Charlottesville

It's Time for Charlottesville To Remove Its Confederate Monuments

They belong in the dustbin of history, but a state law stands in the way.

|

Charlottesville's Confederate monuments are here to stay, a Virginia judge ruled this week, reigniting debate over whether statues of Gens. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson deserve a place in the public square.

"While some people obviously see Lee and Jackson as symbols of white supremacy, others see them as brilliant military tacticians or complex leaders in a difficult time," Judge Richard E. Moore of the Charlottesville Circuit Court says in a letter detailing his decision. "In either event, the statues to them under the undisputed facts of this case still are monuments and memorials to them, as veterans of the Civil War."

The ruling comes nearly two years after the Unite the Right rally, where white supremacists carrying tiki torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us" marched in Charlottesville to protest the removal of Lee's statue. The demonstrations culminated with the death of a counterprotester after a white nationalist rammed a car into a crowd of people.

Moore's decision hinges on an early 20th century law that allows local governments to approve the construction of war memorials but prohibits them from taking those same monuments down without the state government's approval. The Charlottesville City Council acted in defiance of this, a lawsuit alleges, when it voted in February 2017 to remove the statue of Lee situated in a public park that used to bear his name. Following the Unite the Right demonstrations, local officials also voted to remove Jackson's memorial, which the lawsuit was then amended to include.

"It's based on a flawed law, so the law doesn't make much difference," Bob Fenwick, a former Charlottesville City Council member, tells the local CBS affiliate. "It was a public process, it was a lawful process, so that's our case."

The law is flawed, and it should be amended. If a local governing body may erect monuments without state approval, it follows naturally that the exact same officials should be permitted to follow the exact same processes for their removal. They know the needs of their constituents far better than state officials, who are further removed from the daily goings-on in local communities.

Charlottesville's leaders have spoken, and they believe the monuments should come down. And they should.

It is not lost on me that the vast majority of Confederate monument admirers aren't waving tiki torches in service of white nationalism and are genuine in their calls to preserve heritage. But as Reason's Ron Bailey—a Charlottesville resident—notes, those concerns are misplaced when considering the historical context, much of which is unknown among many people born and bred in the South. He writes of his experience in 1963:

My third grade Virginia history book referred to the Civil War as the War Between the States and asserted that that conflict was chiefly over state's rights. Virginia Generals Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were portrayed as honorable and heroic defenders of Southern rights.

Not much has changed. I grew up in Virginia a few decades later, and my teachers up through high school described the Civil War as a violent skirmish waged over federalism. It wasn't until after I graduated from the University of Virginia in 2013 that I learned the central role played by slavery.

As the legal fight continues, the City Council has an unlikely ally in removing Lee's monument. It would be "wiser…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered," wrote Robert E. Lee in 1869, as he declined an invitation to place memorials for fallen soldiers.

The state would do well to get out of the way and let Charlottesville, and Lee himself, commit the monuments to oblivion—along with all the ugly feelings that come along with them.

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.

206 responses to “It's Time for Charlottesville To Remove Its Confederate Monuments

  1. Whitewashing history never helps anyone, except to momentarily distract snowflakes.

    1. Whitewashing? Erasing would probably be more accurate.

      My third grade Virginia history book referred to the Civil War as the War Between the States and asserted that that conflict was chiefly over state’s rights. Virginia Generals Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were portrayed as honorable and heroic defenders of Southern rights.

      Oddly enough, other than the bit about the War Between the States, that’s exactly the same history that was taught to my mother – in the Chicago public schools in the 40’s and 50’s.

      Show me a single movie made before the 1950’s where the Union troops charge on the South in the service of liberating the slaves. If my recollection serves, the usual rationale given is to “teach those rebels a lesson!”. Slavery is mentioned rarely if ever.

      My point isn’t simply that one learns history from watching old, bad movies. The point is that those movies are made, and targeted to the audience’s understanding of those events. They reflect the consensus understanding of those events by the people who actually lived through those events.

      It would appear that the people who actually lived through the Civil War had an understanding of it that more closely resembled that which was taught to you, Mr. Bailey and my mother than it does the post 1960’s revisionism which is being peddled today.

      1. The point is that those movies are made, and targeted to the audience’s understanding of those events.

        More like, “these movies are made to cater to the biases of the audience”.

        1. Ok, I’ll accept that. But apparently, those were the biases of the entire country, not just the South. How many movies get made catering to the biases of the South?

          And why would I believe the revisionist view is any less biased? I’m a lot more inclined to accept the biases of actual witnesses to the events than I am the biases of ideologues with agendas long after the fact.

          1. Who said only the South was racist?

            1. Every Yankee ever, at least when convenient.

            2. Well Pedo Jeffy, at least they’re not all a bunch of child molesters.

        2. Abraham Lincoln: “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

          That is real history: The South seceded over slavery, but the Union dragged them back in, at horrific cost in blood, not over slavery, but merely to establish that states were not allowed to secede.

          Which, in fact, was a question of states’ rights.

          1. the Union dragged them back in, at horrific cost in blood, not over slavery, but merely to establish that states were not allowed to secede.

            That’s not why the fighting started. It started because the South chose to attack Federal property (Fort Sumter, Fort Jackson and other arsenals) – which made it obvious that Washington DC itself was a target of hostiles (surrounded by slave states esp with Virginia’s secession a couple days after Sumter). The Union was NOT going to move its capital city. Lincoln didn’t even call up the militia until after Davis did – and Lincoln’s callup is what impelled Virginia to secede. And hostile possession of New Orleans had always been deemed the most existential threat to the US since Jefferson purchased Louisiana.

            Not saying there would have been some peaceful secession alternative that would’ve worked. But ‘peaceful secession’ was NEVER the intention of the South. The Fire Eaters actually believed they would WIN (establish the right of slaveowners to legally establish slavery in all western territories) by secession.

            Which, in fact, was a question of states’ rights.

            Any pretension to ‘state’s rights’ died with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision. The former mandated that citizens in free states be coerced into supporting slavery. The latter eliminated the right of ‘free states’ to actually prohibit slavery or slaveownership by their citizens.

            1. The North could have relinquished the “federal property” and avoided bloodshed. It was located in the South. The Declaration of Independence codified the right to secede.

              1. You can’t avoid bloodshed when your opponent is looking to pick a fight.
                The South attacked because they wanted to fight. They wanted to fight because they wanted to win. By win I mean they wanted to expand slavery territory – west of the Mississippi like back into Kansas and such – and EXPECTED that the US (west of Appalachians at least) would be forced to accede to that if not join the Confederacy outright. Which is the big reason why they felt they could INITIATE a defensive war. They would win by states joining them rather than by conquering land.

