"News" about a century late. And without KML's noticing it, I for one would not have seen it.
Robbery against an ancestor's class remains a robbery against their descendants, compounded by such practices as flouting equal application of laws and punishments, redlining, and otherwise denying state and federal benefits to, for example, African American farmers.
Their descendant's lives remain impoverished and diminished by generations of unrequited and compounded debt, and properties expropriated.
The expiration of a racist tax exemption merely ends the compounded damage, it does not undo the damages those dollars caused in raising monuments to carry on memories of two oppressors' organizations.
Faulkner was right. The past is never in the past-- must less, dead. As shown by this non-action of the governor of one past-Confederate state, there's still a bucketful of karma to be unwound.
Good in general, but we're collateral damage in this legislative act apparently initiated by a CTRL+F search. CMLS is a paper entity only. This revokes tax exemption on ACWM property. And the state budget process hasn't been kind to us this year anyhow, but that's a different story.
I'm ignorant but also quizzical about this alarming news, so I Googled around. Is it definitely established that the Confederate Memorial Literary Society's undeniable place in the American Civil War Museum's ancestry not only lives on, but lives on in a way that makes this alarming news true?
In no way whatsoever does this suggest that the ideological persuasion of the old CMLS and the Confederate Museum that that organization started in 1894 lives on in the current ACWM. I don't know why this is the way it is, but a 130 year old organization can tend to have empty legal artifacts in its organizational structure, and we do.
"In no way whatsoever does this suggest that the ideological persuasion of the old CMLS and the Confederate Museum that that organization started in 1894 lives on in the current ACWM."
Of course it doesn't. If it did, I wouldn't have joined the museum. But as my first line above shows, I was asking about tax status, not outlook pollution. (That opening line was a quotation: "This revokes tax exemption on ACWM property.")
I think I see the miscommunication here, maybe caused by my phrasing. The Googling that I did (in my ignorance and amazement) shows only that the organizational lineage is the organizational lineage as a technical legal matter--not that the lineage imposes organizational outlook pollution.
So I'll ask my question again, this time rephrasing: Is it definitely established that the Confederate Memorial Literary Society's undeniable place as a technical legal matter in the American Civil War Museum's ancestry lives on in a way that makes this alarming tax-status news true?
It seems to me that if well-intended legislation carried with it a harmful financial side effect for something as worthy as the ACWM, someone would have noted it before now. Did someone? And if so, how--assuming that this alarming tax-status news is true--did we get here?
Sorry if I sounded defensive. Didn't mean to. Anyhow, I'm not among the important people at this museum so--while I do know that they knew about the name--I do not know how they planned to handle it, or to approach this particular problem that they knew about weeks ago.
What a great posting, with its value increased by a brief tour of Richmond's Civil War memory sites. Two comments:
1. Re "Today debates over the Civil War are part of the broader culture wars" involving "broader political and cultural agendas": Yes. And judging by the history wars in the Wall Street Journal online forum--with its low incidence of outright troll goofballery, but with its substantial incidence of Lost Causery--that applies especially to the 1619 Project. I have my own complaints about that project, but I agree with the late Michael Gerson's answer to irate zealots who usually haven't even read Nikole Hannah-Jones's introductory project overview essay: "to deny the uniqueness of American guilt on slavery is also to deny the uniqueness of its aspirations." Of course, those deniers also haven't even seen that American slavery differed hugely from past slavery elsewhere, though they get it about the aspirations. They know that Civil War memory is about the future, not the past only--and that's in fact what fires them up.
2. I found a Richmond Times-Dispatch rundown on the governor's record-breaking veto festival ('Youngkin vetoed more bills in one year than any other modern Virginia governor vetoed in his four-year term") and on his proposed amendments. It reports that there's a catch concerning the UDC legislation: with his proposed amendment to it, he's asking the legislature, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, to consider requiring a second vote, a majority vote, in the 2025 session before enactment. Sounds to me like a PR dodge to mollify Lost Causers for a while.
But, as you say, the legislature is controlled by the Democrats. Woohoo! "The former Capital of the Confederacy has been completely transformed over the past few years." It's been a long time coming. We just bought a condo in Church Hill and will be spending part of every year in Richmond--can't wait.
Welcome to Church Hill -- if you were here today, I'd say look for the house flying the 4th USCT national flag and 22nd Iowa regimental flag (in honor of Appomattox Day!) :-)
And there it is…
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/virginia-confederate-heritage-group-tax-youngkin.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Thanks for the link, Joe.
Great news!
"News" about a century late. And without KML's noticing it, I for one would not have seen it.
Robbery against an ancestor's class remains a robbery against their descendants, compounded by such practices as flouting equal application of laws and punishments, redlining, and otherwise denying state and federal benefits to, for example, African American farmers.
