Offense is not a valid legal argument with monuments

A federal appeals court in Jacksonville will soon revisit a question that has long plagued Southern public life: the fate of Confederate monuments. Attorney Eric Johnson Jr., whose father was the attorney of Martin Luther King Jr., argues that the display of Confederate monuments on public property violates the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that the city should stop investing in maintaining them.

The sticking point? Johnson bases his case on a “stigmatic injury,” holding that the monuments inflict “deep repulsion, disheartenment, and intimidation.” Unfortunately for him, sentiment rarely dictates legal precedent for removing public historical markers, no matter how Confederate they may be.