                They were not on some romantic fatalistic quixotic lark to be left alone with their happy darkies. That is merely part of the post-facto Lost Cause mythologizing. The South had a strategy to WIN and it involved forcing the US into conflict and strangling the interior where King Cotton could then prevail by pulling Britain and France into the conflict. And they were complete morons in implementing that strategy.

                And why is federal property in quotes? Those states SOLD that land to the US decades before. It wasn’t their property anymore. They didn’t even negotiate in good faith re breaking that contracted sale of property. They tried to wheedle Buchanan (rightfully considered the worst Prez ever) into giving it up for nothing during his lame-duckitude. To his credit, he didn’t.

            2. Horse shit.
              The Feds were warned to close down Sumter and withdraw. Instead, to foment conflict, Lincoln sought to reinforce Sumter.
              By the way, do you know how many people died at Ft. Sumter?

              Zero.

              Unless of course you include the union soldiers killed when they tried to fire a “ceremonial” cannon shot during the surrender and their cannon blew up.

              And Lincoln took that as reason to kill 700,000 people.

              1. go back to your cave ya dumbfuck inbreed. I had kin fight/die on both sides – and one of the confederates is quite ‘respected’ among you neocons. Unlike you however – I actually have studied that war in order to understand it. Rather than simply to indulge in a bit of greatgrandpappy was a good guy and raise a beer to the morons yelling the south shall rise again.

          2. So Lincoln was a Nazi?

            1. To render their park forever tiki torchbearer-unfriendly, Charlottesville’s city fathers need but place an equestrian statue of Confederate Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin opposite the existing one of Robert E. Lee.

            2. Not a Nazi.

              I’ve long thought of Lincoln as America’s Josef Stalin.

              The Nazis scapegoated a group of people and pushed for racial purity.
              Stalin didn’t care about all that crap. He just wanted unbridled power and didn’t care WHO died as long as he got it.
              Lincoln is as close as America has ever gotten to a Stalinist dictator.

          3. A group of states which ceded some (but far from all) powers to a central government while maintaining the majority of their sovereignty. A state chooses to leave the union. Do you wage WAR on that state?

            Yes? Even if it’s the U.K. leaving the European union? Oh wait, you thought I was talking about American states leaving the American union?

            Slavery wasn’t the main reason for secession. Taxation was. Recall we fought the world’s largest superpower over a 3% tax. Lincoln – elected by the North (not receiving any southern votes) sought to suck off his Northern backers by funneling riches from the South in the form of high tariffs on imported goods – forcing the South to buy manufactured goods from the North. When the South declined, Lincoln led a slaughter that killed one in every fifty Americans and wiped out about half of America’s wealth. Lincoln’s PRIMARY GOAL was to maintain control of the South (“preserve the union”).
            So, Billy, what do you think? Time to bomb the U.K. until they change their Brexit vote?
            As for slavery, many countries around the world had contemporaneous slavery. In most, it simply died out as a result of industrialization. Slaves just aren’t as economically viable as machines. Only in America have the saps been convinced that over 700,000 people had to die to “end slavery”. So many morons.

            As for Lee? An honorable man. A great general. A gentleman. And a better man than ANY of his detractors.

      2. The point is that those movies are made, and targeted to the audience’s understanding of those events. They reflect the consensus understanding of those events by the people who actually lived through those events.

        No they don’t. Mass media/entertainment CREATES that ‘consensus understanding’.

        In the case of the South/Civil War/Reconstruction, the Dunning School and Lost Cause folks created a revisionist and quite bogus interpretation of history – not because it was accurate history but because the interpretation they chose is what bolstered the establishment of Jim Crow in their own time. It was actually quite a Marxist tactic – Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it They then were also the most vocal ‘historians’ about that era – and the only ones with a current agenda about it. So it appeared to be an academic consensus – but only because one side was noisy about it. So the mass media then tells its stories to a broader audience (up to that point generally ignorant cuz history is kinda boring to most) that supports that – from Birth of a Nation on.

      3. Post 60s? The hardcore revisionism isn’t 25 years old.

        1. It’s a lot older than that!
          Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” might be viewed as some of the first propaganda. Read it. It frees no slaves in any area controlled by the North. In other words, it’s as if President Obozo had declared all Chinese political prisoners “free”.
          It was propaganda and an attempt to foment a firth column in the South.
          Nothing more.

          1. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free slaves in the free states? No! That’s just wrong.

            Or…..could it be because slavery was already illegal there?

            1. Slavery was still legal in Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky.

    2. By “whitewashing,” do you mean focusing on the accomplishments of white men and trivializing the contributions of people of color?

      1. Do you have specific examples of what you’re talking about?

      2. Actually, I’d like to see a list of the accomplishments of EVERYONE who isn’t a White Male of European Descent.
        I suspect it would amount to little more than a footnote in a compendium of the accomplishments of WMED.

    3. Whitewashing?

      The demonstrations culminated with the police, at the behest of an unconstitutional declaration by the Governor, herding the lawful demonstrators into crowds of unlawfully demonstrating counterprotesters, which lead to thedeath of a counterprotester after a white nationalist rammed a car into a crowd of people.

      FTFY

      Maybe we don’t need to whitewash the recent past that we can still watch on Youtube. I don’t like the politics of the protesters, but not acknowledging the shitty police tactics that directly lead to the confrontations with Antifa is as bad as changing the history books.

    4. So perhaps we should rename Fort Bragg – Fort Sepp Dietrich?
      Or Fort Hood – Fort Santa Ana?
      Or Fort Benning – Fort Sitting Bull?
      Or Fort Polk – Fort Benedict Arnold?

      Fact is everything about those monuments – and far more important US bases in the South created during the Jim Crow era was a whitewashing of history. An attempt by white supremacists running the Jim Crow system to pretend that the Civil War wasn’t actually about slavery. But was about a heroic and noble Lost Cause.

      I don’t give a shit about some statue in some moronic southern town that still eats that crap. But it is long past time for the CinC and US Army to tell southern politicians to either find a different military guy who wasn’t a fucking traitor to the US – or we’re gonna move those bases and all the economic benefits of the money paid to a state that doesn’t honor traitors.

      1. Remove the bases, too

      2. Funny that the “traitors” were never charged with treason by the people who actually fought them.

        1. Of course they weren’t. eg Andrew Johnson issued Christmas Amnesty in 1868 – to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

          Lincoln had previously offered amnesty in Dec 1863 and Mar 1864 – and Johnson also did so in May 1865. The 1868 one is the one that extends specifically even to the mention of ‘treason’.

          NB – none of those proclamations offer to name US Army bases after Confederates as a way of placating Lost Cause assholes and morons.

