Virginia Is Poised To Let Cities Remove Confederate Monuments. It's About Damn Time.

Supporters of those war memorials often say they want to preserve history. But what if they've got the facts wrong?


Cities across the state of Virginia are poised to gain control over the Confederate monuments in their respective jurisdictions, which would allow them to "remove, relocate, contextualize, cover or alter" those memorials as they see fit.

Current law allows localities to erect monuments but requires that they receive permission from the state to take those same statues down. Virginia's House and Senate last week passed similar pieces of legislation that would resolve that dissonance. If the final bill is approved by both chambers, cities will be able to decide for themselves whether to keep or remove those statues, if they allot at least 30 days for the monument to be claimed by any "museum, historical society, government, or military battlefield."


Confederate statues have long been a touchy subject for those in the South, who often say their attachment to such memorials is deeply rooted in a desire to preserve history. I grew up not far from Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy and the site of last week's vote. The boulevard stretches through the heart of the city and is built around a series of equestrian memorials that venerate the Confederacy's leaders. They were staples, as were rumblings that those blocks of stone should never be tampered with.

Though all eyes have been on Virginia's statues since Charlottesville's deadly white nationalist rally in August of 2017, pleas to preserve the past are in no way unique to the legislative halls in Richmond. "In my opinion, rewriting history is a fool's errand, and those trying to rewrite history unfortunately are likely taking a first step toward repeating it," wrote North Carolina state Sen. Phil Berger (R–26) in September of 2017, echoing the sentiments I often heard growing up. 

Berger is correct. Rewriting history is a fool's errand, and that's precisely why Confederate monuments should come down. 

As Reason's Ron Bailey notes, it is "plain historical fact" that the majority of such memorials were put in place decades after the Civil War reached its conclusion, with most of them erected between 1900-1930. The construction and dedication of those memorials coincided with the era of Jim Crow, which established a racial caste system and relegated black people to the bottom of it. In that vein, many such statues had far more to do with asserting white superiority and intimidating African-Americans than honoring erstwhile military leaders.

Take the much-contested monuments in Charlottesville. The Unite the Right gathering, where white supremacists stormed the town with tiki torches and chants of "Jews will not replace us," was inspired by the City Council's attempt to remove its monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. That statue was erected in 1924, almost 60 years after Civil War soldiers squared off for the last time. Also in Charlottesville is a memorial to Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson, which the council has similarly attempted to remove. That monument was erected in 1921. 

The timeline is a common one for Confederate statues, as were the contemporaneous motivations. "For example," Bailey wrote in 2017, "the monument to Confederate President Jefferson Davis that was just taken down in New Orleans was dedicated in 1911 during a 'Whites Only' ceremony featuring a living Stars and Bars formation that sang 'Dixie.'"

Over in Charlottesville, the Ku Klux Klan commemorated the May 21 unveiling of Lee's statue with a public cross burning on May 16 and a two-hour parade on May 18 attended by "thousands," according to archives from The Daily Progress, the Charlottesville newspaper that's been publishing since 1892. The throngs of people "equaled those usually seen here to witness the parade of the large circuses," the paper wrote. "The march of the white-robed figures was impressive, and directed attention to the presence of the organization in the community."

That Confederate monuments were erected as a result of the era's racial animus is hardly a matter of dispute, although that was spelled out with varying degrees of explicitness. For instance, at the 1913 dedication of "Silent Sam," the now-toppled Confederate monument that once stood at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, industrialist Julian Carr praised Confederates for fighting to preserve white supremacy. "One hundred yards from where we stand," he noted, "less than 90 days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench, until her skirts hung in shreds." 

But to focus entirely on race fails to tell the entire story. A narrow view glosses over another historical wrong—one that lawmakers like Berger should be eager to set straight.

The war memorials were a reminder to young people that they must "keep the record of Confederate heroism free from the stain of calumny," said Rev. Henry W. Battle at Charlottesville's Lee unveiling, invoking the myth of the Lost Cause. That narrative, which achieved particular popularity in the decades before World War I and again during the Civil Rights movement, attempted to subvert history by reframing the South's battle cry as a defense of heritage and states' rights.

Historians have widely rejected the Lost Cause portrayal as a fiction, because it is. While a debate over state independence contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War, the specific issue at stake was more complex: Southerners wanted to be able to travel anywhere with their slaves, even as the North increasingly clamped down on that practice. Masters sojourning to New York, for example, may have wanted to bring a cadre of slaves along with them, and they balked at the idea that their Northern neighbors should prevent them from doing so. 

The Lost Cause revisionist history still exists today and distracts from the actual, indisputable cause of the Civil War: slavery.

Berger and other southern legislators worried about rewriting the past should remember the words of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens from an 1861 speech delivered shortly before the Civil War began: "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization," he said. "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

NEXT: Yes, the Constitution Means Your Political Opponents Get Due Process Too

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Welp Billy Binion has officially replaced Shikha as my least favorite Reason writer. Wear it with pride Binion, wear it with pride. 5 years from now when you are writing for motherjones or huffpo you can safely say you were hated by all the right people.

    1. This is the dumbest cultural issue since the nc bathroom issue of course Reason is on the wrong side of it.

    2. Hey now... ignoring history and caving to woketarian is the true libertarian position at reason.

      Next up, tear down those pyramids. Colosseum? Salve fights, tear it down. Etc etc.

      1. Yup. Lets use ancient Longboats recovered as firewood because Vikings were white people.

        I mean Jesus, Lefties really have not learned anything about why Trump was elected, why the Brits wanted BrExit, or how they have not "won the Culture War" fantasy.

      2. Yes, yes, keep pretending this is about preserving history. As Daryl Davis pointed out, there are plenty of blacks in the South that are proud of their southern heritage and even display the Confederate flag. Why don't these alt-right groups invite some of these blacks to speak at their rallies to defend historical preservation? I think we all know why they don't.

        1. lol. okay. Do you really think that racists are limited to one side of this dichotomy? Racists exist on both sides of the debate, this issue in my mind is not about being offended about history or preserving history. It's about brow beating cultural(and likely political) opponents.

        2. What pretending?

          Are you saying those monuments were not built back then, or by the people back then?

          Even - arguendo - if you can establish that they were built by racists for racist reasons (which you really cannot) - that is still actual history.

          Erasing history because it's uncomfortable is foolish at best.

          1. +1000

          2. Lol. Most of these monuments were put up in the 60s as a protest against civil rights.

            1. The monuments were put up mostly at significant anniversaries of the war. 1965 was the 100 year anniversary. Quite a few were erected on the 50 year anniversary.
              A large part of the funding came from veterans who left money in their wills for their dead comrades to be remembered. These were people who were likely young at the end of the war, and went on to other things, like serving in the US military. Even so, the civil war was very likely the biggest and most traumatic experience of their lives. So they erected memorials to the dead.
              This is not really about the few powerless white supremacists living in shacks and trailer parks here and there.
              I think you will find that destroying monuments and statues will solve none of your problems, and the people most invested in tearing them down will just move on to be outraged about some other harmless thing.

              1. The monuments were put up mostly at significant anniversaries of the war. 1965 was the 100 year anniversary.

                Of DEFEAT. The statues celebrated defeat?
                The south launched the war in 1861.
                Secession began in 1860.

            2. ChipperMW lies and refuses to cite.

              1. Did YOU train him? 🙂

          3. Right, that's why Germany left all those Nazi monuments up - because without Monuments, there's no such thing as history books.

            oh wait, you're just an idiot

            1. In Germany, only one version of history is allowed in history books. Any questioning of that version of history can get you sent to jail for "Holocaust denial."

              So, glad I live here and not there.

        3. ChipperMW, I am not a Confederate nor did I fight in the CSA. I am not a Democrat. I am an AmerIndian and I WANT THE WAR MARKERS AND WAR MEMORIALS TO STAY.

          1. I even want Andrew Jackson memorials to stay, so I can tell people how bad Democrats are for the rest of my life.

            1. We should remove the FDR memorial - he was a horrible racist much more recently.

              If not, then all the memorials should stay.

          2. You live Georgia. You have no say about the Virginia monuments.

            1. Where do you live? And why do you get to limit other people's opinions?

            2. Poor chipperMW, he does nit know about federal land and civil war memorials that federal taxpayers pay for upkeep.

        4. What are these groups of which you speak? Be specific.

      3. The pyramids weren't built by slaves. There were a skilled workers that were paid and unskilled workers who worked during the seasonal floods as corvee laborers.

