Monument Avenue Statues In Richmond, VA

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
To all of the above:

AGREED!

The social and political doings and leanings should have no effect upon the Supreme Court of Virginia or any other court. So if it decides to permit the City of Richmond and the mayor of the city to remove the monument, that would be OK with all of you?
Ok? Well of course it would not be to my liking but if it is done legally, in accordance to established precedent (with no shenanegins involved) I don't have to like it. I'm old enough to understand that everything won't always go or turn out like I want it to. Constitutionality, legality and in accordance to precedent, I don't know that we could expect more than that.

With all of that said, we'll just have to wait and see if the process is all maintained on the up and up.
 
Last edited:

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
Thought the injunction was so one of the appeals should have a hearing....see little basis for the AG to say such a hearing shouldnt proceed and instead the injunction be dissolved. Would think procedure exists to be followed.
I feel rather safe in saying that the announcement came with a great deal of political/social posturing to appeal to and appease the current vocal minority.
 

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
Shouldn't the statue stay or go on the vote of the people of Virginia isn't that the fair and democratic way let the voters decide , its up to the common people to decide not the political few any result could not be disputed then in any court of law..

In my opinion.

Then why have you representative body at all?
 

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
To all of the above:

AGREED!

The social and political doings and leanings should have no effect upon the Supreme Court of Virginia or any other court. So if it decides to permit the City of Richmond and the mayor of the city to remove the monument, that would be OK with all of you?

No because they will claim they only allowed it due to those pressures.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
So the City of Richmond was in a big hurry to give away the statues already taken down. Now they want to slow down and have public input on what to do with them. I cannot wait to hear those meetings.
Those meetings will be nothing but theater. Virtue signalling & BS. The folks running Richmond could care less what happens to them. They've changed course because some Heritage groups made offers for them. They don't want those groups, to have them.
 

AshleyMel

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Those meetings will be nothing but theater. Virtue signalling & BS. The folks running Richmond could care less what happens to them. They've changed course because some Heritage groups made offers for them. They don't want those groups, to have them.
Sadly, I have found this to be the case in some of these instances. We had a similar experience trying to regain possession of one of our markers that had been at a local museum. When it was pulled out of public display and we inquired, we were told it would never be returned to us. It was extremely frustrating. However, these issues can be worked through. I am very happy to say that after some persistence and grace, we finally were able get possession.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
From the article: "This monument to Virginia's racist history has held a place of honor in Richmond for too long. The Lee statue does not represent the ideals Virginians live by today and the inclusive community that we strive to be and it is time to bring it down," Herring said in a statement.

If things should be removed from public view because of racist history, the governor himself could fall into that category, if his own history is a guide. In citing the court arguments, I like this comment: about his "What the Residents are asserting is that the state cannot arbitrarily take away their property rights, or remove a historic landmark, in violation of the Constitution of Virginia. If the Governor finds this assertion staggering, it can only be because he has an unlimited vision of governmental power. The state must comply with its contractual obligations, just like private citizens," attorney Patrick McSweeney argues in a legal brief filed with the Supreme Court.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
I fully support monuments to the South and its fallen soldiers , However I have never personally never liked statues to individuals.

Either way it should be up to the states themselves to decide via a democratic vote of the common people I really don't see any other way.
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Ok? Well of course it would not be to my liking but if it is done legally, in accordance to established precedent (with no shenanegins involved) I don't have to like it. I'm old enough to understand that everything won't always go or turn out like I want it to. Constitutionality, legality and in accordance to precedent, I don't know that we could expect more than that.

With all of that said, we'll just have to wait and see if the process is all maintained on the up and up.
I haven't been able to get my hands on the complete brief the AG filed, but from the blurb and other reporting, his primary argument is that this is a political/policy issue that the Governor/Legislature have complete authority to take action on. Just like any new administration can generally change the policies of a prior administration. As I understand it, the plaintiffs are arguing that the original donation was accompanied by restrictions (covenants) that remain in force and constrain future action, meaning this would make it more a legal dispute than a political/policy one.

I don't know enough about the history of how this statue was raised; can anyone shed any light for me on the process by which it was decided to put it up? I suspect that that unless there is some real evidence of binding covenants, the Court is likely to say that the Governor had the authority in 1890 to put it up (without submitting it to a statewide vote) and also has the authority in 2021 to take it down (without submitting it to a statewide vote).

The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments on this yesterday, with the plaintiffs arguing that the issue is a legal one about the enforceability of the covenants, and the AG arguing that this is a purely political/policy dispute. https://richmond.com/news/state-and...cle_798ec433-f***-5b1d-992e-41719dda98bc.html
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
I don't know enough about the history of how this statue was raised; can anyone shed any light for me on the process by which it was decided to put it up? I suspect that that unless there is some real evidence of binding covenants, the Court is likely to say that the Governor had the authority in 1890 to put it up (without submitting it to a statewide vote) and also has the authority in 2021 to take it down (without submitting it to a statewide vote).

