The US Civil war was a defining moment in our history costing 750,000 American lives, the destruction of 11 U.S cities and put a large portion of our Nation into economic depression for generations. It was a huge failure of democracy where a government for the people engaged in the slaughter of its people. It was a horrific, ugly event where neither side can claim any moral or ethical privilege, and which is also greatly misunderstood by many.

In controversial times it is appropriate to seek insights of great men who have gone before us. I think it appropriate to seek the wisdom of a particularity great American hero, a man who is a hero for all races and gender and admired throughout the world. During the Civil War he advised President Lincoln, was at the forefront of abolition and worked tirelessly to educate and inform the masses on the evils of racism and slavery. I speak of a son of Talbot county, a former slave who became a great orator, abolitionist and statesman – Mr. Frederick Douglass.

On April 14th 1876 Douglass gave a speech to commemorate the Freedmen’s Monument, the first monument to Abraham Lincoln in Washington D.C. Present among the masses was President Grant, his cabinet, the Supreme Court Justices and members of both houses of Congress. Douglass’s words were not just for those present but for us also, he spoke that they were for the “wise and thoughtful men who shall come after us and study the lesson of our history”. With this speech Douglass showed great moral courage and integrity for he wanted to preserve the truths of the events of that time – “Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places”.

To the great astonishment of all, Douglass reminded everyone, that Lincoln did not initiate Federal military action against the Southern States to end slavery, that for the first several years of the conflict the abolition of slavery was not Lincoln’s objective. Douglass points out that Lincoln was solely focused on preserving the Union and that he would have gladly kept the colored race in perpetual bonds to do such – “He was ready to execute all the supposed constitutional guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave States.” Douglass States that only after Lincoln lost public support for the conflict on the grounds of “union” did he tap into the sentiment of abolition to give the carnage a moral purpose to maintain public support. Frederick Douglass dispels the misunderstanding held by many today, that Lincoln initiated military action against the Southern States to end slavery.

Another important event misunderstood by many is the Emancipation Proclamation by which many believe Lincoln freed the slaves. Unfortunately, this proclamation issued in the third year of the war, was only directed towards the States in secession and did nothing to free the slaves in bondage within the four slave States that remained within the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation however is where Lincoln pivots the purpose of his military action against the States from “Union” to the more morally acceptable cause of abolition.

Many sit here today and judge why a hundred and sixty years ago 84 men took up arms against the Union. Many of these judgements are formed from an over simplified understanding of the events during that time. Let’s take a look at Maryland history in the early 1860’s so that the reader can more fully understand the issues the men of Talbot County pondered in making their decisions.

After Lincoln’s election seven Southern States seceded from the Union – a right they thought they had based upon the Constitution’s silence about secession and the language of our Founding Fathers about the right to self-government. The decision to send Federal forces into those States caused four additional States to secede based upon their belief of State’s sovereignty and that Federal military force against the States was unconstitutional. The Maryland press was buzzing about the unconstitutionality of Lincoln’s actions. The Maryland General Assembly attempts to clarify the conflict by issuing a proclamation that the hostilities are only about reuniting the States. In Baltimore Federal forces fire into protestors killing many civilians. Soon after Lincoln has the members of Maryland’s General Assembly who had differing political views, arrested along with Baltimore’s mayor and its police commissioner – thus ensuring a government friendly to his administration. Lincoln orders Federal troops to occupy Maryland. Major General Tench Tilghman, a Talbot native and grandson of George Washington’s trusted Aid-de-Camp, calls up Talbot’s militia and makes plans to protect Maryland, not from rebel forces but from the Federal Government itself. The 2nd Amendment is suspended, and Federal forces begin seizing guns and munitions held by both the Maryland militias and civilians.

