In a 7-0 opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled the monument of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee can be removed from its prominent spot in Richmond. It was placed there in 1890 but times and attitudes have changed. It is the largest Civil War monument in the country. The decision came after two groups filed a lawsuit to block the removal of the monument. More details here at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
In 2020 the RTD published an article about the state agreeing to a plan to remove Lee’s statue by first cutting it into 3 pieces.
More on the story here.
31 comments
Ok then… I think we can all agree that Richmond is not a place that Lee would want to be associated with anyway. So take down that statute.
Put up statues relevant to the current idiots who live in the Commiewealth of Northern Virginia. It’s your $%king state now…
As below… don’t forget a stirring rendition of Che Guavera! Vive La Revoluction Amigos!!!
I don’t know if this will get through or not but, realistically, without Monument Row and the history of the Confederacy, Richmond is just a shithole.
Agree for sure…. do you remember when that citizen group used to draw those body outlines around Richmond where someone had gotten killed? They were all over the center of Richmond. There were dozens of them in the area around the Mosque.. or whatever they call that now. That area is part of VCU…
For the residents of the projects and the bad neighborhoods of Churchill… they knew to hit the ground when they heard gunfire. They knew what gunfire sounded like and children knew the difference between incoming and outgoing fire. The Richmond coliseum parking lots used to have bullet holes in the windows.
I haven’t been there in a while, and am not going back anytime soon, but I guess they’ve tried to gentrify it… or de-urbanize it like they do in DC… guess it has worked some.
My experiences visiting Richmond are similar. Each time, we saw memorials along the sidewalks where people had been murdered. We went to the science museum a couple of times but, other than that, I’ve seen/heard nothing in 20 years in Virginia to make me want to return. We drove Monument Row a couple of times too and I was impressed by the scale of the statues. Honestly, I had never heard of Monument Row until the first time we went to Richmond and just stumbled upon it, but I can see why history buffs would like it. It was one of the few things Richmond had going for it. If I recall correctly, the Row is also where the “nice” neighborhood is among a sea of dilapidated junk. Take Monument Row away, and you have a big tobacco headquarters. Oooooh.
It’s ok for Conservatives to violate the rules here… I’m sure you know that…
Richmond better not put up statues of MLK to replace those old dead white men. His FBI file is closed for another decade or so…
Know why?
He has a pretty rough history with women…. So bad that he would be cancelled.
So let’s cancel him too!!!
Michael, I agree with you that those who deny history are ignorant. I sincerely don’t mean to be condescending or insulting, but there are tons of resources for you to read on this subject. I’m confident that you can easily find the answer to your question. Good luck!
It is stunning and embarrassing that any Republican would support monuments or memorials that honor the Democrat leaders who went to war against the United States to perpetuate their way of life in their secessionist slave states. The long-held Anti-Federalist inclinations of most conservatives is understandable, but they contradict the even more fundamental beliefs about individual freedom and liberty — NOT for the slave holding states to do freely whatever they want, but for the human individual to be free. Republicans who honor the Confederacy simply have not studied in depth the real history of the 19th Century. In this chapter in which Virginia has become more purple and even consistently blue in elections results, one would hope that some intelligent, well-read adults in the state party would make an effort to wrestle the reins of the party away of the ignorance that continues to be a mill stone around the state party’s neck.
“It is stunning and embarrassing that any Republican would support monuments or memorials that honor the Democrat leaders who went to war against the United States…”
Yeah… why do you think that is…?? A real head scratcher there, eh…??
Eric, I think it’s for a combination of reasons. First, I think that most people have only a basic, superficial education in American history. Most people really have not studied the era from the Articles of Confederation through the first half of the 1800s. They have not really studied in depth the Civil War. And they haven’t studied the Johnson, Grant and Hayes Administrations, and the decades that followed. Common knowledge of Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction is not a strong point for most Americans.
More fundamentally, I think that a psychological and ideological common thread in most Republicans and Libertarians is the philosophy of Anti-Federalism. There are plenty of reasons to be sympathetic with Anti-Federalism. However, there are plenty of reasons to reject it, too. Anyone who has studied Washington, Hamilton and Madison, through Lincoln, Grant and the Post-Reconstruction era (and Eisenhower, for that matter) instantly understand the flaws of Anti-Federalism and the principles of state’s rights and popular sovereignty, the old touchstone for Stephen Douglas and the northern sectional Democrats of the mid-1800s.
Many contemporary Republicans are stuck in a philosophical quandary between their default bedrock center of Anti-Federalism, and their supposed devotion to protecting the rights of the individual. When push comes to shove, the Confederacy apologists easily abandon their principle of protecting the private individual in exchange for their more important ethereal principle of state’s rights. (“Dont’ Tread On Me!”)
Then, of course, there’s the knee-jerk inclination to automatically defend one’s ancestors who participated in the Confederacy.
And then you factor in the reality that much of modern-day opposition to the Confederacy is embraced by Leftists. Modern Republicans and conservatives who are not well-read on the 19th Century at least know that they reject Leftism. Therefore, if the Leftists reject the Confederacy, then these Republicans and conservatives instinctively oppose whatever it is that the Leftists believe. That’s a pity. Leftists may hate liver and onions, but that won’t stop me from hating it, too.
Actually, it is much simpler than that. It was Southern Conservatives who created the Confederacy, it was Southern Conservatives who built the monuments honoring the Confederacy (and what it stood for) and it is Southern Conservatives who today fight to keep the monuments honoring the Confederacy (and what it stood for). Nothing has changed in the South except the party names.
The liberal communists hate history and want to recraft it. Biden ordered this so he could melt the statue down to use the metal for a statue of himself. They want to see this country turn into a junkyard.