Here is some information from several of my posts from earlier in this lengthy thread that may assist.

From Post #415 in relation to the land on which the R E Lee stands [emphasis is mine]:

"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.”

From Post #418 in relation to original court arguments:

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."

From Post #438:

[Link] to the last Court opinion which effectively says that the covenant in the deed is null as it is in contravention of current public policy (i.e laws enacted to have the R E Lee monument removed) and uses that as its main reason to rule that the monument be removed. The court also took into account testimony that "there is a consensus that the monuments are a troubling presence".

The unveiling of the R E Lee Moument was, of course, a grand event [link] attended by 10-15,000 veterans and "tens of thousands" spectators.
RELeeMonument.png
 

Jantzen64

Corporal
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Here is some information from several of my posts from earlier in this lengthy thread that may assist.

From Post #415 in relation to the land on which the R E Lee stands [emphasis is mine]:

"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.”

From Post #418 in relation to original court arguments:

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."

From Post #438:

[Link] to the last Court opinion which effectively says that the covenant in the deed is null as it is in contravention of current public policy (i.e laws enacted to have the R E Lee monument removed) and uses that as its main reason to rule that the monument be removed. The court also took into account testimony that "there is a consensus that the monuments are a troubling presence".

The unveiling of the R E Lee Moument was, of course, a grand event [link] attended by 10-15,000 veterans and "tens of thousands" spectators.
View attachment 404223
Thank you, Quaama, for reposting - sorry for missing it from earlier.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Thank you, Quaama, for reposting - sorry for missing it from earlier.

No problem. I was sure I'd posted about it so it was easy for me to find whereas you'd have to go through twenty-four pages of posts to find it.

In terms of your other query regarding "the complete brief the AG filed", I've never been able to find the formal written submissions put to the Court before the matter is heard as they don't seem to be freely available. [Presumably, if you went to the Court and handed over a wad of cash you could get a transcript so it's disappointing that no journalists do this and publish for the public interest.]

The best you can do is get the Court's written opinion after the matter is finished [as I did for the first court hearing] but even that takes a bit of detective work. Still, it's worthwhile as you can then see it for yourself rather than rely on a news report that, at best, is second-hand and, usually, quite selective on what is reported.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Personally i think Lee would be in favour of taking his statue down and replacing it with a monument to Virginias dead if anything he was not vain or egotistic and I'm sure he would of disapproved of all this idol worship.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Great article from National Review about the Lee monument on Monument Avenue. There are plenty of modern political references in the article, but there are also more timeless observations about the value of those monuments and the virtues of the South.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...paign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=first

All too likely to be buried by the current political wisdom is the elementary fact that, for all its terrible shortcomings, the Old South imposed demanding standards of personal honor, courage, and self-sacrifice on its guardians. If they hadn’t been recognized as signal exponents of those virtues, Lee, Jackson, Stuart, and Davis would never have been commemorated on Monument Avenue. Of course, the story doesn’t end there. The story is complex. The problem is that complexity is anathema to the woke — who, not unlike the Klansmen of yore, inhabit a hopelessly simplistic, ideologically shriveled universe. It would be folly not to realize that intimidation is an essential part of their playbook, too. Certainly Toby Heytens does.​
The searing injustices of the past are part of the South’s identity. The same goes for the region’s distinctive grandeur. For both reasons, eliminating a large portion of Richmond’s monumental heritage was a really bad idea. It’s also a really bad idea — especially in a state where opinions on the wisdom of retaining or removing Confederate monuments are closely divided — to focus on the pain that monuments cause some citizens while ignoring the pain their removal would cause others, as Patrick M. McSweeney, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Lee monument case, has noted. The Orwellian upshot is that some people’s pain matters more than others’. The best remedy in such situations is to focus on adding to, rather than subtracting from, a locale’s monumental heritage.​
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
....​
The searing injustices of the past are part of the South’s identity. The same goes for the region’s distinctive grandeur. For both reasons, eliminating a large portion of Richmond’s monumental heritage was a really bad idea. It’s also a really bad idea — especially in a state where opinions on the wisdom of retaining or removing Confederate monuments are closely divided — to focus on the pain that monuments cause some citizens while ignoring the pain their removal would cause others, as Patrick M. McSweeney, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Lee monument case, has noted. The Orwellian upshot is that some people’s pain matters more than others’. The best remedy in such situations is to focus on adding to, rather than subtracting from, a locale’s monumental heritage.
Yes. Right to the point. Thanks for posting this.
(P.S. I'm not a Southerner.)
 
Top