Civil War

UNC's Century-Old Confederate Monument Takes a Tumble

Silent Sam was erected in 1913 to honor UNC students who fought and died for the south. Critics say it is a symbol of white supremacy.

|

SGM/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A controversial Confederate monument was torn down last night by protesters at the University of North Carolina's Chapel Hill campus.

The Silent Sam statue went up in 1913 to memorialize UNC students who fought and died for the south in the Civil War. In recent months, many activists called for its removal, arguing it was nothing more than a symbol of white supremacy.

Last night, on the eve of the first day of classes, roughly 250 protesters gathered in support of Maya Little, a UNC grad student who covered the statue with red ink and her own blood earlier this year. Little is facing criminal charges and potential expulsion.

Before the statue came down, protesters covered it with gray banners that read, "For a world without white supremacy," the Charlotte News & Observer reports. Behind the banners, demonstrators attached ropes to the monument, which were used to bring the statue down.

The scene on campus was at times chaotic, as some protesters tossed smoke bombs. Police arrested one person for "concealing one's face during a public rally and resisting arrest," UNC spokesperson Kate Luck tells CNN.

UNC Chancellor Carol Folt criticized the protesters' "unlawful and dangerous" actions, though she recognized the "divisive" nature of the statue. "The police are investigating the vandalism and assessing the full extent of the damage," Folt said in a statement posted on the school's website.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who has said Confederate monuments should be removed from public places, expressed similar sentiments. "The Governor understands that many people are frustrated by the pace of change and he shares their frustration, but violent destruction of public property has no place in our communities," Cooper's office said in a tweeted statement.

Silent Sam was first erected using donations from the United Daughters of the Confederacy. But as more people started calling for it to be taken down, the school was forced to spend at least $390,000 in security for the monument in the past year alone, according to the News & Observer.

School officials said that state law precluded them from removing the statue. As The New York Times reports:

Under that law, similar in its language and structure to other statutes shielding Confederate-themed displays in the South, a "monument, memorial or work of art owned by the state" may not be "removed, relocated or altered in any way" without the consent of a state historical commission.

University officials resisted calls, including one from the governor, that they invoke a loophole in the law, which allows for "an object of remembrance" to be removed without the commission's approval if it is deemed "a threat to public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition."

Had school officials moved quicker, it's possible they could have avoided what transpired last night.

Bonus link: Reason's Ronald Bailey argues that most Confederate monuments belong at historical sites or museums, not on public land.

NEXT: Higher Minimum Wages Blamed for Closure of Iconic NYC Coffee Shop Where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Worked

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Had school officials moved quicker, it’s possible they could have avoided what transpired last night.

    1. Joe…are you blaming officials for not proactively accomodating the mob?

      1. If only they had burned the books, the mob would not have had to burn the library.

        reason is just appalling on this.

        1. I love that Joe argues that a mob being pissy allows them to use a loophole for “public safety” to remove it.

          Because appeasing mobs has a long track record of satisfying their demands.

        2. Its why anyone who still thinks most Reason staff are anything but Lefties should have their heads examined.

          A test would be to tear down some Lefty statue and see Reason fly into OUTRAGE mode.

          1. Let’s do that bullshit twisted barrel gun statue in front of the UN.

        3. Reason’s take on this and about a dozen other issues is really the opposite of libertarian.

          The iconoclasts will never be satisfied until the Washington and Jefferson memorials are bulldozed. Their objective regarding American historical monuments is the same as the Taliban’s objective regarding Buddhist monuments and the anti-communist Pole’s objective regarding monuments to Marx and Lenin. The nihilistic American iconoclasts hate America and want to destroy anything that celebrates its heritage.

          Perhaps D.C. could be proactive and avoid similar disturbances in the future by dynamiting the Jefferson Memorial first.

          1. That is where it will end.

          2. Did Washington and Jefferson take up arms against the country?

            You equate our founding fathers with traitors?

            1. Actually, Washington and Jefferson did take up arms against their country, Great Britain. And, from the British point of view, they were traitors.

            2. Sure, the first time that in the course of human events Virginians dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another people, and assume among the powers of the Earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, and defend that secession by making war on those that would compel them to rescind that secession, it’s not treason. But if the Virginians do it a second time, well, then it’s treason, obviously.

              Or is it being in league with Massachusetts rather than Texas that makes it different? Or just winning instead of losing, as per the John Harington epigram (Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason)?

              Really, what possible argument can you make that Lee and Confederate soldiers were traitors and Washington and the Continental Army weren’t?

              1. ^^^this.

          3. The iconoclasts will never be satisfied until the Washington and Jefferson memorials are bulldozed. Their objective regarding American historical monuments is the same as Islam’s objective regarding infidel monuments and utterly unlike the anti-communist Pole’s objective regarding monuments to Marx and Lenin erected by the communist conquerors that enslaved Poland . The nihilistic American iconoclasts hate America and want to destroy anything that celebrates its heritage.

            FTFY

        4. Libertarians historically have been squeamish about the government using force to prevent criminal acts or neutralize military threats.

          During the Cold War they were more concerned with US military spending than Soviet expansionism.

          Today they are more concerned about police brutality than preserving law and order.

          They don’t seem to realize that the threat of violence is what ultimately preserves liberty.

          1. Today they are more concerned about police brutality than preserving law and order.

            Sorry, but that’s a false dichtomony and untrue. As I see no evidence that libertarians are anti-law and order and one can believe strongly that abuse of authority is very bad and needs remedy while simultaneously supporting the rule of law.