    3. By the way, if long referred to billy as the accidental love child of Shikha and Ilya Somin. Billy is the wokest woketarian on this site.

      1. Well said.

      2. Ilya clearly went Greek on her. As he is definitely a shit baby.

    4. In 5 years there will BE no 'Mother Jones' or 'Huffington Post'.

      If things go the way Binion and his comrades want, there very likely may be no internet.

      John Galt wanted to stop the engine of the world to make his point.

      Binion and co want to run the engine of the world without oil until it seizes up--and then murder everyone who dared say that it wouldn't work.

      1. Binion actually writes for the toilet-paper-level Huffpo btw.

        1. I just love spending time chatting with erotik kaernten ladies in Austria

    5. Nick should be embarrassed to publish this guy’s bullshit.

    6. Him and the Taliban. Nice company.

    7. Mr. Binion What about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. What about remaining Washington D.C. to what Bill.

    8. Yes. Mr. Binion dutifully spews the party line, ignoring the fact that people were marching under a valid parade permit and doing to peaceably. Then the fascists/leftists (all the same) showed up in hoods with chains and clubs. It was all Trump's fault obviously.


        1) Video proof that your fellow nazis and racists launched ALL the violence and assault in Charlotesville. ... UNDENIABLE PROOF that Trump is a lying sack of shit ... that YOU are BAT-SHIT CRAZY about the counter-protesters wearing hoods, and WHO had the clubs and chains.

        2) Found guilty ... now In prison for starting the assaults .... which they CONFESSED TO .... ONLY WHITE NATIONALISTS ... prosecuted by Trump's own DOJ ... sucker. 🙂

        "These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California," U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

        "They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies."

        BOTH posted on his page .,.. but you somehow missed??.

        (Will he now LIE, like Trump did about what Trump? Or perhaps be another Belligerent Bellowing Blowhard, shaking his fist at the clouds, like so many Trumptard puppets here.

        1. It positively stanks of Hihn in here.

          1. Goobers be PISSED that absolute proof makes monkeys out of them! (sneer)

            They also be infantile, PROUD to be potty-mouth 12-year-olds!

    9. #DayZero coming soon to a country near you.

  2. Not this garbage again. Why stop here? Enable the cultural commissars to remove or destroy everything problematic in public squares, museums and libraries. It's the current year and that is Year Zero.

    1. As long as it's Team Blue in Virginia, this is great news.

      When it's not Team Blue tearing down historical/war markers, memorials, and statues it it will be HYSTERIA AND LITERALLY HITLER!

      1. Just remember folks, the Democrat Party is the Party of slavery, the KKK, and segregation.

        1. What you say is correct until the passage of civil right legislation in the 1960's, when many southern Democrats became Republicans. When the party saw the error of its way and moved to correct that error, many left to find a party they could coopt to their way of thinking.

          1. Your citation fell off.

            Name 5 Dixiecrats that became Republicans. FIVE.

            You have hundreds and thousands of Dixiecrats to chose from.

            1. Up until the 80s most southern states didn't even have republican candidates for state office, You wanted five? How about over a dozen

              Strom Thurmond
              John Tower
              . Rep. William C. Cramer,
              Rep. Edward Gurney,
              Rep. Dave Treen
              Rep. Iris Faircloth Blitch,
              Rep. James D. Martin
              Rep. Bill Dickinson
              Rep. Bo Callaway
              Rep. Albert Watson
              Thad Cochran
              Rep. Trent Lott
              Jesse Helms

              1. Strom thurmond was a Democrat to the day he died.
                John tower started in the House as a republican.
                William c Cramer started politics as a republican for mayor.
                Edward gurney started in the House as a Republican.
                Dave treen started in the House as a republican.
                Iris Blitch was a democrat til the day she died.
                James martin started in the House as a Republican.
                Bill dickenson started in the house as a Republican.
                Bo calloway started in the House as a republican.
                Albert watson was a Republican turned democrat turned republican.
                Thad cochran started in the House as a republican.
                Trent lott started in the House as a republican.
                Jesse helms started in the US senate as a republican.

                Man, you liars really need to try harder. Internet really blows up your Narrative.

                Trent lott was entered politics as a republican.

                1. I don't know about the rest of those people, but Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. His defection from the Democrats was kind of a big deal and had lasting repercussions on the partisan landscape.

                  You really ought to try harder, like googling "Strom Thurmond republican" and clicking literally any of the results.

                  1. lc1789 just makes up whatever he needs at the moment.

                    This is all a diversion from Trump lying about Charlottesville, saying it was the alt-LEFT who initiated the mass assaults, swinging clubs and all. He (typically) shouted down and bullied anyone who disagreed. But now we know,

                    1. I've read Reason off and on for years, but I only just started looking at the comments here and they are just generally fucking wild. Normally the comments section at least kind of leans in the direction of the site's own views, but Reason's seem to be largely filled with Trump-loving social conservative bootlickers.

                      Letting local populations have control over what statues are on display in their own local areas is unquestionably the more libertarian (and principled conservative) outcome than letting state government force them on them, and selling them to whoever would buy the statue and/or the land they're on is an even more libertarian solution. Instead, commenters here seem to largely be on a big government authoritarian train that forces everyone to uphold their own ideology and way of thinking. Absolutely disgusting.

                    2. If you've followed the movement, it's because the anti-government faction drowned out the pro-liberty faction.

                      Also Ron Paul, who's constitutional conservatism is actual KKK-style States Rights, NOT federalism, that states have powers never delegated, and constitutional rights can be denied by state governments. "Rogue judges" overturned DOMA, where his bigotry overcomes states rights; federal has a RIGHT to overturn state laws, IF to deny equal rights,

                      Most shameful of all, he BRAGS about sponsoring a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS to even CONSIDER any appeals to DOMA -- making gays the first group denied the defense of their constitutional rights since ... dem damn niggers. *sarc

                      When the loudest voice is a fascist, you attract fascists.

                2. Go to the wikipedia page you sorry ass boomer


                  1. THANKS

                    Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Southern Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican.

                3. Gurney shifted to the Republican Party. In 1962, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives; he was reelected United States Congress, the second Republican elected from Florida in the 20th century.


                  Political party Republican (1962–2009)
                  Democratic (until 1962)

                  You're so full of shit

          2. One.

            One southern Democrat switched parties.

            The rest, including those who filibustered the '64 CRA, stayed Democrats until they were out of office. Most remained Democrats until they died.

            There was no switch. The record of who was in Congress proves that.

            This is a lie perpetrated by Democrats, the party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of the Black Codes, of the KKK, of segregation, of thousands of Confederate monuments placed to intimidate black people.

            The party of redlining, of destroying the black family, of creating ghettoes.

            They want the statues gone to hide their crimes. To make it easier to blame Republicans.

            1. Name one Confederate monument "placed to intimidate Black people".

              1. The ones to the founder of the KKK perhaps?

                Is there some reason you're defending Democrats trying to intimidate black people?

                I want the statues to stay so that history can not be further altered to make those who actually support human liberty look like those who demanded, nay, killed for the right to keep humans as slaves.

                A lot of those statues were put up when the klan marched openly. The second big round came when southern Democrats were fighting integration.

                I want them tied tightly to Democrat necks.

                1. 1. Nathan Bedford Forrest is honored for his military skills and victories. He also disbanded the first KKK.

                  2. Democrats intimidating Black people has nothing to do with honoring the Confederate dead.

                  3. The South fought and killed to defend their right to secede. Both sides were in full agreement on this, especially the Union who fought and died to deny them that right.

                  4. Those monuments and memorials went up for the semi-centennial and centennial. This is documented in contemporary accounts. That the statues had any purpose in intimidation or celebration of oppression is a very recent very ahistorical "revision" by Yankee academics, journalists and social justice parrots.

                  1. Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the KKK. You don't need to say anything else.

                    You wanna honor the people whose lives were lost on this hooror? Put up statues to the soldiers, not the founder of the KKK, not the leaders. Not the people who led men to die so that other men could be kept as farm animals.

                    The South seceded over slavery. Period. They fought and died to defend their right to secede. Over slavery.

                    They didn't decide to secede for fun.

                    There were no monuments to the Confederate dead put up to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding. There was no Confederacy then.

                    Very few were put up at the Centennial. Because the South was devastated.

                    They were put up when the KKK was powerful enough to march openly. AFTER the turn of the century.

                    And before the Sesquicentennial.

                    They were put up during the Civil Rights era. After WW2.

                    SIV, you want them kept up to memorialize the Stupid Cause, fine. I want them kept up so the Democrats can't erase their crimes.

