Hearings on removal of monuments delayed in B.R.
4th April 2016 · 0 Comments
A state lawmaker who authored a bill that could potentially block the removal of four Confederate-era monuments in New Orleans has delayed a hearing on the bill because she says she needs more time to work on her presentation before unveiling it before a state Senate committee.
State Sen. Beth Mizell, R-Franklinton, on Wednesday asked for a postponement of a hearing on Senate Bill 276 which would essentially prevent local governments from removing, relocating or altering historical monuments throughout the state.
If passed, the bill would block the City of New Orleans’ efforts to remove three statues of Confederate-era leaders and the Battle of Liberty Place monument near the foot of Canal Street.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday the Landrieu administration asked the courts for the go-ahead to remove the Liberty Place monument from its current location despite a 1990s court order that forced the City of New Orleans to return the controversial monument to a public space.
After the New Orleans City Council voted in December to remove the four monuments from public spaces and relocate them to still-undetermined locations, several legal challenges to the council’s decision were heard in federal and civil court.
The courts sided with the City of New Orleans both times, paving the way for the removal of the monuments until state Sen, Beth Mizell authored a bill intended to block the removal earlier this year.
The removal of the monuments was also complicated by death threats against a Baton Rouge-based contractor and his wife that convinced him to back away from the project. A group called Save Our Circle also encouraged monument supporters to call potential contractors interested in bidding on the project and express disapproval of their participation in the project. After learning that the group was using the City’s website to gain contact information on prospective project bidders, the Landrieu administration made changes to the website to make this information unavailable to the public.
Meanwhile, the debate rages on in New Orleans about the future of the Confederate-era monuments and what other monuments across the city should be designated as “nuisances” and targeted by the City of New Orleans for removal.
Sam Mesuch traveled across the Mississippi River from Port Sulphur to see the Andrew Jackson monument in Jackson Square, and once he heard it could be on the removal list, said that would be a big mistake.
“If they take away the monument you take away New Orleans,” Mesuch told WWL News. “A lot of people come here to see it and if you take it away, you take away a piece of New Orleans, I feel.”
Historically Jackson, the seventh U.S. president, was an admired figure. He was a war hero. He’s been on more dollar bills than any other person. He also has numerous landmarks in his honor around the U.S.; four of this statue. However, according to Tulane professor Dr. Richard Marksbury, Jackson was no saint.
“Well he owned more than 300 slaves in his life,” Marksbury told WWL. “He signed the Indian Removal Act when he was president of the U.S. That resulted in more than 4,000 deaths of peaceful Native Americans. He confiscated 25 million acres of their land which became cotton fields.”
Marksbury addressed the Government Affairs Committee saying these actions alone should place Jackson alongside the other monuments slated for removal.
City code states the monuments can be removed if it “suggests the supremacy of one ethnic, religious, or racial group over any other.”
“There is no question that it honors somebody ideologically we would not honor today,” Marksbury added.
Councilwoman Stacey Head, who voted to keep the city’s Confederate monuments, said there needs to be a consistency with removing all the statues.
“I detest inconsistency,” Head told WWL. “I go by the old adage, if it is horse poop, then tell me it is. Don’t put sugar on it and call it a brownie.”
No one else spoke to the matter besides Marksbury or Councilwoman Head and there wasn’t a vote of any sort Thursday.
Ramessu Merriamen Aha, a New Orleans businessman and former congressional candidate, has mixed feelings about the removal of the monuments in the city. “On one hand, they should be taken down and should have never been erected in the first place,” he told The Louisiana Weekly. “Andrew Jackson and these other Confederate leaders were despicable human beings who saw nothing wrong with buying, selling and owning other human beings. People forget that Andrew Jackson suggested giving Native Americans blankets used by smallpox patients to decimate the Native American population — that’s the textbook definition of genocide.
“On the other hand, these monuments are a stark reminder of the values and objectives of whites in this city, state and nation,” Aha added. “If they are allowed to remain in their current locations, they can be useful in reminding people of color of what we face daily in America and what we are up against.”
The fate of the monuments in New Orleans and across the state will ultimately lie with the Louisiana Legislature and the courts.
This article originally published in the April 4, 2016 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.