            If fact, I would argue that anyone who isn’t very concerned about police forces abusing their authority cannot claim to care about law and order, as a professional police force which is beholden to taxpayers is a prerequisite to true law and order.

            Or maybe those law and order types like North Korea’s policing and think we should follow that. After all, they enforce all theirs laws to the furthest extent possible and the citizens mostly follow all laws closely due to that (much more closely than the average US citizen does).

            Either that – or those for law and order must also be for policing reforms, prison reforms, prosecutorial reforms, and judicial reforms.

    2. Praising mobs and iconoclasm has always been a liberal position. Also war is peace

      1. Reason: “Sure, property rights and all are important…but if a mob is pretty pissy, well, you might have to give up some shit to keep ’em happy, prole”

        1. Correction: the “right” mob

          Do you even soft progressive, brah?

        2. What property rights were involved here, exactly? The state doesn’t have a right to property.

          1. The taxpayers whose money was lawfully spent for one purpose (a statue and security for it) and not another purpose (iconoclasm) have rights.

            1. What about the taxpayers whose money was stolen and never had any say at all in what is on the site?

              1. You have a citation to prove that theft, right?

              2. Silent Sam was first erected using donations from the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

                1. Does the UDC pay for the security? Sheesh, I’m *opposing* the toppling here.

          2. re: “The state doesn’t have a right to property.”

            Actually, it does because the state is also us the people. If we the people decide to spend money on something for our mutual benefit or enjoyment (say, the Hoover Dam), you have no right to unilaterally destroy it. Property rights law (in addition to other law) can apply to the case.

            1. And what if we do not in fact so decide?

              Since, you know, that’s how reality works.

              1. You did. It is called representative government. If you don’t like it that the side that loses is stuck watching the government do things it doesn’t like, I don’t know what to tell you other than to take up anarchism because the losing side not getting what it wants is inherent in government.

              2. If you did not in fact so decide, Cathy, you have plenty of legal remedies. Destroying property is not among them.

          3. Lol, are trying to out-troll OBL?

          4. Try taking a sledgehammer to your local police station. Tell us how that works out for you.

            The implication that the state has no property rights implies you can destroy public property with impunity. Does that seem remotely like how the world works?

    3. If the Left wasn’t the side of violence and lawlessness, it’s possible they could have avoided what transpired last night.

  2. The Telltale Head

  3. “Reason’s Ronald Bailey argues that most Confederate monuments belong at historical sites or museums, not on public land.”

    Bailey also said that statues mourning war dead should not be removed. So, I’m sure he’ll change this position when necessary

    1. Most historic sites are public land. Does Bailey not know that or is he just being mendacious?

      1. Well, and it’s bullshit buck passing. There are historical trusts charged with recording the history of the Civil War, they routinely get contacted about taking these statues and they can’t. They don’t have the $390K nor do they want the rage mob tearing down statues on their property any more than UNC or the public at large.

        1. If the day ever comes when the mob shows up to take down the statues on battlefields, it will be on. There will be a bunch of dead SJWs, because there are too many people who would take that very personally, I being one of them. These people are just animals.

          1. I can only assume that, in the fucked up state of modern history, you would shout “Remember, Ellsworth!” as you shot someone tearing down a confederate statue.

      2. We’ll find out when BLM vandalizes Antietam National Battlefield.

        I suspect instead of condemning the act, Bailey will use it as an argument for privatizing the National Park Service.

  4. The Silent Sam statue went up in 1913 to memorialize UNC students who fought and died for the south in the Civil War.

    I don’t know, sounds like UNC itself needs to be torn down.

    1. If the monument at UNC is controversial they should probably raze a couple of public parks in Charlottesville.

  5. I do not even like Confederate statues et al…but fuck Reason, you’re coming out for allowing the mob to run things…but ONLY if the mob is lefty. I notice far less tolerance by writers here of the idiot White Nationalists…but antifa never quite gets the outrage juices running here.

    That seems to be as opposed to libertarianism as it could conceivably be.

    1. Where in this article is reason ‘coming out for allowing the mob to run things’?

      1. It was the school’s fault they didn’t do what the mob asked them to do. It was the conclusion.

        1. Here’s the quote:

          “Had school officials moved quicker, it’s possible they could have avoided what transpired last night.”

          Feel free to describe the conclusion differently.

          1. conclusion UNC wanted statue down, didn’t want credit or blame

            1. Pretty much this…^

              …but regardless, not sure how the above quote suggests Reason being ‘in favor’ of the mob.

              1. Try reading it

              2. Long-time readers of Reason have noticed they don’t really mind lawlessness if it furthers their agenda.

                They acted like a bunch of Van Halen groupies during the Ferguson riots a few years ago. Hardly any condemnation of the rioters, other than a few Soave-esque caveats here and there about how rioting was bad.

                This article’s bland portrayal of mob violence is keeping with the pattern.

                1. One of these things is not like the other:

                  Codemning the mob here v condemning Ferguson riots.

                  Libertarians being pro-liberty should support a group of people doing the only thing that ever made a difference out of real frustration from two sources: constant police harassment and complete inability to get others to understand the true problem well enough to actually change things.

                  Much the same way that libertarians were pro-traitourous actions by our founding fathers, but not for similar traitorous actions today.

                  As those who claim to.love liberty should always support the right of those oppressed to use any means necessary to end the oppression. Whether they be in North Korea or North Saint Louis is meaningless.

