There should remain a statue of Robert E. Lee

[Grizzly Adams]

Deed the land back to the heirs and zone the area for no statues.


Problem solved

Yes, that would indeed solve the problem. They don't even have to zone the land for no statues (such an ordinance would almost certainly be struck as a violation of the first amendment anyway). They can just deed it back and use eminent domain, paying just compensation to the heirs for the land.

But they've done none of that, and it doesn't appear that they intend to. They just got the land for free.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That's all correct, but the question that initiated the second look at the contract is still the bigger issue: should we be removing evidence of all the history that is controversial, upsetting, illegal, treasonous and/or immoral? Germany maintains the concentration camps to remind themselves of what happens when you let an ideologue do you thinking for you. Perhaps a statue or two of Lee looking sadly into the future isn't such a bad idea. We need to remind ourselves what happens to a nation when we divide ourselves into two warring groups.

If you had knowledge of the history of the Lee statue, you would know that, unlike the concentration camps you referred to that were actual artifacts of WW2, it was constructed years after the Civil War ended, (like nearly all Confederate statues and other monuments) as a symbol of resistance to the North that vanquished them, and a reminder to African Americans within the community that the white men still ruled.

The statues and monuments have never had any historic significance beyond that dark motivation that led to their creation in the first place.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, that would indeed solve the problem. They don't even have to zone the land for no statues (such an ordinance would almost certainly be struck as a violation of the first amendment anyway). They can just deed it back and use eminent domain, paying just compensation to the heirs for the land.

But they've done none of that, and it doesn't appear that they intend to. They just got the land for free.

There are no heirs to deed the property back to, and no justification to do so even if there were.

Why is your ass so chapped over an entirely proper decision?

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, that would indeed solve the problem. They don't even have to zone the land for no statues (such an ordinance would almost certainly be struck as a violation of the first amendment anyway). They can just deed it back and use eminent domain, paying just compensation to the heirs for the land.

But they've done none of that, and it doesn't appear that they intend to. They just got the land for free.

Yeah I agree with that. A deal is a deal. But find a way to get rid of that statue

 

[ultmd]

Cancel culture is stupid.

Only to those who believe bigotry, racism, misogyny and white-nationalism are cool.

Besides that, who do you people think you're fooling, anyway? You're the SAME people who "cancelled" the Dixie Chicks and championed Freedom Fries", remember?

You guys "cancelled" Colin Kaepernick, remember?

You guys "cancelled" comedian Kathy Griffin, remember?

You guys LOVE "cancel culture" when YOU are doing the "cancelling".

Part of being a rightwinger in the 21st century means demanding consequences for others who offend you....but whining and crying like female dogs at the prospect of facing ANY kind of CONSEQUENCES for your own words and behavior.

 

[weaver2]

If you had knowledge of the history of the Lee statue, you would know that, unlike the concentration camps you referred to that were actual artifacts of WW2, it was constructed years after the Civil War ended, (like nearly all Confederate statues and other monuments) as a symbol of resistance to the North that vanquished them, and a reminder to African Americans within the community that the white men still ruled.

The statues and monuments have never had any historic significance beyond that dark motivation that led to their creation in the first place.

Very true, a great many were. They should come down. This statue was planned before that era of intimidation began and was planned as an areas for statues and memorials to other native sons of Virginia. The face of Lee is sad, thoughtful and the eyes are looking into the distant.

 

[jnug]

There should remain a statue of Robert E. Lee​

in a museum someplace.

 

[Big Steve]

Who would the penalty be paid to? If their is no estate or heirs to pay the penalty to then the point is moot. If an estate or heirs exist then they should be compensated. But the statue of Lee is gone for good and won't be replaced.

The land could be returned to Lee's heirs...

 

[Loulit01]

The land could be returned to Lee's heirs...

The land wasn't Lee's heirs to begin with.

 

[Big Steve]

The land wasn't Lee's heirs to begin with.

Thanks. I assumed it was.

The land should then be returned to the heirs of the previous owner:

It was deeded to the Commonwealth by its previous owners for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a statue of Robert E. Lee on that spot, in perpetuity.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Very true, a great many were. They should come down. This statue was planned before that era of intimidation began and was planned as an areas for statues and memorials to other native sons of Virginia. The face of Lee is sad, thoughtful and the eyes are looking into the distant.

Understanding the point you’re attempting to make, there was no period free from intimidation of blacks in the South before, during, or after the Civil War. Segregation and denial of rights was the norm.

Everyone involved from conception to unveiling of the Lee monument had direct ties with the defeated Confederacy.

Following it’s dedication, Lee’s monument became a centerpiece of the wealthy, whites only, subdivision that was built around it.

Fitting.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Thanks. I assumed it was.

The land should then be returned to the heirs of the previous owner:

It was deeded to the Commonwealth by its previous owners for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a statue of Robert E. Lee on that spot, in perpetuity.

This happened over 100 years ago. Do you think the government should still be held accountable for something that happened over 100 years ago?