The Maryland press wrote unending articles about the illegality of Lincoln’s actions, the unconstitutionality of his administration, the tyranny and “despotism” of the President and that the end of our Constitutional liberties was at hand. In reply, Lincoln suspended the first amendment, censored the press and arrested any editor that disagreed with his administration. The occupying Federal troops began looking for anyone disloyal to the Federal administration – coming to their homes in the middle of the night to arrest and whisk away those with opposing political views. At one time Fort Mchenry held over 2,500 “political” prisoners. To accomplish the mass arrests Lincoln suspended Marylander’s Constitutional right to Habeas Corpus and ignored the Supreme Court Justice that ruled this action unconstitutional. Judge Carmichael, our Talbot county judge, was pistol whipped and dragged from his bench by Federal troops and imprisoned for attempting to enforce the constitutional protections of his citizens. Federal cannons were placed on Federal Hill in Baltimore and around Annapolis with Lincolns’ order to General Winfield Scott to bombard Maryland Cities if required – an act that would have killed countless innocent men, women and children of all races.

The Federal occupation was by no means a benevolent occupation. Federal forces, mostly from the North, brutalized many Marylanders, confiscating much private property without compensation and physically assaulting the population with numerous beatings, murders and rapes. Union military courts prosecuted over 450 cases of sexual crimes committed by Union soldiers against Maryland women, a number considered grossly under reported given the reluctance of victims to speak about rape. Federal commanders had the authority to execute any civilian suspected of being a spy and execute they did. What elections that did take place was done under the watchful eye of Union troops and only after the Marylander took an oath of allegiance to the current administration.

The occupying forces also showed great prejudice and brutality to people of color. In 1863 on Baltimore’s Pratt street a group of 200 Federal troops indiscriminately attacked a group of free colored people about to start their work day, beating them with brick batts and “pursuing every African American in sight, vandalizing and invading their homes.” Another report tells of a Union soldier bayoneting and elderly gentlemen of color for his act of scolding white children for throwing bricks in his yard. A young boy was shot by a soldier over a dispute on the price of lemonade he was selling – the list of abuses would fill volumes.

In the blink of an eye Marylander’s constitutional liberties created just 87 years prior and designed to protect the people from the abuses of government were eliminated and Marylanders found themselves under military occupation. Unlike you and I today who can look back and see how things turned out, these people did not know the future and believed their freedom and democracy had permanently ceased.

What would you do if something of this magnitude happened today? Substitute President “Lincoln” for President Trump / Biden (your choice) and imagine that they took such actions to “save the country” – suspending the constitution, censoring the press, arresting politicians of the opposite party, only allowing citizens loyal to him to vote? How would you “feel” if government forces kicked in your door in the middle of the night to take your guns, your spouse or your parents? This is what Talbot County citizens experienced in the early 1860’s.

It has become obvious that the rights of citizens of color have not been protected by our government to the standards that the government would like us to believe and which may have been pre-warned by Mr. Douglass over a century ago. That does not mean that a monument to our ancestral veterans, particularly in light of Maryland’s and Talbot County’s history during that conflict, should be removed due to the emotions of the day and without careful deliberation and discussion. To some it is a monument to those who fought to protect slavery. To others it is a tribute to our Talbot County ancestors who took action against the abuses of government. To many others it is a reminder that our Constitutional rights and liberties are not given to us by our government but are secured by the sacrifices of our citizens and ultimately it falls upon our citizens shoulders to protect those liberties.

It is becoming apparent that any decision on the fate of this monument may be too great for our council members to bare. Some are already being accused of prejudice based upon the color of their skin. Our council has come under great pressure from organizations and people outside Talbot County. I believe our council members should not have to endure such indignities or external influences. Ultimately it is up to the citizens of Talbot County to decide whether to keep, remove or modify this monument and they should be given the opportunity to do such in an environment free from accusations and external influences. This can only be accomplished in the private sanctity of the voting booth.

Paul Callahan
Oxford

As a long time resident of St Michaels, and a former Commissioner, I feel compelled to weigh in given the importance of the election for Commissioner.

The Ethics charges filed against Commissioner Boos were false from the very beginning.  There was never a conflict of interest, not on the part of Bill Boos and not on the part of Sydney Trond.

