<---->
MENU

Sections

More

March 30, 2023

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

Top Story

Will a Last-Minute Proposal Keep Confederate Monument in Talbot County?

by

A D.C. firm with at least one statue removal among its recent projects was the sole bidder for the removal and relocation of the Confederate monument on the Talbot courthouse green.

The county council awarded the contract Nov. 23 to Stratified Inc., which offered a $67,000 bid to remove the controversial monument and relocate it to a Civil War battlefield site in Virginia. However, a majority of the council also provided additional time for another location — preferably in Talbot County or elsewhere in Maryland — to be offered.

If a closer, suitable site is offered — the council had asked for any last-minute proposals to be submitted by Monday, Dec. 6 — the county could then negotiate with Stratified Inc. to amend the contract to reflect the new location. Any proposals that were submitted by Monday will be reviewed by county staff and presented for consideration at the council’s regular meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 14.

“We have some possibilities within the county to relocate the monument,” Councilwoman Laura Price said. “Nobody’s trying to keep it here (on the courthouse green) anymore. But there are people who would like it to stay in the county. And that needs to be given an opportunity.

“So all we’re talking about here is to allow the county manager some flexibility that if a location within the county or even possibly, if it’s not in the county within the state, rather than moving it to Virginia, comes available during the process — because the RFP will take some time a little bit of time — to allow the county manager some flexibility that if a location is appropriate, and council chooses to do that, it just gives some flexibility.

“It does not stop this RFP process. It just allows it to be moved elsewhere in the county rather than to Virginia if that opportunity presents itself in the next month or so,” Price said.

Other council members noted supporters of keeping the monument on the courthouse green or in Talbot County have had ample opportunity to find and propose a suitable location elsewhere in Talbot County.

Councilman Frank Divilio said two proposals came in after the deadline for the RFP and he was disappointed in those offers. (During the Nov. 23 meeting, Price said she was getting text messages that there was another proposal that had not yet been provided to the county council.)

“I feel that it was a bit disingenuous when individuals say that there are locations and people that would take it without giving thought to their neighbors, their homeowners associations,” Divilio said. “I don’t see how extending the deadline will make anyone who has reservations of coming forward as have been expressed, come forward any faster.

“We gave that opportunity. We were approached and told that many individuals who are willing to accept it are afraid to come forward. And to me that doesn’t show the full commitment to the community that they would be willing to do it,” he said.

Council Vice President Pete Lesher expressed similar concerns about a location other than Cross Keys and outlined his criteria for a suitable monument site:

“(T)here are two attributes that I think the Cross Keys location has that that another location would have to provide. One is that it is owned and operated by an organization that is organized for that purpose in perpetuity. In other words, … the land will not be bought and sold…. It is owned by a preservation organization. And there is … no foreseeable prospect that that will change in in any foreseeable timeline. So there’s an element of perpetuity here.

“You know, if this was a private landowner, the land could be sold and then what. So I don’t see, I don’t see a private landowner being a responsive prospect for this destination.

“Second, is that there is an authenticity to this location. A lot of Talbot County boys fought in this location, people who are named on this monument, there’s something that is true about that location. That authenticity of location I think is something that happens (to be) a particular advantage. Now, perhaps there are other places that would meet (that authenticity).

“(A)nd most important is that this location also ensures public access for the indefinite future.”

“If there are other locations, perhaps that are closer, that could fulfill all of those requirements,” Lesher said he would be willing to support such a location. “(B)ut there … are a lot of advantages to the (Cross Keys) location and that is why I’m reticent to support this. I’m willing to explore alternatives. But right now, I’m skeptical that there’s one that will exceed the advantages of the (location) that is on the table.”

The council voted 3-2 to amend the awarding of the bid to include the possibility of another location; then voted 5-0 to award the bid as amended.

That ultimate vote prompted Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack to note that the council had voted unanimously to move the monument.

“This council just voted unanimously to award a bid to move the monument,” Lesher said. “That’s something that I did not expect and I think it is pretty extraordinary.”

Pack said he had not picked up on that point during the confusion over the votes.

“… (T)he statute will be moved. And for the first time — as Mr. Lesher pointed out — a unanimous vote to move the statue. That should be the front page story: That this council had voted unanimously to move the Confederate statue.”

Council President Chuck Callahan seemed to take some umbrage to that point.

“Laura and I voted against moving that statute. So that’s, that’s number one. I want to make sure we understand that.

“Number two, is we tried to create a situation to keep it here. Okay. So that’s the reason we voted the way we did,” Callahan said. “Okay, so you can think what you want.

“But, you know, hey, it’s over, it’s done with. The people that maybe have a place for it they have another couple of weeks to go ahead and, you know, see what that’s all about,” he said. “And all we tried to do is create a situation to try to please everybody and keep it here. That’s all we’re trying to do.”

Lesher, Pack, and Divilio had voted Sept. 14 to relocate the monument to the Cross Keys Battlefield near Harrisonburg, Va., which is part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

Callahan, Price, and Lesher voted Nov. 23 to allow for additional time for proposals for an alternate location.

The costs associated with the monument’s removal and relocation will be paid by a private fund held at the Mid-Shore Community Foundation and there will be no cost to county taxpayers.

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works with partners to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War battlefields, to share its Civil War story with the nation and to encourage tourism and travel to the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War sites.

