Monument Avenue Statues In Richmond, VA

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I am rather surprised that more is not being heard from museums or other historic sites willing to accept these monuments.
Until law enforcement starts doing their job, why would they?

These monuments were intended to be outdoors, hence their size, stuff has been attacked at private property as well as public, including statues outside museums.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Ashe family wants his memorial removed in Richmond for safe keeping, seen today in Bristol UK they are removing a BLM monument.

Starting to seem to me this exercise in intolerance is spreading to where we won't be able to memorialize anything out of fear of "offending" or provoking someone.

Presidents, founding fathers, world leaders, explorers, civil rights leaders, saints, missionaries, athlete's there isn't much that hasnt been attacked, protested, or called for to be removed from fear of protest or attacks.

Edit added- It appears the BLM statue removed in England had never been approved.
 
Last edited:

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
If the Lee statue stays up my guess is the USCT monuments continue to be planned. If they bring down Lee they will likely radically revise the area to something not Civil War related at all.
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
I never particularly liked the move since not only Monument Avenue is a historic landmark so are the Confederate statues for better or for worse just like New York City's Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building. If I were Richmond and the <edited> Virginia state government, I would send Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart to the National Battlefield Park alongside the Soldiers and Sailors Monument, A.P. Hill, and Wiliam Carter Wickham. Matthew Fontaine Maury should be sent to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts or the Virginia Museum of History & Culture same as the Lady Confederacy monument. For Jefferson Davis, he'll go to the Richmond Valentine Museum which is more or less going to claim it anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
This news report [link] says:
"There's also a 19th century deed that gifted the property to the state so long as the state guards and protects the statue. And the residents say that deed is binding. The state says it's not."
I'd like to see this deed. Has anyone seen it published anywhere? [It doesn't seem to me that the State has guarded and protected the statue (or has any intention of doing so anymore) so the property on which it sits should revert to the previous owner. Who was that?]
 

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
No ruling yesterday and instead the judge says he will rule right before November 1st. I think it would be better to wait until after the first week of November, but it’s not my call. In terms of the suit the land was given by locals in Richmond upon the terms that it be used for the statue. The VA legislature has just tried to nullify the terms retroactively.
 
Last edited:

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Looks like a resourceful reporter [news link] looked at the deed and found:
"Real estate investor Otway S. Allen and his sisters, Bettie F. Allen Gregory and Martha Allen Wilson, donated the circle of land with a radius of 100 feet to the state for the statue"; and
"The document, found on pages 367-370 in Deed Book 129B, transcribed on the Virginia Memory website, includes the language that the state, referred to by the female pronoun: “executes this instrument in token of her acceptance of the gift and her 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.”

That doesn't sound ambiguous to me. The State has a perpetual duty to guard and protect the monument.

[I looked at the Virginia Memory website but failed to find the deed itself.]
 

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Location
Corona, California
Looks like a resourceful reporter [news link] looked at the deed and found:
"Real estate investor Otway S. Allen and his sisters, Bettie F. Allen Gregory and Martha Allen Wilson, donated the circle of land with a radius of 100 feet to the state for the statue"; and
"The document, found on pages 367-370 in Deed Book 129B, transcribed on the Virginia Memory website, includes the language that the state, referred to by the female pronoun: “executes this instrument in token of her acceptance of the gift and her 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.”

That doesn't sound ambiguous to me. The State has a perpetual duty to guard and protect the monument.

[I looked at the Virginia Memory website but failed to find the deed itself.]
The Richmond Valentine Museum has claimed the Jefferson Davis monument for themselves. As for Stonewall Jackson and Matthew Fontaine Maury, some LA-area museum in my home state of California wants to have it for two years which means it does offer the chance it will be returned back to Richmond and placed in a less conspicuous location by city officials though as I said before they should put the former in the National Battlefield Park and the latter at the Virginia Museum of History & Culture or Fine Arts. No word on JEB Stuart yet and cannons from another monument have been sent to a nearby battlefield park in Hanover County. Robert E. Lee, I doubt he'll everlast and he'll be gone. An oddly named town from Indiana named Peru wants all of Richmond's Confederate monuments and a Connecticut town wants to cut them up but neither of them is going to happen given the other proposals within Richmond and/or Virginia.
 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
No ruling yesterday and instead the judge says he will rule right before November 1st. I think it would be better to wait until after the first week of November, but it’s not my call. In terms of the suit the land was given by locals in Richmond upon the terms that it be used for the statue. The VA legislature has just tried to nullify the terms retroactively.
I wonder what the motivation is behind that timeframe? I suppose it is possible (and hope this is the case) that he wants to study the documents, weigh the testimony and search for precedent before making his ruling.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
I wonder what the motivation is behind that timeframe? I suppose it is possible (and hope this is the case) that he wants to study the documents, weigh the testimony and search for precedent before making his ruling.

Strangely, I can find almost nothing that reports the actual proceedings in Court that day, the best (and it says very little) was this article. The article reports:
1. "The plaintiffs argue that taking down the bronze equestrian figure installed in 1890 would violate the state constitution, an 1889 act of the General Assembly and restrictive covenants in deeds that transferred the statue, its soaring pedestal and the land they sit on to the state."; and
2. "The state has argued it cannot be forced to forever maintain a statue it says no longer comports with its values."

In regards to 1. all I can think of it that it violates Arcticle XI, Section 1 where it says:
"... it shall be the policy of the Commonwealth to conserve, develop, and utilize its natural resources, its public lands, and its historical sites and buildings ...".
In terms of 2., the Deed (see Post #415) seems very specific about the "perpetual" duty of Virginia to the statue, pedestal and the ground it is on. Perhaps 'perpetual' is now to be taken in a way different to its accepted meaning (which reminds me of Orwell's quote "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others").
 

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
I wonder what the motivation is behind that timeframe? I suppose it is possible (and hope this is the case) that he wants to study the documents, weigh the testimony and search for precedent before making his ruling.

The fact of the case he knew for months. The testimony amounted to one side bringing on a teacher who called a certain someone a racist traitor and basically blamed him for the state of race relations in America.

I have some suspicions on possible motivations for the time frame. I will say certain historical figures have been recast and used of late for people wishing fight over current events in a way that is all around bad.

It will be nice when that calms down somewhat, but that time isn't yet.
 
Top