David Breimhurst, John Novak, and Doug Rollow have been the face of SMAC, putting out this false narrative from the start.  Some of my friends and neighbors have been less transparent, yet over time have been willing to tie their name to this unsavory committee.  My dear friend Tad duPont included.  However;  It makes no difference who is on the Committee.  It makes no difference how they spin it.   It makes no difference how many times or how loudly they say it.  It makes no difference how many ads they put in the paper or how many articles they write.    There was never a conflict of interest by Commissioner Bill Boos on any vote.   Mr Breimhurst, the big Philadelphia investigative reporter, and Mr Rollow the big Philadelphia lawyer just got it wrong.

FYI; When the “vote” does not go in your favor it does not constitute a conflict of interest.   Although, one may conclude the misuse of the ethics process in itself may be an ethics violation.

Fact is, under the leadership of Bill Boos, as president of the Commission, the Town spent both time and money to study all the issues and concerns as to the need and location for a new Town hall and a possible new Police station.    In the end, the conclusion was to renovate the current Police station, addressing their concerns.  And with a 5-0 vote, it was decided where and what the new Town hall should be.  In fact the Fremont St. location was the unanimous vote of two Commissions.

The Town undoubtedly needs to reelect Bill Boos for a second term.  I personally want to thank Bill for rerunning.   The Town needs good people like Bill.  During his four years as Commissioner, Bill has been responsible for many positive things both as treasurer and president of the Commission.  His character and professionalism have been beyond reproach during the two years SMAC has spent falsely accusing him and smearing his name.   Bill has continued to perform his role as president of the Commission with integrity and with respect for ALL the residents of St Michaels.

PLEASE VOTE FOR BILL BOOS, July 13.

Ann Borders
Former Commissioner
St Michaels

We are writing to present an example of why we believe Dennis Glackin will continue to be an outstanding, productive and contributing Town Commissioner in St. Michaels and should be elected to a full four-year term on July 13th. 

Dennis Glackin served as the Chair of the St Michaels Planning Commission until a Town Commissioner, Michael Gorman, moved away and left an opening on that Board. The remaining four Town Commissioners invited him to fill in for Mr. Gorman’s term.

At the time, the Planning Commission was in the throes of rewriting and revamping the somewhat outdated zoning code for the Town. This was a huge undertaking that had begun in 2018. Mr. Glackin’s professional experience as an Urban Planner made him perfectly qualified to lead the Planning Commission with this daunting task. On the other hand, Mr. Glackin realized that serving as a Town Commissioner would expand his ability to contribute to the wellbeing of the Town and he accepted the position. But rather than leave the Planning Commission in the lurch, Mr. Glackin while working as a Town Commissioner volunteered to continue supporting and contributing to the Planning Commission with the zoning code rewrite until its near completion in July of 2020.

For this we want to give a huge “THANKS” to Dennis Glackin for hanging in with us throughout all those many work sessions and meetings. This willingness to go the extra mile epitomizes Dennis’ character.

We, as two members of the Planning Commission, who worked with and under Dennis truly believe his knowledge, support and enabling leadership style allowed the Planning Commission to effectively complete the project and in a timely fashion. These attributes continue to serve St. Michaels well.

Thanks Dennis for your extraordinary dedication! We are forever in your debt. 

We ask for to vote for Dennis on July 13th.

Paulette Florio and Carol Parlett
St. Michaels Planning Commissioners

I have been reading with interest the ongoing controversy regarding the Talbot Boys and now the behavior of Laura Price at the Talbot County Council meeting.

I would like to offer the following points and perspective:

1. Maryland did not join the Confederacy, the Confederate flag is not our flag. Those citizens who fought with the rebels to defend slavery might be honored by their families but have no place at the people’s courthouse. Further, to what purpose was the statue commissioned almost 50 years after the war with private money and during the Jim Crow era? The Confederacy lost the war,we must stop revising history and move forward.

2. Can you name a civil war in any other country where monuments to the losing side are honored in the public square? You will not find any honoring South Vietnamese soldiers in Vietnam.

It is a national tragedy that brother fought brother in a bloody war. It seems to me that in our attempt to heal the rift, too many concessions were made to the sensibilities of white southern citizens and contributed to our turning a blind eye to the continued suppression of our black brothers and sisters.

