We CAN remove a war memorial! Governor vetoes HB 587
Did you know about §15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia?? If it weren’t for HB 587, we wouldn’t either! Allow us to explain.
Photo by: TerryBrock
Update #2 — March 10, 2016; 7:30 PM
Guys, wait, wait, the governor has vetoed HB 587! While we still really should get rid of § 15.2-1812 entirely, since localities still are not allowed to tear down war memorials (even if they were the ones who erected them), IF they were erected after 1998. But this veto does not close the (unintentional) 1998 loophole.
In any possible interpretation, this is a larger government (the state) not wanting to encroach on the autonomy of a smaller government (Virginia localities)
Here’s McAuliffe’s statement:
March 10, 2016
Pursuant to Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution of Virginia, I veto House Bill 587, which overrides the authority of local governments to remove or modify monuments or war memorials erected before 1998.
The rich history of our Commonwealth is one of our great assets. My administration strongly supports historic preservation efforts, including the preservation of war memorials and monuments. However, this legislation would have been a sweeping override of local authority over these monuments and memorials including potential ramifications for interpretive signage to tell the story of some of our darkest moments during the Civil War.
There is a legitimate discussion going on in localities across the Commonwealth regarding whether to retain, remove, or alter certain symbols of the Confederacy. These discussions are often difficult and complicated. They are unique to each community’s specific history and the specific monument or memorial being discussed. This bill effectively ends these important conversations.
I am committed to supporting a constructive dialogue regarding the preservation of war memorials and monuments, but I do not support this override of local authority.
Accordingly, I veto this bill.
Sincerely,
Terence R. McAuliffe
— ∮∮∮ —
Update #1 — March 1, 2016; 11:09 AM
The Senate has passed HB 587 with 21 supporting and 17 opposed (this is a much closer margin than the House vote, which was 82-16). The governor could still choose to veto, which, again, would only keep the “pre-1998” loophole open. New legislation would still need to be introduced and passed next year in order to cancel out § 15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia (see original post below).
— ∮∮∮ —
Original — February 23, 2016
Remember last summer when everyone in town briefly argued with each other about whether or not we should remove from public ground monuments that honor Confederate dudes?
To recap, after white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine Black people in a Charleston church, various Southern cities started shifting around in their figurative chairs, suddenly uncomfortable with how they’ve been treating the Confederate symbols that Roof loved to brandish. Do these symbols–the flag, the monuments, the roads, the schools, the public buildings that honor Confederate leaders–mean threatening things to other people? Yep! Do they mean non-threatening things to others? Yep!
Well, actually, only sort of. “Pride in their heritage” isn’t threatening to those who are taking pride in it. But the heritage they’re taking pride in here is, by virtue of the symbols they’re choosing, the heritage of going to war to preserve an economy based on owning other human beings. Personally, I’d rather choose other Southern symbols to represent my heritage. How about a magnolia? A buttermilk pie? A shirt that says “Y’all” in huge letters?
Why not just say, “Whoops, sorry it seems like we still espouse racism, that was not our intention in keeping these monuments up. We’ll go ahead and put them in a museum or sell them to a private bidder.”
The Economist had some great things to say about New Orleans’ mayor’s (successful) call to remove their Confederate statues (emphasis mine).
The “removers,” led by the mayor, quite reasonably noted that few Nazis are commemorated in modern Germany. They also pointed out that public spaces are routinely transformed: it’s what cities do.
Lee Circle, for instance–the iconic roundabout near New Orleans’ downtown where the general presides from a lofty perch–used to be called Tivoli Circle, and it had no such statue. It was only in 1884, when the city’s whites were trying to remind blacks of their place in the racial pecking order, that the column on which Lee stands was erected.
As is inevitable in such debates, the “slippery slope” argument was raised. In this case, it took the form of: where will we stop? Will every monument honoring someone with political views that don’t comport with modern mores be removed? What about Andrew Jackson, who famously persecuted native Americans and whose statue and name adorns the city’s riverfront square in the French quarter?
That argument was fairly easily demolished. [Mayor] Landrieu and others pointed out that the line could be easily drawn by asking why a particular person was being honored publicly. If the honour primarily owed to that person’s support for a cause like segregation, or the Confederacy, then perhaps the monument should come down. That logic would leave a personage like Jackson–who inarguably did some terrible things, but is honored in New Orleans for defending the city during the War of 1812–unaffected.