        2. Edit: Johnson also issued at least four other amnesty proclamations in 1866 – 1868 that gradually extended the amnesty to military officers who had left US service or educated at West Point, etc. The second to last one in Jul 1868 extended to everyone except 300 confederates who were then under indictment for ‘treason or other felony’. The final one above extended to everyone including Davis.

      3. Such self-righteousness. If the US military was to pass a purity test, most of its bases would have to be re-named.

    5. The lengths bigots go to defend their bigotry while denying it, Trump-style.

      1. Progtards are definitely bigots.

  2. “statue of Lee situated in a public park that bears his name”

    It’s Emancipation Park now.

    https://www.visitcharlottesville.org/listing/emancipation-park/252/

  3. The solution seems simple to me. Charlottesville should just secede from the state.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. We should just have all the progressives secede. Secession will be compulsory. No land or other property will be included. Then they must leave forever.

  4. Or they could erect an even bigger statue of General Grant with his giant boot on General Lee’s head.

    1. Or recreate this classic scene?

      1. Hang you and the horse that you rode in on!!!

        1. Oh by the way, how’s it hanging with you? And with your horse, too, of course?

    2. And a whiskey bottle in his hand.

    3. Too much money. Just replace the statue title plate with “Traitor to his country, Robert E. Lee”.

  5. Nearly everything in this uninformed editorial is factually wrong. Charlottesville didn’t erect the Lee statue, a private individual did who then gifted the land to the city as a park.

    1. The author of this article, Billy Bunion, “graduated from the University of Virginia in 2013”. Give him some time to get over his “education” and develop actual knowledge.

      1. Sounds like he’s unlearning the wrong stuff as is.

      2. But he didn’t hear about slavery until then.

        I now hate him as a brazen liar who assumes he can insult my intelligence , which is about 3X what he assumes it must be in IQ points

        1. FCVK YOU, Billy Binion, if it wasn’t clear enough

      3. Makes me wonder if Reason has any criteria for what a libertarian is before they hire. I’m guessing not.

        No wonder why some of the old school H&R posters like RC Dean are not around anymore.

        1. The criteria are “for smaller government” and “don’t tick of the liberals”, which is a pretty impossible assignment.

      4. “Billy” a tell.

    2. No fair!
      You got facts all over his Narrative!

  6. If Mr. Binion didn’t “learn” the revisionist history of the War of Northern Aggression until after graduating from UVA he might shouldn’t discount everything he learned before.

  7. How the fuck was this trash allowed to be printed?

    It’s spring in North America. Why are there still snowflakes around.

    If you’re butthurt looking at a statue, turn your fucking head around and look somewhere else.

    1. If Binion wants to prove he’s serious then he should start with Woodrow Wilson and Robert Byrd.

      Purge them from the public square and then we’ll talk.

    2. I think it’s best when politicians are focused on which statues to tear down.

      Beats the hell out of pretty much everything else they do.

    3. Gozer with post of the week!

  8. Has Reason covered the independent review of the 2017 clashes?

    http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=59691

    “In contrast to the July 8 event, the City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety on August 12. The City was unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit holder’s offensive speech. This represents a failure of one of government’s core functions – the protection of fundamental rights. Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and protect citizens from harm, injury, and death. Charlottesville preserved neither of those principles on August 12, which has led to deep distrust of government within this community. “

    1. It’s not that C’ville was unable to… The jacka$$es serving as Mayor and Governor chose not to.

    2. In Charlottesville and many cities across America, it’s not that the civil authorities “failed” to prevent political street violence, but that that they were actively colluding with one side of the violence to attack the other.

      The civil authorities should be held responsible under the Ku Klux Klan Acts.

  9. You would think modern day southerners who mostly vote R could care less about this guy and his army, you know, being that any time you bring up the south and slavery they just deflect to “well it was just a bunch of DEMOCRATS! that enslaved blacks back then, the south was all RACIST DEMOCRATS!”…

    OK so why do you care if their leader’s statue was taken down?

    I could care less, though it looks like a giant participation trophy for second place in a contest of 2.

  10. We need those monuments because a YA writer had to alter her book because ‘woke’ people don’t know that there was slavery before there was America. Woke people don’t know that black people aren’t the only people to have been enslaved.

    We need those monuments because there is a plaque, at a college in Illinois that reads, Abraham Lincoln, Democrat.

    We need those monuments because your entire generation, Billy Binion, has decided that embracing willful ignorance and defending that ignorance with a passion is a valid course of existence — and there are far too many power hungry leftists out there happy to help you with this.

    You leap, blindly into idiocy with glee.

    See this–“It wasn’t until after I graduated from the University of Virginia in 2013 that I learned the central role played by slavery.:” This is a lie. A big fat, out and out lie.

    The ONLY way you could have made it all the way through college without learning that slavery was central to the Civil War is to never speak to anyone, ever, and never use any media.

    I really hope that you intended it to be hyperbole because no one who reads this site would ever believe(at least with a straight face) that the University of Virginia is a hotbed of Confederate sympathizers.

    1. “Woke people don’t know that black people aren’t the only people to have been enslaved.”

      I expect that they also don’t know that the enslavement of black Africans wouldn’t have been possible without the willingness of other black Africans to capture those people and sell them to the slave traders.

  11. “I grew up in Virginia a few decades later, and my teachers up through high school described the Civil War as a violent skirmish waged over federalism. It wasn’t until after I graduated from the University of Virginia in 2013 that I learned the central role played by slavery.

    I graduated from high school in Virginia, and I don’t see how your teachers could have taught you about the political angle (especially the controversy over whether new states would be slave states), without at some point talking about slavery. In fact, when I went to high school in Virginia, they required a a year of American history to graduate and a year of Virginia history. Surely, you can’t teach teach students about what happened in Virginia between 1585 and 1865 without discussing slavery at some point. If you didn’t know slavery played a central role in the Civil War until after you graduated from college, then you must have been sleeping in class.

    P.S. Did they teach you anything about what Sheridan did to the non-slave holding farmers of the Shenandoah Valley?

    P.P.S. I can’t get six people in my office to agree on where to go to lunch and why, but of the more than a million individuals who served in the Confederate army, they all agreed on why they were fighting–and they were all for the same one reason?

    1. P.P.P.S. The University of Virginia has been in the top 20 rankings for American history departments since I was a kid. I just checked, and it’s still in the top 20. If you took an “American History before 1865” class at the University of Virginia and you didn’t find out that slavery played a central role in the Civil War until after you graduated, then you weren’t just sleeping through one class in high school. You must have slept through all of that class’ lectures and never bothered to crack the textbook.

    2. While I did not go to high school in Virginia, I did attend H.S. in Florida, and about three decades early than the author. Nobody in my part of the South ever called or characterized the war as a ‘violent skirmish.’ One out of pride, and two out of respect for all the dead.