                    1. The centennial of the beginning of the civil war was 1960, of its end: 1965

            2. They want the statues gone to hide their crimes. To make it easier to blame Republicans.

              To which the smart reaction is for Republicans to chain themselves to those statues and yell and scream about how precious they are.

            3. The passage of civil rights legislation was the end of Democratic control of the south. I don't know how many Democratic switched parties but I know the Republicans took over. I know that people trying to keep Confederate Memorials seem to be Republicans. I know the people trying to keep blacks from voting are Republicans. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

              1. The Democrats are trying to keep black people from voting....for anyone but them. I don't think their fear mongering is going to work anymore.

                The Republicans are trying to keep everyone who shouldn't be voting from voting. That's called maintaining the integrity of the election.

                I'm sorry Democrats can't win without hundreds of thousands of corpses, duplicates, and 'absentee ballots', but that's just too bad.

            4. You're wrong and you should be ashamed

              Strom Thurmond
              John Tower
              . Rep. William C. Cramer,
              Rep. Edward Gurney,
              Rep. Dave Treen
              Rep. Iris Faircloth Blitch,
              Rep. James D. Martin
              Rep. Bill Dickinson
              Rep. Bo Callaway
              Rep. Albert Watson
              Thad Cochran
              Rep. Trent Lott
              Jesse Helms

              1. Also check the dates. The whole converted to the GOP because of the CRA doesnt match the dates for entering the house or senate either.

              2. Wow...a lot of those either were never Democrats or they started their political careers years after the Civil Rights Act.

                Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond switched parties, but they were required by the GOP to renounce their support for segregation as a condition for party support. And the Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater proportions than Democrats did, so your argument is about ten kinds of stupid.

                Go sell your bullshit on HuffPo, shill.




                  Authoritarian Left = Authoritarian Right = low-IQ puppets on a string.

            5. There was a switch, dozens switched

              Strom Thurmond
              John Tower
              . Rep. William C. Cramer,
              Rep. Edward Gurney,
              Rep. Dave Treen
              Rep. Iris Faircloth Blitch,
              Rep. James D. Martin
              Rep. Bill Dickinson
              Rep. Bo Callaway
              Rep. Albert Watson
              Thad Cochran
              Rep. Trent Lott
              Jesse Helms

              1. I replied to your lies anove.

                All but watson, thurmond, blitch started in the house or senate as republicans.

                Thurmond and blitch were democrats to the day they died.
                Watson was a republican turned democrat turned republican.

          3. More lies from m4e.

            What a surprise.

          4. Oh, you're Tony! 'cause Tony and Hihn are the only two on these boards to espouse that steaming pile of nonsense, and you don't use enough boldface to be Hihn.

            You're also still an intentionally ignorant jackboot lover.

          5. Really? So you can point to specific changes in policy when these Dixiecrats allegedly joined the gop?

          6. "What you say is correct until the passage of civil right legislation in the 1960’s, when many southern Democrats became Republicans."

            Strom Thurmond.
            Jesse Helms.

            That is about the extent of the Southern Dems who became Republicans. The vast majority of segregationists remained Dems to the end.

            1. (yawn) Racists and neo-nazis are Republicans TODAY.
              Which is why Trump LIED to protect them after Charlottesville.


        2. And history serves to remind them of those facts. And they would just as soon memory hole it.

          1. It is a funny timing issue that more and more Americans are not listening to Propaganda about how great the Democrat party is and more and more Black Americans are fleeing the Democrats Party.

            It's almost like Democrats need to hide their past to survive, so destroying everything Confederate must be #MemoryHoled.

            1. more and more Black Americans are fleeing the Democrats Party.

              How many moons circle your planet?

              1. One. The Moon.

                1. So you're just full of shit? Okay.

                  BWAAAAAA HAAAAAAA


                  1. you need to turn that morphine drip up to 11.

              2. Look it up Hihnfaggot. You may not believe it, but a lot of democrat pollsters are very concerned about this. Of course, you’re insane and incredibly ignorant. So it’s to be expected that you know nothing.

                1. IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN YOU'D HAVE A LINK TO IT. (smirk)
                  Will your new sock also get banned and purged?

        3. Just remember folks, the Democrat Party is the Party of slavery, the KKK, and segregation.

          (snort) 50 years ago. ADULTS recall Nixon's Southern Strategy. Today, Republicans are the racist party,
          lead by the slimy asshole, Donald Trump, who lied SHAMELESSLY that the mass assaults In Charlottesville were launched by the alt-LEFT ... to defend his neo-nazi and racist supporters.

          **Undeniable Proof -- Trump lied to defend Jew and Nigger haters.

          The initial assault. … (Private video found on an alternate news twitter feed)

          "Alt-Left" standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
          Alt-Right Fascists/Racists charge en masse, swinging clubs.
          Fascists carrying police-style riot shields. The assholes CAME for violence.

          TRUMP LIE: Alt-left led the assault
          PROOF: Alt-RIGHT did that

          TRUMP LIE: Alt-left attacked swinging clubs.
          PROOF: Alt-RIGHT -right DID … and had the ONLY clubs.
          Alt-LEFT standing peacefully, arms locked (like the 60s), not possible to carry ANYTHING

          TRUMP LIE: Alt-left wearing black helmets
          PROOF: Alt-RIGHT wearing black (NAZI) helmets, carrying NAZI flag,

          SHAME ON EVERYONE who LIES about the truth, to defend a morally debased President, over country and honor.


          1. KAPOW : THE SMOKING GUN

            4 white supremacists found guilty in violent Charlottesville rally described as 'serial rioters' …. by Trump’s own DOJ!!!

            Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 "United the Right" rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization "Rise Above Movement."

            A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

            "These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California," U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

            "They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies."

            This has been converted to a Press Release, to be sent to all major media outlets, with all evidence … and to the House impeachment committees … when the timing seems optimal (after Trump is nominated)

            What a disgrace to the party of Reagan. 🙁

            1. Poor hihn.



              2. Hihn thinks the voices in his head, and the statements he makes through his own sock puppets are ‘proof’.

                1. (sneer) The proof is at the two links That's how it works.

                  a) One is an actual video proving Trump a lying sack of shit, on who launched the mass violence in Charlottesville

                  2) The other is a news report of four criminal convictions, also proving Trump LIED that the Charlottesville assaults were launched by the "Alt-LEFT" FOUR white nationalists were convicted and imprisoned for the assaults.

                  NO "alt-left" of "antifa" were found guilty and ... LOCK THEM UP.

                  My turn.

                  Will this new sock of yours also be purged?


                  1. Call out a psycho.
                    They ALWAYS fail

                    1. We notice that every time you hihnfest a thread with your hihnsanity.
                      Fuck off and die, Hihn.

                  2. SNORT

                    Call out a psycho.
                    They ALWAYS fail

                    ANOTHER punk
                    ANOTHER fail


                    The precious snowflake was .... outside his Safe Zone ... and TRIGGERED !

                    The UNDENIABLE proof starts here. (sneer)

                    P.S. It's pronounced like "Hine," retards
                    (walks away laughing)

  3. In that vein, many such statues had far more to do with asserting white superiority and intimidating African-Americans than honoring erstwhile military leaders.

    Then why are these military memorials? How come they didn’t make a statue of a lynching instead? I call bullshit - this is like ISIS blowing up ancient Jewish historical site in Syria.

    I’m a proud Northerner - I’m proud we throttled the South during the civil war - I enjoy going to war monuments in the North that celebrate this great victory. Let the people keep their damn monuments in the south. And if the people agree to put a 150’ relief of OutKast next to the three confederate figures on Stone Mountain, I support that too.

    1. I can't wait to see how the military reacts when they have to rename Fort Benning, Bragg, Hood, Lee (which is in Virginia, I believe), Polk, etc. Ought to be amusing.

      1. +100000

      2. I'm not far from AP Hill. I live in a state named for a monarch, a county named for a royal governor and a district and community named for a Confederate general. It is absolute horror.

      3. You'll have Fort Obama,Fort Barack, Fort Barry and Fort Soetero. I'm surprised they haven't started renaming everything to honor him yet.

    2. You're proud you throttled the South? I'd find it much more remarkable to point out that you're approaching 200 years old! Unless you're lying about your military service record and you did not in fact fight in the Civil War.

      This silly notion of taking pride in something you had absolutely nothing to do with is how we get these sorts of problems in the first place. If you want to honor somebody for some sort of qualities or achievements we should all aspire to, that's good, but don't make it personal, what they did is no reflection on you.