Sealed bids in response to the RFP were due 10 a.m. Nov. 19 and considered by the council at its Nov. 23 meeting.

Stratified’s proposal calls for the firm to begin the planning process for the statue removal and relocation once the bid is awarded, with removal to begin on Jan. 17 and to be completed by Jan. 21.

As a result of the pending relocation of the monument, a federal lawsuit calling for the statue’s removal has been placed on hold. The case currently is stayed until at least Jan. 21, with attorneys telling a U.S. District Court judge that a new status report will be submitted if “any new developments affect the timing of the proposed work prior to January 21.”

Talbot Seeks Bids for Confederate Monument Removal, Relocation

by

Talbot County has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the removal of the Confederate monument from the courthouse grounds and its relocation to a Civil Wars battlefield in Virginia.

The RFP stems from the Talbot County Council’s 3-2 vote on Sept. 14 authorizing the relocation of the monument to the Cross Keys Battlefield near Harrisonburg, Va., which is part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

The costs associated with the monument’s removal and relocation will be paid by a private fund held at the Mid-Shore Community Foundation and there will be no cost to county taxpayers.

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works with partners to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War battlefields, to share its Civil War story with the nation and to encourage tourism and travel to the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War sites.

Sealed proposals will be accepted until 10 a.m. Friday, Nov. 19, and the council anticipates awarding the bid at its Nov. 23 meeting.

For more information, go to www.talbotcountymd.gov under Topics of Interest/Public Notice/Bid Notice or the e-Maryland Marketplace.

Bid 21-12 Request for Proposals- Removal of Confederate monument
 Bid 21-12, - GENERAL CONDITIONS and Photos of Statue
 Bid 21-12 Bid Forms and Affidavits

Easton Historic District Commission Unanimously OKs Removal of Confederate Monument from Talbot Courthouse Grounds

by

Easton’s historic district commission voted unanimously Monday night to allow the removal of the Confederate monument from the county courthouse square.

The Easton Historic District Commission voted 7-0 in favor of a certificate of appropriateness that will allow Talbot County to remove and relocate the monument.

Commission members noted the town’s historic district guidelines have little guidance on statues, but a national historical preservation organization supports removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces.

The monument outside the entrance to the Talbot County Court House is believed to be the last Confederate monument on public property in Maryland.

Attorney Dan Saunders, representing Talbot County, said a majority of the Talbot County Council had determined it was in the best interest for public health, safety, and welfare to move the monument from the courthouse grounds

“The statue is on county land. It is controversial. It is divisive sadly,” Saunders said. “And it is hurtful to certain citizens of the county. So the county council has made this determination…. They are the elected officials charged with making that kind of public policy decision. And it would not be inappropriate for this body to give some deference to their thought process….”

“Because it’s controversial, it needs to be someplace where people can choose to go see it or choose not to go see it, not in a place where they have to go see it in order to conduct the business that is conducted at the courthouse,” he said.

Three residents spoke against removing the statue.

Lynn Mielke said statues for Talbot County’s Confederate and U.S. troops were erected in 1884 and 1888, respectively, at Culp’s Hill at the Gettysburg battlefield.

After the county’s Civil War veterans visited Gettysburg in 1913 for the 50th anniversary of the battle — and no doubt saw the two statues, Mielke said — efforts began to raise funds for Confederate and Union monuments at the courthouse.

The Confederate monument was funded and built; the Union one was not but a new fundraising effort is underway for such a monument, she said.

A rendering of a proposed monument to Talbot County residents who fought for the United States during the Civil War. The proposal also would include informational plaques about Talbot County’s role in the Civil War.

“108 years later a group, Build the Union Talbot Boys, has investigated, designed, and begun to raise money for a Union Talbot Boys companion monument to complement the Talbot Boys in gray monument, with informational plaques, to make a complete statement on the courthouse lawn about Talbot County’s unique role in the Civil War, (including) the Talbot Boys, the Union Talbot Boys, the USCT (United States Colored Troops), including the Unionville 18, and Frederick Douglass,” Mielke said.

“The Talbot Boys memorial is is not a memorial to traitors,” Mielke said. “And it is not a memorial to non-veterans.”

Clive Ewing noted that the town’s historic district booklet includes two photos of the Confederate monument.

He said the county council’s resolution removing the monument only refers to the statue and argued that language doesn’t include the monument’s base.

David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, said moving the monument 200 miles away “to a battlefield in the Shenandoah Valley” does not help tell the story of Talbot County’s divided loyalties during the Civil War.

Commissioner Grant Mayhew said the historic district commission should look at guidance from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The National Trust issued a statement about Confederate monuments after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests “in support of racial justice and equity.”

In its June 18, 2020, statement, the National Trust said:

“This nationwide call for racial justice and equity has brought renewed attention to the Confederate monuments in many of our communities. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously issued statements about the history and treatment of Confederate monuments, emphasizing that, although some were erected — like other monuments to war dead — for reasons of memorialization, most Confederate monuments were intended to serve as a celebration of Lost Cause mythology and to advance the ideas of white supremacy. Many of them still stand as symbols of those ideologies and sometimes serve as rallying points for bigotry and hate today. To many African Americans, they continue to serve as constant and painful reminders that racism is embedded in American society.

“We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for all. We believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality.

