What is Confederate Memorial Day and what is closed for the state-recognized holiday?
ALABAMA (WHNT) — The fourth Monday in April is a state-recognized holiday, meaning state offices and courts are closed.
Today, April 28, is what is known as Confederate Memorial Day. Alabama is one of only a few states that have an official holiday recognizing the 250,000 Confederate Soldiers who lost their lives.
State offices, including state courts and ALEA offices, are closed to observe the holiday. However, mail will still run and federal offices will remain open.
If you are looking to get your STAR ID ahead of the nationwide May 7 enforcement date, ALEA offices will serve customers beginning back on Tuesday, April 29.
The confederate memorial holiday dates back to just one year after the war in Georgia.
The day is one of three Confederate-related state holidays celebrated in Alabama. The state jointly observes Robert E. Lee Day with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January and the birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis which is observed in June.
First celebrated in 1865, Confederate Memorial Day was made a state holiday in Alabama in 1901, according to the Encyclopedia of Alabama.
Alabama is one of the only few states in the U.S. that still recognizes confederate holidays. Mississippi and Florida observe it in April and South Carolina observes it in May. Texas has its own version, calling it Confederate Heroes Day, observed in June.
In 2023, Alabama State Sen. Vivian Davis Figures sponsored a bill that would separate the celebration of Lee and King, HB360. It was rejected in committee.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats at odds over response to Trump decision to join Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats remain at odds over policy toward Iran after the U.S. strikes early Sunday. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program, but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tack, saying, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions 'horrible judgment' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State who served under President Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular among Trump supporters, particularly young men. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2028. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear antiwar stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a multinational nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X. A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said its level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans said they felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. Gomez Licon and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report
Miami Herald
15 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Some Johns Hopkins, UMD research stopped after Trump cuts. Others are scrambling to resume
BALTIMORE - Some Maryland university research projects on the Trump administration's chopping block have been fully discontinued, while others are scrambling to resume after a pause in funding. Johns Hopkins has lost more than $800 million in federal grant money. The University of Maryland lost tens of millions of dollars. But some cuts have been blocked by legal challenges, though litigation is ongoing. Researchers describe disappointment and uncertainty as they determine how to move forward. Alternative funding has been secured for a clinical trial in Bangladesh aimed at managing life-threatening diarrheal diseases in children, which was previously halted because of U.S. Agency for International Development funding cuts. The work has yet to resume. "It just takes a long time to rebuild the teams and get things in place again to start," said Judd Walson, chair of the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins University, which partnered on the project. "The disruptions that are happening are really catastrophic." Over the past several weeks, 17 NIH awards have been terminated or had an unclear status, including two training awards supporting doctoral-level researchers, Walson said. "We're not getting a lot of communication, so it's a little bit hard to say exactly what the status of some of these awards are," he said. The National Institutes of Health didn't respond to questions about funding cuts to Maryland research institutions. In a lawsuit challenging NIH research cuts, lawyers for the federal government wrote in a recent court filing that its terminations of grants for DEI-related studies were "sufficiently reasoned," and that the NIH has "broad discretion" to decide what grants to provide. Johns Hopkins is a plaintiff in two lawsuits involving caps on reimbursement of indirect costs for research - one challenging the NIH and the other against the Department of Defense. The latter suit also lists the University of Maryland, College Park, as a plaintiff. Both schools have also filed a brief in support of a lawsuit filed by Harvard University against the Trump administration's funding cuts. New grant terminations have been arriving "nearly every week," Johns Hopkins University said in a recent update published on its website. There's also been a nearly two-thirds decrease in new awards compared with last year, the university said. Johns Hopkins atmosphere and ocean sciences researcher Darryn Waugh was disappointed upon receiving notice that his NASA grant to study air pollution in Baltimore was canceled by the Trump administration. The termination came as a result of President Donald Trump's executive order, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." "It