      I think he is full of shit. Or an idiot. Maybe both.

    3. I graduated HS in Virginia (mid-aughts), and I was taught the following things in elementary school (also in Virginia):

      1. The Civil War was about slavery, though some folks deny that.
      2. The North was basically wholly in the right, the South started everything and committed all the wrongs.
      3. The Civil War is the best example of the most just war possible.
      4. Sheridan and Sherman were revolutionary strategists whose novel approach of “total war” was forward-thinking and destined to become the standard of war, not war criminals who brought war to the civilian population.

      If anything, the history I was taught in Virginia was biased in exactly the opposite way as Billy Binion claims. I hate to side with anybody in this “debate”, but if my experience carries any weight, then BB is a liar.

    4. I can’t get six people in my office to agree on where to go to lunch and why, but of the more than a million individuals who served in the Confederate army, they all agreed on why they were fighting–and they were all for the same one reason

      That’s a strawman. Grunts served for the same reasons that age group always goes to war. Because no one that age thinks of death. Their girlfriend will be impressed. They can be a hero by protecting the only way of life they know. Everyone else is doing it. etc. And then after conscription starts and they see death, because they have no choice. One of my ancestors joined the confederacy because his job in St Louis required a loyalty oath once the fighting started – and the clerk administering it was a recent German immigrant (and apparently drunk – or maybe that’s just stereotype showing thru in his memoir).

      But they don’t start the wars. Those who start the wars almost never fight in them. And in particular, if they LOSE that war they started, they turn on a dime and come up with whatever post-facto excuse is necessary for them to stay in power and be ‘respected’.

      Lincoln’s first inaugural does get to the heart of why it started – One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The use of right/wrong then has nothing to do with our 20th century version of that but with the contemporaneous view and everyone would have agreed. The POLICY dispute – extend slavery or not – is what had been the sectional conflict for a generation, what started the war, and is what is generally ignored now (esp in South). In particular, we twist ourselves into pretzels ignoring that secession was a TACTIC to achieve the policy goal of extension.

  12. Moore’s decision hinges on an early 20th century law that allows local governments to approve the construction of war memorials but prohibits them from taking those same monuments down without the state government’s approval.

    If there’s an angle here at all, it should be the ridiculousness of this law. I don’t really care if a town wants to erect a statue of Joseph Stalin, but what interest does the state government have in monuments at a local park owned by the city?

    1. The author doesn’t seem to care as much about the law as much as that the law is in the way of taking the statues down.

      1. He discussed the law for 4 out of the 12 total paragraphs. I wouldn’t say that he “doesn’t seem to care as much about the law.”

        I think he’s either naive about whether or not people in the south generally have a good understanding about the civil war or he’s trying to provide cover for those that are in favor of keeping the statue. The part at the end about whether people understand the historical context is… strange.

        1. I didn’t say he doesn’t care about the law at all.

          I said he doesn’t care about the law as much as he cares about taking the statues down.

          That isn’t hard to follow.

    2. In the American constitutional order, municipalities are, purely and exclusively, organs of the state government. Literally everything they do is through powers delegated to them by the state government. Saying that the park is “owned by the city” and therefore outside the scope of state government interest is like saying that Yellowstone is “owned by the National Park Service” and therefore outside the scope of federal government interest.

      1. In the American constitutional order, municipalities are, purely and exclusively, organs of the state government.

        Not quite. That principle, called the Dillon Rule, has been how the SC and federal courts have generally judged cases because states are the lowest level that exists in the constitution.

        But the alternative, called the Cooley Doctrine or home rule, has been adopted by many states on many issues and some have even explicitly ended the Dillon Rule. The alternative notion is that municipal/local government is actually the original individual expression of self-governance and as such it is a right that cannot be abridged by the state. The state can only acknowledge that right through its incorporation of the muni.

  13. First they came for the Confederate memorials … Then the founding fathers…
    It will not end.
    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12043

    1. Indeed. Anyone who thinks the Great Erasure will be confined to the Civil War is truly hallucinating.

      1. Okay, and?

        1. Some people care about things beyond granting amnesty to child molesters. You don’t but some do.

        2. “Those who forget erase history are doomed to repeat it.”

          1. No one is talking about “erasing” history.

            1. nobody would go along then.

        3. If there was a movement towards not making any historical figures into heroes, that would be great. But I don’t think that is what is happening here.

      2. Slavery cannot return until the history of slavery is erased.

      3. Yes, that’s why I’m planning on taking my son to visit the monuments in DC; Sooner or later they’re toast, I’d like him to see them in person first.

  14. I personally disagree, vehemently, with the assertion that these monuments need to be removed. As a Libertarian, these monuments serve as a reminder to me that states, although voluntarily joined, DO NOT have the right to leave the Union, whether that reason is right or wrong. If a state decides it wishes to leave this voluntary Union, the federal government will commit genocide to stop that from happening. It is no different than if, after voting for Brexit, the EU invades England to keep them in the union.

  15. Why should there be any *publicly owned and maintained* monuments at all?

    If people want to have monuments to Washington or Stonewall Jackson or Cthulhu, let them buy the land and commission the monuments and maintain the monuments themselves.

    1. But muh history!

      1. Unus e Plures is a lousy way to get along.

    2. I 100% support auctioning the park and the statue!

  16. If the flag you wear on your jacket is the confederate flag then you can argue that Robert E Lee was a hero who should be venerated. If you wear old glory, however, then you should consider Robert E Lee a traitor to the United States of America- which of course is exactly what he was. If you love this country may I suggest a monument to Grant, Pershing or Eisenhower. Personally I think every city ought to have one of Winston Spencer Churchill who saved all our collective derrières.

    1. The same Churchill that wanted to gas the Kurds?

      1. What we should do is put up statues of all the famous people we can think of and then tear them down. Then we have all the bases covered.

    2. Is secession a negative right or a positive right?

      1. It’s nothing to do with rights, but with political powers.

    3. Who exactly did Churchill save the US from?

      1. Dangling prepositions

    4. Sherman, you forgot Sherman. This Sherman:
      We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies.
      – Letter, Sherman to Henry W. Halleck, December 24, 1864.

      Let us all remember it was the USA that re-introduced the concept of total war.

      1. And then turned it on the plains Indians. Which is when those tactics all of a sudden became bad.

    5. What clause in the federal constitution permits the federal government to prevent any State from voluntarily leaving the union that it voluntarily joined?