As we outlined back in July, Richmond’s monuments were erected during specific pivotal years. They were essentially big middle fingers to those who wanted to give African Americans equal rights–and to serve as towering reminders to those living in town that Richmond shall never bend to those integration-loving jerks from the northernly direction! (It eventually did, thank goodness).
The ferocity to which 21st century citizens cling to these symbols is alarming (the guy who got the contract to remove the statues in New Orleans had his car set on fire in his company’s parking lot and has since bailed from the project). The arguments we had about it last summer made me feel physically ill. Is dedicating your energy to preserving the statues of these men really how you’d like to spend your time? Is there another way you can feel Southern pride? Must it always be wrapped up in this bloody conflict?
Turns out…
Your answer should be “No, it’s not worth my time to chain myself to the monuments,” however you feel. Because it turns out we couldn’t take the statues down anyway. At the very least, there would be a really strong case from state attorneys that Richmond voting to remove the statues would be illegal.
Feast your eyes on § 15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia, which tells us that…
A locality may, within the geographical limits of the locality, authorize and permit the erection of monuments or memorials for any war or conflict, or for any engagement of such war or conflict, to include the following monuments or memorials: Algonquin (1622), French and Indian (1754-1763), Revolutionary (1775-1783), War of 1812 (1812-1815), Mexican (1846-1848), Confederate or Union monuments or memorials of the War Between the States (1861-1865), Spanish-American (1898), World War I (1917-1918), World War II (1941-1945), Korean (1950-1953), Vietnam (1965-1973), Operation Desert Shield-Desert Storm (1990-1991), Global War on Terrorism (2000- ), Operation Enduring Freedom (2001- ), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003- ).
If such are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation and care of same. For purposes of this section, “disturb or interfere with” includes removal of, damaging or defacing monuments or memorials, or, in the case of the War Between the States, the placement of Union markings or monuments on previously designated Confederate memorials or the placement of Confederate markings or monuments on previously designated Union memorials.
The language “if such are erected,” creates a slight and unintentional loophole that makes it seem like this might only apply to memorials erected after the legislation was entered into the Code (i.e. 1998).
The General Assembly is closing that loophole right up with HB 587, which passed the House and is likely to pass the Senate. This bill adds some language to the code that makes it clear that it applies to all monuments past, present, and future.
I spoke with Chris Peace, delegate of the 97th district and co-patron of HB 587, about the intent of the law.
“I think the policy is that we honor our veterans,” he says. “We honor those who have sacrificed for our freedoms, and if there was a decision made at a particular point in time that would recognize those actions of Americans, then it really shouldn’t be up to the whims of a new generation to undo that. At some point if George Washington becomes very unpopular, should we remove his statue from the Capitol?”
However! Does George really represent a war? Does the legislation’s protection extend to individuals? George Washington fought in a war, sure, but means more to us as a symbol of lots of other things. One could certainly argue that, say, Robert E. Lee is a symbol of things both positive and negative to different people…but not necessarily when he serves as a representative of the soldiers who died in the Civil War.
Chris considered that, and said “It only really speaks to monuments or memorials for any war or conflict or for any engagement of any such war or conflict, so it doesn’t speak–I don’t think now reading this–to individuals. But I think one could argue that if there’s a monument to a particular individual, like A.P. Hill, that that’s also a monument or a memorial to that effort, or related to that war or conflict.”
Thus, §15.2-1812 is most likely enforced using that same New Orleans logic–that we should consider the spirit in which the monuments were erected–only in reverse. If it’s an individual who represents the cause of a war, the hands-off-this-statue rule probably applies.
And if Richmond can’t remove our monuments, who can?
“That’s an interesting thought,” says Chris Peace. “It’s silent on who has the authority to remove [them].”
So what’s the next step for Richmond’s “removers,” as they call them in New Orleans? They could encourage lawmakers to take a closer look at §15.2-1812 and make sure we have some sort of process that allows us to decide we definitively do not currently agree with the spirit in which the monuments were erected and the specific aspect of the individual that the public wished to honor at that time.
Talk to your representative about getting a bill drafted for next year. In the meantime, you can write your representatives about this loophole closer, which will be read by the Senate Local Government committee today, February 23rd–Midlothian has a couple reps in the committee itself. When it comes up for a vote, your representative may just listen to you.
