Baltimore Stops making excuses and has removed its Confederate statues.

Baltimore has removed it statues. Suddenly, after the death of Heather Heyer there are no more excuses and the monuments disappeared in a couple days in the middle of the night. Where previously there was a lack of money, suddenly there seems to be money.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-baltimore-improved-image-20170818-story.html

As you know I said all the talk about the lack of money was an excuse and the plan to give the monuments away was a delaying tactic. This is a previous post. Though the prior mayor was in particular full of nonsense and did the so-called contextualization, the current mayor wasn't in a hurry either regardless what the Baltimore Sun might say in the above article.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/05/baltimore-next-to-remove-confederate.html#.WZq7iCiGOiM

What this shows is that a lot of excuses are given but where there is a will there is a way. Someone had to die before Baltimore would do the right thing. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has a place in history that perhaps she will not appreciate.

Also, when it could have made a real difference Baltimore failed. It would have been great to have Baltimore start taking down Confederate monuments, it would have keep the pace of Confederate monument removal moving along. It would have made nearby Confederate monuments less tenable. It also would have applied pressure on Richmond to get the monuments taken down.

As it was Baltimore did it after some cities and when a lot of cities have decided to take monuments down. I think people in Baltimore should ask who really runs Baltimore.

This was a contextualization plaque that was put up in Baltimore. I was in Baltimore and took photos.

I think it shows how pathetic Baltimore is. The plaque is the little white dot on the left side.

St. Louis Confederate monument going down by Friday

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/confederate-monument-will-be-gone-from-forest-park-by-friday/article_f5ffd027-64fe-5483-8f71-871c517b4f9f.html

Evidently some city leaders regard Confederate monuments as something that needs to be taken care of immediately.

In the above link the removal of the Confederate monument in St. Louis is announced and it is stated that the monument will be out by Friday.

St. Louis city government gave it to a Civil War Museum in Missouri and they settled the lawsuit over the ownership of the monument.

One of the stipulations is that it won't be shown in St. Louis. On private land outside of St. Louis the monument loses most of its power.

So this makes for St. Louis, New Orleans, and Orlando getting rid of their Confederate monuments.

So Baltimore is going to be at least 4th.

Now, Now Memphians, Kevin Levin wouldn't approve of this

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/35706804/memphians-plan-meeting-for-confederate-statue-removal

Activists in Memphis state, "If you don't take those statues down then we will."

Oh my goodness, loud voices, what would Kevin Levin think! This blog posting gives a good idea of what he would think.

http://cwmemory.com/2015/12/14/new-orleans-should-look-to-richmond/

In this blog posting Levin lectures New Orleans:

"The city of New Orleans is offering the rest of the country a lesson on how not to deal with Confederate iconography in public spaces."

The blog posting link is to an article where there was "name calling, shouts, and acrimony." Oh heavens, bring me my smelling salts!

Levin thinks New Orleans should follow the example of Richmond in the above post. I might point out that New Orleans is Confederate monument free whereas Richmond is infested with them.

Now in Memphis they are being loud and there might be, dare I say it, name calling and shouts. Oh my!

I am kidding, I think shouting really helps get the leadership focused on doing something, otherwise you end up being another Baltimore.

I have completed a 10,000 word essay on Kevin Levin. He really has quite a track record. I have first started sharing it with all the people to whom he has directed personal attacks. That is keeping me somewhat busy.

I recommend this article. It is in the Grio and is by David A. Love.

http://thegrio.com/2017/05/26/hundreds-of-confederate-statues-still-standing/

Another article on the Memphis effort. I have contacted the group on Facebook.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/local/the-901/2017/06/21/9-01-memphians-gather-launch-movement-against-confederate-monuments/415369001/

Another Confederate monument coming down! Orlando, Florida prepares to take down Confederate monument

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-lake-eola-confederate-statue-move-begins-20170615-story.html

Mayor Buddy Dyer is going to have the statue removed from Lake Eola Park to Greenwood Cemetery.

This will make Baltimore, if they every get their Confederate monuments removed, at least 4th major city to remove their Confederate monuments after New Orleans, St. Louis, and Orlando.

Baltimore next to remove Confederate monuments? UPDATE1 Looks like St. Louis is next

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-pugh-to-explore-removing-confederate-monuments-in-baltimore-20170527-story.html

From the above link.

Former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wasn't at a loss to find reasons to stall and not get Confederate monuments removed.

The commission appointed by Rawlings-Blake decided to remove only 3 of the 5 Confederate monuments in Baltimore coming up with excuses to keep two.

