Monday, July 24, 2017

Rockville Confederate statue secretly removed by Montgomery County

Montgomery County pulled a fast one on its own residents, removing the controversial Confederate statue from the Red Brick Courthouse over the weekend. County Department of General Services Director David Dise acknowledged to MyMCMedia, the only media outlet apparently invited by the County to observe the removal, that the date was intentionally kept secret from the public. As expected, the statue will now be installed at White's Ferry. What was unexpected, was that the public would not be informed of the actual removal, simply so the County government could frame the event exactly the way they wanted to politically.

59 comments:

  1. 11:06 AM is a Manbaby.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "the public would not be informed of the actual removal"

    What purpose would that serve exactly? Was there supposed to be some ceremony, festival, or KKK cookout associated with its removal?

    They said months ago that this idiotic statue would be removed. They're only failure as far as I'm concerned is taking so long to do it.

    This is Maryland, not Mississippi. Last I checked the Confederacy was the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, there are still KKK groups in Maryland, some as close as Gaithersburg.

      Delete
    2. 11:39: The Confederacy had strong support in Maryland. Maryland was essentially an occupied state, with Union troops physically preventing the state from seceding. This legacy is part of the agenda in trying to whitewash the Confederate past of Montgomery County. The problem is, we need to have an honest, fact-based evaluation of history. Not a Disneyland version that makes us all feel better. This is Taliban-style erasure of history.

      Delete
    3. Spoken like a true Right-winger. I guess you will be a full chapter in the textbook of MC's course this fall.

      Delete
    4. Lol the Confederacy did not have "strong support in Maryland." Some Marylanders (not in Montgomery County by the way) were sympathetic to the cause, but the majority of the state was strongly opposed to secession.

      Delete
    5. 9:52: Time to review history. If "the majority of the state was strongly opposed to secession," why was Lincoln snuck through Baltimore before his inauguration - dressed as an invalid, no less - to get to Washington? Afraid he would be mobbed by well-wishers?

      It's hysterical to hear these revised histories of Maryland, which not only had slaves working on many, many plantations, but whose Baltimore business leaders had just as many mercantile interests in the South.

      Even as Lincoln was snuck through Baltimore, he himself heard the pro-Dixie sentiment. This is why Maryland was occupied - including Montgomery County - by Union regiments to stifle pro-Confederacy actions or secession.

      Delete
    6. Support of slavery the Confederacy varied greatly throughout Maryland. Lincoln would have gotten a much warmer "reception" in Western MD or Montgomery County, but would have been running for his life in Southern MD or the Eastern Shore.

      Baltimore was in the middle for the reason you stated. Baltimore had more free blacks than pretty much any other city in America. Check how many free blacks there were in Richmond or any other Southern city for that matter.

      There's way too much one-sided pro-Union/pro-Confederacy cherry-picking nonsense on this issue, when the truth was that as a border state like MO and DE Maryland's sentiments was solidly in the middle.

      Delete
    7. 2:41: Again, let's not pretend that today's political map represents the historical map. I would greatly enjoy watching the "warm reception" Lincoln and his troops would have received from Leonard Hays, Chiswell's Exile Band, Walter Bowie and Jim Loughborough in our area.

      There's a reason Rockville, Baltimore, Bethesda and other parts of Maryland were literally occupied by Union forces during the war. Namely, strong ties and sympathy for the Confederate cause.

      Delete
  3. Maryland was officially on the Union side but had many Confederate sympathizers and was a slaveowning state (?). I think they should have kept the Confederate statue right where it was and put up a second Union statue next to it. That way both sides would be represented and the brutal reality of history would not be erased.
    With that said, I do not believe this move will be productive in the long run. I get that it's offensive and dark but is this going to really change things? It is a cheap maneuver by the politicians and a lazy demand from those who want to move it (there are more effective ways to move forward than by complaining about the past and removing every reminder of it...that's just a crutch.). To those who are truly motivated, they would show personal strength and accomplishment in the face of this history (which many have). We have only wasted tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on this distraction, which has been produced mainly by miscreants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their are terrorism sympathizers in the country right now. Should we put up al Qaeda statues??? It's reprehensible enough that the racist states in the South have schools, roads, museums, and shrines honoring their "heroes" but it's completely asinine to have Confederate statues in Union Maryland (regardless of how some citizens felt at the time).