“And their history needs not end with their removal: we support relocation of these monuments to museums or other places where they may be preserved so that their history as elements of Jim Crow and racial injustice can be recognized and interpreted.

“We recognize that not all monuments are the same, and a number of communities have carefully and methodically determined that some monuments should be removed and others retained but contextualized with educational markers or other monuments designed to counter the false narrative and racist ideology that they represent, providing a deeper understanding of their message and their purpose.

“Our view, however, is that unless these monuments can in fact be used to foster recognition of the reality of our painful past and invite reconciliation for the present and the future, they should be removed from our public spaces.”

Talbot Council Rejects Petition Seeking Repeal of Confederate Statue Removal

by

The county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to deny a petition asking the council to change its mind on moving the Confederate monument off the courthouse lawn.

The petition for rescission called on the Talbot County Council to introduce a resolution to rescind its Sept. 14 decision to relocate the monument to a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

Shortly after the petition was read, Councilman Corey Pack made a motion to deny the petition, which was seconded by Councilman Frank Divilio.

Councilwoman Laura Price took issue with the rapid pace of the process.

“I thought we were just having discussion because now the first person to get to make a motion … nobody else has an opportunity to make a motion,” she said. “I thought we were just discussing and asking questions at the moment. But like the game show, we have to press the button fast enough.”

Price and Council President Chuck Callahan reiterated concerns from the Sept. 14 meeting at which a council majority voted to approve the administrative resolution to relocate the monument on the same night it was introduced and without first having a public hearing. Callahan and Price had voted Sept. 14 against relocation; Council Vice President Pete Lesher joined Divilio and Pack in voting for moving the statue.

Council members split along the same lines over the motion to deny the petition.

“I think public process was important, is still important. And I certainly would have liked to have seen this resolution go through a public process, especially with information that has that has come to light,” Price said. “Again, I guess I didn’t hit the buzzer fast enough, because I know the way this motion to deny is going to go down. It’s been motioned, it’s been seconded, it’s going to go the same way as the vote did two weeks ago. And once again, the public is going to get shut out of this process. And I wholeheartedly disagree with that.”

Callahan agreed.

“So it’s kind of a shame that the public didn’t get the opportunity to do this. And it’s not the right way to go, in my opinion,” he said. “And I guess we’re just gonna keep moving forward.”

Pack, as he did Sept. 14, said the county council had opportunities to hold public work sessions on the Confederate monument “(a)nd it was not, it was not, was not done. So I think it’s not fair, it’s not appropriate, to now say that the public has been shut out. So that I just take issue with that characterization.”

But Price argued there was a difference between a public work session and a public hearing on a bill or resolution.

“We’ve heard about the entirety of the subject for the last year and a half when people come,” she said. “And I appreciate them coming and speaking at the end of you know, at the end of our meetings, absolutely. We’ve heard from it. And we know that nobody’s opinion was going to change.

“But when there is a bill or a resolution on the floor, I believe in transparency and a public process to come and have your three minutes to speak to the council in this setting, as opposed to just a work session,” Price said.

The three residents who filed the petition for rescission were among several people who spoke during the public comment period of the Sept. 28 meeting.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing questioned the process and asked at least one council member to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution to rescind the monument’s relocation.

Mielke said a May 28 legal opinion from the county attorney outlined the process, “which is that a council member … can introduce a resolution or ask the attorney to write a resolution consistent with the request of the petitioner, which is what we thought we would get a vote on today, not to be railroaded by an out-of-order motion to not consider the petition.

“It was wrong. It was the wrong process,” she said. “I think it was out of order under Robert’s Rules of Order.

“And I can only think of the saying that democracy dies in darkness. Well the sun’s setting on Talbot County,” Mielke said.

Ewing said he was “exceptionally concerned regarding the lack of transparency to adopt the administrative resolution to relocate the Talbot Boys statue out of state.

“The manner of how this action was accomplished brings into doubt the legitimacy of the process, which is why I and others have petitioned this council to rescind this administrative resolution,” he said. “I’m baffled why the majority of the council continues to disregard the input of and the questions from so many in the community in this matter. I am baffled why there was even a vote tonight on that, when all that was requested was that a single council person instruct the attorney to draft a resolution.

“I’ll humbly submit that that vote was taken out of order. Alright, I’d ask y’all to revisit that. And I think after this meeting, you certainly can direct the attorney to do just that,” Ewing said. “There’s no doubt there’s powerful forces most if not all, from outside the borders of Talbot County that have found their way to influence this council. Of course, local councils like this one, are intended to represent the interests of the actual local citizens, not third parties, not Annapolis, politicians, certainly not the well-connected individuals who have chosen Easton and Talbot County to fulfill their own vision and interpretation of history.

“I thank the members of this council who have acted in good faith and resisted the meddling of those who have targeted this county for their latest political or social cause,” he said. “For the remainder of the council, I certainly hope you will reconsider if it is truly in the best interest of the community at large to send this monument out of state. I submit to you that the vast majority of Talbot countians believe this monument dedicated to Talbot County men must remain in Talbot County.”

Montgomery said the petitioners “will submit the petition again, a new petition for a new number and ask the same thing and hope it’s dealt with properly procedurally, but maybe we could just move forward.