Perhaps Laura Price could open her mind and listen with intent to understand before asking to be understood. We must look beyond our white privilege, open our eyes, our ears and our hearts to our neighbors of color. Yes, changing demographics mean the browning of America. Instead of meeting the inevitable with denial, fear and futilely trying to hold on to the status quo, let us embrace and fulfill the promise of our American constitution: All men are created equal. Let’s make this an Independence Day for all of us.

Donna L. von Lipsey
Easton

Our neighbors and friends in St. Michaels have been asking why we remain concerned about the ethics issue in St. Michaels government. We’re concerned because the Town has an ongoing ethics problem.

We brought a complaint before the town Ethics Commission because we were concerned that Town Commission President Bill Boos’ persistent refusal to have the Town Commissioners even consider the skateboard park as a location for the new town hall might have been influenced by his relationship with the Maritime Museum. The Ethics Commission refused to consider what we had to say and dismissed our complaint after a secret hearing and after delegating the decision to its attorney. This was in violation of our right as citizens to a fair hearing on the facts of the complaint.

We sued the ethics commission – not the town or any commissioner – in Talbot County Circuit Court because we were denied a fair hearing. That Court found that the rules of the Ethics Commission were hopelessly confusing. In the words of the Court: “The Ethics Commission’s Rules not only fail to comply with its statutory mandate, they set up standards that are so confusing that the complainant cannot be reasonably assured of the process that will be used.” The Court also judged that in denying our complaint without a hearing, the Ethics Commission had used “an unlawful procedure.” The court held that, based on the allegations in our ethics complaint, we had a “reasonable basis to proceed.”

The court required the Ethics Commission to hold a proper hearing and it complied. We were disappointed, but not surprised, when the Ethics Commission then held that Mr. Boos did not have an “impermissible” conflict of interest. The Ethics Commission could hardly do otherwise: its Chair, Ms. Sidney Davenport-Trond, has the same sort of conflict we claimed influenced Mr. Boos. His company has an exclusive contract to broker luxury yachts donated to the Maritime Museum. Ms. Davenport-Trond is a “Platinum Partner” preferred catering provider to the Maritime Museum. The Maritime Museum’s interest in acquiring the skateboard park is well known. Ms. Davenport-Trond was given the opportunity to recuse herself and refused. If the Ethics Commission had ruled against Mr. Boos, it would have been indicting its own Chair.

The location of the new town hall was not the issue in the ethics hearing. Recusal in matters in which a public official might have the appearance of a conflict of interest was the issue. The Ethics Commission held that Mr. Boos did not have an “impermissible” conflict of interest. What is a “permissible” conflict of interest? A permissible conflict of interest isn’t permissible at all. There is no such thing as a permissible conflict of interest, and we expect better of our public officials.

John Novak
On behalf of the St. Michaels Action Committee

We write on behalf of the Talbot County Branch of the NAACP and its President, Richard Potter, as well as Trappe resident Ari Rubenstein and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, regarding unlawful censorship at County Council meetings when speakers express concern or criticism about the conduct of elected officials. Specifically at issue is censorship of criticism about Councilmember Price’s remarks at the Council’s June 23 meeting dismissing as false and overly “emotional” deeply-felt community concerns about racial inequities in Talbot County. As explained below, Mrs. Price’s use of authority to silence her critics violates the First Amendment.

At this moment when Black people across America are suffering enormous anguish triggered by events displaying official contempt for their lives and well being, it is critically important for all elected officials to open their minds and listen to the voices of their constituents, particularly on charged issues of race. Regrettably, Councilmember Price’s approach instead displayed both ignorance about the lived reality of many Black people in the community, and an unwillingness to listen and learn about perspectives different from her own. Accordingly, we ask you to publicly address and apologize for these incidents at the next Council meeting, and provide assurances that such abuse of authority will not recur in the future.

We note, and appreciate, that Mr. Pack contacted Mr. Potter on June 24 to privately apologize for any role he played in allowing Mrs. Price to censor Mr. Potter’s speech.

