For Ryan Ewing, the debate over removing a Confederate statue from the Talbot County courthouse lawn is personal: One of his family members is among those memorialized on the monument.
Ewing, a public defender who grew up in Talbot County, spoke to dozens of residents at a rally to bring down the statue last week. He told protesters at the Nov. 10 rally that the monument’s continued presence at the courthouse flies in the face of the United States justice system’s promise of fair trials.
“We ensure the appearance of fairness in every way that we can,” Ewing said. “It’s what we do in our justice system. And my question to everyone is: Does the presence of this statue give any of my clients the appearance that they will get a fair trial?”
The monument includes a statue of a soldier holding a Confederate battle flag. That flag has long been used to represent southern heritage, according to the Anti-Defamation League, but is sometimes also used as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
It stands adjacent to a statue of Frederick Douglass, the prominent abolitionist who was once jailed in Talbot County while attempting to escape slavery.
Ewing said he won’t miss his family’s name on the monument if it’s moved from where it stands outside of the county courthouse. He prefers to memorialize his family members who fought in other wars, like his great uncle who was shot down over occupied France during World War II.
Talbot County Council members voted to keep the Confederate statue on the county courthouse’s grounds earlier this year — but for local advocates and residents, the fight to bring down the monument is far from over.
As county council members were meeting last Tuesday, dozens of residents crowded the lawn of the courthouse to demand the removal of the century-old monument that memorializes county residents who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
The Confederate monument has been a flash point in the county for years, with residents clashing over the memorial’s meaning and message. Those who want the statue to stay say the memorial isn’t meant to perpetuate a racist message, but opponents argue the statue’s presence is an ugly reminder of the county’s history of slavery and segregation.
According to data from the U.S. Census, roughly 12.8% of the county’s population is Black. The county’s population has been steadily increasing over the past decade, and it’s electoral makeup is changing as well: former vice president Joe Biden narrowly won Talbot County, becoming the first Democratic presidential nominee to win the county in more than 50 years.
At the protest, county residents homed in on the Confederacy’s connection to slavery in demanding the monument’s removal, arguing that the statue’s presence at the courthouse is inappropriate.
Keith Watts, a retired labor attorney, told protesters that the monument stands on the grounds of a former slave market, and said the Confederate symbol shouldn’t be allowed on grounds where families were split up forever.
He also addressed criticism of the movement to remove the statue, wherein advocates are accused of attempting to erase or censor history.
“I’m not advocating erasing history,” Watts said. “I’m advocating relocation.”
JoAnn Asparagus, a longtime magistrate for the Caroline County Circuit Court, noted that some who oppose the statue’s removal charge that slavery wasn’t the main reason for the Confederacy’s split from the Union.
“I don’t care whether it was the main reason, second or third,” Asparagus said. “It was a reason.”
Others pointed to Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” as evidence linking the Confederacy to systemic racism and slavery. In that speech, Stephens said the “cornerstone” and foundation of the Confederacy was slavery and racial inequality.
“There are those who claim that removing that monument changes history,” Michael Pullen, the longtime Talbot County attorney, said after reading a portion of Stephens’ speech to the protesters. “I wish we could erase the 400 years of slavery, and the kidnapping, rape, torture, death, murder, the horror and terrorism that followed. I wish we could erase all of that by taking that statue down.”
Continued controversy
As Confederate monuments were toppled across the country amid a wave of protests against systemic racism and police brutality earlier this year, Talbot County Council members narrowly decided to keep the monument on the courthouse lawn.
Council members rejected a proposal to remove the monument in a 3-2 vote at an August meeting. In voting to keep the monument up, Republican council members said the Confederate monument’s fate should ultimately rest in the hands of community members.
“This should be in the hands of the community, and not our hands,” Council Vice President Charles F. Callahan III (R) said in rejecting the resolution.
The contested vote came amid pressure from state and federal officials to remove the monument. U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D) and Maryland Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot (D) had both publicly called on county council members to remove the monument.