“All it takes is for one county council member in an open session or in writing to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution in form and substance like the petition requested,” he said. “So I would just like to ask one member of the county council to make that request between now and the next meeting.”

Talbot Begins Process for Confederate Monument’s Removal; Easton Panel OK Will Be First Step

by

Following the Sept. 14 vote for its relocation, Talbot County officials are beginning initial steps to remove the Confederate monument from the courthouse green.

The administrative process includes seeking approval from the town’s historic district commission for the monument’s removal and likely will require a bid process for its removal and relocation.

As that process continues, those who have been working to keep the monument at its current location are seeking out possible Talbot County sites for its relocation.

The county currently is preparing an application to Easton’s Historic District Commission, Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher said he was told by staffers.

An application would need to be submitted by Monday for the monument’s removal to make the commission’s Oct. 11 agenda, Lesher said Wednesday in an email. If the application is heard Oct. 11, the commission could take action at its Oct. 25 meeting.

“The HDC application is the appropriate first action ,” Lesher wrote. “No steps have been taken on the physical removal until we get through this initial action.”

Lesher said he wasn’t yet aware of a bid process for the monument’s removal, but said “the county has rules for the disbursement of funds, and I am sure this project falls within them.”

Asked about the possibility an appropriate site for the monument could be located in Talbot County, he said “No one has proposed to me an alternative site.

“It seems that a publicly accessible site that is associated with the Talbot Boys named on the monument — such as the Cross Keys battlefield — would be hard to equal,” Lesher wrote.

“Others searched for over a year to find a site, without success,” he said. “I give (Councilman Frank) Divilio great credit for finding and securing such a suitable and appropriate site.”

Since the Sept. 14 vote, David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, has said several Talbot County sites have been offered for the statue’s new location.

In a Wednesday afternoon email, Montgomery said the group has not had any “formal discussions with Council members about possible sites.

“We are still doing our homework and hope to have something solid to discuss soon,” he wrote.

Montgomery added that several site characteristics have been discussed. Those are:

• Physical feasibility, that the site be accessible to moving equipment and provide a stable base.

• Public access, now or in the future, so that the educational purpose can continue.

• Security, so that random or political vandalism can be discouraged.

Divilio, who previously had joined a 3-2 council majority in voting against the monument’s removal, introduced an administrative resolution during the Sept. 14 council meeting to move it to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va., “a private park, under the custody, care, and control of Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation….”

The resolution requires the monument’s removal and relocation to be paid by private funds.

Although the foundation had agreed to take the monument, its executive director sent a letter shortly before the Sept. 14 meeting noting the foundation’s monuments policy supports keeping a monument at its original location, with relocation within the county the next best option.

However, the letter also reiterated the foundation’s willingness to accept the monument and become its permanent steward “if and when it is evident that the monument will not and can not remain safely” in Talbot County.

Divilio was joined by Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack in voting Sept. 14 for the resolution. Pack had sought the monument’s removal from the courthouse grounds last year, but his measure was only supported by Lesher.

As a result of the Sept. 14 vote, the federal lawsuit seeking the monument’s removal from the courthouse green is on hold.

After years of debate, protests, letters, emails, public comment, several votes against removal, and the lawsuit, a majority of the Talbot County Council voted Sept. 14 to relocate the monument to a battlefield site in Virginia.

Three days later, a federal judge granted a motion for a limited stay, putting the case on hold for 30 days and requiring a joint status report by the end of that period.

An attorney for Talbot County sought the stay in a Sept. 16 consent motion, noting “Removal of the statue is the central issue in this litigation.

“Because the statue is a historic structure within the meaning of local preservation laws, some additional administrative steps are required before removal is effected, including a public hearing before the local commission charged with certifying that removal is appropriate under the related local regulations,” Kevin Karpinski, the county’s attorney in the case, wrote in the motion.

Karpinski said the attorneys for the organizations and individuals who had filed the lawsuit had “graciously consented to this request for a stay.

“The County respectfully submits a temporary stay is in order to: 1) permit the parties to determine whether a compromised solution is a possibility in light of this recent development and pending developments in the administrative process; and, 2) to avoid unnecessary consumption of the Court resources,” he wrote.

 

 

Council Votes to Move Talbot Boys, But Fight May Not Be Over

by

Although the county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to move the Confederate statue on the courthouse grounds to a Civil War national historic district near Harrisonburg, Va., advocates for keeping the monument at its current location, or at least in Talbot County, say the fight is not over.

During public comments near the end of Tuesday night’s meeting, Preserve Talbot History’s president said the foundation that leads the preservation efforts at the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District said in a Tuesday afternoon letter that it would only accept Talbot’s monument “if it will not and cannot stay safely here.

“They’re not welcoming this statue as something ‘Oh, this is fantastic, we always wanted to have the Talbot boys statue in the corner here,'” David Montgomery said. “They’re taking it because they’ve been assured that we’re going to tear it down, melt it, or put it in a warehouse. Those are their conditions. That should have been made clear to the council when this proposal was set up to vote….”

The Sept. 14 letter from the executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation says the foundation’s position is that monuments should remain in their original location whenever possible and that an attempt should be made to relocate the monument in Talbot County if it is removed from its current location. If the monument must be moved out of the county, the foundation said it remained “committed to its offer to become its permanent steward….”