                  I think there’s even a document which discusses this very thing… The Declaration of Independence gave not just the founding fathers the moral argument for committing treason, but also the Ferguson protestors the moral right to seek recourse, even violent if all other options have failed.

      2. Its private property. Vandals damaged it.

        1. Actually, no. The statue was public property. That’s why the law that “monument, memorial or work of art owned by the state” applies.

          1. Ah. I missed that.

            Its public property. Vandals damaged it.

  6. Man, they’re like Chairman Mao’s Red Guard.

    1. Exactly

    2. “I want you to argue with them and get in their face. We’re gonna reward our friends and punish our enemies.”
      -Barack Obama

      This brownshirt army is his primary success story, and will be his biggest and longest lasting legacy.

      1. Actual quote:
        “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ ”

        He was talking about voting.

        1. You’re like a parody that no one asked and everyone is annoyed to read

          1. Truth is parody. Misquotes are truth.

            Good to know.

        2. Rhetoric that uses words like “punish” and “enemies” with regard political opponents who only offense consists of policy differences are hardly appropriate in public discourse. It sure sounds like more than just “voting”.

          Then there’s Obama at his June 13, 2008 fundraiser: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

          I’m not a progressive, so I don’t lose my sense of humor when I interpret the words of a political opponent: I understand that this was an likely off-the-cuff, jocular utterance. So, if Obama wasn’t really making a literal call to arms, what was he actually calling for his partisans to do? He’s certainly not just talking about voting, though the extent of direct action to suppress his “enemies” is unclear.

          1. I love it that you think off-the-cuff Obama, where his BAMN motives are revealed, is not the real, teleprompter Obama. That the Ferguson looters were in fact protesters. That destroying our history will in any way make us a better nation. We desperately need to be reminded of every step, and misstep, we took along our way.

    3. Yes. And there is no end to a Cultural Revolution.

      Everything from the past culture must be destroyed, continuously.

      1. And if the mob/”antifa” ever truly picked up steam, it would be a cultural revolution. That is essentially what they are doing on a much smaller scale. Confederate monuments, American flags, it’s all verboten one stage at a time.

  7. I think they should all know that every statue they tear down makes it all the easier to ignore my white guilt. Too bad there wasn’t a way to get over it without destroying historical monuments.

  8. Ok, once again you are no longer a ‘protestor’ when you engage in destruction of property.

    1. The 1A only protects ‘peaceful assembly’.

      1. Yet somehow no one was arrested.

  9. >>>A controversial Confederate monument

    controversial?

    1. Even funnier is that Democrats ran the Confederacy. Now Democrats are letting the Communist tear down their war memorials.

      1. That is funny.

        The Democratic Party used to include people who promoted the Confederacy and white supremacy.

        Now, they don’t.

        What’s the joke?

        1. Now the Democrats are trying to make white people view themselves as just another interest group and to further instigate racial hatred.

          You know, their usual schtick.

        2. “Now , they don’t”

          You sure about that? Did you see what liberal parents on Manhattan’s Deep Blue Upper West Side did a few months ago when the NYC school district proposed integrating their schools? It was Little Rock all over again.

          Liberals like to talk a good game about equality and diversity, but when their own kids or property values are on the line they turn into 1950s Southern rednecks faster than you can say “Segregation then, segregation now, segregation forever!

          1. Exactly Spock. The elite white liberals who ran the Democratic Party let the useful idiots do the dirty work. It was fine to have open borders and all that until their neighborhoods started to get developers wanting apartments.

            The elitists were fine with blacks, hispanics, asians, and poor whites fighting among themselves and against conservatives. Its keeps all the shitty people down and not cooperating to Make America Great Again.

            Its about control and the elite racist whites had to let non-whites into the fold. Those new Democrats got more people into the Democrat Party. Some turned out to be non-white racists. Its fine as long as you can control them. The rich racist white elites of the Democratic Party cannot control the useful idiots anymore.

        3. Democrats still want state’s rights and that is what the Confederates used, remember?

          Democrats still are racists, remember?

          The Democratic Party just added new members that are black racists, and asian racists, and hispanic racists. The old white racists, like Byrd, lost power years ago because those identity politics about white power were losers in politics. Bill and Hillary Clinton are Arkansas racists. They are losing power.

          You Lefties are not fooling anyone.

        4. The Democrats still believe in white supremacy. They always argue that certain minorities are congenitally incapable of competing with whites.

        5. Not only is it not a joke, the Dems openly courted southern working democrats and had so many thru at least the 1950’s, that the party’s platform was shaped to some extent by the southern democrats.

          Ever here of AK and Clinton?

          And those in very rural areas, most are very poor and love them free shit like any true progressive.

          It’s just over the last 50-60 years those voters now don’t make up voting blocks significant enough to swing southern states.

          So yeah, not too long ago Southern democrats were very important – since the Bush election at least though the D’s call their lost voting block backwards, racist, Nazis, and anything else they can.

          I’m not sure calling large voting blocks stupid is a key to success, but here we are.

          1. See also Truman, Carter

  10. “North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who has said Confederate monuments should be removed from public places”

    Mandating the use of public land for all local government. On the plus side, he won’t interfere with a local government’s pee pee mandate law so “fake libertarian moment!”

    1. The Republicans passed a law that said the localities can’t make the decision without approval from the unelected state board.

  11. …and then the mob was rounded up and charged with destruction of public property. Right? RIGHT?

    1. They wore masks…so, no, they will never be penalized.

      But insisting on no masks for public protests is a bad idea for reasons.

