Welcome to LoudounTimes.com
Loudoun Times-Mirror

UPDATE: Organizers cancel rally in support of Confederate monument in Leesburg

Times-Mirror File Photo
A "Save Our History" event in support of the Confederate monument in Leesburg, slated for Sept. 16 outside Loudoun County Courthouse, has been canceled, Mayor Kelly Burk has confirmed.

Patriot News, which was hosting the event along with 111% United Patriots, posted a statement on its Facebook page Aug. 11.

“We are canceling this event for now because it seems like the danger of the statue being removed is small and the point of the historical aspect is being lost. All and all the rally is hurting the cause more than helping it. We reached out to the NAACP and have gotten no response. We wouldn't let our event get co-opted by racist and we won't let it get co-opted by the left.”

The scheduled rally was in response to calls to have the Confederate statue in front of the county courthouse -- and many similar statues across the country -- removed.

The cancellation came amid a national dialogue about the propriety of Confederate symbols and statues being placed in highly public locations across the nation.

Groups like 111% United Patriots, The Three Percenters and The Revolution have campaigned for the statues to remain.

Burk said she heard from local police that the event had been canceled.

“I hope that any group who wants to bring hate knows they are not welcome in Leesburg,” she said.

In a prepared statement released Wednesday, Burk said 111% United Patriots has not submitted an application to use the courthouse grounds on another date.

Permits to use the Loudoun County Courthouse grounds are issued by Loudoun County.

“The town will not issue permits for the use of public property to groups that intend to incite violence or disrupt the peace," Burk added.

Comments


Very interesting historical insight Virginia SGP. Thank you.


Laugh gives us some more Liberal rationalization of why history should be removed. Her quote implies anything built between 1895 and WWI was to commemorate slavery.

Well, the Lincoln Memorial was approved by Congress in 1910 and began Construction in 1914, exactly the time period of which Laugh speaks. So I gather the Lincoln Memorial was erected to honor his views on the colonization of blacks and that blacks should be the inferior group in the US. Maybe we can move that monstrosity as well to a more fitting place, one where the celebration of military leaders who condone their Armies committing rape and plunder is accepatable.

We should build some monuments to black leaders (or slaves if folks prefer). And nobody has any problem building monuments to Union soldiers in Loudoun either.

But Speakman makes a good point about a Confederate statue in a Union cemetery. Of course, Ron Meyer doean’t think or care about that. He’s just happy that he could skip serving in our now all-volunteer military rather than seeking a politically problematic deferment like the previous generation of pandering politicians.


Virginia SGP,
I applaud your insightful well thought out argument. Its unfortunate that the story is lost to history except for the well informed. Speaking of Stupidity, how about Mr. Meyers (R) wanting to move the statue to a Union Cemetery were the confederate solider can stand on top of their graves defiantly. This will transmit a message through out history that Leesburg believes they won the war and stands triumphant… Only a fool who has never served in the armed forces would advocate such an insult.


I offer the following, from the internet news sources:

But what do we learn from the history of these monuments? Are they truly innocuous symbols of Confederate heritage, as their defenders argue? The facts tell us otherwise.

Almost none of the monuments were put up right after the Civil War. Some were erected during the civil rights era of the early 1960s, which coincided with the war’s centennial, but the vast majority of monuments date to between 1895 and World War I. They were part of a campaign to paint the Southern cause in the Civil War as just and slavery as a benevolent institution, and their installation came against a backdrop of Jim Crow violence and oppression of African Americans. The monuments were put up as explicit symbols of white supremacy.


ScreenName & Polkey, let’s get a few facts straight seeing as you might not have studied the full history of the 1800’s in the US.

1. Robert E Lee didn’t own slaves himself.  His wife inherited slaves from her father’s farm and Lee executed the will including freeing those slaves after 5 years in 1862.

2. Ullysses Grant, on the other hand, owned a slave himself and freed him in 1859.

3.  The South nearly went to war in 1832 over tariffs.  In fact, Jackson sent a fleet of warships to Charleston and VP Calhoun resigned over the issue.  Nobody was talking about abolition in 1832.