According to the email headers The Spy has viewed, the letter was emailed at 3:49 p.m. Tuesday and sent to all five county council members. The Spy does not know when it was actually received by the council members, whose meeting Tuesday night began at 6 p.m. with the discussion of the administrative resolutions concerning the Confederate monument beginning at about 6:37 p.m.

The full text of the foundation’s letter is below:

Talbot Boys Monument

 

The letter refers to the foundation’s monument policy, which is posted on its website:

SVBFMonumentPolicy

 

Montgomery also challenged the process by which the relocation vote had occurred.

“(T)his was done in such a surreptitious manner, that won’t be forgotten,” he said. “A policy decision like this should not be made through a procedural maneuver that eliminates not only public comment, (but also) the time for this council to review thoroughly, to know what the battlefield … looks like, to know what the arrangements are for moving it, to know how that can be done safely, even to know whether the base is going to go along with it or not. All that’s missing…. No matter what the legal cover… this was a fundamental policy decision.”

Montgomery said sincere efforts should be made “…to find a place in Talbot County for this memorial … if this council is determined to take it out of its current place.

“I hope the move the monument will support that objective. They’ve said all along that all they want to do is move the monument and find another place in Talbot County for it,” he said.

Lynn Mielke, who has supported keeping the monument at its current location, said she has been involved in the issue since 2015.

“And I would suggest that it’s not over yet,” she said.

Mielke said her main reason to speak Tuesday night, however, was to share “… an observation that I’ve made over those years, as well as tonight. That observation is of the residents of Talbot County. And how no one’s come and torn down the monument. No one has defaced it or put paint on it. It’s been courteous and … the protests for its removal is very consistent with what the founding fathers had saw in terms of peaceful protest and sharing opinions.

“Tonight, for instance, there were the Move the Monument people and there were the Preserve Talbot County history people (outside the courthouse). And everyone was courteous to everyone else…,” she said. “The Move the Monument people were handing out snacks to everyone. And I guess it sort of reminded me of, if you read the history of Culp’s Hill, the Battle of Culps Hill, where we had Talbot Countians both on the Confederate side and on the Union side fighting each other. But when the battle was over, they helped each other.

“The battle here is not quite over but I would hope that until it is, and even when it is, that each side will respect the other and show them that grace that I observed tonight and I have observed over the last few years,” Mielke said.

The Confederate monument on the Talbot County courthouse grounds. Photo by John Griep.

Others had harsher words for Frank Divilio, Pete Lesher, and Corey Pack, the three councilmen who voted for the resolution to relocate the statue.

Michelle Ewing called Divilio “duplicitous” and said “… thanks to you and Corey (Pack) and Pete (Lesher) our county will forever be divided.”

Clive Ewing agreed.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in how the council went about advancing the Talbot Boys resolution to a vote tonight,” he said. “Transparent government is the best government and you have left a lot to be desired.

“This action does nothing to advance understanding and unity in this county,” Ewing said.

Shari Wilcoxon said “… this is a very sad day for Talbot County to be swept up in the same horrific Marxist idealism that’s going on throughout our country…. It’s really a frightening step, it’s frightening what’s going on in our country, and it’s a sad day that’s going on here in Talbot County….”

Speakers who supported efforts to move the statue from the courthouse grounds said it took courage to make that decision.

“I saw an awful lot of courage here tonight, tremendous courage, because it takes a great deal of courage to have a change of heart,” Keith Watts said.

“You talked about respect, and being respectful. And I think it’s so important for the community, whatever the outcome was tonight, to continue to respect each other. Because we all live together,” he said. “There are certainly individual acts of courage on each and every single person’s part that’s here tonight, both in the audience and on that dais…. I think that you can take some solace in the fact that you did what you felt was in your hearts.

“Whether I agree with that, or not, it doesn’t matter so much as to continue to look at each other, listen to each other, and respect each other because we all live together,” Watts said. “And I think we all, in our own ways, have Talbot County’s best interests at heart. Always…. So thank you for your candor. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for bringing us to this point. And thank you for leading us from here because now it’s the way forward.”

Richard Potter, president of the Talbot County NAACP, thanked Divilio.

“Thank you for your courage tonight. I appreciate that. I appreciate you and your diligence in trying to find a peaceful solution to this issue,” he said. “I know tonight was difficult. And I’m pretty sure the days ahead will be difficult. But that’s leadership.

“One of the quotes that I leave this council with is one from Winston Churchill: ‘Mountaintops inspire leaders, but valleys mature them.'”

The NAACP and others had filed a federal lawsuit to require the county to move the Confederate monument from its position on the lawn just outside the Talbot County Court House.

Divilio said he submitted the resolution to relocate the statue to the Cross Keys battlefield to put an end to the divisive debate and to ensure the monument is preserved.

“If the Talbot boys make this move, they will help tell the story of the Civil War and how communities and families were divided, unfortunately, much as we are today,” he said. “Cross Keys battlefield is an appropriate new home for the Talbot boys where the monument will be cared for with respect, and be part of the teaching history for generations to come.

“Throughout this process, it has been very important to me that the Talbot Boys be treated with respect,” Divilio said. “And if the decision was made to move it, there needed to be a new location identified that would be able to keep it and maintain it for the long term. Unfortunately, no such option existed locally and I feared the situation would evolve much like it has in other parts of this country and the courthouse grounds would be vandalized and the Talbot Boys would be destroyed.