      And I say this as somebody born and raised in Ohio who had to learn about such historical figures as Anthony Wayne, William T. Sherman, Ulysses S Grant (and George Custer), but it never occurred to me to think I had anything to do with their accomplishments (or failures) simply through the serendipitous place of my birth. I'm pretty sure if I'd been born in Georgia (or Canada) I would have been learning other lessons about other historical figures.

      1. This is like the high school question "If you could go back and change any one thing in your life, what would it be?"

        Which is really a trick question. Every porson is the sum total of his existence. What the question is really asking you is: "Are you happy with who you are now?"

        The US civil war was a terrible horrible thing that did tremendous harm and substantially stunted the growth and development of the nation. But it is an unmistakable part of what made us what we are.

        The people who think they can choose what and which to erase are telling you that they don't like who we are, and those are the people we should be least inclined to listen to about what and which things should be erased.

        1. +1000

          There would be no USA as we know it if there was no Civil War.

          There would be the United States and the Confederate States of America. Slavery would have likely ended in the CSA but cities like Detroit, New York, Chicago would not be the cities they are today.

          Obama and Oprah would have likely never been born. Decades of continued slavery past 1860s would have taken a heavy toll on Black populations. An estimated 620,000 men died in the Civil War. Those men would have had more White babies. North America would be a lot Whiter than it is today.

        2. We’re all the sum total of our possible pasts.

          1. You only have one possible past.

            That's pretty much what makes it the past.

            1. Hihn’s probably change daily with his dementia. As his memory of everything is pretty distorted. If those memories change, he changes. There was a recent ‘It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia ‘ on this phenomenon.

        3. Nah that’s easy.

          I would have taken Cheryl up on it when she asked me to stop by when her parents were out of town.

          Pretty much everything else I am OK with.

    3. "And if the people agree to put a 150’ relief of OutKast next to the three confederate figures on Stone Mountain, I support that too."

      I approve

    4. Then why are these military memorials?

      Seriously? Leaders in the war to preserve slavery.

      How come they didn’t make a statue of a lynching instead?

      Now you're in the wrong time period.
      Slaves were rarely lynched, for the same reason nobody now drives their car off a cliff. intentionally. Property has a value. People don't destroy their property, and even defend it from others. Slaveowner would not lynch their own property, and would defend it from threats by others,

      The KKK was not formed until after the war, 1870, as a protest against reconstruction. THAT was when the blatant racism became visible, and what caused the lynchings.

      I call bullshit

      Don't be so hard on yourself!
      More like uninformed, or uneducated.

      1. I'm from the North. My ancestors fought in blue to preserve the Union.

        I hate the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. I hate the KKK. The KKK hates me. I wouldn't walk across the street to pee on one of these statues if it were on fire.

        That said, you are completely full of shit, TheLibertyTruthTeller.

        The statues have nothing to do with intimidating black people, as Conchfritters correctly noted. They are designed to honor dead military leaders. These people may have fought for a bad cause but that doesn't mean that everyone accepts that.

        I can't refute your second point about slaves being lynched because it simply makes no logical sense. One of the main points of the article was that the statue was supposed to intimidate black people in the early 20th century. Your point about slaves not being lynched is just illogical. But that is because you decided your opinion before you reasoned.

        1. (My boldface and attitude in self-defense from aggression, by a highly ignorant Gomer)

          (opens by smashing a pie into his own puss)
          BLOCKQUOTE>i’m from the North. My ancestors fought in blue to preserve the Union.RACISTS ARE ONLY IN THE SOUTH????

          I hate the KKK. The KKK hates me.

          (yawn) You also hate facts ... and history ... and elementary thinking

          That said, you are completely full of shit, TheLibertyTruthTeller.

          Oh, goody! Make a TOTAL public ass of yourself!!
          Now go FULL STOOPID ....

          The statues have nothing to do with intimidating black people,


          They are designed to honor dead military leaders.

          *** I DID say THAT, Gomer! (smirk)
          "leaders in the war to preserve slavery."

          I can’t refute your second point about slaves being lynched because it simply makes no logical sense

          ***LOGICAL SENSE???? YOU??? (lol)
          1) Why do YOU say slaveowners destroyed their own property?
          2) Why do YOU say slaveowners did not defend their own property?
          3) Why do YOU say the KKK came BEFORE emancipation? (snort)


          RECONSTRUCTION: Era and Definition -

          1. Why do YOU eat your own SHIT?

            1. (yawn> ANOTHER infantille assault. (Doe he giggle when he says "shit" ... like tha) .
              1) Why do YOU say slaveowners destroyed their own property?
              2) Why do YOU say slaveowners did not defend their own property?
              3) Why do YOU say the KKK came BEFORE emancipation? (snort)

              ***WHY WOULD SLAVES BE LYNCHED, GOOBER??????

  4. Poor Billy Binion and the unreason staff.

    4 more years of Trump being President is really going to set you nutjobs off.

    Maybe someday, you people will actually say why you hate America and its history to greatness.

    1. And what happens when the last Koch brother dies? Do they retain that patronage?

  5. Losers deserve statues, too. But I'm more or less against dictates from state capitals, which are usually populated solely with cretins, so this seems fine.

    1. Cretin is one word that could be used to describe Ralph Northam.

      1. Fortunately Va governors can only serve one term, although I’m not sure whoever comes next will be any better. Since Coonman has no political future, look for him to have a show on MSNBC

        1. As Amos or Andy?

        2. Coonman? Is he taking over the mantle from Eric Cartman?

          1. Cartman was just the coon. He never claimed to be a man. However, he did claim to have friends.

            He did have Cthulhu kill all the hippies at burning man, so a statue of Cartman is warranted.

            1. The Authoritarian Right has been burning books, killing and otherwise punishing alternative views for most of human existence. Now joined by the Authoritarian Left

    2. There are MIAs from the Civil War. War memorials serve multiple purposes which include remembering the sacrifices of those soldiers whose remains were never found.

      1. There was talk of removing the statue at The Confederate Mounds at Oak Woods. The statue is a nameless soldier who represents the more than 4,000 Confederate soldiers who died as the result of deplorable conditions (most died of exposure or smallpox) in Union POW camps.

        It would be like going back to President Obama's speeches and removing the phrase "We tortured some people."

      2. No one is saying that city governments aren't also filled with cretins, but they're cretins whose decisions you at least have a chance of influencing.

      3. YEAH! Let's build a statute of General Lee ... to honor those confederate soldiers were never found.


        1. So you’re for removing any statues of FDR?

          1. So, this sock is also illiterate?

            1. Idiot, it’s nit a sock. I’ve regenerated. I should think obvious even to a dullard such as yourself. And be warned, this incarnation isn’t nice like the old one.

              1. So, this sock is also illiterate?

                AND STOOPID!!

                Idiot, it’s nit a sock. I’ve regenerated.

                THAT HOW SOCKS ARE CREATED!!!!
                ******AND THE DUMBASS ADMITTED DOING IT!!!!!!!

    3. My feelings as well, I'm surprised more commentors on reason don't seem at all perturbed by the concentration of statute removal authority at the state level, regardless of the epistemic status of Billy's claims about the cause of the war and symbolism of the statues. And museums and historical societies can maintain any removed statutes, so no historical artifacts are being destroyed; this all seems pretty good for everyone involved.

      1. Without public fanfare, removing historical markers in the dead of night doesn't raise any red flags for you?

      2. I'm there as well. The state dictating what localities do with their property isn't something I'm fond of. However, I'm also not a fan of the state attempting to remove or revise its own cultural heritage. Binion does himself no favors in spending almost the whole article claiming that southern pride and positive markers of the Confederacy are all racist and should be memory holed.
        On a side note, I'm tired of the Charlottesville rally constantly being described exclusively as a deadly NAZI event. One guy lost his shit and ran people over. One person died from that. Go ahead and pin the crime on the individual and the rhetoric of his compatriots. Let's not ignore the antifa violence or how violence started from the counter protesters and no violence would have occurred otherwise. The remainder of the event did include racists and violence on both sides. Let's not whitewash the left while demonizing the right, eh?


          Why are ONLY white supremacists IN PRISON for launching the violence?

          Q. Did their jurors also vote Trump guilty of LYING to defend his nazi and racist supporters?
          A. YES!

          You people are as eagerly manipulated as Bernie Bros..

      3. And will VA also be removing the Statue of Limitations?

    4. Yes, exactly. If the monument is on municipal property, the decision to keep or remove it should be in the municipality's hands. They didn't have similar rules for monuments to other things.