Ah screw it. Let the intersectionality aromantic non binary half and half lesbiangaybiWTF have that stupid city. I’m never going there again.
Put up Che Gueverra statues, Lenin Marx whatever you want… Castro.. Put up Bozo the Clown statues.
At this point in this stupid country what does it matter, to quote the great Conqueror of Libya… Put her statue up for that matter!
And the residents can continue to kill each other like they usually do… What do I care… Don’t hold them on bail… just let them go…
It’s a new an ever more collapsing with stupidity America… Lee’s statue has nothing to do with that crap hole..
I think it’s a great idea for cities to remove tourist attractions! I know I won’t be visiting to spend money now that they are removing historical monuments! Thanks comrades you saved me money!
This is fantastic. mr. lee was a traitor who was responsible for the deaths of exponentially more Americans than bin laden could have ever dreamed.
and so you have been taught to believe. Let me ask you a question then. If RE Lee was a traitor why was he not hung for his “treason”? See my comments below.
The concepts of honor have been lost by the Democrats. They don’t understand fighting for a cause and they certainly don’t understand losing and repenting. As a Northerner, I don’t look at Lee simplistically as Deborah would like me to do. She is probably a public school teacher brainwashing kids into hating America.
Deborah, you are of course correct. I know it’s hard to do, but forgive these people, for they seriously know not what they’re talking about.
Neither you nor Deborah have answered my question.
Michael, if you were well-read on the subject, you would already know the answer. It’s a shame that you are even asking it because it reveals that you have not really studied the era.
Really? Please explain it to me oh wise and well read person? My question is absolutely valid. What happened to Lee, Pickett, et al after the war? NOTHING! Pickett sold real estate in the MD, VA area. Lee was President of a college. But the Again, you probably already knew that since you are so well read. Right? My point, young man, is that those who deny history are ignorant. See my references to the 1619 and CRT agendas.
Michael, I agree with you that those who deny history are ignorant. I sincerely don’t mean to be condescending or insulting, but there are tons of resources for you to read on this subject. I’m confident that you can easily find the answer to your question. Good luck!
By the way, this is regardless of the fact that the 1619 and CRT agendas are absolutely neo-Marxist.
And thank you for assuming that I’m a “young man” since I am most likely older than you.
I have read extensively. I know what happened to each. Davis spent two years in prison, but was released. Longstreet died essentially penniless. Lee lost all his property and possessions, etc, etc, etc. My initial question to Deborah was, “if he, Lee, was a traitor then why wasn’t he hung?” None of them were executed. That was my point. 3 of the Confederate Generals were later General Officers in the US Army. Doesn’t sound like our ancestors considered them true traitors now does it. Oh, by the way, my picture was taken in May. I’ll be 75 in October and one of my undergrad degrees is with a history minor.
Michael, with all of your extensive reading and your history degree, you should have read plenty about the Johnson Administration and what transpired during the period immediately after the end of the war. You would know about Lincoln’s extremely magnanimous intent to not be punitive with the former Confederates; the federal government’s interest in re-integrating the former secessionist states into the Union; and with the Congress’ focus on impeaching Johnson.
A large percentage of the Union’s population wanted to execute the leaders of the Confederacy. But Grant’s gracious treatment of Lee at Appomattox set the standard for the Union’s approach to ending the war and bringing their southern brothers back into the family.
Grant was steadfast and determined to see through with this approach. He didn’t want to prolong the war, nor give reasons for war to start all over again. And that was a very real possibility throughout his 8 years as president.
If during your studies for your degree in history you had thoroughly studied 1864 through 1880, you would already know this. Many of the Confederate officers pledged loyalty to the Union and were welcomed back into the family including notably Longstreet and Mosby. Lee proved to be insincere and two-faced during the remaining years of his life. Davis meanwhile insisted for the rest of his life that he did not want his US citizenship reinstated.
I would agree with those historians who point to what transpired in the former secessionist states during the Grant and Hayes years that many of the former Confederate leaders who pledged loyalty to the Union did so dishonestly and greatly contributed to the reign of terror that took place in those states after the war. Those domestic terrorists should’ve, at the least, been imprisoned for life. If not for them, Reconstruction might have succeeded.
On a personal note, I think it’s an outrage that copperheads like you think that you have an ideological home in the Party of Lincoln. Republicans are not copperheads nor Dixiecrats. You have more in common with Stephen Douglas, Breckenridge and Davis than you do with Lincoln and Grant.
I am of Slavic ancestry. My ancestors were busy fighting Ottoman Turks who annually would harvest the Ukrainian steppes for white slaves. My folks came to America a little over 100 years ago so I have no dog in this fight. But I do know that Lee was a traitor only because his side lost. Washington was also viewed as a traitor, but his side won.
The winners in every war write the history to justify their victory. Always have. Always will.
Robert E. Lee was no George Washington. To equate them with each other just demonstrates a very shallow understanding of American history. This is not simply a matter of the victors writing the history, especially considering that for decades it was exactly the opposite that happened.
Removing his statue is just another chapter in the communist agenda to erase the history of this country. It is a page right out of the bogus 1619 project and the phony CRT play books.
History is still history, statue or no statue.
Truth. My issue is with the traitorous SOBs who want to deny it and eventually erase it from our collective conscience. The “history” books being published now are omitting a great deal of the truth. In two generations it will be gone. The real history books that manage to survive will be disbelieved because we are training our children to be good little wards of the state. Masks today, red scarves of the Soviet youth tomorrow.
The Democrats are busy preparing subpoenas and asking ATT to preserve phone records of the more vocal critics of the “election” How do you feel about that Mr Cuckservative?
Sure you’ll have your history…. whatever the Progressives tell you it is in their schools.