He said the simple answer to questions about why the statue is being moved out of the county is that “no one wanted it. No one wanted to subject themselves, their business, their organization, or their government to the backlash from agreeing to accept the Talbot Boys on their property.

“The Talbot Boys issue has divided our community for too long and has sidelined many other important things the county council and county government needs to address,” Divilio said. “I believe that moving the Talbot Boys to a historically appropriate place of respect, and allowing our community to move forward is the best for Talbot County. It is time to bring this resolution to a close so we can shift our focus to rebuilding our relationships and coming together to build a 21st century Talbot County.”

Council Vice President Pete Lesher commended Divilio, who has previously voted to leave the monument at its current location, for his “diligence in identifying and securing an honorable and appropriate destination for the statute.

“For generations, the voices of Talbot County’s African-Americans were unheard and ignored too often,” Lesher said. “Now that they have allies across racial, ethnic and economic divides, we are beginning to hear them and give them new respect. It is clear that the presence of this statute on the courthouse square would continue to rankle. Tonight’s move is simply overdue.

“The monument is a misrepresentation of history, suggesting an inflated number of Talbot County residents fought against Maryland and against the United States in America’s new birth of freedom,” he said. “In fact, Talbot County voted overwhelmingly for pro-Union candidates to a potential secession convention that never met. This monument is simply not good history.

“And this statue shows a young Confederate soldier, not in surrender, but going off to war in his fresh uniform to fight a lost cause,” Lesher said. “In this Excelsior portrayal from Longfellow’s poem, he is ennobled, heroically prepared to give his life to preserve a way of life that was economically sustained through enslaved black labor.

Councilman Corey Pack agreed and noted the primary goal of the Confederacy was to maintain slavery.

“(W)e may not know individually why those men went to fight, perhaps because their friend down the street was going off to fight, perhaps because they were bored, perhaps because they truly believed in what the Confederacy stood far, we don’t know. But what we do know is the overarching umbrella that the Confederacy stood for,” he said. “And that was most notably the enslavement of black people. And no matter how you cut it, had the Confederacy won, that would have continued on. Written within the documents of their articles of confederacy is for the continuation of slavery….

“So we know what the Confederacy stood for. And these statues that came about at the turn of the 20th century was basically to glamorize that lost cause movement of the Confederacy, that although they fought and lost, they fought for a noble cause.

“I believe this is the right thing for Talbot County, I really do, I really do,” Pack said. “I believe that this is not erasing history, it’s just relocating a statue to another location where it can live out its days and if persons want to go travel and see it at that location, they’re free to do so. But to have the statute out front, that glamorizes a time and a period with not everybody who’s free, to have a statue out front, which still has the the draped flag of the Confederacy, to have that CSA on the buckle of that young man. And knowing what that stood for is not appropriate for this date and time.”

Councilwoman Laura Price had a competing resolution drafted calling for a Union statue and the names of Union soldiers to be added to the existing Confederate monument. But she said Tuesday night that she would not be offering that administrative resolution because she felt the public should be allowed to comment at a public hearing.

“Moving it out of the county is one thing, moving it out of the state is quite another,” she said. “And as I stated, the reason that I’m delaying my resolution is because it does deserve public feedback. And there are some people out there who maybe are supportive of moving the monument, but don’t support moving it to Virginia.

“I would ask you to have a proper public hearing and let people talk about (it). You’re the only one who looked and you alone are deciding to move to Virginia,” Price said. “And I think there’s a lot of people who would be supportive of moving the monument that don’t want it to go to Virginia. So I do have a problem with that….

“I’d much rather have compromise and try to … figure out if we can do another solution. But if this is going to be the solution that passes here, the people, all of the people deserve a proper public hearing…,” she said. “I believe that this is wrong. And it’s not anything to do with my opinion, whether it should stay as is, become a unity, or go, has nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with process.”

Council President Chuck Callahan noted Divilio had had a change of heart on the issue but “I can tell you I’m not there.

“I feel it’s a mistake. I think it’s a mistake, moving it from here,” he said. “I’ve always been very open minded. And I’ve told everybody I’ve been open-minded through the years, you know, could we find a place, could we find a place? I’ve always really been open minded to listen to everybody….

“You know, if we were going to move it, I would love to have the opportunity for the public to have input on where we’re going to put it,” Callahan said. “I really do, I think it’s important…. So I really feel like … if we were to make that decision that this is gonna move, it would have been really great if the public had the opinion on where it was going to be moved at.”

Pack took some issue with Callahan’s remarks about giving the public an opportunity to speak.

“I just want to say for clarification, you know, we’ve had opportunities to engage the public….,” Pack said, referring to requests from the Talbot NAACP and religious leaders to meet with the council to discuss the issue. “We’ve had opportunities to engage the public. We’ve turned down invitations to engage the public.

“Our attorneys from Baltimore City, high-powered attorneys that come consult this council, (said we should) engage the public, and we chose not to,” he said. “So you can’t say to this man now you’re (not) going about (it) the right way because you didn’t include the public. We had opportunities to do so. And the majority chose not to. That’s not fair to now say to him, he hasn’t engaged in the public. When you had opportunity to do it, we did not.

“That’s your opinion,” Callahan replied.

“That’s a fact,” Pack said.