 

[Big Steve]

This happened over 100 years ago. Do you think the government should still be held accountable for something that happened over 100 years ago?

Why not?

 

[reflechissez]

Yes, that would indeed solve the problem. They don't even have to zone the land for no statues (such an ordinance would almost certainly be struck as a violation of the first amendment anyway). They can just deed it back and use eminent domain, paying just compensation to the heirs for the land.

But they've done none of that, and it doesn't appear that they intend to. They just got the land for free.

Earlier in this thread, you said the heirs did not want the land. At this point, you're just repeating your opinion.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Earlier in this thread, you said the heirs did not want the land.

I did?

At this point, you're just repeating your opinion.

That's just your opinion.

But no, the state ended up getting the land for free. They paid nothing for it and stopped maintaining it as they promised they would in order to receive it.

 

[reflechissez]

I did?


That's just your opinion.

But no, the state ended up getting the land for free. They paid nothing for it and stopped maintaining it as they promised they would in order to receive it.

ok. Anything else?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

ok. Anything else?

I'd like to know where I supposedly claimed the heirs don't want the land. I have no idea what they want, aside from the contract to be fulfilled as promised, so I can't imagine I would have made that claim.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why not?

Because the State Supreme Court ruled the original agreement unenforceable.

If you care enough to learn more, read the court’s decision that OP graciously included in his opening bogus claims.

 

[reflechissez]

I'd like to know where I supposedly claimed the heirs don't want the land. I have no idea what they want, aside from the contract to be fulfilled as promised, so I can't imagine I would have made that claim.

Some of them were heirs. You are correct, they weren't asking for the land back.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

{quotes}

Okay? I don't see where I claimed they don't want the land back under any circumstances. That post was in the context of the lawsuit filed to, as I said, compel fulfillment of the contractual terms agreed to by the Commonwealth. That was the relief requested.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Okay? I don't see where I claimed they don't want the land back under any circumstances. That post was in the context of the lawsuit filed to, as I said, compel fulfillment of the contractual terms agreed to by the Commonwealth. That was the relief requested.

The Taylor lawsuit was entirely without merit.

They have zero connection to the monument, base, or land they stood on.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yes, that would indeed solve the problem. They don't even have to zone the land for no statues (such an ordinance would almost certainly be struck as a violation of the first amendment anyway). They can just deed it back and use eminent domain, paying just compensation to the heirs for the land.

But they've done none of that, and it doesn't appear that they intend to. They just got the land for free.

Well then, in theory the heirs to whomever granted the land have legal recourse against the city/township etc. I don't know that any of them are complaining about it, but presumably could make a claim.

 

[reflechissez]

Okay? I don't see where I claimed they don't want the land back under any circumstances. That post was in the context of the lawsuit filed to, as I said, compel fulfillment of the contractual terms agreed to by the Commonwealth. That was the relief requested.

Yep. They didn't ask for the land back. Anything else you choose to add is your speculation.

 

[Colin Norris]

Please note: if you want to discuss whether having the statue of Robert E. Lee is a good or bad thing, there are threads for that. This is not one of them. Please stay on topic.

The plot of land upon which the statue of Robert E. Lee once stood didn't always belong to the Commonwealth of Virginia. It was deeded to the Commonwealth by its previous owners for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a statue of Robert E. Lee on that spot, in perpetuity. The governor of Virginia agreed to this plan. The Virginia General Assembly agreed to this plan. The previous owners agreed to this plan. The parties entered into a contract that required a statue of Lee to be erected and maintained there. Now, a court has ruled that Virginia doesn't have to abide by the contract it willingly signed, for no reason other than it just doesn't want to do so any longer:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1210113.pdf

If the governor and Assembly were unable to enter into the contract in the first place, that's fine. However, there is recourse for contracts that were never legally valid in the first place, and it isn't that one party gets to keep enjoying their benefits in that invalid contract. Further, why is the government exempt from being held to the terms of a contract it voluntarily signed? This seems to suggest that any agreement made by the government can be rescinded on a whim, simply because the government's "sovereign rights" are abridged or weakened. What's the point of a contract but to restrict the government's ability to do something the contract does not allow? Wouldn't any of these things fall under the category of "sovereign rights?"

I'm sure some will not hesitate to point out abrogation of treaties with the Indian nations, as some form of whataboutism. I agree: those treaties should not have been abrogated. Now they're irrelevant to the conversation.

Remember, this has nothing to do with the merits of keeping or removing the statue as a monument to history or a traitor. Again, there are other threads for that. That said, what do all of you think? Should the Commonwealth be able to just opt out of a contract with no penalty to be paid? Obviously, I don't think it should. Where do you fall?

It's irrelevant as to where it was. In against any statue to a violent narcissistic cruel slave owner.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yep. They didn't ask for the land back. Anything else you choose to add is your speculation.

The bottom line is the state or city, I don't remember which owns the land.
They apparently have violated the terms of the transfer but unless or until someone who claims to have an interest in the land pursues the matter, it is moot.