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Susan Howson
Susan Howson is managing editor for this very website. She writes THE BEST bios.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
“We honor those who have sacrificed for our freedoms”. And exactly which freedoms did the Confederate army sacrifice for? ‘Cause last I checked, slavery and general racial oppression don’t count as freedoms.
I feel we must have explanatory interpretation added to the existing Monument Ave statues so that they may be seen as history, and not just glorification. Halfway between each of these existing structures, at the center of each median section- perhaps even out into Henrico County, add additional monuments to those we consider heroes today- Chief Powhatan, G W Carver, Booker T Washington, Robert Smalls, Oliver Hill, Spottswood Robinson- there are so many with ties to Virginia who are worthy to be remembered. This way Monument Ave could retain and enrich its national importance as a beautiful boulevard. Funding could be by public/private collaboration as it has been in the past.
It is always dangerous to sanitize history.
It appears to be that there is a staff member or members of the RTD that is determined to change Richmond to make it “politically correct” even if it means that history be erased or moved. I think that with all of the other issues in the city, including but not limited to, the corruption and waste in the city government, the lack of proper funding and the misappropriation of those limited resources that impacts the Richmond Public Schools, the infrastructure issues in the city, and even things that have an impact on the quality of life and beauty of the city like the leaf collection and snow plowing issue, and others, would be more important and more beneficial. Take this energy and print space to handle those issues. Allow historians and educators to teach history, with all of it’s “good, bad, and ugly” implications.
it’s not dangerous to sanitize history- what on earth would that even mean. History is only relevant in the context of how you understand it in the present. The world has changed, and we value different things now than we did 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago, and it was always thus. We are free to reframe history at any time.
I hope we go after Thomas Jefferson next.
Trey:
The ‘history’ as reflected in the statues now is not true or accurate. The statues talk about ‘rights of states’ and not ‘rights of states to make slavery legal’.
I agree with Karen above that the monuments should reflect the *full history* and not just cherry-picked ideals.
It’s strange that a locality is allowed to have a monument built, but isn’t allowed to have it removed, even though the locality approved it in the first place. State law…you so crazy.
@Chris – I think the part that is missed in these discussions is that war in the 1800s was very different, as were people’s expectations of wartime behavior. Cities were still looted and burnt and horrible things happened to civilians, and this sort of outcome was expected. I think if we consider how these expectations and likely outcomes informed the decisions of confederate soldiers, generals, and even civilians generally, then we also have to accept that it was possible (though in fairness perhaps not probable) to support the confederacy while opposing slavery.
Furthermore, as the monuments are themselves indicative of something else entirely (Virginia and Richmond’s opposition to civil rights, integration, etc.) then there is all the more reason to keep them where they are, while necessarily changing our understanding of them. While there may be few or no monuments to Nazis, it would be inappropriate to tear down the surviving concentration camps. Arguably, places like Auschwitz not only memorialize the victims, but are the physical evidence of atrocity. While these monuments are clearly of comparatively less significance, they allow us to understand how society oppressed African Americans in the decades after the civil war. Arguably, they tell us far more about life in the twentieth century than the nineteenth and, with careful reinterpretation they might be able to serve as condemnation of the racist impulses which led to the monuments construction in the first place.
Those of you who continue to stir the pot don’t think about the circumstances of the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Only simple people would try to boil down the geopolitical arguments of the day to the word “slavery” for those that need one word, the word “invasion” would be more accurate. The State of Virginia was invaded by an army sent from Washington, DC to kill all of them. Their fathers had left the United Kingdom in 1776 and they were free to leave the Union whenever they wished. You should also refer to the writings of the time and not the PC hacks of today. William Rawle’s chapter in his book on the Constitution was written in 1825. He explores the Union and it’s dissolution in the last chapter. Confederate Veterans, black and white, gave up much of their pensions to place statues on Monument Avenue to honor their leaders who fought to wrest Virginia from Federal control and restore it to it’s rightful place among nations as it was at the end of the Revolution. Anyone with half a sense can understand this argument. Lest someone quote the Cornerstone Speech, it is only one among thousands that were made during those days. Alexander Stephens wrote a rebuttal to his own speech several years after the War, but I never see it printed because it doesn’t fit the racist narrative against Confederate-Americans. There’s a lot of things about Richmond I don’t like. Maybe you should address the crime problem, drugs, gangs, murder, illegitimacy rates, poor education systems, and the list goes on. Somewhere in the lower 10,000 should be imagined angst against Confederate monuments.