      1. When they originally ratified the U.S. Constitution, at least three states – New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island – included clauses asserting the right too secede from the Union at a future time.
        http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html

    6. George Washington was a traitor so Lee is in good company.

    7. Billy Bones
      May.3.2019 at 12:58 pm
      I personally disagree, vehemently, with the assertion that these monuments need to be removed. As a Libertarian, these monuments serve as a reminder to me that states, although voluntarily joined, DO NOT have the right to leave the Union, whether that reason is right or wrong. If a state decides it wishes to leave this voluntary Union, the federal government will commit genocide to stop that from happening. It is no different than if, after voting for Brexit, the EU invades England to keep them in the union.

    8. Odd then, that the people who actually fought against Lee and Jackson never charged them with treason.

      1. Well Jackson was dead. And Lee, Longstreet, Early and others WERE indicted for treason in June 1865 in Norfolk VA. There were other indictments in other places too. Grant is why those charges never went to trial. But the fact is that the terms of surrender at Appomatox were not in any legal sense an amnesty and Grant obviously did not have that authority as a mere field general.

        But Grant was more popular than Andrew Johnson or any pol or lawyer – so that practically eliminated the possibility of a trial for the military officers at least. And Johnson pardoned everyone in stages anyway over the next couple years. Reasoning, correctly imo, that healing the wounds was more important than being legally correct.

        Of course, I doubt they expected future generations to be complete fucking morons making up history to serve some current agenda like you Lost Cause twits.

  17. They belong in the dustbin of history

    Sure. While we are at it, let’s have a good, ole fashioned bookburnin’!

    1. So in other words we can forcefully police our past and excise those aspects that don’t accord with our “values” (which libertarians pretend don’t exist when talking about 3rd world immigration) but we can’t police our borders.

    2. Progtards belong in the dustbin of history. As do al, their beliefs and ideas. Their collective lives are not worth even one confederate statue.

  18. “It was a public process, it was a lawful process…”

    Except the part where the process itself was against the law. One may disagree with the law, think it is overly restrictive but unless you can put forward a case that the law violates Virginia’s constitution, the Charlottesville city government is still obliged to adhere to the law.

    1. It’s another case of someone not understanding basic civics, which is that only three classes of entity have independent existence in the United States; individuals, states, and the federal government.

      Charlottesville has literally no powers except for those granted it by the state of Virginia’s constitution or laws. It is an organ of the state government. It cannot legally do anything except what the State of Virginia has chosen to allow it to do. It has no independent existence or powers.

      And as it happens, Article VII of Virginia’s state constitution simply emphasizes this, saying that the powers of local governments are those established by the General Assembly by law. If the state has denied municipalities the power to remove war monuments, then the city has no power to remove them.

  19. My third grade Virginia history book referred to the Civil War as the War Between the States and asserted that that conflict was chiefly over state’s rights. Virginia Generals Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were portrayed as honorable and heroic defenders of Southern rights.

    I grew up in Virginia and my experience was the exact opposite. “Muh slavery” was the central theme and there was zero nuance to the circumstances surrounding the conflict.

  20. Dear Zod Millennials suck beyond belief. Their combination of arrogance and ignorance is

    I cannot tell you how many I have met who think all Confederates were genocidal racists, and all Union soldiers were SJW volunteers.

    The war was fought between half-willing at best conscripts on both sides, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who couldn’t buy their way out of being drafted used as cannon fodder, and dirt farmers scared of being murdered by the Home Guard if they didn’t leave their families to starve and join up. Unless they were lucky enough to live in West Virginia or East Tennessee. And pity the poor Union sympathizers in Western KY and Missouri, who were surrounded by Confederate sympathizers, and often joined to fight their neighbors and own families, or just fought them in the streets and fields of their home towns.

    The war was a colossal repository of human suffering on an unprecedented scale in this hemisphere, brought about by political failure of the moneyed classes who exploited the passions of the rabble, and then enslaved them all to die en masse. Any effort to denigrate the sacrifice and suffering of the poor unfortunates ground in the gears of history should be resisted by people of good will and conscience today.

    1. ” Unless they were lucky enough to live in West Virginia or East Tennessee.”

      I’ve been living in NE TN for the last dozen years and have made an effort to learn local history. This area was no picnic no matter which side you fell on during the war. All kinds of nastiness and deprivation for such relatively sparsely populated region.

      1. East Tennessee would have seceded from TN much like West Virginia did from VA, and sooner, except that most of TN was conquered and Nashville occupied so early on in the war. So there was no Confederate state capital to ‘resist’.

        1. Scott County did vote to secede from the state after Tennessee left the union. The county did not officially repeal this until 1986.

    2. Best that we simply dispose of our progtards now. Before they become an even larger nuisance.

  21. Adopting a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” attitude towards any subject isn’t the best choice if learning and understanding are the goals. But if avoiding “ugly feelings” are the top priority, then put that diploma in the air and wave it like you just don’t care.

  22. Can we get rid of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge while we’re at it?

    Wilson was a thoroughgoing racist who liked Birth of a Nation and undid Roosevelt’s integration of the civil service.

  23. The book burning Nazis are at it again.

    If someone wants to destroy something because it’s existence hurts their feelings, that’s all you need to know about that person.

  24. It’s Time for Charlottesville To Remove Its Confederate Monuments . . .
    Why limit the removal of confederate monuments to just Charlottesville? If it is time for Charlotteville remove these monuments why not remove all confederate monuments except those that are in historical museums?

  25. It wasn’t until after I graduated from the University of Virginia in 2013 that I learned the central role played by slavery.

    Go back to fucking Jackie Coakley and Sabrina Erdely across a carpet full of broken glass you fucking shill.

    Even if you didn’t learn it specifically from the school system you would’ve needed to be comatose or retarded not to pick it up from other sources. You were ~6 yrs. old when Glory was released and won 3 Academy awards. Apu got his citizenship in 1996. Amistad was released a year later. Lincoln and Django Unchained were released in 2012.

    The idea that you didn’t learn about slavery’s role in the Civil War until you were getting into your 20s puts you, intellectually, below my 11 and 9 yr. olds and if they told me they didn’t know, I’d be certain they were lying.

    1. >>>Apu got his citizenship in 1996.

      even when it was the bears it was the immigants.

    2. How did he graduate high school without learning anything about slavery? Approximately 95% of my social studies/English type classes were spent reading about either slavery or the Holocaust

    3. Glory has a happy ending. I still tear up when the scroll reminds us Battery Wagner never fell to any Union assault. God bless those resolute Palmetto State heroes.

      1. Aside from playing right into the millennial stereotypes, I don’t know if they fully grasp what they’re arguing for.

        Why stop at statues? Why not books? Architects who designed famous buildings? Paintings?

        And so on.

        1. Some of them probably do. And won’t stop with statues.

          And if it weren’t for those people and that kind of attitude, removing some statues wouldn’t be a big deal. It’s about time to stop being all worked up about the Civil War already. But in the current climate, it sets a dangerous precedent.
          It’s hard to find anyone famous from the past who isn’t some kind of sumbitch. That doesn’t mean you erase it all.