      1. Fuck off slaver.

      2. Banning masks is not the answer.

        Cops need to get off their asses and catch people in the act.

        The school needs to pay to put the statue back up.

        Put all these statues back up and wait for the vandals to do it again. Put it back up again until you catch the culprits.

      3. “But insisting on no masks for public protests is a bad idea for reasons.”

        If someone wants to wear a mask during a public protest, I will support their right to do so. I would insist that mask wearers display a government issued photo id prominently around their necks, to let others see they are not terrorists.

      4. But insisting on no masks for public protests is unconstitutional and anti-freedom a bad idea for reasons.

        FTFY

  12. The Silent Sam statue went up in 1913 to memorialize UNC students who fought and died for the south in the Civil War.

    Another soldier memorial marker taken down, just as some of us predicted would happen. They will kicking over soldier’s headstones and destroying other war memorials soon.

    Instead of building their own statues or whatever to whatever they feel are important, they want to try and change history and silence speech.

    1. “they want to try and change history and silence speech.”

      Removing a statue is not changing history or silencing speech. No amount of statue removing will change the fact that the civil war took place. In time the war and those who fought it will be forgotten.

      1. Good GOD are you dumb.

        1. Thanks for the reminder. Statues of god should also be removed.

          1. Removing a statue is not changing history or silencing speech. No amount of statue removing will change the fact that the civil war took place. In time the war and those who fought it will be forgotten.

            “Tearing them down won’t silence anything people will never forget the war ever happened until they forget that the war happened and don’t talk about it anymore.”

            Dumber than Tony.

            1. We remove far more babies from mother’s wombs than we do statues from parks. Get some perspective.

              1. So if mad.casual had replied to a post on mob-rule statue removals by trying to shift focus to the abortion debate that would be somehow better in your opinion?

                For sake of fairness, should abortion post comments always be about things other than abortions?

      2. Then why tear them down, if it does not matter?

        Because it does matter.

        Historical markers are another way besides books and word of mouth to remember history.

        Socialists and other Lefties dont want real history remembered. They want their version of history remembered.

        Democrats never mention in the news that Democrats erected those Southern Civil War historical markers. It was Democrats that fought for slavery. It was Democrats that started the KKK. Democrats started Jim Crowe laws. Democrats started segregation in the USA.

        1. Minimum wage laws…

        2. “Democrats never mention in the news that Democrats erected those Southern Civil War historical markers. It was Democrats that fought for slavery. It was Democrats that started the KKK. Democrats started Jim Crowe laws. Democrats started segregation in the USA.”

          You don’t need a statue to remember institutionalized racism. There isn’t a single statue commemorating Jim Crow or his laws, yet you remember. If you want students educated, you’ll need to invest in teachers and books. Statues are not going to do the trick.

          1. He remembers–but high school kids don’t. They don’t even know–because it’s not taught.

            They don’t know that Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman were Republicans. They don’t, in a lot of cases know that Lincoln was a Republican.

            They don’t know that it was Democrats who interned the Japanese. They don’t know that it was a Democrat that decided to use the atomic bomb on people–or that it was a Democrat that got us into Vietnam. Ot that it was republican who had to send in the National Guard to stop Democrats from physically attacking children

            They don’t know that the ‘big switch’ in the parties, never happened.

            So yes, we need statues, and monuments and endless teaching.

            Because they’re trying to hide their crimes by erasing the past.

            1. +1

            2. I was never taught about the civil war in high school either. Nor have I ever seen a statue commemorating it. Never stopped me from finding out about it. Same goes with all the other historical events you fear high school kids don’t know about. But statues isn’t the way to educate kids. They need teachers and books which cost money.

              “Because they’re trying to hide their crimes by erasing the past.”

              They? High school kids are trying to hide their crimes by erasing the past? Or do you have another, even worse they in mind?

        3. I have experienced this first hand. Walking around Brussels, Belgium, I came upon a statue of Herbert Hoover, which I thought very strange. The only thing I ever learned about Herbert Hoover in school was that he was a terrible president, a dimwitted misanthrope who had a totally laissez-faire ideology and refused to do anything about the Great Depression. Of course everything that I learned about Hoover in school was wrong, not just wrong but a lie. It turns out that the Belgians erected the statue of Hoover to honor his humanitarian work during World War I to prevent mass starvation of Belgian civilians.

          1. Hoover was also very supportive of the USSR during its early difficult years of the 1921 famine. Thanks to Hoover’s aid, the Bolsheviks were able to earn valuable foreign currency by selling grain overseas. I managed to learn all that from a book without any help from statues.

            1. So I guess you’re cool with property damage of anything, soong as it’s also written is book somewhere.

              When exactly do you plan to start burning monuments, art, and anything else than can be learned elsewhere?

              1. After all, the Sistine chapel, Mona Lisa, the Parthenon, and tons of other stuff can be found is high res online.

                Why go to Mars when we can great pictures from here?

                1. ..can be found online in high res…

                  Apologies

        4. This isn’t a historical marker. It doesn’t support history.

          1. Someone here that attended UNC gave us a nice back story to that statue.

            Its more compelling than your statement.

            You’re anti-American. We get it.

            1. You’re supporting the memory of people who took up arms against the nation.

              The Confederacy was anti-American.

              Someone gave a sanitized history, like the sanitized lost cause history of the Civil War. The primary documents, what was said at the time it was erected, tell a different story.

              1. The CSA became their own nation of Democrats. They were anti-American.

                They lost and were invited back into the USA. They accepted.