“Is there another way you can feel Southern pride? Must it always be wrapped up in this bloody conflict?” Well the simple answer is the South and North had different views on economics, taxes, federal jurisdiction, and interpretation of the Constitution. South Carolina began an exodus to which the United States responded with an invasion. So the identity of the South is wrapped up in the War as the head of a long road of growing conflict. Some like to cite slavery but note Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were slave states and did not leave. Furthermore those slaves were not free until 1865 and the 13th amendment — which ironically was the same number for the proposed Corwin Amendment that would have permanently ensured slavery proposed by the North to keep the South in the Union. Did the War answer questions that were raised by the Constitution such as secession (yes), the future and place of slavery (yes), but these issues were not addressed or completely addressed by the original Constitution. So Southerners should be proud their ancestors stood up for their interpretation of the Constitution.
You scalawags are always so cute! Pretending to be friendly, helpful problem solvers in your typically condescending way by saying things like, “Gee neighbor, why don’t you just let that old stuff go/choose another symbol/admit you’re wrong/etc.?” That reaction alone shows you have no firm principles. Otherwise you’d grasp the fact that history is history and culture is culture – It doesn’t shift and sway to suit the PC flavor a la mode, no matter what the Ministry of Information tells you. It endures despite all scorn, a trait we true Southerners have inherited from our ancestors.
On the OTHER hand…
Magnolias and pie and y’all – Aren’t you just adorable in Southern whiteface? *pinches cheeks* :D You’re an apologist, and an apologist isn’t Southern. Pick and grin and “aw shucks” all you want for the carpetbaggers, but just because you’re culturally bankrupt (do Starbucks and HBO have flags? :D) and have been raised to hate yourself, don’t try and force us to follow your bad example – You’ll find we’re as hard to move as those monuments.
P.S. – As of now, Lee Circle and the other NOLA monuments are still intact, and I hope you saw the rally at Mardi Gras. And by the bye, the contractor’s car was burned AFTER he refused the job, so I think that says more about your side (and its hateful destructiveness of all opposition) than ours… :D
We were fighting against a northern mercenary who was coming to invade us. Read about Sheridan. ..the burning, Sherman the March to the sea, or the horror stories of Vicksburg Mississippi where the union armies shot at occupied homes, killing and raping white and black women, killing children and elderly. Fact of the matter is they killed everyone being because they were southern even if they never picked up a rifle to the union mercenary army. Then as a lasting fate, they killed all the livestock they could not consume and burned all the fields to destroy all the food so the remaining southerners could starve to death. After this destruction, they burned the homes and left the land in ruin with death every where. If this would be you. ..what choice do your have but to try and stop them, pick up your rifle for the sake of your family.
If the war was so much on slavery then tell me why New Jersey released their slaves after the war was over. New Jersey did not fly the confederate flags. What about the taxes the north wanted to impose on the southerners. The taxes would have devastated the farmers and the economy if the south while helping the north. Then their is the states rights thing. Do you know there would have been many more stars on the flags of the south if the states rights of many other states would not have been trampled on. The union stampede on states like Maryland and even in Kentucky and Missouri to force them to go pro union. Once again the states right were obviously a major card for this war , when big brother government doesn’t want to play fair with its tyrannis intentions. Did you know that the US government paid to bury all union soldiers. This it’s while all confederate soldiers were buried in mass graves and thrown down wells and ditches and left to rot. The fine ladies of Richmond decided to gather up as many confederate bodies as they could and give them proper burials as the union soldiers received but they had no help from our tyrannis government, instead they used their own resources. For every monument built for the southern cause and a lot will read “confederate dead” “LEST we forget.” These are to tribute all the soldiers who’s bodies were never found. …..they died alone without their families and they never seen their home soil ever again.
The monuments do not depict a slave but instead a soldier who’s life changed in an instance from maybe a farmer or a school kid or just someone’s little boy. They knew their homeland was calling to be protected do they mustered up for the cause. Please read this without bigotry and bias and read it from the southerners point of view and not of the high lights of the news media.
Notice: Comments that do not harmonize with the echo chamber may be removed at the editor’s discretion. :D
Love how you don’t allow any comments except the ones that agree with you!
Well i see you only keep comments that are only mirror to your left wing substance and don’t give the people the right knowledge so they can debate, only to spread your lies and obvious ignorance to the war between the states, all hale to the sypathisizers of ignorance
Chris, I guess you need to “check” again on your history or at least real history and not the PC type.