It was unclear whether the approved resolution only provides for the relocation of the statue of the young Confederate soldier atop the base or to the entirety of the monument including statue and base. The resolution as drafted and approved Tuesday night solely refers to the Talbot boys “statue,” and never mentions the word “monument,” but council members spoke about the “monument” when discussing the resolution. The dedication “To the Talbot Boys” appears on the base.

In a Wednesday afternoon email, Divilio indicated his intention with the resolution was to relocate “all of it.”

The draft administrative resolution may be read in its entirety below.

DRAFT_Administrative_Resolution_-_Relocation_of_Talbot_Boys_Statue_-_September_2021

 

Key moments from Tuesday night’s discussion may be seen in the below video, which is about eight minutes long. A full video of the county council meeting may be viewed and/or downloaded at https://talbotcountymd.gov/About-Us/County_Council/council-meeting-video.

Breaking News: Talbot County Council Votes 3-2 to Move the Talbot Boys

by

The county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to move the Confederate statue on the courthouse lawn to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va.

Cross Keys is a private park under the custody, care, and control of Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

Councilman Frank Divilio had the administrative resolution prepared for introduction and vote at the council’s regular meeting.

Divilio was joined by Council Vice President Pete Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack in voting to relocate the statue. Council President Chuck Callahan and Councilwoman Laura Price voted against the move.

Divilio said he had tried to find a local site, but no one wanted the controversial monument.

Price, who had had an administrative resolution prepared to provide for a unity monument that would add a Union soldier statue and the names of Talbot’s Union soldiers to the base, said she thought the issue deserved a public hearing and planned to introduce a numbered resolution at a later date instead.

Price and Callahan urged Divilio to delay a vote on his resolution so a public hearing could be held. But Pack noted a council majority had denied several requests from community groups for meetings to discuss the statue.

The draft administrative resolution to relocate the statue is below.

DRAFT_Administrative_Resolution_-_Relocation_of_Talbot_Boys_Statue_-_September_2021

The 3-2 vote garnered applause from the audience, which consisted almost entirely of those who supported moving the monument, and cheers from the larger crowd gathered outside. Audience seating in the county council chambers is limited to about 30 people, available on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Analysis: Could a Md. Judge Simply Order Talbot to Remove its Confederate Monument?

by

A Wednesday editorial in The Sun of Baltimore raises an interesting question: Would any Maryland judge be willing to issue an order requiring Talbot County to either move its Confederate monument from the courthouse lawn or move the court itself to another location?

The Aug. 11, 2021, editorial notes an order issued last month by a Roanoke County, Va., judge that a Confederate monument on county property near the courthouse must be removed during court operations or the court must be moved.

In his July 8, 2021, order, Judge Charles N. Dorsey said the court is charged with the administration of justice and “… the continued presence of the confederate monument, in its present location on Roanoke County property, and with its present content, obstructs the proper administration of justice in the Roanoke County Courthouse ….

“Consequently, either the Court must be removed to an appropriate location or the monument must be removed during the operation of Court …,” the judge ordered. He deferred any other formal action until Jan. 2, 2022, to give the county’s board of supervisors to take appropriate action on its own.

The Roanoke monument is located on the old courthouse lawn in Salem, Va., in front of a building owned by Roanoke College, but on a small parcel of land owned by the county, according to a letter Judge Dorsey sent to the county’s board of supervisors. The college wants the statue removed, has offered to pay for removal, and is willing to help research the site, the statue, and the “historical context regarding enslaved persons” in the process of developing any replacement monument.

The larger question unaddressed by the editorial is whether a Maryland judge would have the legal authority to do something similar.

An argument could be made that Talbot County’s circuit court judge could issue such an order. Judges are responsible for the administration of justice and the presence of a Confederate monument, which many view as honoring white supremacy, just outside the entrance to the circuit courthouse could be considered as damaging the proper administration of justice.

Criminal defendants and civil litigants who are African-American could make an argument that the statue’s location suggests that the Talbot County Circuit Court does not adhere to the notion of equal justice under the law. If every case involving an African-American defendant or litigant results in an argument or an appeal or a request to move the trial elsewhere, the court system would be overwhelmed by those appeals, motions, and cases moved to another venue. That would damage the proper administration of justice.

Another answer may lie in the Maryland Constitution, which states: “All Judges shall, by virtue of their offices, be Conservators of the Peace throughout the State ….”

Conservators of the peace in England were those individuals who were responsible for maintaining the king’s or queen’s peace. In America, after the Revolutionary War, the English common-law concept of the royal peace was adapted to refer to maintaining public order. However, that common law offense has been replaced in the U.S. with criminal statutes against disturbing the peace.

Furthermore, the state’s highest court has ruled that the constitutional provision gives any individual judge statewide jurisdiction for certain legal actions. The case law, however, seems to sole focus on habeas corpus, which wouldn’t be pertinent for the removal of a statue. (Habeas corpus cases are those in which a judge is asked to order a prison official to bring a person before the court to determine if that person is being unlawfully detained. In such cases, for example, an Allegany County judge could order the Worcester County warden to bring an inmate in front of the Allegany County judge for that judge to rule on whether the person was being unlawfully detained.)

Circuit court judges also may consider a petition for a writ of mandamus or a show cause order requiring a governmental official to perform a lawful duty, halt an unlawful activity, or appear before the court to show cause why the official should not have to comply.