3a. This is essentially the same disagreement that caused the Revolutionary War.  Britain imposed tariffs on the colonies who didn’t want to bankroll Britain and its empirical expansion.

4. Read Lincoln’s 1st inaugural address.  He specifically states he doesn’t plan to prohibit slavery in the South.  Lincoln repeatedly cited “keeping the union together” (see below) as his reason for the war.

5. The South did not invade the North or “take up arms”.  The South just said leave us alone.  The North declared war and invaded the South.  If Lincoln doesn’t order his army to invade the South, then there is no war.  Are you following on this one?

6. The North incurred almost 2/3 of the casualties despite having a 2:1 advantage in soldiers.  This is unprecedented.  Typically, the stronger army incurs far fewer casualties (see the US-Iraq wars).  That is a main reason the Southern generals are revered. They effectively whipped the North when the numbers were anywhere close.

7. The Emancipation Proclamation, coming several years into the war, ONLY free the slaves in the South, not the slaves in the North (Delaware, Maryland, etc.)  If the North had such a righteous cause, why so late and why not free the Northern slaves?

Let me be perfectly clear.  Slavery was wrong when the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites, when the Romans took slaves, when the Arabs engaged in the slave trade in the Middle Ages, when the African tribes took their neighbors as slaves and, of course, when the British/US colonists bought, transported and used those African slaves in America.  Nobody is defending slavery here.

However, slavery was coming to an end.  Automation would have undermined slavery within a couple of decades if it hadn’t ended on its own.  Abolition was spreading across the western world beginning around 1840’s and, by around 1875, there were no slaves to speak of in the western hemisphere. (Brazil and Cuba freed slaves in the 1880’s)

So the question is why did 500K Americans have to die?  Lincoln said it was because the Southern states did not have the “right” to back out of the union.  That he would use force, i.e. kill anyone, who tried to divorce from the US.  Let’s look at some modern day analogies.

1. Marriages don’t envision divorce.  You don’t get married “until we divorce” but until “death do us part”.  Obviously, many take that too far and thus we have tragic domestic violence where one (typically man) kills the other when the latter leaves the marriage.  Under Lincoln’s logic (and apparently yours), such a result is justified because the union was “permanent” and one member can use deadly force to prevent the other from leaving.

2. Let’s suppose that the pro-life movement gained the upper hand in the US and made it unconstitutional to get an abortion.  Many see abortion as murder and a moral outrage.  But say 20% of the states resisted and wanted to keep abortion so much, they sought to secede.  If those 20% of the states decided to leave the US so they could enact the laws they wanted (to protect abortion rights), are you seriously saying the remaining 80% could/should (a) invade them and (b) kill any that refused to rejoin the US with its anti-abortion laws?


That is essentially what you are saying.  We can agree that slavery was horrible.  Nobody is supporting slavery or its past.  We should be able to agree that the South executed its military campaign more effectively than the North but lost on numbers.  And we should be able to agree that regular soldiers endured horrible conditions to defend their families and states.  That sacrifice was honorable.  We can surely see what happened when they didn’t as Union Gen Sherman set his soldiers loose to kill, rape, burn and pillage the South.  What a “hero” Sherman was.

We want all minorities to feel safe.  All folks will speak out for their rights if they are ever endangered (well, except for de facto segregation in LCPS as neither Randall or Umstattd will lift a finger).  Let’s erect some additional statues or monuments.  But don’t tell others they are celebrating slavery with a monument when they have no intentions of doing so.


From the book “The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox” (by a local author): “Mosby like Longstreet was ...a Southerner who thought it was the role of the defeated to accept defeat and move on; he supported Grant for president and became a diplomat in the American foreign service, and scarcely ever set foot in his native Virginia again. ‘Why not talk about witchcraft if slavery was not the cause of the war,’ he wrote his old friend. ‘I always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.’”


I’m going to assume the folks claiming Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and yes, Robert Byrd, are the next stops on this “erase our heritage” tour that the wing-nut left is on.  Guess they never took a course in logic.


The issue is WHAT the monument memorializes.  We don’t put up monuments to Washington or Jefferson to honor their slave-holding past.  That IS why there’s a monument to a Robert E. Lee.

Do you see the difference?


I’ll be there Sept 16th see you there!