        2. They’ll get around to it. The thing about destroying history is that, even after you’ve destroyed the worst of it, there’s still a worse of it!

          This is not a process with any logical stopping point short of utter amnesia.

  26. Dustbin of History is my favorite album by The Deplorables

  27. Slaves were used to build the pyramids. Maybe Egypt should destroy those too.

    Good god, Reason, you are really disappointing me these days.

  28. Alight. Take down all the monuments of the West. Tear ’em all down and start anew! Erase! And keep erasing right through the soul!

    We’re not that different from Al Queda blowing up statues are we?

    Is this Reason magazine or is it some left-wing rag now? Very disappointing.

    1. It’s no different AT ALL from what Al Queda and ISIS did.

      1. Yes it is. Let’s not get carried away here. Moving some run-of-the-mill bronze equestrian statue of a man who has hundreds of monuments in his honor to a different location is hardly comparable to blowing up ancient art that is unique and irreplaceable.

        1. I dunno Zeb. Maybe it’s hyperbole on my part but same mindset I think. If they could, they would. I don’t think that’s a stretch to assert this. The first order is to move things around. See how it goes. And then up the ante.

          1. If and when the screeching activists who think all white men are evil and should be stricken from history are in charge of everything, then I’ll probably agree. That attitude is pretty close to that of the Taliban. But it looks to me like it is still far from dominant.
            Call it the thin end of the wedge if you want, or a slippery slope. But a slippery slope is a tendency, not a law of nature.

            1. Fair enough.

              1. i should mention that while I think the mindset isn’t too far off, it was part tongue in cheek about the Taliban. Of course, I don’t think they’re All-Talibanny.

                1. I figured you were being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Not so sure about the person who responded to your original comment.

        2. Fundamentally, the intent and process are identical.
          It is about erasing memorials of wrongthink and past independence from the current totalitarian regime.
          That the objects targeted differ in artistic quality or merit is besides the point – the motivation is the same.

          1. I would agree that the motivations are the same for some of the people who want the statues down. But there are plenty with less awful motivation. I don’t really see anything wrong with the proposition that maybe there are too many monuments to Confederate generals. Not saying I necessarily agree with that, but it’s not totally unreasonable and doesn’t require a desire to erase the memory of the past. I don’t have much of an opinion on the statues themselves. I don’t see the harm. But I do find the more vocal people on both sides pretty obnoxious. Which makes me think nothing should change now because that’s a bad climate for making sensible changes.

        3. Yes it is. Let’s not get carried away here. Moving some run-of-the-mill bronze equestrian statue of a man who has hundreds of monuments in his honor to a different location is hardly comparable to blowing up ancient art that is unique and irreplaceable.

          Except that they’ve destroyed them when they got the chance.

          Removing the statues is what they settle for.

    2. Is this Reason magazine or is it some left-wing rag now?

      You’ve been calling it a “left wing rag” for a couple of years now. Why keep asking the same question? Just leave already if you’re unhappy with the articles. Just leave. If you can.

  29. Didn’t Lee work towards repairing relations looking ahead in the post-Civil war era?

    Years ago I did some writing about the internment of Italians in North America during WW2 (ahem, by way of a pair of liberals in FDR and Mackenzie King) and visited one of the last Casa D’Italia’s left standing I believe in the world here in Montreal. It was built via money sent by….Mussolini.

    At the entrance there was a Fascist symbol. When the person putting me in contact with one of the last surviving men interned (this was the early 2000s) met me he told me about how the Casa debated about what to do with it. As President, he opted to keep it.

    The thinking was simple. A) It’s history. Removing it doesn’t erase this fact. B) If remove that, why not tear down the building since it was built with funds sent by Mussolini? C) Finally, no one thinks because there’s a fascist symbol it detracts from the contemporary cultural activities of the Casa.

    Let sleeping dogs lie in other words.

    1. Were these Italian citizens or U. S. citizens of Italian origin/descent?

      1. A mix.

  30. I’m strongly beginning to believe that Billy Binion is actually OBL.

  31. Lee bore at least “command responsibility” for slave raiding by his troops in Pennsylvania.

    Which is not to say he’s the only general whose troops violated the laws of war – just that there would be no great violation of principle in relocating his monuments to less prominent locations like museums, cemeteries, and the like.

    https://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/06/30/Confederates-slave-hunt-in-North-a-military-disgrace/stories/201306300221

    1. Now, a monument to “civilian Lee,” in a suit speaking for reconciliation – if such a monument existed (significantly it doesn’t AFAIK) – would be fine and I’m not suggesting it be relocated.

  32. As far as the need for monuments reflecting the glories of Western civilization, I quite agree (with the understanding that some of the glories of Western civilization were promoted by nonwhites like Frederick Douglass).

    But the historical context of the Confederate monuments – unpleasant as it may be to agree with the SJWs on anything – was in fact a glorification of the Confederacy. This was not exactly the finest hour for Western civilization, and if SJWs want to equate the Confederacy with all Western civilization or all white people, that’s on them.

    1. “But the historical context of the Confederate monuments – unpleasant as it may be to agree with the SJWs on anything – was in fact a glorification of the Confederacy.”
      I must disagree.
      The monuments were erected after the Confederacy was dissolved. Those war monuments, like all war monuments, honor those men (and now also women) who were willing to place their lives at risk for their political beliefs. Possibly lost in all the current blind partisanship is the fact that many men took weeks or months to reach a decision as to where they stood on secession. There is a lot of documentation of the anguish Lee faced as secession became more and more likely. In the end, he held his loyalty to his native state was higher than to the federal government.

      1. Like any good tragic hero, Lee had a lot of noble qualities. Unlike some, he hesitated in anguish when it came to choosing sides in a fratricidal conflict.

        He was also able to hold off superior Northern forces for years, with the help of some bad Northern generalship and some really good choices on Lee’s own part.

        He was willing to recruit slaves and offer them freedom for fighting in his army – other Confederates thought this was missing the point of the whole war.

        Even the loss at Gettysburg could be blamed on a Republican – not Lincoln but Longstreet, who joined the Republicans after the war thus making a convenient scapegoat to take the heat off Lee.

        But it wasn’t as if the monument-makers simply put their finger on a map and said, “let’s honor those who fought for the lost cause of…Hungarian independence in 1848!” They picked the Confederacy as a noble cause and its leading general as representative of that cause.

