman just one day earlier, I would make it my full time occupation smashing them myself. Unfortunately it would not.

These statues, monuments, plaques, etc were erected by people of the time to honor sacrifice made by them.

It is often said that the answer to speech is more speech. In my case I have never been a great statue fan or even the Confed flag--doesn't move me much either way. However in my home town of Augusta Ga about 25 yrs ago they built a new down town freeway to redirect traffic for the Masters Tournament. My head almost exploded when I heard that the city in its infinite wisdom had decided to name it the John C Calhoun Freeway????!!!!!!

The man was not a Georgian, he was from SC. He may never even have visited the city of Augusta. His greatest claim to fame was being a Vice President. His vehement support of slavery is so rank that even the most radical racist of today may find him hard to swallow.

Not long after that I picked up another bit of local information. It had puzzled me that most if not all new schools were named lake... or hill... or north, south, east west...something. The schools I had attended and all schools in the area that I knew about were all named after people. What I was told was that the School Bd had an unwritten policy not to name new schools after people so as not to be put in a position of naming them after a black person.

Finally when the city erected a monumental new courthouse, there was a proposal to name it after the 1st black federal judge in the area. At the last minute...NO NO NO NO...he only deserves his name on 1 courtroom in the building.

It came clear in my mind. Leaves the monuments up. But for the next 50 years every new street, every new govt building, every school, every single thing that goes up that gets a name--name it after a black person. Anywhere you display a Confederate flag, put up a NCAA flag. If you play Dixie; play Let Every Voice and Sing (it a better song anyway).
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I suppose that is a matter of perspective, & or time frame you're talking about. I can't help but disagree. I'm 50 years old, & a native of Virginia. My entire life AA's have had a say. I grew up in Northern Virginia, went to school in Fairfax County. This was a very diverse area, even in the 70's. I grew up poor, & was surrounded by families, & people, of every ethnicity, & race possible. We all got along.

VA had the first Black Governor of any US state, nearly 20 years before 44. My point is, AA's had a voice in Virginia. I have zero memories of them not. The reason we all got along for most of my lifetime, was respect for others, & respect for opposing viewpoints. That's the difference. These monuments weren't untouchable because of lack of a voice, they were left in place out of respect for others.

That respect for others, & their viewpoints, has disappeared in large part. Disagreeing today comes with virtue signals, & accusations of racism, & moral judgement. That will never be a formula for unity, or mutual respect.

Again I disagree. The divisiveness we see today, is a direct result of modern politics. Politicians have been able to leverage divisiveness for political gain. You know, & I know, the real problems in many urban areas of the South, isn't these monuments. Their removal isn't going to solve any problems, or bring anybody together.

Five years from now, downtown Richmond will not be any less violent, or crime ridden than it is now. However, the politicians who've benefited from stirring the pot, yeah.... they'll still be living the good life.
There are things that I could say, but I will just say, I appreciate that you are being civil with your ideas. Sadly, you raise issues for which this forum is a poor platform for discussion.

- Alan
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Perhaps eventually, however there's little evidence of a groundswell of bi partisan opposition currently either.

Guess I'm fine with whatever standard is adopted if it's indeed a standard which I suspect it isn't.
Two things:

1) Just because something has bipartisan support, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

2) If bipartisanship is taken to its logical/absurd extremes: then a party with say 20% support would have as much power or standing as a party with 80% support. That is, bipartisanship is not necessarily democratic.

The idea of bipartisanship for its own sake is an idea that I find troubling. Concurrently, I think that partisanship for its own sake is troubling.

- Alan
 

Cycom

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
While I can't speak for Stone.... I interpret his comments as, simply pointing out the double standards. ie: Folks pointing the racist finger South, might casually mention Northern policy but, rarely with the same vigor. When questioned, we usually get the accusation of whataboutism.

Plenty of the virtue signals pointed at those of us favoring Confederate Monuments, ignore or minimize the actions of Yankees. Many of the people demonizing Lee, hold the actions of Sherman, Sheridan, & Hunter in a much different light. If Lee spoke a word that in today's enlightened age can be interpreted as racist, he's blasted as less than honorable, & a horrible human being.... ignoring much of the man's life.

Plenty of folks have amnesia when it comes to Sherman & Sheridan's post war activities. Yet, NBF is more known by his haters for his brief affiliation with the Klan, than his views, & actions after. As stated before, this IS a double standard, & comes across as merely propaganda for a modern political movement/ideology.
You absolutely nailed it. The double standard is right in the open, both here and elsewhere. And it’s frankly pathetic.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
You absolutely nailed it. The double standard is right in the open, both here and elsewhere. And it’s frankly pathetic.
I think one of the issues is that there is no standard.

As far as I can gather, it’s up to the local communities do do what they will with their statuary.

As far as standards go, that went out the window when folks decided that there was no measure or authority. This is a very modern development that goes far beyond statues. Folks today deny plain math and science if it doesn’t meet their preconceived political leanings.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
The point was that the do gooders who brag about getting rid of it, continued to profit from it. There are words for folks like that
I agree 100%. Folks in the north definitely benefited from the southern institution. That doesn’t make either of them right and does not provide an excuse.

Eventually a political party from the north & west gained control of the national government in a free and fair election that was hostile to such an arrangement. The white south couldn’t abide this and rebelled.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Two things:

1) Just because something has bipartisan support, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

2) If bipartisanship is taken to its logical/absurd extremes: then a party with say 20% support would have as much power or standing as a party with 80% support. That is, bipartisanship is not necessarily democratic.

The idea of bipartisanship for its own sake is an idea that I find troubling. Concurrently, I think that partisanship for its own sake is troubling.

- Alan
Certainly that something lacks bipartisan support doesn't suggest it's a good idea, it tends to suggest it's extremist.

Personally I think if something is 51-49 it certainly suggests reconsideration and moderation as there is little consensus.
 
Top