However, there wasn't really a plan to move the monuments and they sat in place. Rawlings-Blake had signs put up by the monuments to contextualize them.

The Baltimore Sun has been critical of the city administration. In this article about Baltimore comparing it to New Orleans. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-statues-20170524-story.html the editors wrote:

In January of last year, a seven-member mayoral commission recommended the removal of two of four Confederate era monuments from Baltimore's public parks. Sixteen months later, the offending statues haven't budged. While some "interpretive" signage has been added, they remain where they are and what they are — symbols of racism, fond tributes to the "Lost Cause" cult.

Last week in a city about as deep in the Deep South as possible and where there is far greater affection for the Confederacy than in Baltimore, workers removed that last of four monuments deemed just as offensive. ...

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu didn't shirk his responsibility. He didn't drag his feet or choose to let the next administration deal with the controversy. He wasn't swayed by arguments that these monuments had some transcendent artistic or historic merit that made them off-limits. Instead, he gave a speech in which he clearly and convincingly explained why removing these monuments was not a denial of a benign history but an avowal of the terrorism and white supremacy they represented and that was no longer to be tolerated.

Clearly this is a slam at former Mayor Rawlings-Blake. Also it asks questions why New Orleans removed their monuments before Baltimore. I think the reason is that there is behind the scenes politically influential groups that back the monuments and who the political leadership of Baltimore feel they must answer to.

However, it seems that the new Mayor Catherine Pugh isn't in a hurry to get ride of the Confederate monument. One of her suggestions is to auction off the monuments to pay for the cost of removal. Not really a plan to do anything at all. Not a lot of demand for Confederate monuments now days, certainly not enough to pay for a monument removal.

The cost of the monument removal is being brought up by Mayor Pugh. She estimates that each monument removal will cost $200,000 and with a city budget of $2.8 billion that money to remove these monuments somehow can't be found.

As the old cliche' goes, "Where there is a will there is a way."

I think that if the monuments aren't removed soon it will become clear who really runs Baltimore and who the political leadership of Baltimore feels they must answer to. As the Confederate monuments remain it will reveal what the political leadership of Baltimore is made of.

Of course there could be a development where political groups outside the establishment will seize on this issue to discredit the establishment in which case the monuments will be removed and Mayor Pugh will make many fine speeches about it.

I don't think the monuments in Baltimore are going anywhere soon. Hopefully I am wrong.

It will likely be some other city elsewhere which will be next to remove their Confederate monuments.

UPDATE1:

Looks like St. Louis is next. I am numbering these posts since my expectation is that there will be several cities getting rid of their Confederate monuments while Baltimore's leadership is stumbling around.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/06/looks-like-st-louis-is-going-to-follow.html#.WTkfLGgrKiM

Protest against Confederate ceremony in Baltimore

The Baltimore Sun had this article recently. A protest against the holding a Confederate event near Martin Luther King's birthday.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-confederates-quakers-20150117-story.html

Of course I don't think a ceremony honoring the Confederacy or Confederate leaders is good whether it is near Martin Luther King's birthday or not.

This is another report on the protest.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13020

I hope to help them out.

Speaking to two more groups

I am scheduled to give a presentation on neo-Confederates at a local university in March some time and there is a group in Baltimore which is interested in having me speak and so I am going to meet with the leadership and give them the presentation and show them some neo-Confederate publications. Some issues of Confederate Veteran and Southern Mercury should be real eye openers for them.

One speaking engagement will likely to lead to another.

Letter from the Archdiocese of San Antonio

I got a letter from the Archbishop of San Antonio. The letter opens with the following opening paragraph which was a quote as follows:

"Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent." -- Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Guadium et Spes), 29." 

The Archbishop thanks me for the information that I have send and informs me that they will "do our best to never let our sanctuaries be co-opted by any message that stands against the truth of the Gospel of Christ." Doesn't exactly say that they won't let the Sons of Confederate Veterans meet at their churches.

However, as for the Dallas Diocese the Archbishop informs me that he doesn't have "pastorship of those parishes there." The Archdiocese of San Antonio includes Dallas so I don't understand how he doesn't have influence there as to policy. I will have to do a follow up letter.

I do appreciate knowing about "Gaudium et Spes," and will follow up with research concerning it. However a resolution or policy only is of real substance if it is implemented.

I have some more letters to write to Roman Catholic leaders in the United States then if not satisfactory I will be writing Pope Francis. I haven't heard back from the Diocese of Charleston and it has been some time, but I still need to wait for the replies from the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Diocese of Richmond.