        1. There seems to have been a certain amount of Lost Cause speeches at the time of the dedication in 1924, complete with calling the Confederate cause “stainless,” and objecting to a history textbook which was supposedly unfair to the South.

          http://brendanwolfe.com/lee-monument

          1. The photo on that link is pretty informative of what that dedication was about. The Klan in their sheets is in some extensive formation around the crowd attending it. No doubt to proclaim their support for free trade and against tariffs.

  33. I see kind of an attitude of “SJWs are against X, so let’s defend X with all our might,” which gives SJWs a lot of agenda-defining power.

    Naturally, they want to use these inanimate objects as a starting-off point for a “conversation” i. e. monologue about their dubious social nostrums, but if in the middle of any of their rants the satisfy the stopped-clock principle and are right about something, then graciously agree.

    Otherwise they can just slip a legitimate grievance into an omnibus of nonsense, and anti-SJW Internet warriors will then be in a position of defending something bad.

    1. I see kind of an attitude of “SJWs are against X, so let’s defend X with all our might,” which gives SJWs a lot of agenda-defining power.

      And it’s also not too far from the SJW logic of “white men did all this bad stuff historically, so we have to knock all white men down a peg now”.

  34. And in fact Binion actually said something worth agreeing with:

    “If a local governing body may erect monuments without state approval, it follows naturally that the exact same officials should be permitted to follow the exact same processes for their removal. They know the needs of their constituents far better than state officials, who are further removed from the daily goings-on in local communities.”

    The legislature should override local governments if the local governments attack liberty (straw bans, guys-using-the-ladies-room-or-we-sue-you laws, etc.). Local monuments, though, are a local issue.

    1. That’s pretty much it, I think. This should be a simple, local issue. All of the out-of-towners on both sides should butt out.

    2. Charlottesville’s government didn’t erect the monuments. They enthusiastically accepted them as gifts from Paul Goodloe McIntire who gave away his fortune funding UVA. The monuments are listed on the NRHP as well.

    3. IF – –
      That is a really big ‘if’, because, of course, the local governing body DID NOT erect the monument.

      1. OK, then, and if the donor had provided the land for a private park on which the monument had stood, the municipality would have been out of the loop and I’d be against them having any say about the statue.

  35. Not much has changed. I grew up in Virginia a few decades later, and my teachers up through high school described the Civil War as a violent skirmish waged over federalism. It wasn’t until after I graduated from the University of Virginia in 2013 that I learned the central role played by slavery.

    Did your history books tell you that the Virginia convention voted 2 to 1 to remain in the union until Lincoln ordered an invasion, then switched to secede, 2 to 1?

    Once you lean these complex issues that were present during that time, it begins to make sense why Lincoln was shot by an abolitionist.

    Yes, public art is at the whim of political constituencies, but this desire to remove Robert E. Lee is a political knee-jerk which does more to hide the history of slavery than it does to have it out in the open.

    One thing that clearly drove him was devotion to his home state. “If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee told a friend, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”

    1. In fact, honoring someone like Robert E. Lee (or, for that matter, Thomas Jefferson) is an acknowledgment of how complex situations are. In a worldview where South = Slavery = Bad, and North = Abolition = Good, there’s no room for any nuance.

      But if you’re able to recognize that many people who fought on the side of the South were good, honorable men who got dragged into the conflict, you might open your mind a bit to learn that things are always more complicated. Even someone like Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he lamented that state of affairs. He’d have emancipated all his slaves upon his death (like many notable men of his generation did) if he hadn’t been in crippling debt.

      1. The Eichmann defense.

        It was complicated.

  36. At this point what Charlotte decides to do is irrelevant. Sooner or later some idiot is going to destroy the statue in the middle of the night.

  37. So, how bad has Reason got that I actually look forward to an article by Robby?

    1. Bad, although I still mostly avoid Rico.

  38. Reason, are you stealth moderating H&R? There is some fuckery going on with my posts not showing up.

    1. There’s no more H&R. They killed it off.

  39. Lee Park? I thought that was a Chinese guy.

    OK, maybe Korean.

  40. […] For the past two years, there has been both a metaphorical and literal battle surrounding the statues of Confederate generals in Charlottesville. When the Charlottesville City Council voted to remove the statue of Robert E. […]

  41. Poor Lefties who want to rewrite history that Democrats are the Party of slavery and fought for slavery.

  42. It seems like everyday I read “Reason” it gets stupider and stupider and stupider… Seriously? As other commenters said, its never good to erase history, even if its bad. Only leftards judge the past by today’s standards and it seems “Reason” is doing that. Fucking pathetic, wannabe hipsters who want to be invited to the right cocktail parties, where is the “Reason” I used to read? The one that wasn’t afraid to call Abraham Lincoln a petty, shit headed, tyrant who threw political opposition in jail, shut down newspapers for criticizing him etc. where the fuck is that “Reason”?

    1. Nuzzling teddies in the safe room and deleting critical posts.

    2. its never good to erase history

      All of history gets erased when a statue is removed? No more books on the subject? All gone? No more history? WOW, THAT IS DANGEROUS!

  43. South Carolina threatened to leave the Union way back in 1832 when slave-state president Andrew Jackson was in office. The issue was tariffs on imported goods. The northern manufacturers wanted tariffs to keep out competition. The southern farmers wanted to buy goods from other countries tariff-free using proceeds from the export of agricultural products (primarily cotton).

    Andew Jackson threatened war if South Carolina left the Union. Behind the scenes, however, the Jackson administration made a deal to gradually reduce the tariffs – which they did. During his campaign in 1860, however, Lincoln promised to bring back tariffs. Shortly after he won, South Carolina seceded. Much of the South’s cotton was exported through Charleston, SC which is why nearby Fort Sumter was where the war started.

    1. See this link to judge for yourself how much importance the seceding states attached to slavery:

      https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

      1. And the Union fought to ethnically cleanse the South of African-Americans. Most leading abolitionists and Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport them all. Thankfully, John Wilkes Booth stopped Lincoln before he could execute his racist genocidal plan

      2. Slavery was only the LEGAL excuse for separation as Lincoln’s tariffs did not violate the Constitution. However, it was only an excuse as Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves. The real reason for separation was his tariffs.

    2. “South Carolina threatened to leave the Union way back in 1832 when slave-state president Andrew Jackson was in office. The issue was tariffs on imported goods.”

      Even earlier than that, the New England states were talking about secession during the War of 1812 because they didn’t agree with the prosecution of that war.

  44. Only cowards shun painful history. We need our pain. Erasing history because of “ugly feelings” is uncivilized. Childish. The rest of humanity is not obliged to care about your feelings, or protect you from them. They are yours, and matter only to you. Billy sounds like he is afraid of feelings, or he shares in the perverted and degenerate (but very common) idea that feelings control a person. The truth is exactly opposite. Adults should know this.

