Georgia Bill Would Protect Civil War, Other Monuments Despite Any Local Objections

[Eric Tipton]

Thoughts on this article?

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Georgia Bill Would Protect Civil War, Other Monuments Despite Any Local Objections
By Walter C. Jones
Morris News Service
OnlineAthens.com & The Athens Banner-Herald

The Confederate Monument listing the names of Athens' Civil War dead along Broad Street in downtown Athens, Ga., photographed on Wednesday, March 4, 2015. (AJ Reynolds/Staff, @ajreynoldsphoto)

ATLANTA | Proposed Georgia legislation would prohibit the removal of monuments despite any future objections to them.

Rep. Tommy Benton introduced House Bill 50 to avoid changing fashions from sweeping away memories, he said. It was approved by a Georgia House committee on Wednesday.

“I think history is history,” said Benton, R-Jefferson.

While the retired history teacher may not envision anything as dramatic as the typical scene from violent revolutions where statues of past leaders are torn down by angry mobs, there have been efforts across the country to rename streets and buildings honoring slaveholding forefathers.

Benton hopes to halt that as his bill would apply to Confederate, as well as Revolutionary War, memorials, statues, plagues, displays, flags or banners.

“What we’re looking at is those periods where someone says, ‘That monument no longer complies with my way of thinking,’” Benton said.

As an example, Benton pointed to an historical marker that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources removed from a downtown Augusta sidewalk after a single visitor complained it contained a 150-year-old quotation she found insensitive.

The plaque contains a passage from a letter by British author William Makepeace Thackeray recounting a visit to Augusta in 1856 for a lecture.

In the quote, he wrote, “... slavery nowhere repulsive, the black faces invariably happy and plump.”

The legislation also would apply to the Confederate war monument inscribed with the names of Athens’ Civil War dead on East Broad Street

Local-government groups complained that it would prevent their officials from representing the wishes of the people who elect them.

“We do feel these decisions can best be made by commissioners elected by the citizens and accountable to them,” said Todd Edwards, lobbyist for the Association County Commissioners of Georgia.

Views do change over time, as do populations, noted Catherine Fleming, lobbyist for the Georgia Municipal Association.

“We believe that this bill would tie the hands of our local governments now and in the future on where they could relocate a monument,” she said.

The bill would allow individuals to file a lawsuit against the government agency that removed a monument and give it 120 days to put it back or in a new spot just as prominent. The definition of what constitutes a monument is so broad, Fleming warned, that it could require maintenance of flags, banners and displays that were never meant to be permanent.

The chairwoman of the House Committee on State Properties, Rep. Barbara Sims, R-Augusta, was so eager to pass Benton’s bill that she called for a vote on it before allowing Edwards or Fleming to speak. After it passed, she gave them their chance and then took another vote, both unanimously in support of HB 50.

“I think it’s a bill that protects all of us, each and every one of us,” Sims said.

Next the bill heads to the full House, where it must pass before the end of business March 13 to remain viable during the rest of this year’s legislative session.

Follow Walter Jones on Twitter @MorrisNews and Facebook or contact him at walter.jones@morris.com.

Read the original article at OnlineAthens.com: http://onlineathens.com/breaking-new...ocal#gsc.tab=0

[woodsda]

Re: Georgia Bill Would Protect Civil War, Other Monuments Despite Any Local Objections

While I would never want local control to erode, in the case of history, we must always be reminded where we came from. Taking down monuments, renaming streets, etc. allows us to forget our past whether it was honorable or not. This is a good bill as long as it serves historical purposes.

[cwilson]

Re: Georgia Bill Would Protect Civil War, Other Monuments Despite Any Local Objections

I absolutely support this bill, and am proud that some of our legislators have enough forethought and gumption to introduce such a bill. It seems to be a growing trend in our country that the many bow to the few. In Albany, GA, just a few years ago, the Confederate monument downtown was removed and slated for disposal at the landfill due to growing resentment of a few people that saw it as a reminder of inequality. The local chapter of the SCV raised funds, bought a parcel of land, bought the monument, and erected it in a new location. If not for the efforts of the SCV, that monument would have been lost forever.

I understand that some of the symbols related to our time period could be considered offensive by some, and that some of those symbols have been bastardized by radical groups. That does not change the fact that men fought honorably to defend these symbols and deserve to be remembered. Whether one supports the idea behind the monuments or what they memorialize, the monuments are an important reminder of where WE came from and what the events that they memorialize did to get us to where we are today. Opinion does not change history.

Given how weak and "wishy-washy" most politicians are, especially on the local level, I think this bill would keep people from removing important historical markers out of fear they will loose a few votes. Our history, right or wrong, is our history and should be remembered.

- - - Updated - - -

[rkg]

Re: Georgia Bill Would Protect Civil War, Other Monuments Despite Any Local Objections

I would like to see this become a nation wide law. One person, or a small group of people should not be able to wipe out our
collective memory as a nation because they feel offended by our history.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Georgia Bill Would Protect Civil War, Other Monuments Despite Any Local Objections

It is worth noting that this week, "Islamic State" radicals are smashing and bulldozing artifacts and city ruins dating back as far as 1000BC.

Once relics are destroyed, they are destroyed forever. Is it acceptable to destroy ancient artifacts because they are viewed as sacrilegious?
Is a monument erected by a community in a previous era also a historic artifact?

As we move farther away from the era of the 1860's, the mindset of people of that time fades from our cultural memory. I think we need to find ways to "get comfortable" with the nastier parts of our history, because they are never going to go away... they happened and that can't be changed. Personally, I feel that "scrubbing" the reminders of the "nasty bits" of our history from the public sphere is the wrong thing to do.

There is a difference between a monument erected in a prior era by people who's views you find offensive and the present-day advocates of that old offensive views. One does not equal the other. As time continues to pass and views change more, future generations may question the wisdom of censuring the views of generations long gone... erasing the relics of their cultural history... and wonder what future generation will censure them?