      You can disagree with the decision to keep or remove. You can disagree with the reasons behind it. But giving them the ability to make their own decision at least seems appropriate.

      1. Municipalities are created at the permission of the state, since those are political subdivisions of state power.

        There are some things that cities control, some things counties control, and some things that the state controls.

        State historical markers and memorials should not be subject to the racist whims of local Nazis.

        1. The New York Times and their 1619 project might be racist and Nazi, but they're hardly local.

          1. The New York Times and their 1619 project might be racist and Nazi

            Only to the ignorant and/or brainwashed.

            Educate yourself. British slavery was banned by a King's Court ruling in 1772, as a violation of the Common Law. That applied to only England and Wales, but the colonies were also governed by Common Law, so it's quite reasonable for many to have assumed slavery would be ended in the colonies when we launched our own revolt, four years later.

            In 1803, Parliament banned the slave trade in all colonies, which would have affected us.

            In 1833, they banned slavery for all the colonies, which would also have ended it here -- 32 years before we did. (Mexico also banned slavery before we did, and even before the British colonies, in 1829, which is why Texas seceded from Mexico.)

            One need not have nightmares on everything the NYT publishes. It was the Times who predicted that Clinton's pressure for more subpar mortgages would lead to a major meltdown in a downturn, like the 1980s ... which is exactly what happened near the end of Bush2's disastrous Presidency. Nobody on the right called it, even after it happened.

            Also the Times who reported the greatest source of income inequality is ... the loss of well-paid jobs (fewer people in the middle class) especially in manufacturing, where Trump's "fix" cannot possibly succeed. (fails to address the real problem)

        2. If it's state property, then it would be appropriate for the state to control. I specifically stated, "If the monument is on municipal property" . . .

          Most of these were donated works erected in city parks by private citizens and are now owned and maintained by the cities who own the parks.

          1. Tracing the money back to it's source can be difficult. Grants for building statues, money for tourist promotions, it's not as simple as "that's on my lawn". The best answer is all should be privatized, but that's not the reality.

  6. The only reason this is on the docket is to keep charlottsville in the news to remind people that racists exist in this booming economy with record low unemployment. Two years ago a bernie sanders supporter came to va and tried to assassinate enough senators and congressmen to legitimately impact the structure of the federal legislator he only failed because he was fat and a terrible shot. Yet that's not mentioned every second of every political discussion ever because nobody cares. In the state of VA we have a governor who openly wore a klan hood was comfortable enough to be photographed in it and publish it as one of his college yearbook photos. He presides over a state that has police who disproportionately jails blacks yet why isn't that brought up every time va politics is mentioned? Why is it charlottsville?

    1. Erasing history is an important Lefty tactic. It prevents people from remembering how horrible Lefties are and how devastating war can be.

      1. It is actually one of the prime tactics of cultural Marxism. Erase a peoples history, erase their roots, grow allegiance to the state.

        1. +10000

  7. Was driving on I-95 last week near Fredericksburg, the southern end of the DC burbs, and saw a huge stars and bars flag flying, one of several I’ve seen since the C-ville BS flying prominently where Yankees passing through can be reminded that Virginia still is the South because having governor blackface isn’t enough. Nobody really gave a shit about the statues or even noticed them, and most African Americans didn’t want them taken down.

    1. If you ever come to Georgia, visit Stone Mountain. Its fun to see people from all over the World AND BLACK AMERICANS visit such "racism".

      Memorial Carving
      The largest high relief sculpture in the world, the Confederate Memorial Carving, depicts three Confederate figures of the Civil War, President Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. The entire carved surface measures three-acres, larger than a football field and Mount Rushmore.

      The largest high relief sculpture in the world, the Confederate Memorial Carving, depicts three Confederate figures of the Civil War, President Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.

      1. AND BLACK AMERICANS visit such “racism”.

        That's as crazy as saying Black Americans flocking to the GOP ... which is led by a LIAR who defended nazis and racists in Charlottesville.

    2. As a virginian this issue triggers me.

      1. With a bump stock?

    3. Local lefties have tried to get that flag taken down, but it's on private property owned by some sort of Confederate preservation society.

    4. East of 95 around mm 134. They've been trying to take that down for years and I've been please that so far the property owners have won. I won't lie that it isn't startling to see that here. In the past 10-20 years Confederate imagery has been nearly disappeared in the northern part of the state. Since moving further west in the state I've noticed more stars and bars. Nobody I've talked to using the symbol considers it to have anything to do with race. Maybe it's worth understanding what the symbol means to those using it instead of exclusively allowing their opponents to define things? Also worth noting, there are two houses near me that I'm aware of who fly the confederate flag. One is flown by a black man whose ancestor willingly fought for the south

    5. There is also one along I-64 between Charlottesville and Richmond.

  8. As Reason's Ron Bailey notes, it is "plain historical fact" that the majority of such memorials were put in place decades after the Civil War reached its conclusion, with most of them erected between 1900-1930.

    It also coincides with some of veterans dieing of old age as that was only 40-70 years after the war started and ended. When is the correct time to make memorials honoring dead soldiers? when we committed war atrocities and genocide on the Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese does it make it more or less racist when we built statues 40-70 years after the wars ended?

    1. These people only do this stuff when all the veterans are dead.

      Any of those old Democrat CSA veterans were still alive, there would be blood already.

      Go to a military cemetery sometime. The CSA soldiers are honored every Memorial day in the South.

      1. This is the dumbest issue of our time. And it serves as a reminder just how fucking backwards the political zeitgeist is at the moment. It would be one thing to publicly say we won't be building anymore confederate memorials. But reason a libertarian publication who supposedly cares about fiscal responsibility is supporting a measure that would cost taxpayer money to actively remove and censor political dissidents. It's a laughable concept and position for a libertarian publication to take.

        1. 1. unreason is NOT Libertarian anymore.
          2. unreason is not about fiscal responsiblity.
          3. unreason is a Propaganda rag, so all this fits right into that.

          Still sad and I will continue to have a counter argument about what unreason prints.

      2. The CSA soldiers are honored every Memorial day in the South.
        When are they going after Gettysburgh. The Confederate memorials there are practically Soviet in their glorification of the cause. And quite beautiful, some of them:

        1. If some adult has been to a real battlefield like Gettysburg and does not have some emotional moment, there is something wrong with you.

          Thousands of young American men died on both sides. Bodies torn and limbs severed. Young men screaming for their mothers.

      3. The soldiers. Not some fucking general on a horse. As is the case of all the DC memorials. These statues are not memorials. They are propaganda to idolize the very people who ordered those men to their deaths and mutilation. And for what cause did those confederate generals do that? To keep their slaves, wealth and status as overlords.

        Either way the cities have every right to decide what statues they want. This is an open and shut case for any libertarian.

        1. Your citations always fall off.

          Luckily, after Virginia goes Team red again, the statues will just go back up.

          Nothing like rallying anti-lefties like unconstitutional gun control and racist Democrats going after Military memorials.

    2. Statues and memorials aren't built till after the war has ended reconstruction lasted for 10 years why the fuck would the Union let the south honor it's dead than? how many generations did it take before southerners actually replaced carpet baggers in their state legislatures and executive branches? like wtf does the timeline have to do with any of it? besides being a fucking red herring.

      1. The Klan was also founded during Reconstruction,
        Sorry to destroy your delusions.

    3. Confederate monuments and memorials were largely erected, planned, funded and created to coincide with the semi centennial and centennial of the War. The government didn't pay for them and welcomed the gifts and often the land that came with them such as the parks in Charlottesville and Monument Avenue in Richmond.

      1. These are the same assholes who go to the tomb of the unknown soldier to do political protests. A monument literally erected to try to bring the country together. Yet liberal assholes hate it.

      2. Lefties dont know enough about history to know that quite a bit of state park land came from private donations.

    4. Construction of the Washington Monument began in 1848, the Jefferson Memorial in 1938, the Lincoln Memorial in 1914. What sort of nefarious historical revisionism were these monument-builders engaged in?

      1. As we know, monuments to Civil War figures were erected to intimidate Black people and celebrate the imposition of Jim Crow segregation. The Lincoln Memorial sends the message of it's namesake "know your place or we might send you back to Africa". Tear it down. Build a monument to John Wilkes Booth who gave his life to rid America of the racist tyrant Lincoln, thwarting any post-war plan to follow through on his ante-bellum ambitions to ethnically cleanse the country of what he wrongly believed to be an "inferior race" whose constructive contributions to the continent date back to the earliest explorations of the Spanish conquistadors

    5. How many years after the fact did we build the WW2 or Vietnam memorials in DC?

      1. Vietnam memorial completed in 1982.
        WWII Memorial complete in 2004. (Yup, 59 years after V-E Day)

      2. 2004 we built a WW2 memorial why did we choose to honor the genocidal work of american gi's who slaughtered primarily ethnic germans and japs for no reason other than they were of those nationalities? Not to mention the poor civilians that lived and died in the islands and towns the Nazis and Imperial army had occupied during the war as collataral damage. What message were we sending to them?

