Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

Joined
Nov 15, 2019
September 2, 2021--Richmond Times Dispatch

'Today it is clear — the largest Confederate monument in the South is coming down.' Court rulings clear way for removal of Lee Monument in Richmond

In two unanimous rulings Thursday the Virginia Supreme Court cleared the way for the removal of Richmond's iconic but divisive Lee Monument.
The justices rejected appeals from five nearby property owners and an heir of those who donated the land for the Lee statue to bar moving it as ordered by Gov. Ralph Northam last year during racial justice protests that swept the former capital of the Confederacy following the death of George Floyd.
A statement from Northam's office said preparations for the statue's removal have been underway for months and that the Department of General Services can now begin executing a plan that prioritizes public safety.

The process is complicated by several logistical and security concerns, including street closures and the equipment required to ensure the safe removal of the 12-ton statue, said the governor's office. Removal of the statue will be a multi-day process and no action on the statue is expected this week, said officials.

"Today’s ruling is a tremendous win for the people of Virginia. Our public memorials are symbols of who we are and what we value. When we honor leaders who fought to preserve a system that enslaved human beings, we are honoring a lost cause that has burdened Virginia for too many years."

He added, “Today it is clear—the largest Confederate monument in the South is coming down.”
William C. Gregory, a descendant of two of the people who donated the land to the state, filed suit in Richmond Circuit Court to block it, alleging that the 1887 and 1890 deeds giving the land to the state created a perpetual covenant prohibiting removal of the Lee statue, which he had a right to enforce as an heir to the original land donors.

When that suit failed, five area residents, two of them residents of the Monument Avenue Historic District, also sued, arguing that the 1887 and 1890 deeds require that the monument be held "perpetually sacred" by the state.

Richmond Circuit Court Judge W. Reilly Marchant ruled against them, holding that arguments to keep it in place were contrary to current public policy as established by the General Assembly last year. An injunction was put in place barring the monument’s removal pending the appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
In the unanimous opinion Thursday in the residents' case, the high court states that, "Those restrictive covenants are unenforceable as contrary to public policy and for being unreasonable because their effect is to compel government speech, by forcing the Commonwealth to express, in perpetuity, a message with which it now disagrees. For the reasons stated, we hold that the circuit court did not err in concluding that the purported restrictive covenants are unenforceable, that Governor Northam’s order to remove the Lee Monument did not violate the Constitution of Virginia, and that all of the Taylor Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the circuit court and immediately dissolve all injunctions imposed by the circuit court."


In the Gregory case the justices ruled, "Gregory has no property right, related to the Lee Monument, to enforce against the Commonwealth. As a result, the circuit court correctly found that Gregory failed to articulate a legally viable cause of action against Governor Northam and Director Damico, and it did not err in granting their demurrer and dismissing Gregory’s claim with prejudice."
Patrick McSweeney, lawyer for the property owners, said he had not yet had a chance to read the rulings for comment.
The opinion in the property owners' case was written by Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn. The Gregory case was authored by the court. "This is a pretty complete vindication of the governor's case," said Richard Schragger, who teaches at the University of Virginia School of Law.
They are coming after the Museum of the Confederacy and the United Daughters of the Confederacy buildings next. If the trustees of those institutions have any sense, they should be looking to get out of Richmond to somewhere safer. The protestors already tried to burn down the UDC building with all its priceless treasures once, luckily their attempt at arson was fairly inept.
 

Ish Williams

Cadet
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
There is a long history connected with these monuments which were protested by many when they went up. A black news editor at the time commenting on a picture in the paper showing black laborers erecting the monument, said blacks are here for the erection and they will be there when it comes down. It did come down with black workers helping.

This PBS special goes into detail of the politics and emotions of the times. The battle between white supremacists and civil rights pioneers who won early court victories and got representation on the city council.

https://www.pbs.org/show/how-monuments-came-down/
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
They are coming after the Museum of the Confederacy and the United Daughters of the Confederacy buildings next. If the trustees of those institutions have any sense, they should be looking to get out of Richmond to somewhere safer. The protestors already tried to burn down the UDC building with all its priceless treasures once, luckily their attempt at arson was fairly inept.
Somewhat. The Second National that adorned Stonewall Jackson’s casket, and the genealogy library were destroyed in that fire.

And historians who huff their own farts celebrated.
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
I seriously doubt that anyone will consider the removal of confederate monuments from public land to be very significant. It's a blip in our history that really isn't as important as the most emotional advocates make it out to be.
No. Because it opened the door to worse behavior. Like many of us had said since 2015.

Destroying historic sites for the dopamine rush of social media likes was never going to end well.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No. Because it opened the door to worse behavior. Like many of us had said since 2015.

Destroying historic sites for the dopamine rush of social media likes was never going to end well.
Vandalism to monuments has not been as prevalent this year as last year. The removal of monuments is being done by local governments, for the most part.
 

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
The Museum of the Confederacy and the Tredegar Iron Works amalgated to become the American Civil War Museum.

They wanted to present a broader picture of the war while still being able to preserve and display Confederate artifacts.

Changed with the changing times, which in hindsight was a good decision.
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
Vandalism to monuments has not been as prevalent this year as last year. The removal of monuments is being done by local governments, for the most part.
Sure, local governments also conveniently looked the other way while rioting mobs destroyed said cities. After all, Richmond and D.C. hamstrung the cops while letting mobs light fire to things like the Lincoln Memorial.

It's called Anarcho-Tyranny, and no amount of histrionics will ever gaslight that out of existence.
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Sure, local governments also conveniently looked the other way while rioting mobs destroyed said cities. After all, Richmond and D.C. hamstrung the cops while letting mobs light fire to things like the Lincoln Memorial.

It's called Anarcho-Tyranny, and no amount of histrionics will ever gaslight that out of existence.

Which cities were destroyed ?

I agree with @DanSBHawk most of the monument removals were by local governments using legal means. You may not agree with the actions but they have for the most part been peaceful and legal.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
https://webcache.googleusercontent....jefferson-davis.htm+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I have an adblocker, so I gotta archive stuff.

Davis was very much aware that a treason trial would 1. Be in Richmond, friendly territory. 2. Salmon P. Chase would oversee it. 3. President Johnson would be pretty mamby-pamby about it. It would have made the Federal government look incredibly bad.
Nowhere in that article does it claim that Davis wanted a trial.

Andrew Johnson made some bad decisions as to how and where the treason trials were to be held.
 

Desert Kid

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Arizona
What about the city centers of Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, St. Louis, Lincoln, Milwaukee, Kenosha?

What we saw last year was the 1967 Detroit Riot on the national level. The origin of why Detroit is the way it is today, began with that police raid on 12th street.

Now, the deaths of more more American cities was seeded.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Richmond, Virginia. The Jefferson Davis monument there. That was peaceful?

The Albert Pike statue, National Law Enforcement monument, the Lincoln Memorial in D.C.? That was peaceful?

The Columbus statues in Minneapolis, Richmond, Columbia, among many others in other cities. That was peaceful?

Frank Rizzo statue in Philly. That was peaceful?

New Mexico Volunteers obelisk in Santa Fe? Peaceful?

Juan Onate in Albuquerque? THAT was peaceful?

Really? You’re serious saying that?
How many of these happened this year?
 

jcaesar

Corporal
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Look at all those Confederate monuments... oh wait. They aren't, are they? But the language being used to describe them and possible effects on people is exactly the same. Think about that the next time someone cheers the destruction of a Confederate memorial. To some people, there is no difference between Lincoln and Lee.
The statue removals have not ended.

 
Top