Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
The pedestal remains and may be used for a new monument. What I haven't heard is will it be cleansed of graffiti. In its present condition it is an eyesore.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
The pedestal remains and may be used for a new monument. What I haven't heard is will it be cleansed of graffiti. In its present condition it is an eyesore.
I'm sure it has some inscriptions on it. They'll have to chisel that off (deface it). Is there anything in Virginia law that says they can do that?...not that it would stop them.
 
Last edited:

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
There's that "them" again...
I think you raise an interesting point, 19th Ga, but there is also the part about obeying the President and the officers appointed over the person accepting the commission. I think I've seen other threads on the Board about the whole single vs plural issue, and don't want to open another diverison on this thread. Just wanted to acknowledge your point.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
I quoted what Gregory's claim was from the Court's judgement.
What you quoted, however, was not a request for return of the property. It was a request for specific performance based upon an allegation of irreparable harm.
What you see or don't see is obviously at odds with my observation. That "the 1890 deed did not use the correct language" is specifically what I meant when I said the judgement "defied commonsense" as it is clear to anyone who reads the words of Gregory's ancestors who gifted the land that they did so in anticipation that Virginia would "guarantee that she will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it."

As it has turned out that guarantee was worthless as legal argument enabled today's Virginia to wriggle its way out of what clearly were her obligations in receiving the gift. I can not see anything that would indicate the Gregory's ancestors would have ever considered giving away their valuable land unless they were sure at the time that it was to be used for the purpose for which it had been gifted to Virginia. That's commonsense. I appreciate that legal interpretation need have no regard to commonsense but that does not make the recent action any less despicable.
There is nothing "despicable" about a court following the rule of law and applying long settled precedent. (I suspect that there are members of this Board who would rail against so-called "activist" judges who don't follow settled law but instead just make up new law to fit the situation). On the contrary, it is a hallmark of our democracy that we have a mostly independent judiciary that mostly follows the rule of law.

It is a long settled principle of common law here in the States - law that existed at the time of the deed - that you have to use particular language to create the type of restriction that Gregory was arguing for. The original Gregorys did not do so, although the record doesn't reflect why they didn't. The law does allow for a contractual document such as the deed to be "reformed" to correct errors that don't reflect the parties' intent, but it requires a much higher degree of proof. Gregory did not invoke this doctrine and so didn't marshal a record along these lines. Ultimately, the fact that the Virginia Supreme Court was able to address Gregory's appeal in such a short, summary opinion reflects how clear this issue was from a legal perspective. This is in contrast with the Taylor decision, which required a more detailed analysis, because their claim fit "better" into the framework of existing law.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
An issue is that the agreement was a restrictive covenant. It turns out that the courts have a lot of problems with them, as they limit "the free use of land." This is certainly not unique to the case in question, and one could foretell that the agreement might have a problem in court.

This very brief video might be useful:

This will not make you feel the decision was any less despicable. I'm just making the point, this agreement was ripe for challenge from a legal standpoint, maybe even doomed to fail if challenged in court. And it indicates that other such agreements might be in similar peril.

- Alan
And as I stated in my response to Quaama, this law has been settled for a long time, and certainly existed at the time of the original deeds.
 

iac249

Cadet
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Robert E. Lee waged war against the United States. Which is treason.
After the war, Jefferson Davis hoped to be tried with treason. He never was. He wanted to be tried in order to demonstrate the legality of Secession (compact theory was still alive and well prior to the War). So you can "say" he committed treason, but in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and neither Davis nor Lee were tried or convicted. I expect those at the time did not wish to take Davis up on his dare. After all, an acquittal would have been disasterous for those claiming the war was legal.
 

shooter too

Private
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
After the war, Jefferson Davis hoped to be tried with treason. He never was. He wanted to be tried in order to demonstrate the legality of Secession (compact theory was still alive and well prior to the War). So you can "say" he committed treason, but in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and neither Davis nor Lee were tried or convicted. I expect those at the time did not wish to take Davis up on his dare. After all, an acquittal would have been disasterous for those claiming the war was legal.


Where in Virginia would one find a full and impartial jury w/o the threat of the torch or a rope?