Jeanne T., I know you’re an honorable person but when you cut and paste from an article on American Thinker, you should at least give them a cite credit. 

“The alt-left’s historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against civil rights legislation….” (from the American Thinker)

Or did you not want to let people know where you get your news and talking points?


You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
Saw you a-marchin’ with Robert E. Lee
You held your head a-high, tryin’ to win the victory
You fought for your folks but you didn’t die in vain
Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name
‘Cause you fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
I heard your teeth chatter from the cold outside
Saw the bullets open up the wounds in your side
I saw the young boys as they begin to fall
You had tears in your eyes, ‘cause you couldn’t help at all
But you fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
I saw General Lee raise the sabre in his hand
Heard the cannon’s roar as you made your last stand
You marched in the battle with the gray and the red
When the cannon’s smoke cleared, took days to count the dead
‘Cause you fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
When Honest Abe heard the news about your fall
The folks thought he’d call a great victory ball
But he asked the band to play the song “Dixie”
For you Johnny Reb and all that you believed
‘Cause you fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
Yeah, you fought all the way, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb


we also should never have historical amnesia about more recent “southern strategy” from 1970s:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.” nixon’s political strategist kevin phillips, 1970, nytimes

robert byrd’s on par w/ strom thurmond - no fan of either
wv & sc should make decisions about statues

friday night - peaceful counter-protests occurred inside ch’ville church where clergy, community prayed while listening to racist shouts by torchbearers & also near jefferson’s statue as students linked arms but “[They] completely surrounded us and wouldn’t let us out.”

winged “angels” of theatre groups surrounded orlando mourners against westboro hatred, also a fine example


If you wish to follow a good example of how to peacefully counter protest, look at the Vets against Westboro Baptist Church protests - where Westboro is silenced & shamed and the Vets are lauded.


We’ve all heard the saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But if you don’t know history to begin with, you won’t learn from it. So here is a history lesson:

White nationalism had its roots in the Democratic post-Civil War south, and the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Democrats to suppress blacks liberated by the Republican administration of President Abraham Lincoln.

Why isn’t anyone demanding that statues of former senator and KKK icon Robert Byrd be removed, statues honoring the hard-core former white nationalist whom Hillary Clinton once called her friend and mentor, including one prominently displayed in the West Virginia state capitol? Byrd was a former card-carrying member of the KKK. In fact, he created his own chapter along with 150 of his friends and colleagues.

Where is the outrage and destruction of this statue?

Former Senator Robert Byrd was once elected a top officer in the “Exalted Cyclops” in the local Klan unit in the early 1940s. He is a man who once vowed never to fight in the military along with “race mongrels” or “with a negro by my side.”

The Democratic Party, which embraced white nationalism, founded the KKK, and honored one of the great bigots of modern times—Robert Byrd.

The alt-left’s historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against civil rights legislation.

Think a statue of Robert E. Lee honors white nationalism and racism? Then what, pray tell, does a statue honoring the likes of KKK leader Robert Byrd represent?  If one warrants taking down, then so does the other.


“save our history” rally cancelled for “save our country” higher purpose - smart

great to see peaceful vigil at rotunda on wed. cleansing the grounds of hatred & racist rally that invaded ch’ville on fri night & sat - “you just magnified her”


And let me give an alternative viewpoint.

Nobody can dispute there is a legitimate issue about whether various monuments should stay or go.  The original marches in Charlottesville and in Leesburg were organized after efforts to remove monuments.  There are a lot of “good people” who genuinely believe the monuments should stay, not because of racism but because it honors those who sacrificed for their families and is a part of history.  Some of those were involved in these marches.

Groups legally obtained permits to march in Charlottesville.  The views of those groups vary from those who simply want the monuments to stay to others who want to preserve a certain cultural/ethnic heritage to some, I’m sure, who believe in racial superiority.  Nobody on this board is defending the latter.  Period. 

