After some discussion, the University of Louisville has decided to remove a Confederate statue on campus grounds. Professor Ricky L. Jones weighed in on the issue as part of the debate.
It appears that Confederate heritage groups did not like Professor Jones’s position. We’ll leave it to you to imagine why, especially in light of what they said should happen in this case.
Oh, those Virginia Flaggers … yearning for the days of lynch law to keep order.
Crossroads 
Don’t they know that Kentucky was officially in a state of “armed neutrality” during the late insurrection? 😉 And, that the CSA was the first to violate that neutrality, and as a result more Kentuckians volunteered for the Union than for the Confederacy? Are these inconvenient truths? Why should Kentucky honor the war dead of traitors and neutrality violators on a state university campus? Put the monument in some private cemetery.
Just look at the responses from the heritage loons. Racist, threatening, immature, and ignorant responses. To cap it all off, since their actions are not resulting in success, their responses are now becoming irrelevant. That’s what happens when one does not know history. It also shows the real reasons why the heritage loons are upset. If it was just about historical interpretation the conversation would be civil. Instead, the conversation is anything but. That reflects the racism which drives the heritage loons interpretation of almost anything.
Quote: “called for violence”
Quote: “What did you expect?”
I expected so much more for the 21st century; I am bitterly disappointed.
I was fortunate enough to act as a tour leader in Italy for five years, and much of the time was spent tramping around piles of rubble whilst sifting through layers of history. The Romans re-purposed the pagan sites; Renaissance artists cannibalized the Colosseum, and on it went as art and history did its dance. The landmarks change, but history remains as steadfast as always.
Those very same Romans tried to flatten history in Israel, too, but last time I was there, folks were talking about the pre-Roman landscape, books were written, and I even got to do a bit of digging. Nothing has been forgotten.
Regarding how the opposition to removing the Confederate statues is reacting, one would think that this Roman edict was about to be applied to the Confederacy:
“Dam natio memoriae is the Latin phrase literally meaning “condemnation of memory” in the sense of a judgment that a person must not be remembered. It was a form of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate upon traitors or others who brought discredit to the Roman State.”
What do I expect?
I can only say that I did not expect to be ashamed as an American to be reading calls to violence by other Americans over the removal of a damn statue.
Same as it ever was.
Andy, thanks for posting this. I had missed this piece when you originally posted it. This is a salient reminder of the ugly mind-set of some of the leadership of the “Heritage movement.” What bothers me is that I don’t see any of the Confederate apologists coming out and condemning this rhetoric, which seem straight out of the KKK or Jim Crow playbook. How sad that some folks are stuck in that shameful era.
They never apologize and never explain. In fact, they usually stand up in support of the bigotry and ugly behavior. It’s quite amazing. Case in point: Connie Chastain.
These are truly ugly people.
The Virginia Flaggers’ catch phrase is, “are you mad enough yet?” Attracting and maintaining the support of angry and resentful people isn’t a coincident; it’s their business plan.
Let’s see, a Confederate monument erected in a southern state, in 1895. This state never left the union and therefore never experienced the “horrors” of reconstruction. Does the term “Jim Crow” come to mind? I agree with Gary Gallagher when he quipped “Kentucky didn’t join the Confederacy until after the war”.
I will just never understand how someone can post “to silence them on matters central to their self-respect and dignity is to play a dangerous game — to build up in them harsh resentments that, sooner or later, are likely to explode and bring out their worst” and not realize they are describing the visceral reactions to the Confederate Battle Flag and monuments that seek to ignore that preservation of slavery and racial controls was the Confederate raison d’être.
Even having the gall to admit “Black Americans have good reason to protest vehemently against the disgraceful way in which their history has been taught or, worse, ignored, and to demand a record of the nobility and heroism of the black struggle for freedom and justice. But that record dare not include the falsification or obliteration of the noble and heroic features of the white South” is truly unconscionable.
Raising issues such as this one only serve to needlessly provoke rancor and hostility between the races. The Civil War ended over 160 years ago. No one alive during the war still lives.
Nobody cares whether or not there is a Confederate memorial in Kentucky. You search out these areas of conflict to attract attention and media coverage. You do nothing to improve race relations.
Yawn. As your idea of race relations seems to be white supremacy, I’m not bothered. After all, you don’t seem bothered by threats of violence against a black man. I guess you think that’s good race relations.
It is a great idea to publicize issues such as this. It serves as a reminder that to raise one’s voice in opposition indeed gets results. It will empower others to speak up, too. Also, it reveals the true face of bigotry that often cloaks itself behind other causes.
You’re repeating exactly the exact same argument that white southerners did, even before the war — slavery isn’t a problem at all, except for those meddlin’ abolitionists from up north, comin’ down here to stir things up. Well done.
Here’s a song for a somber, rainy Monday:
+1
VA Flaggers issues aside, the Mayor of Louisville appears to have violated Kentucky state law in attempting to remove the monument without due process.
Keep in mind, UofL has no legal standing, as the monument is not owned by the University nor is it on University property. That must be why only the Mayor was listed as a defendant in the restraining order today.
This monument is under the protection of the Kentucky Military Heritage Committee.
“Once accepted to the registry, these sites and objects by law cannot be damaged or destroyed, removed or significantly altered, other than for repair or renovation, without the written consent of the commission. Failure to do so is a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class D felony for each subsequent offense.”
So if the Mayor didn’t receive permission, the SCV has legal standing.
If the issue goes to court, that’s fine — that’s how disputes are properly settled.
But I also wouldn’t assume that a court would recognize the SCV as having standing in this case. The SCV takes “The Charge” from S.D. Lee as holy writ, but no one else is obligated to do so.
To clarify, I meant the SCV probably has a case on the civil side to impede removal of the monument.
But if the Mayor did not receive written permission he would have made a criminal violation of the law. It seems unlikely he did receive permission from the committee, as they have invited public comment on their decisions in the very recent past.
From press comments, the Mayor’s office seems confident they are within their power. Seems nearly unbelievable they could miss the clear cut KRS regulations. Perhaps on Thursday things will become more clear.
They could have missed something, it happens. We’ll see how it all settles out.
The County Attorney, representing the mayor’s office, requested and was granted a date extension from Thursday the 5th to the 25th of May.