        1. It's different when you're the winner.

          1. Exactly. That's why Nazis are now regarded as all-purpose villains, while the Communists, with their larger death toll aren't. We now have some in the US political system who actively celebrate the Soviet "achievement", if only indirectly.

            1. On a per captia basis the U.S. is probably the winner for killing natives

              1. FYI: Many AmerIndians died from disease.

                Americans did kill many AmerIndians. Many AmerIndians died from starvation because their ways of life were almost completely interrupted.

                AmerIndians also fought the Americans and many males died.

                We are part of what makes America great. America is a great place to earn wealth for you and your family beyond what any tribe ever did for my family.

              2. "On a per captia basis the U.S. is probably the winner for killing natives"

                Suggest you do some reading before making an ass of yourself again.

                1. NO LINK = BULLSHIT

                  1. How about "The Black Book of Communism" ? I don't have a link for it, but it should be easy enough to find.

                    1. I googled it. You lose.

    6. THANK YOU!

  9. I can't wait until Bill Binion and his buddies try to tear down the Korean War Memorial and the Vietnam Memorial for being racist against those great Commie nations.

  10. I live near Arcata, California which recently removed a statue - one of only two in the US - of William McKinley from the town plaza in the middle of the night. He was the last president to have fought in the Civil War and advanced from common soldier to Major. He had two horses killed by bullets while riding them, indicating that he was actually in the fighting. He fought for the North.
    McKinley was against declaring war on Spain because he knew what war actually was, unlike Teddy Roosevelt, but he went along with Congress because that was during the period before the Imperial Presidency.
    The statue was removed because he was 1) white, 2) old, 3) should have used his office to fight colonialism, and 4) promoted war.
    Declaring war on our past because we have moved on in opinions is a huge mistake. Sarcastic Arcatans propose a new statue of a trans-sexual gay Native American looking accusingly at all around.

    1. I wish the Arcata Eye and its police log were still around!

    2. They don't don't call their movement "progressive" for nothing.

      Today's "Silent Sam" is tomorrows Thomas Jefferson.

      1. +10000

      2. Jefferson was not a traitor who fought against The United States

        1. The Democrat Party was full of CSA traitors and they were pardoned.

          Poor Lefties. Elections have consequences.

        2. Treason is making war against the United States.
          Lincoln is the one who made war.
          The Confederate States just wanted to be left alone.

          1. Umm, the South fired on Fort Sumter ... which began the war ... they had been ignored for months ... as their Congress governed ... so THE craziest military attack in human history!

            Fort Sumpter was a Union fort. Google it.

            Now tell us why you repeatedly side with slavery and slave owners?

            (Even if Lincoln did start it ... why did he declare war against ... HIMSELF?)

  11. Leave them up as conversation starters about history.

    For example, the Pennsylvania capitol has statues to the various rogue politicians who grafted their way to prominence, funded and placed their by the grifters who benefited. "Speakers Row" has portraits of former speakers, including the three whose corruption sent them to the pokey. They renaub so that people can see them and discuss the bad old days.

    1. They don't want conversation. Just their narrative. That's the whole point of removing the statues.

      1. anyone else find it hilarious and unsurprising that writers at this publication are supporting the public money to censor political dissidents, in service of the cultural left?

        1. *public expenditure of

          1. Excellent point. I don't think anyone even mentioned that before Idle Hands. Public money is being used to tear down historical markers and war memorials that often were donated to the state or local jurisdiction.

            unreason is onboard with that.

            NOTHING LEFT TO CUT!

        2. I can see both sides. Some people probably react to those statues like they were of a German guy with a funny mustache. They get all worked up and emotional. The statues were put up during the height of Jim Crow and could be easily be interpreted as celebrating oppression. So yeah, I get how some people are seriously offended and want them gone. I think it's all emotional bullshit and I completely disagree, but I can see it.

          1. noone is seriously offended. That's bullshit.

            1. This entire argument is a tool to bludgeon and slander the opponents of this (largely the cultural right) as racist bigots for electoral purposes.

              1. Oh, I'm sure that's a huge part of it. But I don't presume to say nobody is offended. There's probably a grain of truth in all the bullshit.

                1. How does one seriously get offended about history?



                    Because that's the same thing as having statues of him in public places. Yeah. Sure.

                    1. Seattle put up a statue of Lenin...

                    2. Surrounded by guns and flames...

                    3. Statue of Lenin (Seattle)

                      sarcasmic is a big liar... No surprise there.

                    4. FTA

                      “ Venkov intended the statue to function as a critique of communist oppression and depict Lenin as a violent man, with abstract rifles and flames on the statue, in contrast to the traditional depiction of Lenin holding a book.”

                    5. Showed a picture. No guns or flames.

              2. +1000

            2. My only point of reference is you, and you seem to be very fired up about this. So I can imagine there's a lefty out there just as fired up. Said person could have been just as fired up about the initial public expenditure for said statue, which most people here would agree is a waste of money.

              I think it makes sense to allow local governments to make decisions at the local level. Those decisions shouldn't include spending tax dollars on expensive GI Joes.

              1. Not to diminish the lives spent fighting for freedom. I personally find that celebrating said people with my own time and money more gratifying.

              2. I'm not really offended by this to do anything beyond comment about it.

                1. So I may be riled up but I wouldn't consider me seriously offended.

              3. the initial public expenditure happened 100 years ago, pretty sure everyone who disliked it then is dead. Now were talking about spending money to take them down and possibly erect other wastes of metal.

                1. fair. Spending more doesn't seem worth it. And I imagine they aren't melting them down to make medals for transgender athletes, it'll probably go into a museum

              4. I am deeply saddened and riled up but not offended.

                I see that actions like this indicate that Americans cannot even agree on keeping up historical markers of war to remind us all and give us a conversation piece to discuss the topic.

                Civil War 2.0 is likely coming boys and girls. Lefties will be destroyed one way or anther. Politics or bloodshed.

                We defeated the Democrats in Civil War 1.0 and the same thing will happen again.

                1. There will never be a civil war because most liberals do not lead the lives they virtue signal about. Most liberals have cushy lives and want to fight culture wars while enjoying capitalism. There are very few people who promote socialism and live in a way that would make it sustainable. They'd rather have iphones.

                  The civil war is had at the ballot every 4 years and we're undefeated.

                  1. As a general rule, people with full bellies don't revolt against their government. Give the left a chance to implement their socialist policies and people will start getting hungry.

                    1. Jesus sarcasmic who is running your sock today? You are saying dumber things than normal.

                      The Revolutionary War was fought against the British and empty bellies were the not the problem.

                  2. I didn't say it would be a long drawn out Civil War 2.0. It will be over in a matter of months.

                    All the Lefty retards in the cities will die of starvation or surrender as then ask how come their cell phones dont work.

              5. Said person could have been just as fired up about the initial public expenditure for said statue,

                What "initial public expenditure" are you talking about? The government didn't put up these monuments and memorials.
                Monument Avenue in Richmond and Lee and Jackson Parks in C-ville were private property when the art was installed.

  12. "While a debate over state independence contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War, the specific issue at stake was more complex: Southerners wanted to be able to travel anywhere with their slaves . . . ."

    I have read more then 30 books about the Civil War and I have never before read this "cause for the war." Talk about rewriting history! The inability of states to peacefully secede WAS the lost cause. The end of slavery was a good thing, but self determination was dealt a fatal blow, and that is not good. If, for example, the residents of California were to vote to secede, shouldn't they be able to? Or should we march in the US Army to stop them?!

    1. It's just some piece of shit busy bodies trying to rewrite history. They know these memorials were to men and women that fought for their country. The VAST majority of those people didn't give a shit about slavery. First they were begin told what to do by people they didn't know in a land far away. Then they were being invaded by those very same people. Eventually their economies, homes, farms and places of business were destroyed by those same people.

      But yeah.. sure... it was about slavery... Their sacrifices must be purged from the records.