The Facts at Issue

As you know, the agenda for the County Council’s June 23 meeting contained several measures proposed by Council and community members to address race equity concerns, including establishment of a formal “Diversity Statement” for County government, and institution of regular diversity trainings and assessments. The agenda also included a resolution – long sought by the NAACP and other members of the community – concerning removal and possible replacement of the “Talbot Boys” Confederate monument. Indeed, we find the irony rich that Mrs. Price made her remarks denying the reality of racial issues in the County at the very same meeting where the Council was addressing removal from the Courthouse lawn of this controversial statue symbolizing white supremacy and racial oppression to so many.

Among the objectionable statements Mrs. Price made during the June 23 meeting were her contentions that measures addressing diversity were unnecessary, and her outright dismissal of racism saying “we do not have a problem here with this.” (Video, 37:56) “We don’t need to make a huge deal out of this,” she proclaimed, (Video, 38:40) in total disregard for the feelings of Black constituents whose experience living in Talbot County is quite different from hers. To make matters worse, Mrs. Price also contended that anyone who dared to disagree with her – expressly including Council President Pack – was being overly “emotional.” (Video, starting at 49:05) Coming from an elected representative of the Talbot County government, Mrs. Price’s pronouncements outraged many, prompting some speakers to want to respond during the portion of the meeting set aside for public comment. That is exactly what Mr. Rubenstein and Mr. Potter set out to do when it was their turn to speak.

Unfortunately, however, Councilmember Price was not willing to hear it. During the public comment portion of the Council meeting, Mr. Rubenstein, participating in the meeting via telephone, expressed his concern about Mrs. Price’s attempt to pretend away the existence of any race discrimination in the County, calling it “disgusting.” As he said this, Mrs. Price raised her voice, exclaiming: “[T]hat’s inappropriate!” (Video, starting at 3:15:00) President Pack then cut in, asking Mr. Rubenstein to give the Council his comments without any “direct.” Struggling to understand what this instruction might mean, Mr. Rubenstein altered his remarks to drop Councilmember Price’s name from the rest of his comments. He then provided a series of statistics revealing racial disparities in Talbot County government to dispute Mrs. Price’s uninformed contention that there exist no racial inequities in local government.

Video of this meeting, which was conducted partly in person, and partly remotely, is available at this link

The problem got significantly worse when it was Richard Potter’s turn to speak. Mr. Potter, the well-known President of the Talbot County NAACP, called in to the meeting to address the Talbot Boys resolution, as well as Councilmember Price’s false claim that there is no racial divide in Talbot County. As is his nature, Mr. Potter spoke in a respectful and reasonable, albeit impassioned, tone. He commended Councilmember Divillio for his initiative in proposing a resolution for the long-running Talbot Boys dispute, then turned his attention to Councilmember Price’s “appalling” remarks opposing any vote on the diversity statement or training, and claiming no racial issues exist in Talbot County. “This has got to stop!” interrupted Councilwoman Price, in a piercing voice. Mr. Potter continued nevertheless, saying what was clear already to many in the audience: “It’s obvious that she is speaking from her white privilege.” At this, Councilmember Price pushed back her chair, grabbed her purse and snapped “I’m done.” As she rose from her chair, and Mr. Potter went on trying to speak, Councilmember Price rudely spoke over him, demanding “if you don’t stop him, I’m leaving.” Responding to Mrs. Price, the clerk controlling the technology for the meeting said she was trying to “mute” Mr. Potter as quickly as she could, succeeding in this effort to silence Mr. Potter a few seconds later. (Video, starting at 3:17:20)
No rule was cited to justify this action, no legitimate objection made or discussed. Rather, Councilwoman Price decided unilaterally to deny Mr. Potter his opportunity as a citizen of Talbot County to be heard on matters that impact his community. It was, as Mr. Potter said of Mrs. Price’s other conduct, appalling.