      It's like putting up Adolf Hitler statues in Switzerland.

      Delete
    2. Christ, your "argument" is ridiculous, sorry, there's no other way to describe it.

      Delete
  4. I'm concerned that only the friendly government run media was informed.

    Democracy dies in darkness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Published 59 minutes after Bethesda Beat's report, therefore plagiarism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not plagiarism, but the Washington Post claiming Bethesda Beef reported it first was pretty close to plagiarism - MyMCMedia reported it first, apparently at the invitation of the County government. Bethesda Beef even linked to MyMCMedia's video of it. What is the secret business deal between the Post and the publisher of the small and slightly-failing magazine?

      Delete
    2. Ooops! Guess you were left out the deal. Bwaahahaha.

      Delete
  6. Brilliant marketing by the Democrat Party to brand America as racist thinking people will be more in need of the Democrat Party that enslaved Blacks then and governs predominately Black areas like Baltimore so poorly now. Democrats are inflaming racial animosity instead of doing their job in government. What a waste of tax dollars emulating the Taliban in their attempt to erase history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Marketing by the Democrat (sic) Party"! I guess your short-term memory is really failing you, or you don't keep up with current events. This whole movement began in the south, with a southern governor, now U.S. Ambassador. Do your homework Jerry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a hollow comment, we all know how historically the Dems have changed, yet you chose intellectual dishonesty, really illustrates your character.

      Delete
  8. This is one of the worst decisions make by the Montgomery County Council. It was also a waste of time to hold the public hearings in Rockville City Hall. The public had excellent testimonies that were ignored. Why should the people speak out when the legislators ignore us? Yes, it is the Democrats that are wrong. Wake up voters!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people spoke: They don't want statues celebrating Southern traitors in their town square!

      Delete
  9. Even the liberal media is in agreement that the most important Confederate Generals were brilliant military and strategic thinkers who changed warfare forever. This is an excerpt from Publishers Weekly's review of S.C. Gwynnes recent biography on Stonewall Jackson:


    "A stimulating study of Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson... Gwynne reveals him to have been an early master of modern mobile warfare and a clear-eyed interpreter of what modern 'pitiless war was all about'... Readers are likely to agree that, without Jackson, Lee 'would never again be quite so brilliant,' while even in the North Jackson was considered, rather than a rebel, a 'gentleman and... fundamentally an American.'" ( Publishers Weekly, STARRED review

    Let's not be like the Soviet union and erase our history.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Our history books conveniently fail to mention that in some cases Arabs and even Africans themselves sold their brethren into slavery for the white man. This does not make the Europeans blameless but is a crucial detail that should not be forgotten. Secondly, only to put American slavery in the context of human civilization and not to justify it, we tend to forget that other instances of slavery have existed too...white Romans enslaving other white Europeans, Egyptians enslaving Jews, etc. Just saying, it's a terrible part of the human story and America is not the only one to be a part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How many slaves did Robert Dyer's 19th-Century ancestors own?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good, no monuments for traitors on public land.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert - you touch on ONE piece of history, that Maryland was a border state with some strong confederate sympathizers. What you fail to do is study the history of the statue itself. Most confederate statues on public lands in the US were erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy during the early part of the 20th century, this one included. They did this under the guise of remembering the memory of the soldier, but truthfully they were keeping the hate alive and reminded everyone via these statues that they were living in the era of Jim Crow. These monuments are a disgrace. The only cities that can make a sound argument for their existence are in the true south (ie Richmond, which must handle their history as the southern capital. We should be ashamed that a confederate soldier stood tall in Maryland for 100 years, long after they lost the war. If there's going to be a memorial for the Civil War on public lands in Maryland, then it should be all encompassing, include the North and South, and explore the hatred, division, and subsequent unification so we may never repeat those atrocities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:27: This is, again, a revision of history that we're seeing employed in the recent assault on monuments and statues. Where is the historic documentation of written intent by the Daughters of the Confederacy to erect statues as an expression of "hate?" I haven't seen any.