wasn't clear to me that this actually falls under this diversity, equity, inclusion," Waugh said. "It was research that I think we still wanted to do - to understand how the air pollution varies through the city - and the environmental justice was only actually a relatively small component of it." Waugh was working through the second year of a three-year grant, totaling $1,465,950. "We've got kind of a preliminary analysis," he said, regarding the research. "But to get anything conclusive, we would need more than one year of funding." Waugh said he intends to find ways of continuing the research without the NASA grant. Daniel Mullins, at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, had a grant canceled for a "Health Equity Research Hub," which examined how to encourage greater participation in health-related research. Mullins said the loss of the grant affected five positions, and the individuals will be removed from the university because of lack of funding. He added that the termination stated that the grant was DEI-related, which he disputes. "I think under the DEI umbrella, a lot of times, the government will refer to it as just one racial ethnic group," he said. "We've worked in different geographies, in different racial and ethnic populations, but what's cool about what we do is it really does apply to all patients in all populations." Mullins said his research group has additional funding from other agencies and is writing new proposals. Walson said social determinants of health - involving factors like poverty and other "inequities" - are "foundational to our understanding of health." "So the idea that we would not be able to pursue work that focuses on identifying and managing those particular issues, which are the underlying, core issues at the heart of health issues, is really challenging," Walson said. The Trump administration's cuts have had an ieffect across the world. Walson said it's estimated the cuts will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths globally, and could eventually lead to millions of deaths over the next couple of years. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said it's "a lie" that people have died because of USAID cuts. During a congressional hearing in May, Rubio said the U.S. is the world's "largest humanitarian provider." "I would argue: How many people die because China hasn't done it?" he said. "How many people have died because the U.K. has cut back on spending and so has other countries?" Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Miami Herald
15 hours ago
- Miami Herald
What Trump's Strikes on Iran Mean for Gas Prices As Oil Costs Surge
Amid the conflict between Israel and Iran, oil prices have been surging, and after President Donald Trump announced on Saturday the U.S. would be joining the attack on Iran's nuclear sites, concern has been raised over what this means for gas prices in America. The U.S. dropped bombs on Iran's three main nuclear sites on Saturday night—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—escalating fears of an expansion of the Middle Eastern conflict that could throw the oil market into turmoil. With much of the West already seeing spikes in costs, further increases could be looming as the conflict continues. After the U.S. attack, the Iran's reaction will reveal whether the conflict could develop into a major regional or even international conflict. Iran may retaliate against U.S. forces in the region, cut off a global oil supply route or try to accelerate its nuclear program. Although, Trump has warned of further military action if Tehran does not now decide to make peace. In the past week, Brent Crude oil stocks have already jumped 11 percent since Israel attacked Iran and is expected to continue rising on Monday, according to Emirati newspaper Gulf News, although prices have been fluctuating. The oil market had stabilized on Friday, according to Reuters, after the U.S. imposed new Iran-related sanctions, which fueled hopes that a negotiated agreement could be made between the two countries. That relief in the market was only temporary as after Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint, in response to the U.S. strikes. Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region, and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Reflecting on the knock-on effect this would have on U.S. gas prices, Kennedy said that in the long term, the conflict "will most certainly see energy prices go up at the pumps." "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples," he said. Kennedy said that higher oil prices could also mean that Russia is able to gain more money—oil from the Urals region has already increased by 26 percent in the past month. "This is making war in Ukraine last longer now as well as it gives [President Vladimir] Putin both political and economic ammunition to continue his war efforts and avoid the need for peace talks." Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London told Newsweek: "The overall impact of actions that make the world look even less safe than it was previously was is always a cost to the civilian sector and society as a whole." As the conflict, and its repercussions, continue to unfold in the next few days, it will become more clear how significant the prices hikes will be. Related Articles Donald Trump Warns Iran Against 'Any Retaliation' After US Strikes: Live UpdatesExclusive: Hezbollah Says It Won't Join Fight After US Attacks IranTrump Warns Iran To Make Peace or Face Further StrikesAOC Says Trump's Iran Strikes 'Clearly Grounds for Impeachment' 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
