In Louisa County, Virginia, a Black man stands trial for his life. When he looks around to see who is presiding over his trial he will see the picture of another man besides the judge staring down at him from above— Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
This isn’t the post-war South of the late 19th century or even the first six decades or so of the 20th century. This is Virginia in 2018. And this is the court where the defendant, Darcel Murphy, is expected to receive justice under the portrait of a man who fought to keep his ancestors enslaved. This week, Murphy’s lawyers filed a motion asking for the trial to be held in a courtroom free of Confederate symbols, memorials, and iconography.
Although it should not need to be stated, a man whose picture is etched on , the Mount Rushmore of white supremacy, should not be on the wall in a court of law in America. The fact that the portrait is speaks volumes about how America has historically and continues to minimize its racist legacy.
The penalty phase of any capital case involves an examination of humanity – the life story of the defendant – when his lawyers will argue why he should be spared the ultimate punishment. A symbol representing belief in the inhumanity of Blacks has no place in any courtroom, especially not a southern courtroom where the guilt or innocence, and then potentially the life or death, of a Black man will be decided. Make no mistake, Lee’s portrait stands for the inhumanity of Black people.
Our unwillingness to confront an ugly truth about Lee and our shared history reinforces the racism of the past through silent and tacit acceptance. When someone tries to skew the story of enslaving Black Americans, you can be certain they are not promoting truth and racial justice. Basically, some people need a history lesson to open their eyes.
A primary example of such a dishonest treatment of our history occurred a year ago this month, when Ret. Gen. John Kelly appeared on the Fox News show, “The Ingraham Angle,” and tried to justify General Lee’s leading the fight for the Confederacy as something other than defending the right of white Americans to own Black people as property. :
Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country…The lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.
It sounds noble, even honorable. But it’s not. It is racist and false and the devilish idea it promotes is revealed in the details that put the lie to Kelly’s claims. And, ironically, the strongest rebuttals to Kelly’s claims about Gen. Lee’s motivations for fighting are the views expressed by the very people who were enslaving Black people at the time Lee made his decision.
If Lee gave up his country to follow his state, leaves no doubt about why the state was leaving the Union. According to the delegates at the Richmond Convention, the federal government had violated the Constitution, “not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.”
The injury and oppression concerning Virginians was the loss or profit and property. speaks from the past and again puts the truth to Kelly’s lie, saying:
People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. He followed Virginia not because he particularly loved slavery (although he certainly did not hate it), but because he did not have the moral courage to stand against his family and his clan.
Kelly’s claim that a failure to compromise led to civil war fails to address the question of who was failing to compromise and about what. Surely Kelly was not suggesting that Black people should have “compromised” and agreed to remain enslaved until freedom was more convenient for white people. And surely Kelly did not forget about the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution, the 1820 Missouri Compromise, the 1850 Missouri Compromise, and the Kansas Nebraska Act, which all demonstrated America’s willingness to compromise about enslaving people to keep the institution of slavery alive and well.
— two-time Vice President, senator, and representative from South Carolina — knew the importance of enslaving Blacks and stated it clearly in 1837, almost 25 years before the Civil War. He said, “Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist. … We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races … is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country in blood.”
Lee knew what he was fighting for. Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens was clear in his : “Our new government is founded upon… the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.” And Confederate Army Lt. Gen. Nathan , a founder or early member of the KKK simply said, “If we ain't fightin' to keep slavery, then what the hell are we fightin' for?”
called Lee to task:
It is ridiculous to seek to excuse Robert Lee… Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel – not just to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God.
There are places for a portrait of Confederate general and proponent of slavery Robert E. Lee to be displayed. A court of law where the guilt and then potentially the humanity of a Black man will be weighed, and where a decision about his living and dying will be made, is not one of them. The portrait must come down.
