To the editor:   

Apparently, our fiscal court members drank the Trump coolaid and refused to move the confederate symbol from our public square. With such symbols of hate and pain for many of our citizens and visitors being removed all across the nation, it looks like Calloway County will be the last bastion of the Confederacy.  I practiced real estate law here for 30 years and no way is the statue owned by anyone other than us.  It is affixed to public property by concrete,  and therefore a fixture and real property.  How ironic to have a giant American flag flying over the General who fought against it!

I remain in love with my home county, warts and all.

 

Mark Blankenship

Murray


To the editor:   

When I read the nasty words in the opinion piece in the Ledger & times on Wednesday, July 1, 2020, by the conservative guest columnist Winfield Rose, I was amazed that I actually agreed with the one sentence beginning paragraph six.

Quote: “Offensive speech is hate speech and must be banned.”  He should be banned from the newspaper and probably the GOP.

 

Phyllis D. Miller

Murray


 

To the editor:

While I personally believe the statue should stay on the court square. I also realize that there is the constant threat of those who will vandalize the statue. For some it appears that it is their way and only their beliefs matter. So with this in mind I have an idea. 

If the owners of the statue are agreeable to its relocation, I say as a compromise the protesters and those who feel so strongly for it’s removal should pay the charges associated with the relocation. No tax payer dollars should be involved. When the protesters have the full cost in hand, then if all are satisfied then and only then can it be moved. 

This would seem to be a fair compromise where each side is willing to give some ground. With the owners giving some ground as to the relocation and the protesters willing to pay for their strongly held beliefs. While doubtful all will be happy both sides will make sacrifices.

Thank you for listening.

 

Mike White

Murray


Dear Judge Imes: 

 

Your recent statements to WKMS occasion me to write this letter. You asked “who are we to judge the people of 1900” and implored opponents of Murray’s Confederate Monument to “understand the purpose and intents of the Ku Klux Klan,” since the connection between the Klan and the United Daughters of the Confederacy is easily proved. 

This question is beneath the dignity of our citizens. We are all qualified to judge the perpetrators of racist lynch mobs and church bombings. Any student of American history understands that due process is critical to a functioning democracy. An elected judge, of all people, should condemn vigilantism, racial violence, and mob justice—due process, or the process of trial by jury and appeal, is neither a new invention, nor the product of a contemporary mindset.  The Magna Carta and 17th C. British Common Law reforms both provide the basis of American due process. Both contributed to the invention of human rights, and both developed to oppose tyranny. 

The argument made in our Fiscal Court hearing to preserve the statue relied on assertions of birthright, that one is only truly “from” Murray, and has a say in its continuance, after several generations of residency. Such nativism is a fundamentally monarchic position: only those born to power may wield power. Are these the values of our city? Do we discount public service, kindness, and neighborliness? 

I hope you will reconsider your stance on, apparently, the Klan, the UDC, and the rights of so many Murray citizens to enjoy public land without a daily reminder that they were once property.

 

Isabel Duarte-Gray

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Recommended for you