“Writs of mandamus … are deemed necessary when the actions or inaction of government bodies or corporate officials are so inappropriate or egregious that immediate, emergency action must be taken by the legal system,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

A circuit court judge conceivably could rule that the inaction of the Talbot County Council concerning the monument’s removal is so egregious due to its effect on the proper administration of justice that the court must take immediate, emergency action to order its removal.

Certainly, any action by a Maryland judge ordering the statue’s removal would likely lead to an appeal and continued legal wrangling.

In the meantime, those who support the statue’s removal continue to press the county council to take action on its own. Numerous people spoke during Tuesday night’s council meeting asking the council to move the monument.

Judge Dorsey’s order, and accompanying exhibits, may be read below:

VaJudgeCSAMonumentRemoval

Report: Harris Among GOP Congressmen to Vote Against Removing Taney Bust, Confederate Statues from Capitol

by

According to a States Newsroom report:

“The U.S. House voted Tuesday to remove from the Capitol a bust of the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Marylander who wrote the despised Dred Scott decision—as well as evict statues and busts of men who fought for the Confederacy or served in its government.

“The legislation passed on a vote of 285-120, with all the nay votes from Republicans and 67 of them voting with Democrats. It would replace the marble bust of Taney, which is displayed outside the old Supreme Court chamber on the first floor of the Capitol, with one of the late Thurgood Marshall, a fellow Marylander who was the first Black member of the Supreme Court.

“Maryland Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R) voted against the measure; the rest of the state’s delegation supported passage of the bill, which was sponsored by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, who represents Maryland’s 5th Congressional District.

“Taney wrote the majority opinion in 1857 in Dred Scott, a case initiated in Missouri. The ruling, which provoked intense opposition in the North, said that people of African descent were not citizens and had no right to bring suit in federal court — effectively upholding slavery.

“A similar bill passed the Democratic-controlled House last year on a bipartisan vote of 305-113, with 72 Republicans joining Democrats in support. But it did not advance in the Republican-controlled Senate, where Democrats now hold a slim majority.”

Hogan: Trump Should Be Removed From Office

by

Maryland’s Republican governor said Thursday there was “no question that America would be better off if the president would resign or be removed from office.”

Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. made the remarks at a State House press conference in which he decried the mob siege of the U.S. Capitol building a day earlier as a “heinous and violent assault.”

Hogan said he was not sure what should happen logistically but that Donald Trump had proven himself unfit to remain in office and that Vice President Mike Pence should oversee an orderly transition of power.

“Over the last two months, the sacred tradition [of a peaceful transition of power] has come under attack from our own president,” Hogan said. “…Who has chosen to fan the flames of hate and mislead millions of voters through lies, and conspiracy theories, rather than face the reality of his own defeat.”

Hogan said that Trump had also abandoned his oath of office and fomented chaos.

“What we saw in the nation’s capital was not just an attack on the people’s representatives, our historic buildings, and our law enforcement. It was an attack on the rule of law,” Hogan said. “The foundations of self government and who we are as Americans. The mob may have shattered glass. But they did not, and they will not, shatter our democracy.”

Lt. Gov. Boyd K. Rutherford (R) tweeted earlier in the day that Trump should resign from office.

Hogan also detailed on Thursday the state’s attempts to deploy National Guard members in Washington, D.C., which was delayed by a lack of authorization from federal authorities.

Hogan said he was in a video conference with the Japanese ambassador to the United States when his chief of staff came in to inform him that the U.S. Capitol was under attack. Hogan said he immediately called a meeting of his Unified Command Team, which includes Maryland’s top law enforcement, military and emergency response officials.

During that meeting, Hogan said he got a call from a panicked U.S. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who said the U.S. Capitol Police was overwhelmed, that there was no federal law enforcement presence, and that the leaders of Congress were pleading with him for assistance.

“However, we were repeatedly denied approval to do so,” Hogan said at the State House press conference, flanked by Rutherford, Adjutant General of the Maryland National Guard Major General Timothy Gowen, and Colonel Jerry Jones, superintendent of the Maryland State Police.

Under federal law, Maryland must receive approval from the U.S. Secretary of Defense before guard members can be sent over the border to respond to incidents in the District of Columbia.

“General Gowen was repeatedly being told by the National Guard at the national level that we did not have authorization,” Hogan said, detailing calls coming and going from his administration to D.C.

In the end, “none of us really spoke to the Secretary of Defense,” Hogan said, and it was the Secretary of the Army who called his cell phone and requested immediate assistance.

It took about 90 minutes before the state got that authority to move into the city, Hogan said.

“The initial contingent of Maryland National Guard members were the first to arrive in Washington from out of state,” Hogan said.

The governor announced Thursday that the Maryland National Guard’s mission in D.C. ― to protect and secure federal buildings ― will continue through Inauguration Day, which is Jan. 20, and the end of the month. About 500 state guard members remain in the city.

“I just want to assure all Americans that the state of Maryland will do anything and everything we possibly can to continue to secure the core of our nation’s capital,” Hogan said.

In light of political extremism, Hogan said security was also being increased around the Maryland State House complex as a precaution.

Hogan did not vote for Trump in either of the last two elections, and faced criticism in 2020 after casting a write-in vote for the deceased former President Ronald Reagan.

By Danielle E. Gaines