That might be your first clue as to why Jeff never faced the dock, wise legal minds prevailed and left him an alibi for the "ages.".
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
The pedestal remains and may be used for a new monument. What I haven't heard is will it be cleansed of graffiti. In its present condition it is an eyesore.
Took no time at all to clean up graffiti on the Arthur Ashe statue on Memorial Ave. So it's not like they can't do it.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
After the war, Jefferson Davis hoped to be tried with treason. He never was... So you can "say" he committed treason, but in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and neither Davis nor Lee were tried or convicted.
Assuming this is on-topic: Regarding Davis' treason trial: On Christmas 1868, President Andrew Johnson made the Davis case moot by issuing a general pardon for all participants in the rebellion, which included Davis. Basically, Davis got off because Johnson gave him (and others) amnesty for their acts of treason.

Johnson proclaimed:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.​

There are people who would otherwise be convicted of murder, but get off due to a technicality. It's not as if they didn't commit the crime, but some action (such as mishandling of evidence) enables the defendant to go free. The point is, the defendant did do it, but was not convicted.

Davis' situation is akin to, but not the same as, getting off with a technicality. It's more appropriate to say his case was rendered moot when Davis issued his pardon. Johnson says, yeah, they did it, but I'm giving them amnesty. It is exactly because the rebels engaged in treasonous acts that Johnson could pardon them for having done so. By virtue of Johnson's proclamation, this was the public policy of the United States.

This proclamation covered all Confederates, including Lee. Note that Johnson had issued a pardon in 1865, but the 1868 order was broader in scope.

Davis... wanted to be tried in order to demonstrate the legality of Secession (compact theory was still alive and well prior to the War).

According to this source,

(Davis) was charged with treason after the Civil War, and his defense team claimed that the 14th Amendment already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.​

If this source is correct, the constitutionality of secession was not going to be used as a defense by the Davis team. I do understand there were questions/concerns about whether the case would litigate the issue of secession's constitutionality. But if the above source is correct, the Davis defense was not seeking to litigate their client's case on that issue; so it's questionable as to if and how the case would establish the legality of secession. Of course, that doesn't mean that Davis himself (or anybody else) wasn't hoping that secession would somehow be deemed valid during the adjudication of his charges.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
I'd like to see them named after loyal American servicemembers who either won wars or were honored with our nations highest award, the medal of honor.

I'd really like to see Fort Henry L Benning renamed Fort William Tecumseh Sherman.
Okay so nobody from this last 20 year scuffle. Gotcha.
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
There appears to be a false assumption that several of these crowds are solely targeting Confederate statues as a symbolic gesture. Union statues have been targeted as well without distinction; for some any representation of govt in general. Replace Fort Bragg with Fort Sherman and the country will shortly be reminded of his racist past by the same groups.
Yes, here out west certain Union Army figures who later became big names in the Indian Wars of the 1870's-1890s have also been targeted.

The big one as of late in New Mexico and Colorado has been Brigadier General Kit Carson and his New Mexico Volunteer Infantry. Carson had fought in the Mexican-War (his cavalry crossed through my valley in Arizona in 1846), the Civil War at the Battle of Valverde in New Mexico against Henry Hopkins Sibley, and then numerous engagements afterward against the Apaches, Comanches and Navajos, where he had gained a reputation for beating up on the Navajo.

An AntiFa chapter in Santa Fe destroyed the obelisk to his New Mexico regiment, while they were somehow able to "pin down" police officers during the rioting last year.

And that is not counting the monuments to say Grant in California, or Union General Hans Christian Heg that were destroyed and beheaded by rioters in all this.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
After the war, Jefferson Davis hoped to be tried with treason. He never was. He wanted to be tried in order to demonstrate the legality of Secession (compact theory was still alive and well prior to the War). So you can "say" he committed treason, but in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and neither Davis nor Lee were tried or convicted. I expect those at the time did not wish to take Davis up on his dare. After all, an acquittal would have been disasterous for those claiming the war was legal.
They were pardoned. The mere presence of a pardon implies that a crime has been committed; no crime, no pardon. - back to the monument -
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo

After the war, Jefferson Davis hoped to be tried with treason. He never was. He wanted to be tried in order to demonstrate the legality of Secession (compact theory was still alive and well prior to the War). So you can "say" he committed treason, but in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and neither Davis nor Lee were tried or convicted. I expect those at the time did not wish to take Davis up on his dare. After all, an acquittal would have been disasterous for those claiming the war was legal.
Correct, pardon itself means nothing, it has to be used.

A pardon is not a way to prevent someone from proving their innocence.
 
Top