      Remember, at the time when these statues were erected, there were still people alive who lived through the Civil War. Is it hard to believe that they, and their descendants, would have the strongest feelings of pride, honor and loss for their comrades, neighbors and family members who fought bravely, and in many cases were maimed or killed in a horrific conflict?

      At the same time, America was forced to knit itself back together. Just as many times the horrors of civil wars around the world are ended with amnesty for some, so too would it have been understandable that those who were on the losing side would be given some room to grieve, remember and express pride in their heroes.

      The generations of tomorrow would be for the worse if they don't understand the lessons America learned from this conflict, the horrors of slavery and the war, and - most importantly - that Montgomery County and Maryland were divided in their views and allegiances as much as the nation as a whole.

      Our state was not a beacon of abolitionist ideals nor of unwavering loyalty to the "Union." Likewise, the Union committed many terrible atrocities and war crimes against Confederate soldiers and civilians alike. We hear of these crimes too infrequently in our school curriculums, just as we hear too little of the other dimensions of "Honest Abe" in his handling of the conflict, which should give us pause.

      I agree there should be a statue for the Union side. As both sides were Americans, it's not surprising that there were great and honorable men and women on both.

      Delete
    2. At least we agree that the Union should also be represented. But really, times change, and a confederate soldier on public land has no place, it simply creates more divisions. Consider the case of Tampa's confederate statue, also put in place by the UDC. The president of that UDC chapter personally believes the statue shouldn't be on public land. http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/267989607-story For a president of a UDC chapter, her coherent thoughts on this subject are like a breath of fresh air.

      Basically, unless the entire story is being told, there's no reason for a confederate statue to stand in Rockville. Done and done.

      Delete
  14. ...oh, and United Daughters of the Confederacy is classified as a neo-confederate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center... so tell me, why do you support their statue. Are YOU a neo-confederate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SPLC is a highly-questionable organization, unethically declaring organizations they disagree with politically as "hate groups." Ridiculous. I keep waiting for the SPLC to declare Greater Greater Washington a "hate group" for the anti-African-American, racist comments their readers post and the pro-gentrification stance of the website. Interestingly, that doesn't happen. Gee, would it happen to be a political reason?

      Where in my article above did I state that I support or oppose the statue?

      Delete
  15. Maryland played a very large part in the Cival War with three major battles taking place inside the state. The battle of South Mountain,the battle of the Monocacy and The Batttle of Antietam. The battle of Antietam had close to 23,000 casualties from both the Union and Confederate sides.if you don't think we should have a statue to show this history in Maryland,you are foolish indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and there are tons of statues at those battlefields. Where they belong. We embrace our history, and I'd prefer our historical markers tell the whole story. A confederate soldier standing in the center of Rockville is not right... unless there's a corresponding Union statue and a clear explanation of Maryland's history and role in the War.

      Delete
  16. Battle of Antietam is the bloodiest single battle ever on American Soil,and SPLC is a radical left wing organization which is completely politicized and biased.

    ReplyDelete
  17. yes there are many statues at those battle fields that tell the story of Maryland in the Cival War,the problem is that many people don't have the means to go to these battlefields which tend to be far from major cities like Rockville or not easily accessible by public transportation.Some citizens are elderly and can't travel,so going to the battlefields is not always a viable solution.Yes,it might be a better solution to erect a Union statue and install a plaque with historical explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is easy to find on the internet and would show that there was a direct Confederate threat Rockville,Md.Again,we should not erase our history like the Taliban or Soviet union has done.