                Now Democrats have learned that they need to enslave all Americans and destroy America from the inside out to win.

                You have a delusional version of everything. Whomever taught you history was a moron and probably a Lefty. You get smacked down for your historical inaccuracies every time.

              2. If any state, including the ‘enlightened’ Northern ones thought that by ratifying the Constitution they gave up their right to remove themselves from that agreement, it never would’ve been ratified.

    2. Instead of building their own statues or whatever to whatever they feel are important, they want to try and change
      history and silence speech.

      I don’t agree with everything Mr. Young has to say, but he’s got the best idea on the matter that I’ve heard.

    3. They will kicking over soldier’s headstones and destroying other war memorials soon.

      I think that’s the next COINTELPRO op that some enterprising alt-right infiltrator should suggest. Gather Antifa to go publicly vandalise Confederate soldier graveyards.

      Make sure to get them doing it on video.

      1. Pretty tame by cointelpro standards, damaging dead people. Real terrorists target the living.

          1. So, no witnesses as to what happened but the black guy who ran his mouth at people waiving a Confederate flag surely didn’t. We know this because he’s the one who got his ass kicked.

            Real terrorists don’t waive a battleflag and wait for you to mouth off before kicking your ass before letting you run to the police.

            1. Surely didn’t initiate anything.

  13. In most cities across the Midwest, no one wants to be caught walking after dark on Martin Luther King Street.

    1. Dont get caught walking during the day on Martin Luther King Boulevard.

      1. It’s always a boulevard.

        In one city, the people voted for this great expansion of a major thoroughfare, to widen it, put a walking path down the center, encourage the opening and spread of shoppes and bistros.

        And it started. tentatively, a gastropub, a fancypants coffee house, an entertainment hub

        And then, leftists got the street renamed–Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

        And everything came to a crashing halt….sort of.

        The entertainment complex is being remodeled into yet another new set of ‘city offices’ (read ‘welfare office), several community centers have occupied what was once valuable real estate. A small grocery store has converted to liquor. The coffee house is gone.. The gastropub has moved it’s entrance to a side street in the hope that this will stave off the end.

        The entire midtown shopping entertainment idea has been repurposed into a conduit from a major highway to a city that hasn’t shot it’s own hopes in the face.

        MLK Boulevard–as soon as they start saying it, shoot it down, don’t worry about the cries of ‘racist’–make it not happen. It’s like sewing a seed for a ghetto wherever it’s placed.

        Did I mention that a weave shop has opened? That’s good, right?

        Right?

  14. I’m of the “relocate them to cemeteries and museums” school, but I’m also instinctively inclined to opposed whatever a deranged mob does.

    1. Apparently it’s now college orientation.
      With campus police sitting by idly.

  15. A good friend of mine went to UNC. According to him, more than half the students are New Yahkers who didn’t get into an Ivy. My guess is that these are the ones most offended by statues.

    1. http://student-enrollment-by-r…..t_data.php

      Among undergrads, in state enrollees outnumber out of state 5 to 1. I’m assuming a lot of the out of state enrollees are from surrounding states, especially since UNC and UVA are the best public schools in the south. Georgians, Tennesseans, South Carolinians, not to mention the deep south where the public schools are more interested in football than academics.

      North Carolina is very close to balanced politically, having voted for Obama and now having a Democratic governor.

      1. “since UNC and UVA are the best public schools in the south”

        Someone’s never been to Texas

        1. Went to Austin. UTA is nice.
          I wouldn’t qualify Austin as Southern.
          I wouldn’t put UTA above NC or VA.

      2. Virginia and North Carolina are not the South anymore.

      3. *Georgia Tech

        1. Good school. Probably better for some programs. Not in the same league as UNC or UVA. Better at football, worse at basketball.

        2. Georgia Tech is ranked as one of the best public schools in the USA.

          And they like sports.

          1. It sure is. Like I said, for some fields, it would be better than VA and NC. But, as a whole, not quite in the same league.

            VA and NC as well as Michigan love their sports, too.

            Cal loves its sports, but just isn’t very good at it. Except rugby and swimming.

            1. Great and none of the school mentioned can compete with MIT for academics.

              They’ll want to tear down all the Revolutionary War statues and historical markers next.

              1. They’ll want to tear down all the Revolutionary War statues and historical markers next.

                Yes, they will. Next will be the churches and libraries.

  16. In recent months, many activists called for its removal, arguing it was nothing more than a symbol of white supremacy.

    Once again demonstrating their disdain for history. (I’m generously assuming that some of them actually know a bit of history.)

  17. Silent Sam went up to memorialize the terrorism of Confederate Soldiers to defeat reconstruction and add another century to legal all-but-enslavement of African Americans. During the commissioning of the statue, the speech celebrated the whipping of an African American woman and the work done to save the Anglo-Saxon race.

    “The present generation… scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war… their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South.”

    That’s what Julian Carr was memorializing.

    1. No dumb ass. The statue was put up to commemorate Confederate war dead. What some idiot said during its dedication does not change why it was built.

      I am sorry but trousered apes like you shouldn’t get to burn books and destroy art.

      1. So the guy chosen to explain the statue, by the organization that founded it, has no relation to the purpose of it?

        Why is it that the people who use the most juvenile insults have the weakest thought processes?

        1. Yeah, let’s revisit the dedication speech for every statue and then empower mobs to act on their own biases.

          1. We should just ask nicely for the racists to be nice and act responsibly.

            And fuck statues of traitors.

