VA: Gen. Robert E. Lee Statue in Richmond Has Been Taken Down

[Frodo]

After the Virginia Supreme Court gave the green-light to do so:

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1435212102432665600

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Reminder that Lee himself would’ve probably applauded this decision

[Indy Texas]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

[Santander]

They have a blackface (or KKK) Governor, a rapist Lieutenant Governor, a blackface Attorney General, but taking down a statue of a dead guy is more important.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

They have a blackface (or KKK) Governor, a rapist Lieutenant Governor, a blackface Attorney General, but taking down a statue of a dead guy is more important.

would've thought you of all people would be proud of that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

[NOVA Green]

About time....

Most of y'all likely don't remember way back when all this Confederate Statue thing was going down, I brought up a true story from 1994 when I travelled to Hungary with my German friend from college, as well as another friend from Chinese-French-Vietnamese-American Ancestry (Complicated and slightly OT).

Still we do the tourist gig in Budapest, meet some of friends relatives and then we go to a museum on the West Side of the Danube River.

Basically, take all the old "Communist / Soviet Era statues", and create a giant outdoor museum which presents the "art" within an historical context.

What is wrong with taking statues and monuments and moving them into quasi-museum type scenarios?

Imagine if in Germany in 2021 there were still statues of NAZI Leaders on the public squares?

At what point does the whole "Southern Heritage" myth start to collapse, since effectively it has only been a few generations since a White Supremacist system was codified into the legal system among the rebel states of the Deep South???

Sorry--- very patient guy but my White Parents didn't sit down at lunch counters along with SNCC activists in a segregated part of East Shore Maryland, so that the lies and propaganda of the myth could continue.

Had family members in the region whose descendants would tell stories about what they did to stop "Johnny Reb" prior to the Battle of Gettsyburg.

Sorry--- I have no patience for any of that crap, but sure anyone who wants to roll out with their confederate flags on their pickup trucks--- you are on our radar, even from out in the sticks live Sweet Home, Oregon....

[Big Abraham]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

[Big Abraham]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Well, the statue's removal was halted by a court injunction for this very reason last year.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The actual rulings (which I got via going to the VA SC's own website, since I couldn't find a single news story that bothered linking them):

201307 Gregory v. Northam (ORDER) 09/02/2021 There is no reversible error in the judgment of judgment of the Circuit Court concluding that the plaintiff had not articulated a legally viable cause of action in a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the Governor’s order to the Department of General Services to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond from property owned by the Commonwealth. The plaintiff did not claim an easement appurtenant, and facts in the record do not support a finding that he has any ownership interest in any land to which any benefit conveyed by certain identified deeds would be appurtenant. Thus, he has no property right related to the Lee Monument to enforce against the Commonwealth, and he failed to articulate a legally viable cause of action. It was not error to grant the defendants’ demurrer and dismiss this claim with prejudice.

210113 Taylor v. Northam 09/02/2021 In an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor of Virginia, the Director of the Virginia Department of General Services, and the Director of the Virginia Division of Engineering and Building, alleging that language in an 1890 deed, signed by the then Governor of Virginia, and an 1889 joint resolution of the General Assembly which requested and authorized the Governor to sign such deed, prohibit the Governor from ordering removal of a state-owned monument from state-owned property, there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s ruling that certain purported restrictive covenants are unenforceable, even without considering a 2020 Budget Amendment, and the circuit court did not err in denying summary judgment to the plaintiff-appellants. There were disputed issues of fact, the resolution of which supports the circuit court’s judgment that the purported restrictive covenants are not enforceable and that the terms of the 1889 Joint Resolution are not binding on the current Governor and did not strip him of authority to order the removal of the Lee Monument from the Circle in Richmond. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

[Frodo]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

[Santander]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

[7,052,770]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

Just one states' right really.

[Frodo]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

That's called judicial tyranny.

LOL

The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

No, they fought for slavery, and the way of life that went along with it.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Good. As should all the filthy statues glorifying the traitorous scum.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision.  

The idea that that statue being there was a form of government speech is ridicolous, but whatever. The fashions of the day, however silly they may be, tend to win out by whatever means they need. (The War on Terror and the tune many left-leaning people took in the early 2000s is proof enough of that. Bush's rhetoric about Iraq worked to great effect)

[Alben Barkley]

This is one that probably should stay up, frankly. Both because it really IS historic (dating back to the 19th century rather than the 1950s/60s like many others) and because Robert E. Lee is just absolutely iconic to Richmond and the state of Virginia, for better or worse. It would be like KFC without Colonel Sanders. Speaking of which, forget I ever said that before someone tries to cancel him for being associated with George Wallace... (Even though he probably sold more chicken to black people per capita than any other ethnic group and they never seemed to mind!)

[Santander]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

Just one states' right really.

Property rights are very important.

[Alben Barkley]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

[Frodo]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

Just one states' right really.

Property rights are very important.

Every slave owner agrees. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision. 

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

Just one states' right really.

Property rights are very important.

Every slave owner agrees. 

"Hitler ate sugar. So eating sugar must be bad" that's basically what your argument sounds like.

[Frodo]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision.  

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

Just one states' right really.

Property rights are very important.

Every slave owner agrees.  

"Hitler ate sugar. So eating sugar must be bad" that's basically what your argument sounds like.

Santander is clearly wedded to the Lost Cause mythology.  White supremacy and property rights were central to the arguments that John C. Calhoun and other slaveowners used to justify slavery of an entire race.  If you are going to use property rights in your argument, be prepared to deal with the shadow that slavery's defenders cast over it.  

[Alben Barkley]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Times change:

Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.

“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,” the justices wrote.

And it was a unanimous decision.  

That's called judicial tyranny. The Confederacy fought for states' rights.

Just one states' right really.

Property rights are very important.

Every slave owner agrees.  

"Hitler ate sugar. So eating sugar must be bad" that's basically what your argument sounds like.

White supremacy and property rights were central to the arguments that John C. Calhoun and other slaveowners used to justify slavery of an entire race.  If you are going to use property rights in your argument, be prepared to deal with the shadow that slavery's proponents cast over it.  

Normally I'd have more sympathy, but given this bull-ridden ruling trampled over actual legitimate property rights and fair contract (both things that, yes, were absent from antebellum slavery, not that that's practicularly relevant to the particulars of this), I have to side with Santander here.
But as I've pointed out already: the fashions of the day, however silly they may be, tend to win out by whatever means they need. Just look at how we were led into Iraq.
So something like this was almost inevitable to happen.