    1. Feelz is a sword that cuts both ways.

      If you see my link above, they put the monument up in 1924 because of their feelz about Lee and the Confederacy and one speaker at the event complained about a book supposedly offensive to southern feelz. (The book described the how some white masters used their female slaves as concubines in a “seraglio”).

  45. The new Tariff of Abominations passed before Lincoln was elected, no? Tariff-resisters made the mistake of joining forces with entrenched abusers of a differently-colored minority, true enuf. But how is that different from the package-dealing both Kleptocracy parties still push today? God’s Own Prohibitionists push Reconstruction Comstock Laws and the Dems have switched from the Klan to Communism–which is also slavery!

    1. The D-Rats are more akin to a Cult Religion like Jim Jones.

  46. Roughly as many American soldiers died in the civil war as all others combined. Who knows how many civilians.

    Yea we had us some great fuckin generals.

    And statues are not “history”.

    I don’t really care about the stupid things.

    1. The statues are art. Like the Bamyan Buddhas the Taliban destroyed.

  47. “Anything in this very interesting world is possible, but I believe that Kim Jong Un fully realizes the great economic potential of North Korea, & will do nothing to interfere or end it,” he tweeted. “He also knows that I am with him & does not want to break his promise to me. Deal will happen!”

    President of the most powerful country in the world and awesome deal maker Donald Trump.

    This is what we have in leadership.

  48. “My third grade Virginia history book referred to the Civil War as the War Between the States and asserted that that conflict was chiefly over state’s rights. ”

    And it was.

    Latin America can invade the US and it’s totally racist of Americans to object because muh anarchy, but the people of the South were morally required to submit to Federal rule til the end of time.

  49. “It’s based on a flawed law, so the law doesn’t make much difference,”

    Well, there you have it!

    When a law sucks, the local government officials can ignore it. Can’t wait for Reason to apply this to the 2nd amendment.

  50. Binion is obviously a proud member of “Libertarians for the Memory Hole.”

  51. I’m still pissed off that they took down all those Hitler and Stalin statues. They were heroes defending their heritage. Snowflakes ruin all our fun.

  52. Why “Libertarian” Defenses of the Confederacy and “States’ Rights” are Incoherent

    There is a strain of libertarian contrarianism that holds that the Confederate States of America were within their “rights” to secede from the Union. Such contrarianism on this particular topic is detrimental to the larger cause of liberty because the logic of this argument relies upon relinquishing individual rights to the whim of the state. Indeed, as there is no legal or moral justification for supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War, it is impossible that there could be a libertarian one.

    https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/why-libertarian-defenses-confederacy-states-rights-are-incoherent

    1. BULLSHIT.

      All peoples have the right to self determination… And since we don’t live in Anarchy World, that means states will be the ones enacting the will of the people to tell a tyrannical government to fuck off. Even if their splitting is ill advised for some perceived practical reasons, it is STILL the moral right of peoples to leave a nation they do not want to be a part of.

      That anybody would argue against this is insane… Especially Americans. By that logic our founding fathers were nothing but traitorous rebels who deserved to be hung by the Brits.

      I will freely admit not all rebellions are justified IN MY EYES… But the point is it’s not solely MY opinion that matters. A great mistake was allowed when the north and south went to war. America wouldn’t have been the singularly impressive nation it ended up being if we were 2 different countries… But we may have been 2 better countries. Slavery probably wouldn’t have lasted much longer anyway, and we almost certainly wouldn’t have turned into the imperialistic bunch of dicks we ended up being.

  53. What’s this?

    Progressive Democrats want to remove memorials to fellow Democrats?

    This is not about the Civil War or why the war was fought. It’s about the Democrats history of slavery, and their continued practice in the form of dependency.

    Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
    George Wallace was a Democrat.
    The KKK, founded by Democrats.

    Of course they want this history to be erased.

  54. So when are we going to blow up Mount Rushmore? The Washington monument? Lincolns Tomb? The pyramids? The Effie Tower? Big Ben? Seriously? We going to let pot-smoking Snowflakes run our society? If those dopes really want to punish proponents of slavery, let’s start at it’s roots: The DemocRat party.

    1. Yup. You can’t let these nuts have an inch, because they’ll take a mile. That has been proven as every reasonable concession has led to a more and more ridiculous demand.

  55. “The ruling comes nearly two years after the Unite the Right rally, where white supremacists carrying tiki torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us” marched in Charlottesville to protest the removal of Lee’s statue. The demonstrations culminated with the death of a counterprotester after a white nationalist rammed a car into a crowd of people.”
    “It is not lost on me that the vast majority of Confederate monument admirers aren’t waving tiki torches in service of white nationalism and are genuine in their calls to preserve heritage.”
    Hmmm,,, Looks like Dem talking points in the style of NYT or WAPO.

    1. Or Billy is just as racist as Trump.

  56. Sell off the stupid resource-wasteful socialist Park to an individual OWNER. Problems solved. If people want a park without statues or their “favorite” statue; they can start a co-op, pay for it, and have a RIGHTFUL SAY in what’s there without all the legal B.S.

  57. Oh fuck off!

    These statues should NOT come down. They are part of our history. You know there ARE statues of Cromwell in England right? A rebel bastard? This type of thing is not uncommon the world over, especially for civil wars. Those guys were some of the greatest generals in American history, and it’s not wrong to have a few statues of them kicking it around.

    The fact that you have bought into the over simplified black and white version of history that tries to pretend it was ALL about slavery shows just how ignorant you are… Slavery WAS a major issue. But it wasn’t the only issue.

    If we had a civil war today, what would it be about? Illegal immigration? Gun rights? Taxes? Nanny state regulations? Abortion? Foreign policy? Tranny bathrooms?

    The correct answer is ALL of those things, to varying degrees. I can consider it a valid opinion if somebody wants to say that slavery was 60% (the majority) of the cause of the civil war… But it was not 100%.

    I’d argue it was a touch under 50%, with things like the tariffs, and the south generally getting dicked around and outvoted on EVERYTHING they wanted for years leading up to it being more important when combined than slavery… I would also say slavery was probably the most important single issue, if not the majority of the cause overall. But I’d at least be willing to concede it was 60% as being reasonable and not completely insane. The it was 100% slavery thing is just a bullshit argument, because it is false.

    As far as things go, I’m in “Give the commies nothing” mode at this point. They’ve shown they will not be happy with reasonable concessions… They want total victory over everything. The fringes ARE demanding Thomas Jefferson statues etc be taken down already… If we start caving on Lee and Jackson things will only get worse. Shit, they’ll probably come after Lincoln eventually too, since he was a white heterosexual man, AND had all those non flattering quotes. So they can piss off.

  58. […] It's Time for Charlottesville To Remove Its Confederate Monuments […]

Please to post comments