Confederate Monument

NEW ORLEANS — A judge was right when he cleared the way to remove a Confederate monument at a north Louisiana courthouse, a federal appeals court has ruled. A local official applauded the decision but said the case probably isn’t over.

The case involves a monument erected in 1906 in a parish known as “Bloody Caddo” during the Reconstruction era.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans again rejected claims Monday from the United Daughters of the Confederacy’s Shreveport chapter.

“We definitely applaud the decision,” Caddo (KAD-oh) Parish Commissioner Steven Jackson said in a telephone interview from Shreveport. He was in the majority on the commission’s 7-to-5 removal vote in 2017.

The commission respects the Daughters of the Confederacy’s right to continue in court, he said. The chapter is considering its options and hasn’t decided its next step, attorney Dick “Dave” Knadler (NAYD-ler) said in an email.

The group could ask the full 5th Circuit for a rehearing. It could also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

A federal judge in Monroe threw out the lawsuit last year, ruling that the group failed to prove it had any “private property interest” in the spot where the monument stands. Judge Robert James also rejected arguments that the commission had violated the group’s rights to equal protection under law and free speech.

A 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling states, “placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech,” he noted.

A three-judge panel upheld that 20-page opinion, calling it “exhaustive and well-reasoned.” On Monday, the judges declined to reconsider.

When the commission voted in October, two members cited the parish’s post-Civil War reputation as “Bloody Caddo” as a reason to remove the monument from courthouse grounds, The Times reported .

The parish was the most violent in a violent state, with less than 3% of Louisiana’s population but 16% of all homicides in the state during Reconstruction, university professor Gilles Vandal wrote in a 1991 history article.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.