Leaders of Virginia Military Institute said Tuesday that the school will keep its Confederate statues and consider adding more historical context in the aftermath of last month’s violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville.
At a VMI board of visitors meeting Tuesday, VMI Superintendent J.H. Binford Peay III defended the school’s traditions while declaring that “there’s no place for discrimination” at the state-supported military college. The school, founded in Lexington before the outbreak of the Civil War, has continually evolved since it was racially integrated in 1968, Peay said.
Other vestiges of the school’s Confederate ties — such as battle flags, the playing of “Dixie” and cadet salutes to a statue of Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson — already have been phased out, the superintendent said.
“We are a different school,” Peay told the board. “And we build on the strengths of our traditions, the right traditions, the right statues, the right … ceremonies that we have to make our graduates stronger and better for a nation that needs to move to the future and advance in a right way. That’s my thinking, ladies and gentlemen. And I don’t think I’m being politically correct.”
The announcement by VMI put Lt. Governor Ralph Northam at odds with the alma mater he routinely references on the campaign trail. In a statement, Northam gave no indication he would press the issue at VMI if elected governor.
“As I have said before, I believe local communities, including the VMI community, need to make these decisions for themselves,” Northam said. “While I personally think that these statues belong in a museum with appropriate historical context, I respect the decision of the institute.”
The Gillespie campaign and other Republicans reacted to the VMI news by pointing to Northam’s previous pledge to do “everything” in his authority to remove statues at the state level.
Members of the VMI board are appointed by the Governor.
Speaking to WFIR last month, Northam said, “I will do everything that I can, that I have authority to do to remove the statues at the state level.”
Thomas D. Giese, Ph.D. says
Destroy all tradition
Christmas—obvious Christian celebration
Thanksgiving—celebrates destruction of Indians
Easter—Christian celebration
Labor Day—created by top 1% to throw a bone to labor the 99%
Memorial Day—celebrates American killing millions of people
New Year’s Eve—celebrates Christian calendar
October fest— belittling minority-German remember cultural appropriation
St. Pats day—belittling minority-Irish-remember
cultural appropriation
Mother’s Day—only honors women who give birth, but not surrogate females
Father’s Day—ignores sperm donors
All university organization—Harvard will end fraternities, sororities, and final clubs by punishing students who join them, all social organizations
Pony Penning is a ‘homecoming’ for Chincoteague locals— simple animal abuse
Monuments—why stop with confederate
Stuart Bell says
Northam said, “I will do everything that I can, that I have authority to do to remove the statues at the state level”.
Bell said, ” We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when liberal men are afraid of the light.”
David Gay says
Well said Stuart!
Paul Plante says
In Chapter XIII of his 1866 work “The American Republic,” which chapter was entitled “RECONSTRUCTION,” the writer Oreste Brownson mused in some detail on what was to be the fate of those states of the Union which had seceded to form the Confederacy.
The chapter began thusly:
THE question of reconstructing the States that seceded will be practically settled before these pages can see the light, and will therefore be considered here only so far as necessary to complete the view of the constitution of the United States.
The manner in which the government proposed to settle, has settled, or will settle the question, proves that both it and the American people have only confused views of the rights and powers of the General government, but imperfectly comprehend the distinction between the legislative and executive departments of that government, and are far more familiar with party tactics than with constitutional law.
end quotes
All these years later, and the American people still have only confused views of the rights and powers of the General government, imperfectly comprehending the distinction between the legislative and executive departments of that government, and all these years later, the American people, or maybe more properly, people who happen to reside in the territory encompassed by the boundaries of that which is called the “United States of America,” are still far more familiar with party tactics than with constitutional law, and it is party tactics that we see in play today in connection with these Confederate statues.
With respect to those times just after the Civil War had ended, Brownson provides us with the following insights:
There has been no little confusion in the public mind, and in that of the government itself, as to what reconstruction is, who has the power to reconstruct, and how that power is to be exercised.
Are the States that seceded States in the Union, with no other disability than that of having no legal governments? or are they Territories subject to the Union?
Is their reconstruction their erection into new States, or their restoration as States previously in the Union?
Is the power to reconstruct in the States themselves? or is it in the General
government?
If partly in the people and partly in the General government, is the part in the General government in Congress, or in the Executive?
If in Congress, can the Executive, without the authority of Congress, proceed to reconstruct, simply leaving it for Congress to accept or reject the reconstructed State?
If the power is partly in the people of the disorganized States, who or what defines that people, decides who may or may not vote in the reorganization?