Counterprotestors, some aggressively seeking to suppress the march while others I’m sure were sincere in their intent to protest civilly, came out and confronted the protestors.  Had they not come out, there would have been no violence.  However, that does not condone violence by anyone.  It’s just a fact.  The counterprotestors did not follow the rules by obtaining a permit yet they were not asked to go home.  And then chaos erupted.  If only “good people” from both sides were out, then no violence would have occurred anyway.  But that was obviously not the case.  We saw active participants in violence from both sides; thus, BOTH sides have some culpability in the violence.  The fact that one side may have viewpoints that you disagree with (and some that are repugnant) has NO bearing on the violence.  None.  We are free to speak, period.  Trying to slam Trump because he acknowledged that counterprotestors tried to shut down free speech and helped instigate the violence is dishonest.  Otherwise, you give tacit approval to the counter protestors.  You are essentially saying if anyone instigates violence against a group of protestors, as long as you don’t like the protestors’ message, the instigators should never be blamed.  Is that really your position?

Throughout the world, we see nation states created and organized around the principle of a common culture/ethnic heritage.  From Kuwait to Japan to Bosnia to Southern Sudan, these nations control who can become citizens and want to have a common identity.  Are you suggesting that simply wanting a common heritage makes one racist?  Are the citizens of all these countries racist simply because they don’t want to open their borders to mass migration and let their ethnic group become a minority?  If so, call them out.  Have Gov McAuliffe tell them they are “not welcome” anywhere in the US.

I’m on the record wanting more legal immigration albeit with the points system recently proposed by the Trump administration (and in effect in EVERY other first world country).  We could solve lots of problems by letting smart Chinese/Indians (or smart/educated folks from any nation around the world for that matter) into the US by the millions.  But the Leftists now claim even that proposal is “racist” (I guess everybody in the world except them is racist by that standard).

The righteous folks on here looking down on those who want preservation of heritage don’t live in the communities most effected by illegal immigration.  Their jobs are not at risk from folks who will work for virtually any price because hey, it’s more than they could earn in their home country.  Their kids don’t go to schools where 75% of the kids don’t speak English as their native language.  The righteous on here move to neighborhoods where there are very few lower-class minorities in the schools or send their kids to private schools where they are not exposed to gangs.

The reason Hillary lost the election is because some traditional Democrats realized their leadership’s attempts to sell them out for future Democratic votes from future (potential) naturalized immigrants is harmful to their kids’ future.  They are not racist.  Even if they want to preserve a cultural/ethnic heritage like most nations throughout the world, that does not make them racist.  We can disagree with them and try to sell them on the benefits of mixing cultures (would be much easier if we had mostly middle/upper class immigrants via a points system) but these are legitimate policy viewpoints. 

If/when the leaders of constant conflict like Umstattd and Randall are booted, then maybe we can have an honest discussion.  But given the “racist” card has been played on virtually every single issue by the Democrats for the last 20 years, most are not hopeful.


Let me help the Trump apologists understand how it looks from over here:  We have a President who has a long history of racial bias (housing discrimination settlements with the Justice Department as younger man; chief mouthpiece for birther nonsense about our first Black president; embrace of people like Steve Bannon and the Breitbart crowd; etc.)  He’s quick to criticize anything and everything despite having no facts at all (e.g., millions of illegal votes for Hillary in California; Muslims dancing when the Towers fell; and so on).  Now, in that environment, we have a President who suggests there’s a moral equivalency between a group that got a permit to have a hate rally, came to it with weapons and shouted offensive slogans as they marched through town with Nazi, Confederate and Militia-BS flags of all sorts…and the people who came out of their homes to say we don’t want that around here.

Now, you can try to granulize things down to maybe a moment when someone opposing these obnoxious people behaved nearly as badly (no one brought deadly force to the Nazis) but that misses (and tries to obscure) the main point.

Can we agree that there’s no place for hate speech and hate groups and move on?  Or do you have to insist that there’s some reason this isn’t just a really sick bunch of people terrorizing a town and making other folks take issue with it?


A week ago this appeared to be an argument about a statue. Perhaps now the unhealed scars of slavery and racism in our country have finially caught up with us?  After Charlottesville it is clear to me that these statues mean little to the active sides of this unrest. This clearly hasn’t been about statues.  The statues have both given us a forum as well as a distraction from the real discussion.  It’s a curious time.


The Confederate statues were put up in whole or in part to send a message to the populace about who is still really in charge at a time when African Americans were ascending.  That message is one that needs to be purged from government grounds. 

