As the Mid-Shore community begins a weekend of celebration of Juneteenth, the national commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States, it seemed like the appropriate time to focus on the controversial “Talbot Boys” Confederate memorial that sits on the Talbot County Courthouse lawn. While the arguments for maintaining or moving the statue are now increasingly well-known to Spy readers, for the first time, we have reached out to the two organizations who have either taken the lead in preserving it where it stands now (Preserve Talbot History) or moving it (Move the Monument Coalition) to a less controversial location to provide short summaries of each group’s position.
We conclude today with Preserve Talbot History’s President David Montgomery. In his interview with the Spy, David talks about the misinterpretations those seeking to move the Talbot Boys have on the statue and a false reading of Eastern Shore history. He also talks about his organization’s proposal to build a memorial to commemorate soldiers from the Union side of the Civil War. David also responses to the recent lawsuit by the NAACP/ACLU against the Talbot County Council and how the community should embrace its full history as part of its tourism industry. Finally, he speaks about his group’s desire to see a county-wide referendum on the future of the Talbot Boys.
On Wednesday, the Spy published our interview with Move the Monument Coalition leaders Ridgely Ochs and Jess Taylor. You can view that video here.
This video is approximately five minutes in length. For more information about the Preserve Talbot History organization please go here.
Letters to Editor
Dan Menefee says
“Both sides,” really? Now matter how you spin it, preserving confederate history is preserving institution of slavery. Get over yourself, Mr. Montgomery.
Chris Gordon says
Mr. Montgomery seems to be arguing that we should honor not only those who fought on the side of slavery but also those who fought in opposition to slavery. Or perhaps he believes the ridiculous claim that the Civil Wqr had nothing to do with slavery. Either is an absurd defense of the indefensible.