Does Virginia's monument protection statute apply when a county adds a new Emancipation Proclamation monument to a park that already holds a Confederate monument?

Plain-English summary

The Fluvanna County Historical Society offered to donate to the county a 4-by-3-foot stone monument with a brass plaque commemorating the sesquicentennial of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War. The county Board of Supervisors voted in September 2017 to place it in a piece of county property called Civil War Park, which already holds a Confederate monument. Delegate Ware asked whether Code § 15.2-1812, which limits the removal or alteration of war monuments, would block the placement.

The Attorney General concluded that the statute did not appear to apply, based on the facts as presented. Section 15.2-1812 protects existing monuments from being disturbed, altered, or removed once they are erected. The new Emancipation Proclamation monument was not removing anything: the county park itself is not a "monument," and adding the new stone to a different part of the park would not disturb the existing Confederate memorial. The AG noted that the final determination should be made by local officials based on all the facts on the ground.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

In particular, note that Code § 15.2-1812 was substantially rewritten by the General Assembly in 2020 to give localities clear authority to remove, relocate, contextualize, or cover war monuments after following a public-notice process. The 2018 analysis was based on the pre-2020 version of the statute. The current statute should be checked directly for any present-day question about adding to or moving a Virginia war monument.

Background and statutory framework

The earlier version of Code § 15.2-1812 prohibited the disturbance or removal of monuments to a long list of wars and military engagements. Earlier AG opinions and a 2015 circuit court decision had wrestled with which monuments were covered, particularly older ones erected before the statute's various amendments. In all those contests, the statute operated as a brake on local action: localities could not unilaterally take down monuments protected by it.

This opinion approaches the statute from the other direction: what happens when a county wants to add a new monument next to one that the statute already protects? The AG read the statute narrowly. Section 15.2-1812 protects against disturbance of existing monuments. Adding a new monument in a different spot in the same park is not disturbing the existing one. The land within the park is not itself a monument under the statute (unlike, say, a dedicated battlefield). So the act of placing the Emancipation Proclamation stone simply did not put the statute into play.

The opinion was short and fact-bound. The AG explicitly told the delegate that local officials should make the final call based on the specifics of the property, the existing monument, and the placement. The note about a need for local fact-finding is important: the AG was not handing out a categorical green light for new monuments anywhere a Confederate monument exists.

Common questions

Did the AG say Fluvanna County could legally place the Emancipation Proclamation monument?
The AG concluded that placing the new monument did not appear to implicate § 15.2-1812, which was the statute the delegate asked about. The AG did not analyze every other possible legal restriction (zoning, deed conditions, special Acts of Assembly), and the opinion explicitly defers final determination to local officials.

What does § 15.2-1812 actually forbid?
The version in effect at the time prohibited disturbance, removal, or alteration of monuments commemorating various wars and military engagements once they were erected. It was a protection against tearing things down, not a restriction on building new things.

Did the existing Confederate monument in Civil War Park give that monument any special legal status that would block the new one?
According to this opinion, no. The Confederate monument was protected from disturbance, but adding a separate monument elsewhere in the park did not disturb it. The park itself was not a memorial under the statute.

Is this still the law in 2026?
The framework changed. The 2020 General Assembly substantially rewrote § 15.2-1812 to give localities express authority to remove, relocate, or contextualize war monuments after a public hearing and waiting period. Anyone working on a present-day monument question should read the current statute and any post-2020 case law before relying on this opinion's logic.

Did the AG address the Fluvanna County Historical Society's role as donor?
No directly. The opinion focused on whether placement of the monument implicated § 15.2-1812. Deed restrictions or donor conditions can independently constrain a locality's options, but those were not part of the question presented.

Citations

• Va. Code § 15.2-1812 (pre-2020 version: protection against disturbance of war monuments)
• Va. Code § 2.2-505 (AG advisory opinion authority)
• Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, Regular Meeting Minutes (Sept. 20, 2017)
• Fluvanna Review articles regarding the proposed monument placement (Sept. 24, 2017; Nov. 10, 2016)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/opinions/2018/17-019-Ware-issued.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

October 12, 2018

The Honorable R. Lee Ware, Jr.
Member, Virginia House of Delegates
Post Office Box 689
Powhatan, Virginia 23139

Dear Delegate Ware:
I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of
the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented
You have asked whether Fluvanna County would be permitted, under § 15.2-1812 of the Code of
Virginia, to place a stone memorial commemorating the Emancipation Proclamation in a public park
owned by the County.

Background
You relate that the Fluvanna County Historical Society has offered to donate to Fluvanna County
a monument commemorating the Emancipation Proclamation. The proposed monument is "a 4-foot by 3-foot stone to be affixed with a brass plaque that reads a variant of: 'To commemorate the sesquicentennial
of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the American Civil War.'"[1] In September 2017, the
Board of Supervisors of Fluvanna County authorized the placement of the monument in a piece of county
property known as "Civil War Park."[2]

Applicable Law and Discussion

Virginia Code § 15.2-1812 prohibits the removal, and in some cases alteration, of certain
monuments once they are erected.

Installation of a monument to the Emancipation Proclamation, in the manner you have described,
does not appear to implicate § 15.2-1812 because the county land that comprises the park does not
constitute a memorial or monument, and the installation as described would not impact the previously
installed memorial to Confederate soldiers. The final determination, however, should be made by local
officials based on all available facts.

Conclusion

It is my opinion, based on the facts available to me, that the placement of the proposed
Emancipation Proclamation monument in Fluvanna County's Civil War Park would not implicate
§ 15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia.
With kindest regards, I am,
Very truly yours,

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

[1] Christina Dimeo, Emancipation Proclamation Monument to Join Confederate Monument in Civil War Park, FLUVANNA REV. (Sept. 24, 2017); see also Christina Dimeo, Emancipation Proclamation Monument Location Stirs Deep Feelings, FLUVANNA REV. (Nov. 10, 2016).

[2] Christina Dimeo, Emancipation Proclamation Monument to Join Confederate Monument in Civil War Park, FLUVANNA REV. (Sept. 24, 2017); Fluvanna Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, Regular Meeting Minutes (Sept. 20, 2017), at 100, available at https://goo.gl/xNc2VM.