VCC Magazine Summer 2020

V irginia C apitol C onnections , S ummer 2020 12 As the video of a Minneapolis police officer kneeling on the neck of an unarmed black man circled media networks, the country cried in protest to the generations of systemic racism and brutality against African Americans. In Virginia, these public demands pressed Governor Ralph Northam to call for the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, the largest of five statues on Monument Avenue that honor Richmond as the historic capital of the Confederacy. For some, the monument symbolizes Richmond’s industrious history. They fear that the removal of statues will erase history and heritage, citing iconoclasm and fearing that the country will return to division and civil war. For others, the monument is symbolic of terrorism, memorializing a deathly and painful past wrought with hate, discrimination, and white supremacy. Confederate statues and memorials were scattered throughout public spaces in the South after the Civil War, contributing to nostalgic Confederate rhetoric. Historians argue that these symbols inflated the pride of the four- year, failed rebellion and were a visual element to remind African Americans of their inferiority. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are about 247 symbols of the Confederacy in Virginia, surpassing all other states (Business Insider). In the 2020 legislative session, HB 1623 and SB 183 were introduced, combined into HB 1537, and later signed by Governor Northam allowing localities to, “remove, relocate, contextualize, or cover any monument or memorial for war veterans on the locality’s public property,” providing the locality authority over the disposition of the symbol. Removals are subject to a 60-day process and public hearing. This law successfully allows for the removal of four Confederate statues on Monument Avenue, including J.E.B. Stuart and Jefferson Davis, because the statues were owned by the City of Richmond. However, the effort to remove the 12-ton statue of Robert E. Lee is complicated. Uniquely, the Lee statue is owned by Virginia, instead of a locality. In 1890, the statue was deeded to the state and signed by Governor P.W.McKinney. GovernorMcKinney campaigned on ideas of white supremacy, a hatred for Republicans, and apprehension towards African Americans (NGA). McKinney was preceded by Governor Fitzhugh Lee, nephew to Robert E. Lee. On behalf of the Commonwealth, McKinney accepted the statue, pedestal, and land circling the Lee monument. The state agreed to hold the property “perpetually sacred” for the purpose of memorializing Robert E. Lee and “faithfully guard it and protect it.” Governor McKinney was accompanied by hundreds of thousands at the celebration of the unveiling of the Lee statue, who revered Lee as the dignitary of the Lost Cause. Governor Northam and his administration have been strategizing the removal of the towering, 61-foot statue of Lee that overlooks Richmond’s historic district. In early June, Northam announced that the statue would be placed into storage, while his administration sought public opinion for the relic’s future. While the Monument Avenue Preservation Society and all nine Richmond city council members unanimously support removing the Confederate statues, the removal of the Lee statue has been halted by multiple lawsuits. The first of which was filed byWilliam Gregory, the great-grandson of two of the signatories of the deed from 1890. Gregory has filed his lawsuit against Governor Northam and Joseph Damico, the Director of General Services. Gregory’s brief directly references the language of the deed to argue that the removal of the statue violates the promise that the Commonwealth made to his family 130 years ago. Additionally, his brief cites the lawlessness of the defacement of the statues, arguing that the Governor has failed to enforce the Virginia code prohibiting vandalism and destruction. In support of removal, Attorney General Mark Herring’s brief defends the sentiment that the statue represents a glorification of the past. Acknowledging that the Lee statue is on state- owned land, Herring proves that the statue is subject to government speech. A democratically elected governor is not obligated to, “continue broadcasting a message with which it profoundly disagrees or to forever display and maintain, on its own property, a massive statue of a person symbolic of a time it no longer wishes to glorify.” Simply stated, government speech allows a democratically-elected representative to relocate or remove government- owned property. A second lawsuit was initially filed by six residents of Monument Avenue. The plaintiffs argued that the removal of the Lee statue will annul their property’s designation as a National Historic Landmark district, devaluing the property and losing beneficial tax breaks. The plaintiffs have since dropped their lawsuit, making Gregory the sole plaintiff against the statue. Earlier this summer, Judge Bradley Cavedo placed an indefinite injunction to bar Governor Northam from removing the statue until further court decisions. Judge Cavedo has since recused himself from the case, based on his emotional sentiments towards the statues; however, the injunction remains in place. Attorney General Herring says that he is committed to remove the divisive and antiquated example of propaganda from the heart of the Commonwealth. Governor Northam remains confident that the Commonwealth will prevail in both lawsuits and he has shared his willingness to go to the Supreme Court. The legal battle encircling the statue is far from over. Today, community members paint phrases on the statue, reading “Black Lives Matter,” “No More White Supremacy,” and “One Love,” in a rainbow of colors. Protestors listen to music, support local vendors, register to vote, and watch projections on the Lee monument, gathering and creating art in a square that was once untouchable. Encircling the statue are memorials to victims of police shootings for visitors to leave cards and flowers. Protestors have also informally renamed the square, “Marcus-Davis Peters Square,” memorializing a black man killed by Richmond police in 2018. The Fate of Richmond’s Robert E. Lee Monument By M c Clain Moran Updated: The Washington Post reports that five Monument Avenue residents have refiled their case, arguing that the removal of the statue will depress their property values. William Gregory’s case remains active. Since Judge Cavedo’s recusal, Judge W. Reilly Marchant has taken over both cases. On July 23, Judge Marchant heard evidence from the plaintiffs of both cases, William Gregory and the Monument Avenue residents, in two hearings. In Gregory’s hearing, Attorney General Herring argued in support of a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and dissolve the existing injunction, indicating that Gregory lacks standing to block the removal of the statue. Judge Marchant extended the temporary injunction against the removal of the statue for 30 days and announced that he would take all requests and evidence under advisement. As of July 30, Judge Marchant has not ruled on either of the cases and the future of the existing injunction remains unknown. Continued on next page