The President then abruptly ended the public comment section of the meeting. (Video, at 3:18:15)

The Governing Law

It should go without saying that criticism of public officials lies at the heart of the speech protected by the First Amendment. E.g. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966) (“Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized.”). As the Court put it in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), “we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Id. at 270. And as courts around the country have repeatedly determined, prohibition of critical comments about public officials at meetings of public bodies that are overbroad and/or content or viewpoint based restrictions violate the First Amendment. E.g., Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 811-821 (9th Cir. 2013) (City council’s prohibition on “any personal, impertinent, profane, insolent, or slanderous remarks” violates First Amendment); Bach v. School Bd. of City of Virginia Beach, 139 F. Supp. 2d 738, 743 (E.D. Va. 2001) (school board bylaw that prohibited “personal attacks” during the general public comment period of board meetings was facially unconstitutional); Gault v. City of Battle Creek, 73 F. Supp. 2d 811 (W.D. Mich. 1999) (Granting preliminary injunction against city commision rule barring personal attacks at public comment portion of meeting; comments about police chief’s extramarital affair protected by First Amendment); Leventhal v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 973 F. Supp. 951 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (School board bylaw prohibiting criticism of district employees at board meetings violates First Amendment); Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719, 730 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

(Granting preliminary injunction against school board policy prohibiting comments that include charges or complaints against any district employee).
Here, Councilwoman Price cannot even claim to be enforcing any County rule to justify silencing her critics, as the County has no such rule. There is nothing in the County’s “Meetings Protocols”3 allowing officials to stifle speech that is protected by the First Amendment just because they don’t like it. Rather, members of the public are allotted three minutes in which to speak their minds on relevant topics of their choice, including expressing concern or criticism of public officials. As such, Councilwoman Price’s abuse of authority to silence criticism was unlawful.
***
Never have citizen rights to speak freely and to petition their government for redress of grievances been more vital than they are today, as America faces a historic reckoning about race and racial justice. Talbot County is not exempt from this moment, as the Council has recognized by proposing resolutions and initiatives concerning issues of race, equity and diversity. Members of the community strongly support this; they wish to seize this opportunity to engage with elected officials in courageous conversations aimed at acknowledging and reconciling the evils of the past and their continuing legacy. This requires County Council members not only to speak boldly, but also to listen thoughtfully, especially to viewpoints and opinions that differ from their own. Councilmember Price’s June 23 actions precluded this, and if her interference with citizen speech rights is left unaddressed, it will hinder progress at this pivotal moment.

For these reasons, we ask you to publicly address the Council’s error in censoring citizen speech, and commit to conduct future meetings in accordance with the Constitution. Please contact us, or have your attorney contact us, at 410-357-0996 or 410-736-8669 if you would like to discuss these issues further, and to let us know how you intend to proceed.

Deborah A. Jeon Legal Director
Vikrant S. Chandel Law Clerk
NAACP and ACLU

Talbot County Meeting Protocols:

Kudos to St. Michaels Commissioner Mike Bibb for spearheading the restoration of our Boy Scout Log Cabin on St. Mary’s Square. The town owned building has been the longtime headquarters of Scout Troop 741. According to the Maryland Historic Trust, “The single-story clubhouse is an interesting example of the rustic building techniques developed during the early 20th century.” 

Renovation of the 82-year-old building was a major undertaking, but Commissioner Bibb enthusiastically embraced the challenge, even though the scout cabin had rodent damaged electrical wiring, outdated galvanized plumbing, a lack of adequate foundation support for the beautiful granite fireplace, old shingles, deteriorated siding, and a few irascible resident squirrels/raccoons.  

Last year, the Commissioners of St. Michaels agreed to budget $49,000 for the project. At the time, Commissioner Bibb advised that an additional $80,000-$100,000 would most likely be needed. Then, this civic minded, ‘can-do’ Commissioner set out to find funds and supporters. There was an overwhelming response. Many talented contractors donated their labor. Local companies provided their supplies at cost. Several local financial contributors stepped forward, and a multitude of community volunteers/scouts contributed hours of sweat equity. 

The building is now air conditioned, has a full kitchen, ADA bathroom, internet and TV setups. The exterior improvements include new landscaping – visible as one walks up the handsome, winding brick walkway.  This area also enhances the beauty of the adjoining St. Michaels Historic Museum.  

