Graffiti News

A riverfront history display immediately divided Richmond

Robert E. Lee’s image became a point of conflict as Richmond prepared to open its Canal Walk in June 1999. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s archive account, more than a dozen murals depicted figures from the city’s history. Commissioned by the Richmond Historic Riverfront Foundation, the images were installed on June 2 on the floodwall separating the James River from the Kanawha Canal.

A photograph of the Confederate general’s mural appeared on the newspaper’s front page that day. City Councilman Sa’ad El-Amin objected, saying Lee’s image offended the African American community because of what he represented. El-Amin threatened a boycott of the opening. After meeting him, James J. McCarthy, executive director of Richmond Riverfront Development Corp., agreed to remove the image. The official opening on June 4 proceeded without Lee on display.

For people following public art, the setting matters: these images formed a shared account of local history along a riverfront walk. Selecting a figure for that setting gave the figure a place within the city’s public presentation of its past. That selection, rather than simply the appearance of the artwork, became the dispute.

The disagreement concerned both history and representation

Supporters of keeping Lee’s image argued that his historical significance justified including him. Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans protested its removal, pointing to a display that also included Native American leader Powhatan. Richmond’s mayor at the time, Tim Kaine, likewise supported retaining Lee because of his role in the city’s history, despite its painful aspects.

The controversy also attracted David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, who visited and criticized the Arthur Ashe statue on Monument Avenue. The newspaper presents that intervention as part of the unwanted national attention surrounding the dispute.

A committee of 19 political, civic and religious leaders subsequently considered the image’s future. Its proposal changed both Lee’s presentation and the wider selection of people represented. Lee would appear without a Confederate Army uniform, outside his Franklin Street residence after his surrender at Appomattox. Former President Abraham Lincoln would be added, alongside two Black historical figures: Union Army sergeant Powhatan Beaty and newspaper editor John Mitchell.

The proposal shows how public art can frame historical subjects through clothing, setting and neighbouring images. A portrait’s meaning depends partly on the visual choices surrounding the person depicted. Expanding the cast also changes whose history viewers encounter together.

A revised image was installed before the arson attack

The City Council approved the recommended changes, although three members, including El-Amin, dissented. The replacement Lee image went up in November 1999 without incident, according to the newspaper. The revision therefore reached the riverfront, but it did not secure the artwork’s survival.

On January 17, 2000, someone set fire to Lee’s image. The attack took place on the national holiday honouring civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. A January 19, 2000, report cited in the archive account placed the fire between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. Police attributed it to a Molotov cocktail.

The mural was printed on vinyl mesh. That material detail matters when imagining the work: the historical display used an image mounted at the floodwall rather than a painting applied directly to its surface. The newspaper reported that the remaining damaged material was due to be taken down.

The mural’s removal is part of its public-art history

The damaged Lee mural was removed and never returned, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports. Both El-Amin and Kaine condemned the arson. El-Amin also opposed restoring the image, warning that reinstatement could invite further vandalism. The Sons of Confederate Veterans called for the incident to be investigated as a hate crime; that was the organisation’s demand, rather than an established investigative finding.

A security camera on a nearby Reynolds Metals building did not resolve the case. Police said the recording was poor and the camera faced the wrong direction during the attack. No one was arrested in connection with the fire, according to the account. The date of the attack alone does not establish the perpetrator’s identity or motive.

For mural visitors, this is a history of an absent work. An archival photograph should not be treated as evidence that Lee’s image remains available to see at Canal Walk. Installation, revision and removal all belong in the record of a public artwork. To explore murals nearby, use Wallscape’s map.

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch