Georgia House passes monument protection measure

"Legislation aimed at protecting historic monuments in Georgia from being vandalized, removed or relocated from public property cleared the state House of Representatives Thursday after an emotional rehash of the Civil War.

The bill, which passed the Republican-controlled chamber 100-71 largely along party lines, would fine offenders triple the cost of the damage they inflict on a monument.

The bill comes amid a push in Georgia and around the nation for the removal of monuments honoring the Confederacy and Confederate political and military leaders."

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2019/03/28/georgia-house-passes-monument-protection-measure.html


I support this bill. I think it is a slippery slope to start tearing down monuments based on who has their feelings hurt on any given day. I thought the quote from Rep. Alan Powell summed it up the best "history is what history is. ... If you fail to protect one person's monument, be prepared for someone not to protect yours."

I also like the idea of charging vandals "triple the cost of the damage" if they damage a monument. Once these historic monuments are gone they are gone, we have to protect them proactively.

I wonder if something similar will be proposed in other states. I hope so....



Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. Stone Mountain, Georgia.











(Note, these monuments are not in Georgia, they are just being used as examples of vandalism and destruction.)

 

Jail the people who want to erase history.

The U.S. did not begin on 1/20/09.

 

Yeah but commies are big on attacking symbols.

 

Like needlessly massacring the Russian Czar and his family.

 

The south sure loves their monuments to traitors

 

While vandalism should remain illegal and I'm not about to tell the people of Georgia what they should do, I disagree with this measure. I think it should be left to localities to decide whether or not any monument, CW or otherwise, should be removed and/or relocated.

 

Not all of us do, Mello, and quite a few Southerners fought for the Union (most notably the Rock of Chickamauga, Gen. George H. Thomas of Virginia) but it's part of our history.

As I said earlier, I think this decision should be left to the citizens of the communities where the monuments reside. I don't like the idea of the state (or federal government) depriving localities of the freedom to choose whether or not they should stay.

 

Like the Washington monument to Vladimir Lennon? Commies love their tyrannical dictators.

 

Lennon huh lol

 

This is a property decision. the owners of the property involved need to weigh what they want in the way of art, and where they want that art sitting on their property. That means we respect the rights of citizens and their representatives in Atlanta Georgia when they decide a piece of art or memorabilia should be relocated, or removed from their city hall, their parks or their cemetery gate and we respect the rights of the same citizens and their representatives to protect what is already there. Its their culture, their community, their taxes, and their property. Public property and its use should reflect their ongoing and changing values and needs. While a piece of art reflects or adds value, it gets protected. When a piece of art no longer reflects or adds value then it goes bye bye!

 

Born and raised in this great state. Have lived all but a couple of my many years here. The monuments need to stay. The attack on the AMERICANS that fought in the American Civil War needs to stop.

 

You didn't answer the question even though you had full knowledge of who I meant.

 

Exactly. I live in Oregon. There are no monuments, no cemeteries to civil war dead, few confederate flags , or reminders of slavery or its impact on the lives of generations of people. My great great grandfather was neither a soldier nor a slave. I do not pretend to understand the nuances, the divisions and the compromises that go on in a culture I have not been raised in. These are not statues that I paid for, and they are not sitting on public property my taxes pay for, and I don't have to drive by them, or explain these debates to my kids. I don't lose or gain revenue from tourism, nor suffer the consequences of boycotts or any stigma attached to a profound segregationist past. Let the locals who are most impacted, and have to pay for the upkeep, and live together decide what to do with this symbolic representations of their past. We need to keep perspective here.These are sculptures made out of mineral with words carved in them. Nobody's life is in danger here.

 

Well said.

 

We have one here in Virginia and it's currently tied up in the courts. Because the law was shabbily crafted it has turned into a tangle of different interpretations of the statute and efforts to clarify the language and intent have failed. To say it's a mess would be an understatement.

 

I’m against statues of Lenin. Although he didn’t betray America or own slaves. So he might still be an improvement over the civil war statues.

 

Excellent. The question of historical monuments needs to be decided by those who live in those locales, not mobs of destructive thugs.

 

It is cultural genocide.

 

It’s the culture of slave owning traitors...who LOST.

 

Is there a bigger participation trophy than building monuments to losers?

 

George Washington was a traitor to the established government.

 

Except he won. Any statues of him in England?

 

LOL - That's pretty funny.

You'll like this: Do you know what we call Monument Avenue in Richmond?

The largest showcase of second place trophies on the planet.

 

We lost in Vietnam (thanks to the left). But were the soldiers who fought in Vietnam any less heroic than those in WW II? I guess only winners get statues.

 

Stay tuned. The NAACP will be awarding Smollett for some BS this weekend.