The Scout House almost didn’t move forward!  On November 12, 2019, Commissioner Bibb, due to unforeseen structural problems, requested an additional $17,500 from the town budget. After a series of questions and discussion, Commissioner Harrod made a motion to approve the request; Commissioner Glackin- seconded. The vote: Joyce Harrod-yes, Mike Bibb- yes, Dennis Glackin-yes, Jaime Windon-yes, Bill Boos-No.

I urge you to listen to the commissioners meeting recording. You can find it under “meetings minutes” on the Town of St. Michaels website. The scout cabin discussion occurs at minute 38:12. 

Then… ask yourself, “Why would a commissioner vote against the completion of the Boy Scout cabin and, in doing so, refuse to support our local youth? REMEMBER, the town owns the scout cabin, which is currently a much needed larger town meeting space—debt free!  Please vote on July 13. We deserve new leadership! 

Sue Ann Raring
St. Michaels

I join the thousands of Talbot County citizens imploring you to remove the Confederate statue from the public land of the County Courthouse without delay.

Let us remember what has happened on this public site, which is supposedly dedicated to adjudicating justice but in reality reflects “an unbroken tradition of white racial ownership of critical public spaces”:*

Human beings were bought and sold to the highest bidder at auction here;

*Frederick Douglass was jailed for a week and daily taunted by white slave traders here with the prospect of being sold to Georgia or Florida – simply for the crime of attempting to escape slavery;

*“The largest incident of mob violence in Talbot County history took place here – the narrowly averted near lynching of Isaiah Fountain on Easter Monday 1919, six years after the erection of the Confederate statue.

On that evening, nearly 2,000 whites assembled outside the courthouse on the first day of his trial with ropes and knives intent on his lynching. Eventually Mr. Fountain was wrongfully convicted and hung on a gallows in the Talbot County jail on July 23, 1920.*

This is the history that must be acknowledged and remembered. This is the history of racial violence and trauma and fear that still reverberates in the generations of African Americans in Talbot County.

I ask each of the Talbot County Council members: Why not remove the Confederate statue to a location on private property? Because the Talbot Boys are veterans? They certainly weren’t fighting for freedom but for denying it to enslaved African Americans. Councilmembers, whose feelings do you hesitate to hurt? Whose political support do you fear losing?

Do you want to be remembered for being the County Council that demonstrates it is anti-racist by its actions? Or would you rather be remembered as the County Council that maintains the racist status quo and is one of the last hold-outs in the United States to remove its monument to the Confederacy?

Grow a spine, do the right thing, lead the way and remove the Confederate statue from the Courthouse lawn.

*from Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-First Century: On the Courthouse Lawn, by Sherrilyn A. Ifill.

Denice Lombard
Tilghman Island

Like everyone else, I suppose, I’ve been reading all the pros and cons for removing the Talbot Boys Statue. In the interest of objectivity, I’m not a Talbot County native, we moved to this beautiful area 12 years ago upon retirement. As many of our friends, we did not even know about the statue, or its location, until a couple of years ago. To say it was a “non-issue” absent the current National chaos would be a gross understatement.

At 79 years of age, I’ve traveled through much of the USA and some of the European world. There are statues and monuments all over the place. As I see them, they are recognition pieces to individuals or events of the era depicted. They say nothing about contemporary, 21st century life, and for the most part, I’m glad of it. But I recognize that in some far off time, in a society none of us today can relate to, someone paid to recognize those people/events depicted. So be it. To me, they are little more than headstones in a cemetery placed to honor loved ones by the family. For those of us living in the 21st century to put words in the mouths of people who died one hundred years ago or more, is not only ludicrous, it’s an inappropriate use of something long gone to propagate a position one favors today. That’s wrong, plain and simple.

As I see it, in the Talbot Boys Statue case, we have two groups trying to use the presence of an old statue to beat the drums of a current situation. One, led by the far left, BLM, progressive coalition/mentality say this statue stands for slavery, racism and injustice to the black population—hence it must go. We have seen a small group of far left clergy supporting the movement, some individuals promoting coalition/groups, demonstrations on justice issues, protests against police brutality, all somehow tied to or implied emanating from the Talbot Boys Statue. Hence, the evil thing must go.

