Heated exchange on Capitol Square monuments erupts as delegates debate history and removal ahead of SB636
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Delegates used points of personal privilege to debate Confederate monuments and how history should be represented on Capitol Square; Delegate Ware urged retaining statues with contextual additions while Delegate Maldonado condemned any equivocation about slavery and advocated removing statues that 'equivocate' the past.
A sequence of personal-privilege remarks on Feb. 26 opened a sustained, emotionally charged exchange about Confederate monuments and how Virginia should present its past on Capitol Square.
What was said: Delegate Ware delivered an extended historical reflection that invoked Civil War-era figures, historians and complicated local histories and urged caution about removing monuments, noting that the Jackson statue’s inscription credits English donors and arguing for adding monuments — for example to Booker T. Washington — to provide context (SEG 436–606). Ware referenced an upcoming Senate bill (SB636) that would remove the Maguire, Smith and Jackson monuments from Capitol Square and said the story of figures such as Thomas J. Jackson is “complicated.”
Strong rebuttal: Delegate Maldonado responded with a point of personal privilege, sharply rejecting any framing that suggested "both sides" in the context of chattel slavery and calling the idea that Africans and Europeans share equal culpability "offensive." Maldonado said statues that "equivocate" or honor people who treated Black people as less than human should not stand in public spaces (SEG 674–750).
Further reaction: Other delegates, including Delegate Garrett and several colleagues, followed with remarks emphasizing the need to acknowledge systemic oppression and the lived consequences of slavery and Jim Crow, while some speakers urged historical nuance and contextual teaching. The exchange mixed appeals to historical scholarship, personal memoirs and strongly worded moral claims.
Context and stakes: The exchange occurred ahead of floor consideration of matters that backers say address the public display of Confederate monuments (SB636 was explicitly cited on the floor). Speakers disagreed over whether removing monuments erases history or corrects an inaccurate public narrative; several delegates urged additions that honor other historical figures as an alternative to removal.
Outcome: No formal vote on SB636 was recorded in the provided transcript. The floor debate established the depth of disagreement and signaled the policy and cultural stakes that will likely shape later committee or floor action on monument legislation.
Selected quotations from the record: Ware: “The patron of the bill soon to be before us has said that he does not want children visiting Capitol Square to see, quote, inappropriate monuments to grotesque people.” Maldonado: “There is no both sides… there is no equivocating statues in public places for people who looked at people like me and people who look like me as less than human.”
Provenance: Discussion began at SEG 436 and continued through SEG 1028 without formal floor action on the monument removal bill within the provided segments.