Republican Council President Corey W. Pack, who led the charge in attempting to remove the monument, was disappointed in the resolution’s failure. At the time, he warned that having a confederate monument outside of the county courthouse sends the wrong message to community members.
“I do not support the Talbot Boys statue remaining on the courthouse lawn,” Pack said in August. “It is not appropriate to keep that symbol on the courthouse lawn.”
Pack and Peter Lesher (D) voted to remove the monument, but the other Republicans on the council, Laura E. Price, Frank Divilio and Callahan, voted to keep the statue up.
The debate over the memorial isn’t a new one for county residents: In 2015, the county council voted to keep the statue after the local NAACP campaigned to remove it. At the time, Pack said the Confederate monument should stay on the courthouse grounds, arguing that removing it would be “disrespectful to the family members” of the soldiers memorialized.
Pack’s reversal and recent drive to remove the monument came after the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis earlier this year. Floyd’s death sparked nationwide protests over police brutality and led to a renewed conversation about whether Confederate monuments should stand on public property.
In one of his final acts as Wicomico County Executive before his death, Bob Culver (R) removed a Confederate marker in Salisbury in June. The movement among local governments to remove Confederate monuments has continued in recent months: Just two weeks ago, officials in Fairfax County, Va., ordered the removal of several Confederate markers and memorials from their county courthouse.
Asparagus, the magistrate, told the crowd outside of the Talbot County Courthouse that Mississippians had voted to remove a Confederate symbol from their state flag during the Nov. 3 election. She encouraged county residents to continue to push council members for the statue’s removal.
“They don’t go down easy,” Asparagus said.
Continued conversations
Richard Potter, the president of the Talbot County NAACP, said he tried to convene a meeting between advocates and county council members in late October. County council members rejected his request, Potter said, because they didn’t want to discuss the monument publicly.
Pack said at an Oct. 27 meeting that the Talbot County Council hadn’t met with the NAACP in roughly five years. While Lesher and Pack weren’t opposed to meeting with Potter’s group, Price, Divilio and Callahan said they weren’t ready to convene a workgroup.
“We know that this is not a finished, done deal,” Price said. “I don’t want anybody to think that we’re just digging in and we’re not continuing to talk with members of the community and leaders in the community.
Lesher told Maryland Matters that other council members thought the next step in dealing with the memorial was to encourage constituents to meet with them one-on-one instead of hosting public debates or workshops.
“I personally don’t see what’s wrong with convening a workshop,” Lesher said. “But I’m willing to work with whatever will give us a path forward. If that’s what will move us forward, I’ll work with that.”
Callahan said at the Oct. 27 meeting that he wants the next phase of debate over the monument to start with one-on-one conversation. He said he wants to “iron some things out” in private to have a more informed conversation during future public meetings.
Price said some county residents might not be comfortable sharing their views on the Confederate monument on public record, noting that a meeting with a majority of the county council must be public record under the Maryland Open Meetings Act.
“Speaking individually, one-on-one, I believe is going to be a lot more productive at this time,” she said.
Potter accused council members of stalling the conversation about the Confederate monument instead of addressing it head on, and vowed to continue pushing for the removal of the monument.
“Nothing has been done,” Potter said. “I think these are all stall tactics, to not … address the issue. And we’re going to keep pressing on.”
Potter said he thinks the monument will hamper Talbot County’s efforts to modernize and grow moving forward, and said he thinks the time has come for officials to take another look at removing the statue.
“I think it has its place in our history,” Potter said. “But the place of it being on the courthouse lawn is no longer. It was there to send the message of hate. It was there to scare Black people. And that’s not our community anymore.”
By Bennett Leckrone
Clive R. Ewing says
According to the Maryland Matters website, “Without independent news sites like Maryland Matters, many stories will never be told.” Perhaps that is half-right, for it seems Maryland Matters can be credited for telling half of a story in this article. However, this ‘news’ website is far from independent, and certainly not “non-partisan” as is claimed. As such, this article fails to provide all perspectives regarding the Talbot Boys monument. Certainly, the columnist’s alma mater, the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, would be disappointed in this piece.