    J.E.B.Stuart’s “Wild Ride” Through Montgomery County
    Speaker: Bob Plumb
    On June 28, 1863, Confederate General J.E.B Stuart and his three cavalry brigades crossed the Potomac River and arrived in Montgomery County. For the next two days, Stuart’s cavalry engaged in several actions that would, in varying degrees, hinder and delay their movement north to join the Confederate forces in Pennsylvania. First, Stuart’s army demonstrated their control of Rockville’s town by rounding up Union officials and taking them prisoner. Next, was an encounter between some of Stuart’s soldiers and the students of a female academy in Rockville, thus delaying the army again. Lastly, Stuart’s army captured and controlled a large Union wagon train laden with supplies, which became a significant impediment to Stuart’s expeditious travel onward to Pennsylvania. This is a 45 minute PowerPoint lecture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm proud to say the Union won the war. If you want a statue of Jeb Stuart then you can erect it in Virginia where he was born, lived, and was mortally wounded in action. I, for over, prefer not to have him or any other hostiles memorialized in a Union state. And yes, I know MD was a border state with plenty of southern support and Lincoln kept the state under Marshall law. But the victors get to write the history book. The complex history of MD in the War deserves a more encompassing memorial, not just a random enemy soldier standing on public land.

      Delete
  19. Maryland's status as a border state is overstated, but simply put, what is now Montgomery County was not then a Confederate supporting area. A large part of why Robert E. Lee's plans during the invasion of MD failed was that he expected the Confederates to be greeted as liberators. Thankfully many a faithful Unionist Marylander showed him what was what.

    No statues for traitor scum on public land.

    ReplyDelete
  20. did you know that the phrase "Political Correctness" is actually a phrase and philosophy which was formed in the Soviet Union? Why did the Soviets erase people they disagreed with from photography and history? The left needs to learn a bit of history. by the way, I wasn't advocating for a JEB Stuart statue just letting people know that Rockville has a deep connection with events pertaining to Cival War statues.I would not expect people who lean left to want other people to know that though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't about right and left. Paris doesn't erect a statue of Hitler. He was an enemy combatant who walked thru the city. In fact he even spared Paris from destruction. But he was the enemy. Just because the rebels marched through MoCo does not mean there should be a statue on public lands. I would like to see a memorial to the area's native American history, but it ain't gonna happen.

      Delete
    2. 1:46: Big difference - Hitler wasn't French.

      Delete
  21. think the American Cival War is a little bit more nuanced than Nazi Germany invading France.Many times the Cival War was Brother against Brother,or cousin against Cousin.As someone who grew up in Maryland with my parents regularly taking me to Gettysburg and explaining how the Union won the war there,or taking me to Harper's Ferry and explaining about the radical abolitionist John Brown, I totally agree that it is wonderful that Maryland never seceded from the Union and the North won the war. However,Pulling down statues and pushing Political Correctness is probably not the way to educate people about why the Confederate States lost the War.Its erasing history and keeping people from learning that history who may not have a way to get to Gettysburg or Harper's Ferry.Lets not emulate Joseph Stalin because remember, get killed millions of innocent people. This is an excerpt which is easily found online:

    At the Battle of Front Royal, May 23, 1862, the 1st Maryland CSA was thrown into battle with their fellow Marylanders, the Union 1st Regiment Maryland Volunteer Infantry.
    This is the only time in United States military history that two regiments of the same numerical designation and from the same state have engaged each other in battle. After hours of desperate fighting the Southerners emerged victorious. When the prisoners were taken, many men recognized former friends and family.
    According to Goldsborough:
    "nearly all recognized old friends and acquaintances, whom they greeted cordially, and divided with them the rations which had just changed hands".
    Among the prisoners was Charles Goldsborough, captured by his brother, William Goldsborough, who would go on to write the history of the Maryland Line in the Confederate Army

    ReplyDelete
  22. No one is trying to whitewash history here. The statue that was moved... I'm not even sure who the soldier was. The typical UDC statues were of low-level soldiers. But do you know what was written on the base of the statue?
    "To our Heroes of Mongomery Co. Maryland - That we through life may not forget to love the thin gray line."

    Not one mention of the Union, not one mention of brothers and family against each other. Just a memorial to the rebels, that's all it is. I pee on their thin grey line.