Every day across the nation, the ACLU is called on to defend all the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's never been a more important time for to support the ACLU and our effective work to protect civil liberties. If you like what you just read, help us continue to speak freely by .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
PodcastDec 2024
Capital Punishment
Can Commuting the Row Be Biden's Real Legacy? Herman Lindsey and Cassy Stubbs Discuss With W. Kamau BellCan Commuting the Row Be Biden's Real Legacy? Herman Lindsey and Cassy Stubbs Discuss With W. Kamau Bell
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Capital Punishment
Over 130 Civil and Human Rights Organizations Call on President Biden to Commute Federal Death SentencesOver 130 Civil and Human Rights Organizations Call on President Biden to Commute Federal Death Sentences
WASHINGTON – More than 130 civil and human rights organizations, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, issued a letter to President Biden today, urging him to commute the sentences of people on federal death row before he leaves office. The letter highlights the moral and legal failings of the death penalty in the United States and stresses the urgency of action to prevent the potential resurgence of federal executions under an incoming Trump administration. The groups call on Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to address the irrevocably broken federal death penalty and to “bring America into a new era of moral leadership.” President Biden was the first presidential candidate to openly oppose the death penalty, and his administration issued a moratorium on federal executions. With 40 men still on death row, however, the letter emphasizes that commuting federal death sentences is the only irreversible action President Biden can take to prevent the incoming administration from attempting another execution spree. "President Biden has an opportunity to make history by addressing the racist and unjust federal death penalty system and keep an early campaign promise he made to the American people,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “Commuting the sentences of those on death row would help end the death penalty once and for all and prevent a second execution spree by President Trump. Trump’s first act of political theater ended in the execution of 13 people. President Biden shouldn’t allow Trump to repeat that travesty." In Trump’s final months in office, his administration executed 13 people in rapid succession, more than any administration in over 120 years. The Trump administration also amended the federal execution protocol which opened the door to more brutal methods of execution, including death by firing squad, electrocution, and nitrogen hypoxia, an untested and torturous method. Below are additional comments from: Paul O’Brien, executive director, Amnesty International USA: “President-elect Trump has promised to restart and accelerate the federal death machine, just as he did in his last administration. In the span of only 6 months, the Trump administration executed more people than the 10 previous presidential administrations combined. The executions carried out in his first term demonstrated to the world how the federal death penalty is fundamentally broken and that this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment should be abolished forever. We should take Trump at his word when he says he plans to repeat this horrific killing spree, and Biden must do what he can now to prevent it.” Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel, Legal Defense Fund: “Since our founding, LDF has been unwavering in its fight to abolish the death penalty and eliminate racial discrimination from our criminal legal system. The death penalty is rooted in slavery, lynchings, and white vigilantism and historically weaponized against people of color. From the Groveland Four in 1949 to many capital cases today, Black people are disproportionately impacted by the ultimate punishment. Commuting the sentences of the 40 individuals on federal death row is an unprecedented opportunity for President Biden to cement his commitment to remedying injustice by exercising executive clemency.” Margaret Huang, president and CEO, The Southern Poverty Law Center: “The death penalty is rooted in a deep history of racialized violence. To this day, race is still the biggest predictor of who gets sentenced to death, with Black people accounting for nearly 40% of those on federal death row, despite representing less than 12% of the adult population. And fully 70% of those on federal death row are from the South. Our nation, and particularly the communities that we serve in the Deep South, cannot achieve true racial justice while the death penalty remains in practice.” Joia Erin Thornton, executive director, FLOCC (Faith Leaders of Color Coalition): “President Biden should commute all federal death sentences because doing so would acknowledge and help redress the racial bias built into the federal death penalty system, allow government resources to be redirected to policies that actually make our communities safer, and allow the families of victims and incarcerated persons to focus on healing instead of living in legal limbo.” This letter is one of more than a dozen letters released today from hundreds of stakeholders from across the political and faith spectrums calling on President Biden to commute all federal death sentences, including Black pastors, former corrections officials, business leaders, current and former prosecutors, families who have lost loved ones to homicide, mental health advocates, and many more. All of the letters can be found here. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Capital Punishment
Biden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death SentencesBiden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death Sentences
In our series on how Biden can use the lame duck period to secure civil liberties and civil rights, we examine how Biden can combat President-elect Trump’s plans to greatly expand the death penalty and execute every person on the federal row. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Capital Punishment
National Security
Court Rules Signed Plea Agreements with Three of the 9/11 Defendants Are Valid and Must Go Into EffectCourt Rules Signed Plea Agreements with Three of the 9/11 Defendants Are Valid and Must Go Into Effect
WASHINGTON — A U.S. military court has agreed that the plea agreement reached with ACLU client Khalid Shaikh Mohammad back in August is valid and must go into effect. The judge’s decision comes three months after Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, overruled prosecutors and Brig. General Susan Escallier, the Guantánamo military commission’s convening authority, and revoked the signed plea agreement. In exchange for a guilty plea to all counts, the U.S. government agreed to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and two other defendants. The military judge’s decision follows litigation by the three defendants to enforce their agreement with the government. The negotiated plea process allows family members to get answers to long-held questions about the attacks directly from the defendants and, at sentencing, make statements about the tragic impact on them and their loved ones. The military judge has said he will next schedule a hearing for the guilty pleas to be entered. Since 2008, through its John Adams Project, the ACLU has provided capital defense support for detainees facing the death penalty in the military commissions, spending over $12.5 million to provide experienced capital defenders, mitigation specialists, investigators, and experts to the under-resourced military defense teams. Our efforts exposed unfairness, secrecy, and the ongoing role of torture in the Guantanamo military commissions, making clear that the commissions are a complete failure. The following is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU: “By reinstating the plea agreements, Col. Matthew N. McCall rightly recognizes that Defense Secretary Austin stepped out of bounds. We are finally back at the only practical solution after nearly two decades of litigation. “The government's decision to settle for life imprisonment instead of seeking the death penalty in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was always the right call. For too long, the U.S. has repeatedly defended its use of torture and unconstitutional military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay. As a nation, we must move forward with the plea process and sentencing hearing that is intended to give victim family members answers to their questions. They deserve transparency and finality about the events that claimed their loved ones. “This plea agreement further underscores the fact that the death penalty is out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system. It is inhumane, inequitable, and unjust. “We also urge the U.S. government to quickly relocate the men cleared for transfer, and finally end all indefinite detentions and unfair trials at Guantánamo.”