Their descendant's lives remain impoverished and diminished by generations of unrequited and compounded debt, and properties expropriated.
The expiration of a racist tax exemption merely ends the compounded damage, it does not undo the damages those dollars caused in raising monuments to carry on memories of two oppressors' organizations.
Faulkner was right. The past is never in the past-- must less, dead. As shown by this non-action of the governor of one past-Confederate state, there's still a bucketful of karma to be unwound.
I am glad to hear the Confederate apologists got what is coming to them. The harm they have done to the historical memory of the Civil War is insane.
Good in general, but we're collateral damage in this legislative act apparently initiated by a CTRL+F search. CMLS is a paper entity only. This revokes tax exemption on ACWM property. And the state budget process hasn't been kind to us this year anyhow, but that's a different story.
"This revokes tax exemption on ACWM property."
I'm ignorant but also quizzical about this alarming news, so I Googled around. Is it definitely established that the Confederate Memorial Literary Society's undeniable place in the American Civil War Museum's ancestry not only lives on, but lives on in a way that makes this alarming news true?
In no way whatsoever does this suggest that the ideological persuasion of the old CMLS and the Confederate Museum that that organization started in 1894 lives on in the current ACWM. I don't know why this is the way it is, but a 130 year old organization can tend to have empty legal artifacts in its organizational structure, and we do.
"In no way whatsoever does this suggest that the ideological persuasion of the old CMLS and the Confederate Museum that that organization started in 1894 lives on in the current ACWM."
Of course it doesn't. If it did, I wouldn't have joined the museum. But as my first line above shows, I was asking about tax status, not outlook pollution. (That opening line was a quotation: "This revokes tax exemption on ACWM property.")
I think I see the miscommunication here, maybe caused by my phrasing. The Googling that I did (in my ignorance and amazement) shows only that the organizational lineage is the organizational lineage as a technical legal matter--not that the lineage imposes organizational outlook pollution.
So I'll ask my question again, this time rephrasing: Is it definitely established that the Confederate Memorial Literary Society's undeniable place as a technical legal matter in the American Civil War Museum's ancestry lives on in a way that makes this alarming tax-status news true?
It seems to me that if well-intended legislation carried with it a harmful financial side effect for something as worthy as the ACWM, someone would have noted it before now. Did someone? And if so, how--assuming that this alarming tax-status news is true--did we get here?
Hi Steve,
Short answer to your revised question: Yes.
Sorry if I sounded defensive. Didn't mean to. Anyhow, I'm not among the important people at this museum so--while I do know that they knew about the name--I do not know how they planned to handle it, or to approach this particular problem that they knew about weeks ago.
Thanks very much. I'd be grateful to find out how loss of the tax exemption will affect the museum. I can't find anything in a search of the RTD.
The way things go around here, you are likely to know before I do.
So very glad to hear this! Great article Kevin!
What a great posting, with its value increased by a brief tour of Richmond's Civil War memory sites. Two comments:
1. Re "Today debates over the Civil War are part of the broader culture wars" involving "broader political and cultural agendas": Yes. And judging by the history wars in the Wall Street Journal online forum--with its low incidence of outright troll goofballery, but with its substantial incidence of Lost Causery--that applies especially to the 1619 Project. I have my own complaints about that project, but I agree with the late Michael Gerson's answer to irate zealots who usually haven't even read Nikole Hannah-Jones's introductory project overview essay: "to deny the uniqueness of American guilt on slavery is also to deny the uniqueness of its aspirations." Of course, those deniers also haven't even seen that American slavery differed hugely from past slavery elsewhere, though they get it about the aspirations. They know that Civil War memory is about the future, not the past only--and that's in fact what fires them up.
2. I found a Richmond Times-Dispatch rundown on the governor's record-breaking veto festival ('Youngkin vetoed more bills in one year than any other modern Virginia governor vetoed in his four-year term") and on his proposed amendments. It reports that there's a catch concerning the UDC legislation: with his proposed amendment to it, he's asking the legislature, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, to consider requiring a second vote, a majority vote, in the 2025 session before enactment. Sounds to me like a PR dodge to mollify Lost Causers for a while.
But, as you say, the legislature is controlled by the Democrats. Woohoo! "The former Capital of the Confederacy has been completely transformed over the past few years." It's been a long time coming. We just bought a condo in Church Hill and will be spending part of every year in Richmond--can't wait.
Welcome to Church Hill -- if you were here today, I'd say look for the house flying the 4th USCT national flag and 22nd Iowa regimental flag (in honor of Appomattox Day!) :-)
The fact that the governor didn't veto both bills is justification enough for the post.
Great neighborhood. Richmond is a great city. Enjoy.