Judge Throws Out Alabama Law That Protects Confederate Monuments

[SummerMadness]

Judge Throws Out Alabama Law That Protects Confederate Monuments

For more than a century, a 52-foot obelisk has stood in the center of Birmingham, Ala., a monument to Confederate soldiers and sailors who fought in the Civil War.

In 2017, amid a national reckoning on racial violence and Confederate symbolism, the city's mayor decided the monument should be covered up. Tall plywood walls were installed around its base, obscuring inscriptions on the pedestal.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall sued the city, citing a state law passed earlier that year prohibiting the removal, relocation or alteration of historical monuments in place for more than 40 years.

But on Monday an Alabama judge rejected his arguments and overturned the law.

Birmingham is a great city to visit because of its great history and food scene. I really enjoyed visiting the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, so I often tell people, don't judge the South with a broad brush, even if they're being ridiculous at the state level, the cities are often world class.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good call by the judge...there's no reason to protect iconography honoring a group of traitors.

Not to mention, much of the confederate iconography and public building naming occurred decades after the civil war was over, by people who never met the civil war figures they claim to be honoring, but rather just a showing of defiance towards some civil rights legislation coming from the federal level that they weren't pleased with.

 

[Ringo84]

Good. I wish they'd do that in Virginia so that the monument that indirectly got Heather Heyer killed could go away.
Ringo

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"it's just about heritage and states' rights" (says condescending folks who think they're history experts because they saw a video on youtube with a guy who said it wasn't about racism/slavery)


...never mind the fact that many of the confederate states were precisely against the concept of states' rights because they were angry at the fact that northern states were making their own laws that protected runaway slaves that made it to their state lines. They only used the "states' rights" angle after they failed to compel the Federal Government to force northern states to return their "property"....and that multiple confederate states put amendments in their state-level constitutions specifically protecting the institution of slavery.

...and that the vice president of the confederacy had this to say:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[1]"

Note: He didn't say "it's one of the things we want" or "hey, this is something we want in addition to XYZ". He called it the corner-stone and foundation of their "new government" and referred to his racist beliefs as "the great truth".



It still astounds me that people claim that it's about "southern pride" or "states' rights" or any of that junk. For people who claim to be so worried about "erasing history", they don't take much time to actually research the history they claim to be trying to protect.