            1. We support the rights of all non mask wearing statues.

            2. You mean those Democrat traitors, right?

              Those Confederate Democrats?

            3. statues of traitors.

              “Consent of the governed” is so passe’.

              1. The Lefties cannot get out from under the historical fact that the Civil War South was run by Democrats. The Confederate leaders were chosen by the people. The Confederate states seceded. The CSA lost. All Confederate States were reintegrated into the USA and amends were made and mostly accepted.

                Lincoln, a Republican, got the 13th Amendment passed and ratified.

                But Republicans and Libertarians are the racists…yeah right.

              2. They lost an election. They took up arms against the nation, in order to defend their right to own people.

                1. Who Chanandler? Democrats, right?

                  They didnt have a right to secede from the USA?

                2. They lost an election. They took up arms against the nation

                  More like they lost an election and declared sovereignty because the newly elected gov’t intended to economically plunder certain States.

                  1. And they were subsequently invaded and forced to remain in Union. Lincoln destroyed the voluntary republic of the founders and created a Soviet style republic held together by force of arms.

                    1. Had the CSA not fired first at Fort Sumter, Lincoln would have had no legal right to start a war with the CSA.

                      On the flip side, California would not have had so many Lefties living there. The Lefties would be living in Atlanta, Miami, Birmingham, Memphis, and Austin.

                      Oh….wait.

              3. One of the provisions of the Confederacy’s constitution was an explicit denial of a state’s right to secede from it.

                The Confederates were a mass of contradictions.

        2. “Why is it that the people who use the most juvenile insults have the weakest thought processes?”

          Chanandler, why are your insults so juvenile?

        3. Why is it that the people who use the most juvenile insults have the weakest thought processes?

          I’m sure in many cases, it’s because they actually are children. On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.

          1. That and sometimes the truth is a juvenile insult. Chandler is a trousered ape. There could be no better way to describe him.

            1. Thanks for proving my point. You want me to get that tick off of your back? I can pause flinging my feces for that.

              1. YOU are the tick Chanandler.

            2. “a trousered ape” I pretty much come here to read the insults. That one was particularly good.

  18. Keeping their logic consistent they should raze the school because I am sure whoever founded it did or said something unpleasant to modern sensibilities once. (not that these historically illiterate imbeciles could ever understand the finer nuances of the events/motivations surrounding the incorrectly named ‘Civil War’…)

    1. Georgia:
      The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

      Mississippi:

      Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.

      South Carolina:
      Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

    2. Georgia:
      The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

      Mississippi:

      Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.

      South Carolina:
      Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

    3. Georgia:
      The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

      Mississippi:

      Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.

    4. Do I need to go on?

      It was about slavery.

      The States’ Rights argument went as far as allowing slavery. It did not go as far to giving states the right to not return fugitive slaves. The Southern States insisted that the Free States support the institution.

      1. Chanandler lying again.

        Here are the entire declarations of secession for the Confederate States.
        Declarations of Secession

        1. What word of what I posted wasn’t copied and pasted exactly from there? There are 82 instances of “slave” on that page alone (including slaves, slavery, etc).

          1. And many other reasons for secession.

            State’s rights was the #1 reason. State’s right included slavery, taxes, Northern state’s undue influence in federal politics….

            If you shoot your mouth off incorrectly about history, you’re gonna get smacked down over and over.

      2. Virginia and Texas explicitly reserved the right to leave the Union at any time of their choosing for any reason in their ratification documents. And the federal government was never given the authority to prevent any State from leaving the Union for any reason. Virginia, in particular, originally voted to remain in Union and changed this position when it was called upon to raise an army to invade the seceding States, rightly viewing this as a usurpation of authority by the federal government.

        And try reading Lincoln’s first inaugural sometime. I’m sure you will find the parts about him literally threatening violence and bloodshed in order to collect recently doubled tariff taxes interesting. As I said, the entire thing is way more nuanced with way more contributing factors than you will ever acknowledge.

        1. Virginia:
          and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

          Emphasis mine.

          1. Emphasis irrelevant. Lincoln did not go to war to end slavery. Lincoln went to war to collect taxes. Lincoln only did not want the expansion of slavery into new states so as to limit the influence of the Democrat Party of the time. He wanted “free” states for free white labor. His explicit support for the Corwin amendment was well known upon his election.

            And, yet, none of that even matters because from a Constitutional standpoint, the federal government does not have the authority to prevent a state from leaving the Union for any reason.

            Here is an exercise for you. Read both Lincoln’s first inaugural and Davis’s first inaugural. Compare and contrast them.

            And feel free to ignore the other economic factors that I highlighted. On the other hand it might benefit you to learn to think past your emotions. One sought peace, the other sought war.

        2. Texas:
          She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

      3. It was about slavery.

        The first Union soldier killed during the war was killed by the owner of a hotel for tearing down the stars and bars at the Lincoln’s request.

        If Trump ordered soldiers to tear down a flag from private property and the ensuing altercation got the soldier and the property owner killed, he’d be impeached. Lincoln eulogized the Colonel who was killed and awarded the MOH to the Corporal who shot the owner.

        Keep telling yourself it was only about slavery.

      4. Since this thread is about North Carolina I notice that you didn’t quote from NC’s declaration of secession and I know why-it doesn’t exactly fit the narrative. NC was either the last, or next to last (Tennessee) depending on how you determine when a state left and went only reluctantly. Neither NC or Tennessee mention slavery in their articles of secession and both went after Ft. Sumter. The fact of the matter is that some states went to war only with great reluctance, and NC suffered more casualties than any other rebel state. That’s the sort of thing that those who erected these statues were trying to memorialize, but that sort of context is not what the vandals want mentioned.