    Perhaps if it was a statue of a soldier born/raised in Rockville, then an argument can be made. Maybe it actually is, and I'm not aware of it. But I don't think it is.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You're right,the people who erected the statue could possibly have worded the inscription in a better way,but what I'm learning from this blog post and this thread is that Maryland apparently had many more Confederate Sympathizers than I ever knew.While it's a very good thing that Maryland never seceded,I suppose that like the person who writes the blog has stated,Union troops were garrisoned throughout the State to sort of help prevent that, at least in the beginning of the war.Do we know for sure that the statue is not of someone who could have been from Rockville? Or that the statue represents someone in Maryland who was killed by a family member fighting for the Union? We don't know that but we do know that Brothers from Maryland fought each other in the war.And that to me is what makes the American Cival War different. Yes,it's great that the North won,but we should be allowed to learn the true history of the conflict and not some politically correct version that erases the true history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. I just want a more accurate telling of MD's role. On a separate note, visit Richmond. Fascinating Civil Was history there, and the tour I took covered everything from the beginning to the end when Jefferson Davis torched the city in retreat. It's a bit different than visiting the battlefields, and really connects you to the history.

      Delete
  24. Thanks for Information on Richmond.I think I was there once when I was very young.I remember watching Ken Burns excellent Cival War series when it was first on in 1990.Seems like this might be a good time to go back and watch that again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The only people trying to whitewash history are the people pretending traitors and secessionists deserve any kind of memorial on public space because they were "just defending their homeland." Well, Maryland never seceded, so that "thin grey line" was a line of invaders in support of a treasonous southern cabal founded on deep social and racial inequality.

    ReplyDelete
  26. maybe it's the men who fought for the Union and to end slavery and were willing to kill their own brothers and family to do so that is the real issue here.This was a war that was Brother killing Brother or families killing each other.Did the fact that a Union soldier who was willing to kill his own Brother to end slavery mean that he did not love that Brother?

    ReplyDelete
  27. there is also the fact that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in Maryland to keep officials like John Merryman in Jail so Merryman wouldn't be able to carry at orders to destroy railways which Union troops were trying to use to travel through Maryland. The Governor of Maryland and officials did not want Union Troops coming through the state.

    ReplyDelete
  28. SEE CHARLOTTESVILLE - ...and that's why you take confederate statues down. The only people who really celebrate them are stupid-ass white supremacists. Unless they're erected with a corresponding union statue and the story is told completely, all those confederate statues represent everything America should stand against. Mic-drop, done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:04: What I saw in Charlottesville was a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the rally attendees - it doesn't matter what their message is; they are allowed to peaceably assemble and speak. The mayor of Charlottesville should be held criminally-responsible for all injuries and deaths that occurred Saturday, as he failed to provide security for attendees and counter-protesters. Any idiot knows events on public streets are to be totally cut off from vehicular traffic. The mayor failed to provide that most basic security precaution for political reasons, and now one person is dead and many others injured.

      Mic-drop, done.

      Delete
  29. Oh, Robert, don't even try to defend them...

    Yes, the racists asshats had the legal permits to assemble. And yes, the antifas came in response. But both parties were ready to rumble, came prepared, and a loose nutjob white trash POS killed an innocent protester who was not associated with the antifas, and he was hellbent to take as many lives as he could.

    This "protest" was all about the removal of a statue from public lands. The stupidity that someone DIED over this is beyond belief. And for you to blame the city is horrible... they couldn't have known the antifas would be rolling in, and I'm sure if they had a time machine they'd gladly go back to thursday night and summon the national guard. But that didn't happen, and here you are asserting blame for someone's death on them. When really, the only person responsible is an out of state a-hole who can't control his hatred for anyone who thinks differently from him.