The Confederacy was fighting for freedom from a tyrannical US Government. And please don’t tell me that the US Government fought the war to end slavery either. Union states like that of Delaware, Kentucky conducted slavery while the war was being fought. In fact Union Generals like Grant had slaves themselves while fighting the Confederacy. Lincoln himself said he wasn’t about bringing the end of slavery or bringing about the equality of the Black race. Lincoln in fact looked to colonize them in other countries, even up to the time of his death. States in the North like Illinois passed laws in the 1853 forbidding blacks outside of the state, free or slave, to live there. In 1863 in New York City, over a hundred blacks were lynched, burned and or murdered during the draft riots…all during a war that we’re told was about bringing freedom to the black race. And there is plenty more to show, the war wasn’t about the Northerners dying to free black people!
So when talking of removing statues, lincoln’s would be one of the first to go in my opinion. After all he agitated the firing on Ft Sumpter. The South tried to buy the fort and Lincoln purposely avoided the South’s delegation that wanted to meet with him. Lincoln wanted war and pretty much said as much in his letter to Fox when the firing began onSumpter..which not a single person was killed during the bombardment.
There are those who’d rather see Stonewall Jackson monument taken down instead because he fought for the Confederacy and was a “racist” as some of the ignorant say. The man was one of the first to teach Blacks how to read and write. He helped funded the Presbyterian church in Lexington Va. where he taught Blacks Sunday School even though it was against Virginia law to teach Blacks how to read and write…but nobody talks about that!!!
Lincoln knew the South had a legal right to secede and in doing so the North probably would go bankrupt. Waged a unconstitutional war by invading another country. In doing so over 630,000 Americans died. And another 5o,000 or so Southerners civilians were killed by Union troops. That’s including the rape and murder of Southern women and children, both black and white that was allowed by Union Generals and by Lincoln. Lincoln had thousands imprisioned (many from Md) without the right to a trial. Lincoln also signed the death sentence of 38 Sioux Indians in this country’s largest massed hanging. Lincoln was nothing short of being a tyrant…one that was admired by Hitler himself. But yet people in this country have no problem with his statue or even with the US flag. A flag that flew when the institution of slavery was first introduced in this country…NOT the Confederate battle flag. It was also under the US flag that the Government and it’s army stole land, broke countless treaties and nearly wiped out a entire Native American race!!! It was also in the early and mid 1900’s that hate groups used the US flag to carry with them and NOT the Confederate battle flag.
My point in all of this is don’t be a hypocrite when talking about the Confederacy, it’s heritage and or monuments. After all there has been over 238 yrs of hate, racism, theft, rape and murder by this US government, it’s presidents and it’s flag!!!
Well said Rodney!
Wow. How myopic is the call to remove the monuments on Monument Avenue. The *time period* in which they were erected is a crucial part of Richmond history, albeit a scarred one.
What’s needed is not the statues’ removal, but the context to understand the street’s place in history. Richmond needs to follow the advice of historian and former UR president Ed Ayers and erect interpretive signs for visitors and residents alike. Perhaps drivers could tune to micro radio stations along the avenue and hear a short presentation that explains the context and history of Monument Avenue. This, instead of removing the statues to a museum, we create an outdoor museum right where they are. Our citizens are better educated, history gets an accurate treatment and we get to keep what civic planners agree is one of the world’s most beautiful and engaging streets.
I really like this article, nice work Susan Howson!
A central authority is imposing its will upon a people regarding whether or not they can decide for themselves to take down statues that some people think are monuments to the opposition of central authority.
Well if you knock them down, please don’t hire Paul DiPasquale to replace them… That disgrace at roseneath is embarrassing
Rodney has it correct.
The commenters are a last gasp of a dying world view. Susan- Thanks for the lesson in how our laws work. It is kinda funny that the argument seems to be that the statues honor soldiers that fought a central authority telling them what to do but a hypothetical vote by Richmond citizens would be illegal because a central authority made it a law (the state of Virginia).
Great reporting Susan and a great comment Scott.
@You Guys – I’m just now reading through these, but just FYI we have approved every comment as far as I know. Our software has us manually approve comments from any new commenter (so as to check for spam), and sometimes it takes us awhile to get to it, but we generally approve most comments. The exceptions are ones that personally threaten or insult the author and are unrelated to the discussion. Nothing anyone said here surprised or offended me.