Also, to not acknowledge that symbols change over time is an ignorant stance.  When the Confederate flag is used by racists to intimidate and threaten minorities then we as a society have a right to demand that the government stop displaying them.  We are not talking about “free speech” as the numerous people waving Nazi/Confederate flags have to be tolerated but we should never allow a hate symbol (flag or statue) to be displayed on government grounds no matter what the prior history of that symbol is.

Like it or not, the Confederacy was vile and Robert E Lee was its champion. No reasonable person is talking about gravestones and such.  We are talking about symbols of hate on “we the people’s” public square.


If the statue comes down the Left will then find something else that makes them cry. They are after all the most thin skinned snowflakes ever to exist, offended by everything. Coddled and catered to. So Fragile our little democrats, so precious and unique.


I remember visiting Gettysburg when I was 15 and the overwhelming sense of sadness and tragedy I felt at that young age. The only/only thing I remember from studying the Civil War in 9th grade in Minnesota before the visit to Gettysburg (yes, I’m a Northerner) was the teacher recounting how Abraham Lincoln once visited with Harriet Beecher Stowe, and told her, “So you’re the little lady who started the Civil War”, or something to that effect.

So, what’s next? Should we also move the tombstones of Confederate war dead next? Why or why not? After all, “the sentiments expressed on most of those headstones glorifies the south and honors the memory of someone who gave his life for the Confederacy.”

How about tearing down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and all the other Founders who owned slaves? Why or why not?

Yesterday the Lincoln Memorial was defaced, and National Park Police are working to remove the graffiti. Lincoln proposed moving all freed blacks to what is now the country of Belize. He opined that maybe, some blacks were smart enough that they could even vote. Is this someone worthy of such glorification?

Yesterday there was also a protest protest inside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City to take down the supposedly “racist” statue of former President Theodore Roosevelt. The protest’s organizers, “NYC Stands with Standing Rock and Decolonize This Place”, also called for Columbus Day to be renamed Indigenous People’s Day:

“A stark embodiment of the white supremacy that Roosevelt himself espoused and promoted,” pontificated the group of protesters in a statement. “The statue is seen as an affront to all who pass it on entering the museum, but especially to African and Native Americans.”

We are not going to refight the Civil War. But perhaps the movement to take down these statues can’t envision the logical outcome of their actions. Indeed, anyone who believes that we will stop at taking down statues of Confederates or reminders of the Confederacy, doesn’t understand the mindset of those behind this movement.

If you’re going to take down statues of Confederates, you may as well destroy the Washington Monument, the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, and monuments to almost anyone else in American history. They all harbored racist attitudes toward blacks. Many of them - even northerners - supported slavery in one way or another.

The problem with picking and choosing who you want the people to forget is that there is no consistency to your logic.

The end game is to delegitimize the Constitutional Republic. A majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave holders. The Constitution was drafted by James Madison, a slave owner.  If these figures are now beyond the pale (or will be soon), then logically, there is no reason to cling to the Bill of Rights or the Electoral College or any of the other instruments of an illegitimate racist regime.

This won’t stop, and that it is aimed at erasing history in the manner of many totalitarian regimes. The purpose is to be rid of the Constitution’s annoying constraints on government’s power to impose tyranny by delegitimizing its architects as slaveholders.

The goal is tyranny, not the “mere” erasure of history.  Mao tried it in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot tried it in Cambodia, at a staggering cost in human lives and actual societal and intellectual regression. The goal was the power to reshape human nature and bring about paradise on earth. What are a few lives worth compared to that transcendent goal?

We can and should acknowledge our racist past. But how do we get beyond that past? Do we destroy remembrances of it? Then, we have no history worth studying. Perhaps, that’s what the monument destroyers really want.”

This is much more about removing offensive monuments. Anyone who doesn’t recognize this is being deceived.


Take the statue down


wise decision on the part of those groups to cancel, as it would turn into an opportunity for extremists on both sides to come and foment street fighting.

We don’t need it.