      5. As the war ended with southern states rejoining the Union, it is accurate to say all deaths on both sides helped build the free.ish country we enjoy today, both good and bad.

        As such, I fail to understand how memorializing all loses on both sides would be wrong. In fact I think failing to understand just how many men died to give us the country we have and understanding each death is a price for what we enjoy today, is ignorant ingratitude.

        I’m sorry our founding fathers were humans with flaws, but by ignoring those flaws by pretending ‘that wasn’t us the winners, so the loses for the losers doesn’t matter’ you prove yourself ignorant, not enlightened.

        1. Remembering war tragedies should be a priority for Americans and every h7man. Otherwise, new generations think war is nothing and then start one.

          War is the worst of human nature on display.

          Imagine smashing another persons head in with your rifle butt while hearing your best friend being stabbed to death by your enemy that was just weeks ago a cousin.

          Anyone who rushes into war without knowing what war means for everyone, is a fools fool.

  19. I’ve long found rather funny the Left’s view of the CSA. They condemn the slavery, which is good. But try talking to them about the concept of self-ownership–the antithesis of slavery–and they’ll angrily deny that any such thing exists (with the exception that women are at liberty to abort babies if they “somehow” get pregnant). To them our bodies and our labor are the property of the Collective.

    In other words, they’re not against slavery per se; in the case of the CSA they just don’t like those particular slaveholders.

    1. Their problem with the CSA is that only Africans were enslaved. They believe in universal slavery.

      1. The Democrats lost. They realized that they need to enslave all to win.

    2. Chanandler is going on and on incorrectly about slavery being the #1 reason for secession and he refuses to admit that Democrats ran the South during the Civil War era.

      They were different kinds racists than the kinds of racists that currently run the Democratic Party is always the narrative.

      1. Slavery WAS the #1 reason for secession. The reason it’s so easy to go on and on about it is that the material in which that was stated is so voluminous.

        1. Russia was the #1 reason Trump won the election. The reason it’s so easy to go on and on about it is that the material in which that was stated is so voluminous.

          1. Unlike with the CSA, we don’t have Trump and Russian government themselves writing voluminously about it. The leaders and philosophers of the CSA themselves stated over and over that preserving slavery was the primary reason for secession. Asserting other factors were equally important is theorizing beyond the words of the rebels themselves.

            1. “The leaders and philosophers of the CSA themselves stated over and over that preserving slavery was the primary reason for secession. ”

              I won’t believe it until I see a statue commemorating this so-called primary reason for succession.

              1. Wait, is this sarcasm?

                The statutes were erected some time after the war, when slavery had been abolished and grown less fashionable as something to publicly glorify. So the retrospective roseate hue of memory was spread over something called the “Lost Cause,” seen by then (among certain elites) as a noble struggle of old chivalric values against soulless materialist Yankeeism (which the same elites were simultaneously trying to get more of, even as they put up the monuments).

              2. Yeah, I’m erecting a statue to that right now in my pants.

            2. I’d say that the 7 deep-south states which seceded over Lincoln’s election were basically thinking just of slavery.

              The other 4 states, faced with Lincoln’s militia call after Sumter, figured that if they had to choose a side they’d go with the secessionists rather than the North – that wasn’t the same as saying the deep-south states had been right in the first place. But the 4 states were identifying with the cause of other slave states.

              The division over war aims was in the North, where officially it started off as a fight to put the Union back together again – with emancipation becoming more and more important as a war aim as time (and the war) went on.

              So, yeah, slavery it is, then.

              1. (That last paragraph quoted Apu from the Simpsons)

        2. Read the actual declarartions of secession above. Slavery is but many reasons.

          I know that it bucks the narrative but its what the CSA used to secede.

          1. Mississippi Declaration of Secession

            “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

          2. “Read the actual declarartions of secession above. Slavery is but many reasons.”

            Yeah, but they keep coming back to it.

            It’s like “slavery, slavery, slavery, tariffs, Indians, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery.”

          3. Let me ask you a question:

            If the USA had another civil war today, what would be “the” reason?

            Answer: A lot of things.

            The same was true in our actual civil war. The south was pissed about a lot of stuff, like the tariffs forcing them to fund most of the federal government. Constantly being outvoted by the north on EVERY split issue. Size and scope of government. States rights as an abstract concept. Many other things. And YES, slavery.

            In the USA today you could say size/scope of government, social issues, immigration, gun rights, etc.

            What is THE singular issue though? Immigration? It’s a big one. If the lefties won, they’d surely want to blame it all on racist immigration policies the right wanted. But it’s not just one thing, it’s all of it together. If slavery had been the only issue between north and south, would they have seceded? Maybe. But maybe not.

            I think it’s fair to say slavery was the single biggest issue, but it’s BS to say that was all that it was about. And that’s how the left loves to portray it.

            1. The reason we’re NOT having a civil war today is that there is no overarching “the” reason for our divisions as there was at the time of the Civil War. Without the national division over slavery, especially the issue of slavery in territories and new states, there would not have been a Civil War, despite the south being “pissed about a lot of stuff”.

              1. Possibly. I’m not saying you’re wrong for sure… But I wouldn’t say you’re definitely correct either.

                The American Revolution wasn’t fought over any single issue. Not all wars, or civil wars, need a single massive reason to happen. MOST of them tend to have several major reasons, and then perhaps another big reason pops up and pushes them over the edge. BAM, it’s a hot war all of a sudden.