    2. That's because it's largely recognized by most people that Lincoln was the one that wanted to narrowly focus on the issue of slavery and hand wave away the whole succession argument to give the north a cause. Otherwise you would be killing your cousin and brother for no reason other than they want to be able to rule themselves. Slavery is a disgusting stain on this country but to pretend this was the entire cause of a war is disingenuous. The cause of the war was largely a result of Lincoln being an egotistical narcissist who didn't want to be remembered by history as the president at the helm when the american experiment failed.

      1. David Hogg assured me Lincoln is a terrible president on twitter.

        1. Well he definitely was. Name another us president who literally caused a civil war? That easily makes him the worst by most metrics.

          1. He didn't cause it, though: the South did, merely because he was elected. They didn't like the fact that he was a member of a Party dedicated to ending slavery.

            He didn't even shoot first: the South did that.

      2. Lincoln's solution before the CSA fired on Fort Sumter:
        My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,–to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.


        1. link fail.

          Speech on the Kansas Nebraska Act at Peoria, Illinois, 1854

    3. Secession was about slavery. I've read a few of the Articles of Secession. They were afraid of losing what they considered to be property.

      The war was to preserve the union. It was to show federal dominance over the states. Slavery was an afterthought.

      At least that's my limited understanding.

      1. That's pretty much my reading also.

        The Union didn't care about slavery, it was about preserving the Union. Lincoln himself was clear in this.

        Reading the South Caroline Articled of Secession puts to rest any theory that slavery was anything other than Reason One for succession. (It pains me to say.)

        1. While it's certainly true that the Civil War was "about" slavery (the reason the Southern states wanted to secede was to preserve slavery) it's also true that the direct cause was the issue of secession. Despite the historical record of King George III's reaction to the American colonist's declaration of independence and the colonist's reaction to the king's arguments, the Northern states declared that the Southern states were not legally able to secede. And yet, the part nobody has been able to explain to me, after the Northern states won the argument, they imposed conditions on the Southern states for re-admission to the Union. What? Wasn't this whole war over the idea that the South couldn't leave the Union? How can they be re-admitted if they never left? Did the South win the war?

          1. This is a good point.

          2. There is nothing in the US Constitution that say states cannot secede.

            Article IV discusses new states joining the USA.

            Likely the Founders did not want to give states an easy way out. We are all in this together. Either all the states revolt against the federal government or none do. States are protected from violence from another state by the federal government.

      2. That's the tricky part for property rights libertarians. While we can say that slavery is wrong, how do you end it without trampling the property rights of those who legally purchased slaves? I would fight against the government confiscating the means of production that I have legally procured and strongly invested in. I'll agree that ending slavery is the larger moral priority here, but it's a disservice to ignore the other moral violation even if it's a distasteful position to defend

        1. I would fight against the government confiscating the means of production that I have legally procured and strongly invested in.

          I can see that position, however I would say self ownership comes before property rights.

          1. No disagreement on that point. I'm just looking at the context here. Freeing the slaves was basically a massive eminent domain project when viewed from the perspective of a slave owner. Things were trending towards ending the practice at the time anyway, so I do question whether war was proper or necessary (if we assert that the war was all about slavery)

            1. Slavery went away in the rest of the world in part because it's an economic loser. So I seriously doubt it would exist today if the war had not been fought.

              1. Some countries still have slavery. North Korea for example.

            2. That was probably the only peaceful way to end slavery in the USA. The federal government needed to eminent domain every slave and then pass an Amendment to end slavery. Sending all those slaves back to Africa and then ending slavery might have worked too.

        2. I dunno, we could, say, look at the methods that were used by literally every other Western nation that managed to end slavery without killing a half million of its own citizens....

          1. Mexico comes the mind, which is why Texas seceded.
            And England's superior court ended slavery in England and Wales, nearly a hundred years before the US, even four years before our revolution (1772). Ruled slavery a violation of the Common Law, which no doubt scared many in our colonies, which were also governed by the Common Law

    4. The irony of Wilson's 14 points is that it was used as a basis for the anarchy in Europe post WW1. Everyone in Europe was supposed to be allowed to determine their own national borders, but in the USA you can't secede or the government will kill you.

      1. The South fired first. The anarchy part is even wackier.

    5. Mississippi:
      It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
      The Declaration of Causes of Seceding State

    6. That would be an oblique reference to the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision ironically interfering in states rights with regard to outlawing slavery within their jurisdiction.

      1. Full Faith and Credit Clause.

        Its why I can drive my tinted windowed truck through states that dont allow tint and the cops cannot do shit about it.

        I also successfully challenged a Virginia state law banning radar detectors since my License plates are Georgia. As long as my vehicle is in safe working order, Virginia regulatory rules do not apply. The prosecutor shook his head and dropped the case before the judge. Then they had to give me my radar detector back. I cited the 5th Amendment that any seizure of my property would require just compensation of over $100 at the time.


        1. I also fuck with cops with headlight flashing to alert other drivers to speed traps.

          Know your rights and whip out a CATO pocket Constitution and the cops fall all over themselves.

      2. It's a lot more than the Fugitive Slave Law. The Constitution also mandated that fugitive slaves had to be returned by free states.

    7. Doesn't it make sense?
      I can't take my slaves to New York so my solution is to separate from the nation that contains New York, so that I can't go there at all.
      Some of the bullshit these wokatarians come up with as the reasons that the CSA seceded is beyond crazy.
      1. There was no pending legislation to outlaw slavery.
      2. The Republican platform said nothing about outlawing it.
      3. Lincoln, and all other efforts to fight against the CSA, were about preserving the union, no mention of fighting to end slavery
      4. The Emancipation Proclamation was long after the war began and didn't even free all the slaves, only the ones in the CSA states.
      Claims that the WNA was about slavery are sophist revisionism.
      Slavery wasn't only about race. Not all black people in the South were slaves. There were black slave owners. White people were treated like slaves, just for a finite amount of time, until their servitude was ended.

      1. Ummmm,

        1) In 1772, slavery was abolished in England and Wales ... when their superior court ruled it a violation of Common Law. Our colonies were also governed by British Common Law.

        2) In 1803, Parliament banned the slave trade in ALL colonies ... which would have banned it here.

        3) In 1833, Parliament banned slavery in all colonies ... which would have banned it here, and destroyed the Confederacy ... if we had not revolted to (in part) retain slavery.

  13. If the notion is that doing this will stamp out white nationalism, the notion is mistaken. If anything it will just stir them up and "prove" (in their minds) their paranoid ideas are true.

    1. The whole point of progressive actions in the fight against "white nationalism" is to promote white nationalism.
      If there are no enemies, or they are small and weak, what's the basis of one's righteousness?

  14. It’s also a historical fact that, regardless of when those monuments were put up, people taking down those monuments are doing so in order to advance a progressive, centralized, authoritarian agenda, and that they are trying to rewrite history and lie about the role of their movement and party in it.

    1. Every generation believes that it should be Year One and the bad old past that doesn't live up to their vision should be memory-holed.

  15. Ah the good ol' Book Burners. I'm just glad they make their bullshit so obvious to everyone.

    1. But they only ban the bad books. Really cant wait until we are only left with the 1619 project and the Zinns history books so we can finally have propaganda free history of our past.

  16. If Charlottesville can be characterized as a "deadly white nationalist" rally" then can we characterize the shooting of the GOP congressman as a "violent socialist protest"?

    1. no because that didn't happen.

      1. It is amazing how much that did not happen.

  17. This article clearly establishes one thing we can all agree upon. A single point of unity from which we can build.

    Binion is a twit.

    1. This got him an A in college.

    2. No, just a young guy who hasn't got a lot of experience with life.

      1. There are a lot of people who are young without a lot of experience. The non-twits are the ones who (for whatever reasons) choose not to demonstrate it.

  18. Good. Post-facto historical revisionism is nothing more than ignorant propaganda that should be stamped out and a commitment to the truth - no matter how uncomfortable it might be - is the higher principle we must strive for.

    Which is why I'm in favor of tearing down all the statues and monuments and reminders of our so-called "Founding Fathers" as if they were somehow wise and noble and honorable men when the truth is that they were nothing more than evil white rich men who founded this country as a bastion of racism and sexism and an oppressive regime to keep the poor and disadvantaged from interfering with the machinations of the patriarchy.

    Unless, of course, all history is subjective and "the lessons of history" subject to interpretation and historical revisionism in the eye of the beholder. Sort of, to coin a phrase, you might almost say that history is written by the winners and therefore a biased and unreliable record.

    1. No jerry this in no way is a slippery slope that will result in the erasure of all political opinions separate from the corporate, safe and manufactured one that can fit neatly on a hallmark card. Don't be a ridiculous conspiracy theorist.