As efforts move forward by those who wish to change state law and remove all statues/memorials, I expect to see consistency in the efforts to keep such recognition out of any public support:  will the county still provide support to the Journey Through Hallowed Ground?  It memorializes a swath of ground from a slaveholder’s plantation to a civil war battlefield, and every slaveholder and action in between. It receives public support from local to federal, and has program affiliates with the public schools.

The Mosby Heritage Area Association has engaged in some rebranding attempts to suggest it is concerned with memorializing slaves and not the people who owned them, but in spirit it should not be publicly supported any longer either, unless it not only changes its name but the entirety of its mission, correct?

All public signs marking the boundaries of the heritage areas should also come down, is that correct?  The Mosby ones must be particularly inflammatory, as they are emblazoned with the silhouette of a galloping confederate cavalier with drawn sword.

I’m glad that there will be no opportunity for us to potentially serve as the flashpoint for a new civil war.

I’m not too optimistic that those who politically support wanting the statues removed are willing to go the whole nine yards with their convictions on slaveholders, confederates, and public recognition and support.

We’ll see.


I am conflicted by this…I am sure if you walk around Athens, Florence, Rome, London, Paris etc, one could pick out statues of people whose history might not make it worthy to keep them there.I don’t think we can change history, rather we should try and understand what happened and why. To eradicate this part of our history does not make sense. I like the idea of balancing the statue with a Union soldier…then it opens the door to discourse.


I have a grand solution, realizing that Kristen and Kelly feel that they are above the law, and can assemble whenever they want, let’s take down the statue and replace it with one of each of them. I can’t even assemble for an annual, small party without my required permit.


This statue needs to come down or there needs to be an equally prominent statue to the Union troops (you know—the non-traitors) from Loudoun County (yes, they existed) and another statue for the slaves persecuted under the immoral southern rule prior to the Civil War.


Thank you for saving us Kelly Burk.  What a hack.  You had to beat the public information officer to the press release?  This would have been a County issue at the Court House, so why are you butting into it.  OH Political Hack that’s right!


Can it be this group realized that they were aligning themselves with Nazis, White Nationalists and Donald Trump and that that was a losing proposition. 


Smart decision.  The statue is a sore point for many, but we dont need the chaos we just saw.

Loudoun did not elect to ceceed and changed hands numerous times during the civil war.  The statue was erected about 100 years ago during the jim crow era.

Is there another way to honor Loudoun during the civil war and have the statue serve as the beginning of this new discussion?


Today I met with the local representative of the group that wanted to have the rally in support of the Statue and it was never their intention to bring hate or harm to our community. While they support the confederate statue they also want to work to bring the full recognition of history and respect to our diverse community. It is true the oportunists who want to bring their message of nationalism and hate would have come along for the intended rally and instead of having this happen the group cancelled their rally. I am working with local organizations to bring a different message and recognition of our local issues that might be about the statue but also about our continuing problems that must be addressed through unity and mutual cooperation. The past weekend in events in Charlottesville should give us all pause to work out our differences and communicate our mutual desires to celebrate and preserve our entire history.It’s time for our elected officials to engage and not stand by waiting to explain what happened after fact.


Very thoughtful and mature decision. Let’s hope that all sides see the benefit from a little time and space.


Burk is the most hateful person in Leesburg.  She hates Republicans and anyone who opposes her.  so, she should not be welcome in Leesburg.


Thank goodness….we dont need to see the leftists go crazy and destroy property anymore…I am all for historical preservation, but am glad they will not hold this event in fear of the antifada hateful actions that would certainly follow…we don’t need the circus clowns in our county…


Unfortunate but still a wise decision; the statue is not in danger as it is protected under Virginia law. This will allow the Left more time to read a history book and understand that the C.S.A. stood for Confederate States of America. Those Southern soldiers were still Americans and they still deserve to be honored, Lost Cause and all.


“because it seems like the danger of the statue being removed is small and the point”

I suppose these groups received word that you cannot remove Confederate Statues in Virginia without the approval of the General Assembly. Local Governments have zero power on this topic.

Post a comment

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at ltmeditor@loudountimes.com.

More News

As Seen IN PRINT
The Loudoun Times-Mirror

is an interactive, digital replica
of the printed newspaper.
Click here for all e-editions.
Email UPDATES