The article references those who lament that the presence of the Talbot Boys monument creates the appearance of unfairness at the Talbot County Courthouse. The article fails to substantiate this purported unfairness, but perhaps it is believed that the allegation alone is enough to make a point. As Saul Alinsky instructs his disciples, let the target’s imagination take hold. “Imagine the unfairness of this monument”, shout the radicals!
But for any real harm from the monument? No need to look too far, for there is nothing more than manufactured outrage ginned-up by the ACLU, SPLC and their socialist allies.
To the facts that this article conveniently overlooks. The men honored on the Talbot Boys monument rose against an over-reaching Government that had denied their constitutional rights, including the right to even have a trial! During the Civil War Talbot County citizens were also denied their rights to arm themselves and to freely speak their minds. The editor of the Easton Star was imprisoned for years without trial. In fact, approximately 14,000 Marylanders were arrested and imprisoned without due process. (not to mention the brutal beatings, thefts and rapes perpetuated by the Federal occupiers.) What’s fair (or legal) about not being able to defend your family, to speak your mind, or to even have a trial?
It is within this context that 84 local men resisted. It is within this context that Talbot County honored, and continues to honor, their courage and sacrifice. And it is within this context that a reunited nation, after a long period of reconciliation and the passing of generations, decided to grant members of the Confederate Army the privileges of being veterans.
The article errs on a detail regarding a particular World War II hero who was ‘shot down’ over France. However, members of the community with an appreciation and knowledge of history know this brave pilot was not ‘shot down’. He was actually strafing an enemy train and, with the marksmanship that comes naturally to a native Eastern Shoreman, he hit the mother-lode, an ammunition car, that exploded so tremendously that his plane was damaged in the blast. By the grace of God, he was able to parachute to safety and was hidden by the French until the Allied forces restored his freedom.
In addition to this fearless aviator, the Ewing family is blessed with many other great heroes, including Wm. Thomas Ewing, whose name appears on the Talbot Boys monument.
A quality news article includes fact-checking and the telling of all perspectives. Of course, if the platform for which one writes is Maryland Matters, I suppose one must acquiesce to their donors and their leftist agenda. Readers should know that the not-so ‘non-partisan’ Maryland Matters donor list is heavily littered with partisan elitists, including the Hopewell Fund which is allegedly part of one the largest, left-wing dark-money webs in the nation. Talbot Countians might even be interested to know that Peter Franchot and his ex-Chief of Staff (a local resident who shall not be named), both vocal opponents to the Talbot Boys monument, are reported as donors to Maryland Matters. Caveat emptor to Maryland Matters readers. https://darkmoneyatm.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CRC_Arabella-Advisors-Dark-Money_small.pdf
https://www.marylandmatters.org/statement-of-editorial-independence/#2020
“The press of this country is now and always has been so thoroughly dominated by the wealthy few of the country that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people the correct information concerning political, economic, and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people shall have, in order that they shall vote and in all ways act in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing class.” E.W. Scripps (1854 – 1926)
True a century ago. Still true today.
paul Callahan says
Way to go Mr. Ewing! As in the civil war we have cousin pitted against cousin. Let’s not forget additional abuses against Maryland at that time such as Mr. Lincoln’s order in April of 1861 to bombard our civilian population centers if Maryland resisted. Additionally, there was the beating and arrest of Talbot County’s Judge Carmichael, whose crime was attempting to provide Constitutional Rights to our citizens who were unlawfully arrested by the Federal government.
For better or worse the actions taken by Mr. Lincoln against Maryland were exactly the actions that would be taken by a dictator:
Arrest government officials that may oppose him – Members of Maryland’s Legislature, our US Congressmen and the Baltimore city council were arrested an imprisoned.
Suspend the first Amendments – Newspapers were censored and shut down and editors arrested. Our Easton’s newspaper editor was arrested and imprisoned without trial.