    I'll stand up for the right to assemble PEACEFULLY. And I will always stand up to shout down racist and bigoted beliefs. Those statues, the ones the Daughters of the Confereracy erected, like the one that stood in Rockville, are reminders of Jim Crow laws, they have no historical bearing at all with Rockville's roll in the War, or with any real memorial to the soldiers. I stand by above comments that if you want a Civil War statue on public grounds that it should represent both sides and clearly tell the story. Otherwise, they simply glorify separatists and rebels. And oh, the Union won, I am proud to report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:49: I am totally correct to blame Charlottesville. The police chief ADMITTED that street was supposed to be closed to traffic, but that, gosh, he "didn't know" why it hadn't been! Now someone is dead AS A DIRECT RESULT of his incompetence.

      "They couldn't have known the Antifas (sic) would be rolling in." Really? Considering the Antifa rolls in to every Richard Spencer event, as well as to the recent KKK rally in Charlottesville (which mysteriously went off without a hitch...hmmm), they knew damn well Antifa would be there "to hurt people. And they did hurt people."

      Delete
  30. "Any idiot knows events on public streets are to be totally cut off from vehicular traffic."

    Geez, Dyer - You're trying to make it sound like the driver accidentally mowed down 20 people, killing one of them, because he wasn't expecting to encounter demonstrators in the street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:34: We don't yet know all the facts about that tragic incident. What we do know for sure, is that his car should never have been able to drive on that street to begin with. Had the street been barricaded off, as the police chief has now admitted it should have been, the victim would still be alive today. I hope her family sues the pants off of the City of Charlottesville.

      Delete
    2. DUDE - The murderer SPED into a crowd, there's only one reason a person would do that. To murder. C'mon, Dyer, STOP DEFENDING NAZIS!!! Whether or not THAT road is closed, the murderer will still find a way to do what he did.

      Again, the woman died because some nut job white supremacist came to town to defend a stupid statue to a traitor. That's SAD! (to put it in the vernacular of your president)

      Go ahead, look at police incompetence, look at antifa involvement. But NEITHER of those parties drove that car into a crowd. NEITHER of those parties want to kill Jews. NEITHER of those parties think people of different cultures and ethnicities are below them.

      YOU are on the wrong side of history. YOU are on the wrong side of public opinion. We can defend their right to gather, we can even defend their right to think the wrong thing. But we do not have to tolerate their beliefs, and at every chance we get we must shout down their bigoted ways. There is no room for NAZIS in America.

      Delete
    3. 7:46: Nobody said you couldn't shout at them. You just can't physically harm people you disagree with, or prevent them from peacefully assembling and saying whatever they want to say. A lot of people seem to think we don't live in America suddenly. The Constitution is still in effect.

      What happens when those in power suddenly think your ideas need to be "snuffed out" as Petula Dvorak wrote of the alt-right? From all of the violent talk the last few days, I can only assume people have watched too much Game of Thrones, or are ready to bring back Roman gladiatorial combat arenas.

      Did any of the organizers of the rally advocate killing anyone?

      I haven't seen a full video of the car incident from start to finish, and I'm not defending the driver. If he really did speed into a crowd as his first action, he should receive the maximum penalty. Suggesting new restrictions on speech, and endorsing "Purge"-style violence against people you hate or disagree with doesn't sound like a rational response to the actions of a crazy person, or like America.

      I'm on the side of the Constitution, which is most definitely the right side of history. No other country can stack up to us, and one reason is the freedom to say whatever you want without being penalized. One minute it's "Nazis," and the next minute, anyone criticizing the government can be termed a "Nazi," "domestic terrorist," etc.

      It sounds like there's a great nostalgia for George War Criminal Bush to come back with an even-bigger security state. Count me out.

      Delete
  31. "Did any of the organizers of the rally advocate killing anyone?" -dyer

    Well, sir, NAZIS really do want Jews dead. This is a pretty darned confirmed fact. And there were a lot of Nazi flags flying in C'ville over the weekend, I don't assume those people are so dumb they don't know what a swastika stands for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:32: I think the actual number of such flags was very small compared to the size of the rally turnout. Not "a lot." But don't expect Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon to believe that. Man, if we could combine the intellectual power between those two guys, we might be able to teach one of them to find the doorknob to get out of his dressing room.

      Delete