                If we do break out into civil war again, which I would not be even remotely surprised over, it will not be a single issue either. There are many millions of people in this country on both sides ready to start shooting people RIGHT THIS SECOND, and yet there is no single “the” reason. It’s just not always needed.

                As far as the south goes, I’m sure without slavery it wouldn’t have happened when it did. But maybe another 10-20 years of getting shafted by the north on every split issue, them funding the entire federal government, etc might have made it happen then. People will only put up with so much bullshit before they fight back. We’ll never know of course, and I’m open to either possibility with the south. Either way it doesn’t matter much to me beyond being an academic question.

  20. Dick bags. Why the hell didn’t they arrest all these people and prevent it from happening? This is nothing more than vandalism.

    These mindless, idiotic mobs will having nothing good come from them. Our history is our history, good parts and bad. Expect this nonsense to get more and more insane as the country becomes less white too. They’ve already called to get rid of Washington, Jefferson, etc. These people don’t want fairness, or anything else… They’re just after revenge against white people, for stuff that no living white person even had anything to do with.

    Multiculturalism has always failed, and it is failing fantastically right now again. I will keep my fingers crossed that someday minorities will learn how to read history books, think logically, and stop attacking white people just because they’re white… But I don’t see it happening. We’re probably going to 1. Have a race war. 2. Split up into multiple countries, which happen to largely align demographically. 3. Going to turn into a shit show like South Africa.

    We’ll see how it goes…

    1. They’re just after revenge against white people

      But most of them ARE white people.

      A race war? No. Split up into multiple countries? That’s a possibility, but it would be over economic and cultural issues, not about race. A shit show like South Africa? That could happen, too, in majority Black major cities, if a break up of the US results in them being isolated.

      1. Yeah, lots of them are. White people who were indoctrinated to be self loathing. The thing is there are these things called statistics, and the majority of white people think these white people are insane. Also, Generation Z is going pretty hard right/conservative, ESPECIALLY white ones. But even older white people are essentially aligning politically along racial lines. The Republican party is a de facto white party, just as the Dems claim it is. The Dems are becoming a de facto non white party, and are in fact actively pushing out white liberals. Go see black/Hispanics/etc shouting down white progs EXPLICITLY BECAUSE THEY’RE WHITE. These incidents are increasing at a hell of a pace.

        It hasn’t fully happened yet, but everything is lining up along racial lines, people are just calling it other things. Nobody wants to admit it, but it is simply a fact that whites are the only group where the majority of them believe in the ideals of America. If/when push comes to shove, people tend to side with people like them in sketchy situations too…

        I don’t think that we’ll have a race war called such, but we may well have a de facto race war because of the above.

        Likewise, any splitting up of America along “cultural lines” is really de facto racial lines. Personally I think the only sensible thing we can do to save anything remotely resembling America is to split it up now, and try to save some portions of the country that are savable.

      2. If we split into 2 nations, the self sorting that would happen afterwards would sort into a majority non white leftist America and an overwhelmingly white right leaning America. I’d be fine with that. Plus, whatever non whites wanted to be there would be the good ones!

        As for South Africa… White people are being openly discriminated against, not allowed to advocate for their own interests, etc here where we’re still the majority… If demographic trends don’t change, do you really expect non whites to somehow have LESS animus against us when we’re 50% of the population? 40%? 35%?

        Hell no. It will go like it’s going in SA now. They have “affirmative action” laws for the majority population, whites pay for basically everything in the country, AND now they just started outright stealing their land with no compensation. Not to mention the insane murder rates being completely ignored by the black politicians…

        Getting there would take many decades, but it’s in the cards without major changes in trajectory.

      3. I’m not racist, hell I’m part Mexican myself! But race IS playing a HUGE role in everything that is going on now, and it is only going to become even more explicit in the future. It can’t go any other way when a people is being demographically replaced by other ethnicities in their own country, especially when the new guys show zero regard for the principles your culture holds dear.

        The majority of the population has ALWAYS been against this according to polls, but our betters (politicians) have ignored their opinions… Hence Trump. People don’t WANT to become a minority in their own home. And why should they? America is a weird outlier, nation of immigrants and all that… It was all WHITE immigrants of course, but whatevs… But what is happening in Europe is nothing short of criminal. Europeans deserve homelands like everybody else.

        Multiculturalism has NEVER worked, and it never will. Tribalism is built into our genes, as illustrated by how non whites are behaving now. Whites will only put up with it for so long before they fight back. The push back has already started, and as non whites become even more aggressive, that will just escalate it more. Anything is possible. The only thing that could conceivable defuse it (other than splitting the country up) is if minorities STOP being anti white, and we abolish all the affirmative action/diversity requirement nonsense. Otherwise it’s gonna get messy.

  21. Self-governing independent citizens. I salute you.
    Angry mobs, you disgust me.
    The laws making drugs illegal are based 100% in racism and there is no debating that fact. Tear down those ‘symbols of hate’ you pissants, a statue is easy. I am totally underwhelmed by these protesters, challenge and change your lawmakers. Leave the statues for the sissies. Face actual armed police forces when you oust your lawmakers, they will shoot to kill. That is your government and they tricked you into your flag and statue war, they are laughing at you nitwits…

  22. These statues honoring the rebel cause are an affront to white Yankees as well. Don’t make us come down there and whoop you, again.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.