Suspend the 2nd Amendment – The guns and munitions of Maryland’s militia was confiscated along with guns of citizens.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus – So the government could arrest and imprison any citizen it chooses without charges, evidence or trial.
Arrest and imprisonment any person that the administration may deem disloyal to them and to instill fear into the general population – 14,000 were arrested.
Remove and arrest military leaders who were not loyalist – The arrest and imprisonment of Major General Tench Tilghman and the police commissioner of Baltimore.
Removal and arrest of Judges who may be in opposition – Judge Carmichael beaten in our own courthouse and imprisoned.
Interfere with elections to ensure results favorable to the administration – Members of the opposing party were arrested, anyone the Federal government did not approve of were not allowed to vote, an oath to the ideals of the administration was required before being allowed to vote, placing troops outside polling stations to intimidate voters, allowing the occupying Federal troops who were not Maryland citizens to vote in Maryland’s elections. – All happened in Maryland.
Threaten the population with brutal force to subdue Maryland’s governor – Lincoln ordered the bombardment of our civilian population if Maryland resisted.
Declaring Marshall law and occupying a free State against her will with Federal forces.
If President Trump took any of these actions today what position do you think this group of “Monument Removers” would take on that? I guarantee you if President Trump took the exact same actions “to save the Nation” these people would immediately have their “Traitors to the Nation” banner out in front of the White House. (Only for a short while though since they would be soon arrested as “Traitors”)
These actions by President Lincoln were far more oppressive and unjust that what our Founding Father’s gave as their reasons to rebel against the crown. Any patriot at any time in our history, including today, would resist such unlawful and unconstitutional actions taken by a President. The difference today is that they would not have to. Our military today would not follow the unconstitutional orders issued at that time by President Lincoln. Our military takes an Oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and to protect the same from all enemies foreign and domestic. Our modern military is trained not to follow unlawful orders or to commit crimes against humanity.
Whether people now justify Mr. Lincoln’s dismissal of the US Constitution and the brutal actions taken by him against Maryland is their own personal right – but they should not subject others to their opinions or judge others who lived in that time and thought differently. We now have hindsight to see how things turned out – the Talbot Boys did not.
We also know by Mr. Lincoln’s and Mr. Frederick Douglass’s own words, along with two public resolutions distributed by the Maryland Legislature, that Mr. Lincoln was not prosecuting the war to end slavery, at least not for the first two years. That according to Frederick Douglass’s account, abolition only became a war objective in the third year of the war after Mr. Lincoln realized he had lost support for the carnage with the war objective of re-unification alone.
So why are these people so adamant and radical about removing this monument? Because they view the monument’s removal as part of moving their social agenda forward. They would be on firmer ground if they and the monument were in South Carolina but their arguments do not hold water in Maryland and certainly not here in Talbot county. These people do not understand that the majority of our citizens support the peaceful social justice cause but do not support the removal of the Talbot Boys.
Above is a list of what motivated these men to rise, but I would like to know the evidence these people have against the Talbot Boys? If they went to war prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, then they certainly weren’t fighting to support slavery because slavery wasn’t a war objective. Do these people really want to disagree with Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln on this?
They state that the monument was only placed to intimidate people of color, but the only evidence they provide is that it was a time of Jim Crowe laws and the movie “Birth of a Nation” was playing. Well that would apply to every person, law, ordnance or action taken during those years. By their account every one of our ancestors would be guilty due to what laws congress passed or what movie they may or may not have seen. Really? Could it not just be our citizens wanted to give honor to men who were given veteran status by an act of the US Congress such as we see with our other war memorials?
I am sure there must be some actual evidence out there against these men. It would be hard to believe that these intelligent and educated “Monument Removers” would succumb to a “mob mentality” of passing judgements against other human beings without actual evidence and assigning guilt based solely upon a human being’s race, time period in which they lived and by their political beliefs.
Let’s see the evidence against these men.
Bill Payor says
So the citizens voted to keep the monument. But one or two decided they know better?