On all these questions there has been much crude, if not erroneous, thinking, and much inconsistent and contradictory action.
end quotes
All these years later, and especially today with this manufactured hub-bub about these Confederate statues, nothing in that regard of much crude, if not erroneous, thinking, and much inconsistent and contradictory action has changed.
And what is the goal here today?
Are the white people in the southern states that seceded a permanently vanquished people in perpetuity?
Do they no longer have a history or a heritage, as has been the case with vanquished peoples in the world since time immemorial?
Will their necks always be there, day after day, for eternity, to be trod upon by the bootheels of their vanquishers?
What exactly is it today that these midnight skulkers and statue snatchers are trying to accomplish?
When will we hear their goals for the southern states articulated in a manner such as that employed by Brownson back in 1866, when the war was just concluded and the question in everyone’s mind was what do we do with the people of the south?
After WWII, we rebuilt Germany and now, we are great friends with the Germans, and we take great pains to make absolutely no reference to their recent past, lest we offend their sensibilities, and the same with Japan, who was one of our most deadly enemies in the war in the Pacific during WWII,
So will we ever do the same with the people of the south?
Or will they forever be our enemies?
The candid world would like to know.
Paul Plante says
So what is it that we are to do with the white people of the south?
Are their bloodlines to be attainted forever for having committed treason against the United States of America in the late War of the Rebellion in the name of white supremacy?
Or will there one day be a path open to them to regain full citizenship as United States citizens after a certain minimum period of a demonstrated commitment to good conduct in conformance with any policies on that subject such as may be laid down by the legislative branch of our federal government in Washington, D.C.?
But wait, aren’t acts of attainder by the legislative branch of our federal government a violation of Clause 3 of Article I of our federal Constitution which states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed?”
So if no Bills of Attainder shall be passed, how can it be that the white people of the south alive today are attainted for being the offspring and financial beneficiaries of white supremacist slave owners?
As to Bills of attainder, according to Findlaw, they are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.
If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties.
In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not.
In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions,” that according to Story, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (Boston: 1833).
The phrase ”bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder.
According to Findlaw, the prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictlyand narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept.
The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial,” that according to United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946), wherein the Supreme Court stated thusly:
We hold that Section 304 falls precisely within the category of Congressional actions which the Constitution barred by providing that ‘No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto
Law shall be passed.’
In Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323, this Court said, ‘A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.”
The Cummings decision involved a provision of the Missouri Reconstruction Constitution which required persons to take an Oath of Loyalty as a prerequisite to practicing a profession.
Cummings, a Catholic Priest, was convicted for teaching and preaching as a minister without taking the oath.
The oath required an applicant to affirm that he had never given aid or comfort to persons engaged in hostility to the United States and had never ‘been a member of, or conected with, any order, society, or organization, inimical to the government of the United States ….’
In an illuminating opinion which gave the historical background of the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, this Court invalidated the Missouri Constitutional provision both because it constituted a bill of attainder and because it had an ex post facto operation.
Section 304 was designed to apply to particular individuals.
Just as the statute in the two cases mentioned it ‘operates as a legislative decree of perpetual exclusion’ from a chosen vocation.
This permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the Government is punishment, and of a most severe type.
It is a type of punishment which Congress has only invoked for special types of odious and dangerous crimes, such as treason, 18 U.S.C. 2, 18 U.S.C.A. 2; acceptance of bribes by members of Congress, 18 U.S.C. 199, 202, 203, 18 U.S.C.A. 199, 202, 203; or by other government officials, 18 U.S.C. 207, 18 U.S.C.A. 207; and interference with elections by Army and Navy officers, 18 U.S.C. 58, 18 U.S.C.A. 58.
end quotes
So, obviously then, having tried and failed in the past to attaint the white people of the south, how is it today that they are attainted so that they cannot grieve their dead?
When the Japanese can have a memorial to their war dead from WWII, why can’t the people of the south?
According to the Newsweek article “Barack Obama Makes History With Visit to Hiroshima, Pays Tribute to Dead” by Jack Moore on 5/27/16:
President Barack Obama made history Friday as he became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima since the world’s first atomic bomb attack on the city in
1945.
Obama paid tribute to the 140,000 people who lost their lives because of the bombing and called for a nuclear-free world.
“Death fell from the sky and the world was changed,” he said.
“We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell… we listen to a silent cry.”
He continued: “We come to ponder the terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past.”
“We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans and a dozen Americans held prisoner.”
“Their souls speak to us.”
Writing in Japan’s Asahi newspaper, he said: “Hiroshima reminds us that war, no matter the cause or countries involved, results in tremendous suffering and loss, especially for innocent civilians.”
end quotes
So what about the souls of all the dead of the south?
Are they silent?
A question for our times.