On the other side, we have a largely subdued (so far) conservative coalition of Talbot County citizens, white people mainly, who point to the statue’s historical heritage. It was paid for by private funds, as I understand it, and erected over 100 years ago. I have not delved into why it was placed on County land. I do know some people whose ancestors are named on the monument. From those I have talked to, they see it as a historic monument only, far from any 21st century “mission statement” to anyone. They resent being intimidated by the first group or labeled as racists, and many I know are solid Christian citizens and benefactors of our County and the Town of Easton.

To me, legitimate, peaceful protests over injustice of any type in the USA is not only justified but appropriate under our Constitution. Destruction of our Country and anarchy are not. If removal of the Talbot Boys Statue is deemed part of that protest by those proposing to do so, then I believe honest and truthful questions must be asked about what the protests are about. Is it the horrific killing of George Floyd? If so, why were protests not mounted on the equally horrific killing of Mr. Cassidy, a white man, at the Easton YMCA by a black man with a long criminal record? Do issues of “moral responsibility and behavior” and “ethical Christian living” have any part in the protests? What about the Antifa agenda to destroy the USA and create a socialist state? Is that part of why the Talbot Boys Statue must go in the protesters views? I do not have the answers to those questions but I do believe an honest and truthful effort to find them weighs on whether or not the Talbot Boys Statue is a “Real Issue.”

In fact, many prominent black leaders concerned about inequality and justice have raised similar questions. I would refer all to Mr. Robert Woodson, a renown and recognized Civil Rights leader and the Rev. James David Manning (www.atlah.org). Or, the horrific black on black murder rates devastating some cities, like Chicago last weekend, where a beautiful 3 yr. old black boy was shot to death. As a wise black man in that community said—“where are the 40-50,000 protestors seeking justice for that little boy?” (Maybe they don’t have a statue). In addition, Ian Duncan’s (Baltimore Sun) analysis “Race—The Real Truth” is an enlightening read as a primer for an honest and truthful analysis of the current situation which one might suspect has some part in pushing for removal of the Talbot Boys Statue.

For me, whether the Statue goes or stays doesn’t matter much. Its presence or lack thereof solves nothing. Either way, I don’t think it is an issue for the County Council to decide; the people of Talbot County should decide by their votes. Our little County is a Democratic Republic—the government answers to us, not vice versa. I give Councilman Divilio some credit for his rendering of a new, joint Union/Confederate Statue if the people vote for it, although he needs to acknowledge Rich Merrill as the author/originator of the proposal.

But the most important takeaway to me from all of this is, ‘yes, there is a better way.’ Councilwoman Price has demonstrated it time and again. As she stated; “Decisions must not be made on the emotion of the day—We must take the time to listen to everyone and gather all the facts.” No wonder she garnered the most votes in the last Council election. There are many ways all of us in this beautiful County can address any issue—but grandstanding and shooting from the hip are not among them. Some say “silence is violence;” I say “silence is Christian compassion in action” without looking for a photo op. Thousands perform it daily. Civility, honesty and respect for each other, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background, is where it begins and ends, and no statue anywhere, from anytime, has anything to do with that,

Paul D. Denton
Easton

This letter is to emphasize that the time has come for the Talbot Boys statue and monument to be removed from the courthouse grounds. The Talbot Boys who fought against the Union—of which Maryland was a part—were traitors.  Further, under the U.S. Constitution, a person who makes war against the United States is guilty of treason. 

It is bad enough that our country’s legacy of slavery and discrimination are so difficult to explain and justify to our children.  It is impossible to justify why a monument to traitors occupies a place of honor at our county courthouse. Moreover, I have read that there were many more young men from Talbot County who fought for the Union than those few Talbot Boys who are being so honored.   

Five generations ago, my forefathers were slaves. Over the years, my relatives have fought and died in the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. I proudly served as an Army Captain during the Vietnam War, being honorably discharged in 1970. As a military veteran, it is particularly insulting that a monument was erected for those who fought against my country and who fought to perpetually enslave my race.

Roland J. Atkins, Esq.