      1. Don't worry the right people are pushing this this so in no way is this authoritative or fascist.

  19. Bunion is such leftie scum that he can’t even be bothered to lie and pretend that he’ll defend Washington and Jefferson when his fellow America haters go after them next. At least Bailey made a small effort to try!

  20. "It is "plain historical fact" that the majority of such memorials were put in place decades after the Civil War reached its conclusion, with most of them erected between 1900-1930. The construction and dedication of those memorials coincided with the era of Jim Crow, which established a racial caste system and relegated black people to the bottom of it. In that vein, many such statues had far more to do with asserting white superiority and intimidating African-Americans than honoring erstwhile military leaders."

    Five people in my office have a hard time agreeing on where to go to lunch, but because people at the time these statues were erected were racist, that means the reasons the people of today want to keep those statues up should be ignored?

    Markets are made up of individuals representing their own individual preferences. People buy pickup trucks for all sorts of reasons. Some people buy one because they need to haul their plaster rig. Some people one because they need to distribute animal feed. Some people buy them to haul an RV. Some people buy them because they like off-roading. Some people them for a number of these reasons or none of them. Because some racists have used pickup trucks to drag African-Americans behind them in acts of torture and murder doesn't mean they should be banned. The historical fact is that millions of different people do the same thing for a multitude of different reasons, and that's why people should be free to represent themselves, their own qualitative preferences, and their own concerns in markets.

    Why does our understanding of markets suddenly break down when we start talking about the Civil War?

    Some people were drafted into the Vietnam War. Some people fled to Canada or went in as conscientious objectors. Some conscientious objectors trained as medics and dropped out of school in the hope of being drafted. Some people were drafted and didn't avoid service for all sorts of different reasons. Some people volunteered for service--and not all of them did it for the same reason either. Some of them wanted adventure. For some of them, it was a family tradition. For some of them, it was a way to get out of the sticks and see the world. Some of them hated communists. Are we supposed to pretend that all 2.7 million Americans who served in Vietnam did so for the same reason?

    Some people in the North voted for Lincoln's opponent because they were afraid that if the slaves were freed, they'd have to compete with them for wages. Some people in the North rioted rather than be conscripted into fighting the South for the Union army. Some generals in the Union army owned slaves. Some commanders in the Union army used scorched earth tactics against the South--whether the farms being destroyed by them held slaves or not, and some of those commanders used the same tactics to massacre Native Americans in the west after the Civil War was over. People joined the Union army for all sorts of reasons.

    But we're supposed to pretend that the people of today support keeping Confederate monuments up for the same reason--and it's the same reason that millions of Americans in the south put up however many Civil War monuments between 1900 and 1930?!

    I call bullshit.

    1. It is bullshit. It's just a political gambit to rile up one side and signal to your voters that these people are racist. It's a manufactured issue to be used as political tool.

      1. I don't understand why reason engages this topic in good faith? It's clearly a case of the cultural marxists trying to slander, cow and silence their opponents to march closer to their cultural hegemonic vision. They aren't honest brokers.

        1. You remember that Bannon documentary we were talking about the other day, American Dharma?

          Bannon made some points in there suggesting that Trump's campaign (including himself) "floods the zone" with these sorts of issues because the news media can really only focus on one thing at a time and they become consumed and preoccupied with certain kinds of stories. This was put forth as an explanation for why Trump tweets the things he does and latches onto the issues he does. The media becomes so obsessed with issues like whether so and so is a sexist, whether the NFL players are dissing the flag for BLM, whether the sexual assault allegations are true, whether so and so is a racist--and it gives Trump cover to do the important things of government without them paying much attention.

          The biggest story of the day should be this:

          "The U.S. government and the Afghan Taliban reached an agreement on a weeklong reduction in violence to begin later Friday that could be followed by a permanent peace deal a week later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said.

          The agreement—which covers elements such as roadside bombs, suicide bombs and rocket attacks—marks a further milestone after months of talks toward ending a war that has endured for more than 18 years."

          Most Americans probably don't even know that the Trump administration has been in ongoing negotiations with the Taliban to get us out of Afghanistan. After seeing Bannon's argument in that film, I suspect it's partially because the Trump administration doesn't want them to know--until it's a done deal. If the media were heaping their attention on what he was actually doing, they might create problems and resistance to his plans. So, he tweets all sorts of things. He says all sorts of things. He does all sorts of things--none of which really matter but the media obsesses over them.

          I don't know why they're like that, exactly, but it may be a temperament kind of thing. People go into journalism because they want to be the ones who alert the world to its biggest problems and make a difference. They want to uncover the racism of average Southerns and expose it to the frightening gaze of the American people--or so they think. The media is easily trolled by this stuff. It goes back to Situationist International concepts--about how you can't control what the media says about your issues, but you can control what issues they cover by creating spectacles for them to cover. They look for and want to write about stories like this like fat kids go to parties wanting and looking for cake. Stories like this--that's what they signed up for. Feed them a steady diet of stories like this, and they'll keep eating them up--because stories like this is all they really want to write about.

          1. My problem with this particular Trump theorum is I don't think he's smart enough to plan and orchestrate this level of noise(Bannon is). I think a large part of his media suave is instinctual genius. Also the media isn't reporting about this because it would be incredibly popular and they don't report anything that could possibly make Trump look good or competent. Think that's probably closer to the mark.

            1. I think Trump has been manipulating the tabloids and the news headline since the early 1980s.


              1. This. Trump has decades of experience dealing with the media.

                But the technique was also part of the Obama White House - Plouffe called it 'stray voltage.'

                1. It's like a media response to the "noble lie".

                  Plato and Machiavelli wrote about the need for good leaders to manipulate their people into believing things that aren't true in the strict sense in order to get them on board with policy.

                  In the era of Wikileaks and information and secrets that are highly susceptible to leaks because almost all your secret are entirely digitized and stored in networks, keeping your lies secret ain't what it used to be. The "noble lie" may have run its course as an effective strategy.

                  In an era of sensory overload, however, people can still be easily distracted. There are numerous cognitive biases, where people tend to concentrate on whatever has the most intensity. If I create a modernist painting of a white field with a bright red dot in the middle, people don't call it the painting of the white field. They call it the painting of the red dot. We don't notice all the ambient noise around us. We notice the one noise with the highest pitch.

                  Hardly anybody notices or reports on Trump converting Medicaid to block grants or trying to come to a peace agreement with the Taliban--not when you compete with Elizabeth Warren going postal on Bloomberg. Not when Trump is on TV calling Elizabeth Warren, "Pocahontas" again. If it weren't for The Medicaid block grants, the deal with China, the peace deal with the Taliban, the deregulation, the corporate tax cuts, etc., etc., I might think he was a nutjob, too.

                  He's achieving some really good, smart policy goals, and I don't think that happens by accident. The universe trends towards entropy, and with government, that's even more so--government trends toward disaster. Instead of condemning the media for not taking him seriously or covering what matters, I'm starting to appreciate what Trump has accomplished maybe not in spite of the harsh coverage--but through his manipulation. The Democratic Party is in shambles. It's total devastation. They're a smoking crater from top to bottom. Only Duverger's Law can save them.

                  1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

            2. Idle Hands, you don't remember that some reporter said that she was trying to get an interview with Trump via his administrative assistant? This reporter recorded the conversation and to this day says it was Trump as the supposed administrative assistant.

              Trump hangs with media types at various social events and knows what they want and how to do show them "The Monkey". You know, "Look at the monkey" distraction?

        2. "I don’t understand why reason engages this topic in good faith?"

          Do you think Binion is approaching this in good faith? I don't.

          1. I think Bailey does.

            1. Fair enough.

      2. 60 years from now, they'll look back at this era in American history the way we look back at the Red Scare. During the Red Scare, people in polite society were scared to death of being associated in any way with communism, and that fear was used both as a political tool and as a way to enforce conformity. There were all sorts of reasons you wanted people to think you were a fine upstanding, God believing, heterosexual with a sensible haircut, and, yeah, so people didn't think you were a communist was certainly among them. During this scare, people feel compelled to change and support all sorts of things--for fear of being called a racist. Racism, like communism, is a terrible thing, but just like communism isn't a good reason to do things we shouldn't do regardless of whether someone accuses of being a communist, bogus charges of racism shouldn't scare people away from speaking the unracist truth about what they think and why. In fact, anticommunism still hasn't completely lived down its association with conspiracy nuts during the Red Scare, and bogus charges of racism probably won't serve the anti-racists well in coming decades either. Yes, of course racism is real and a threat--so was communism.

        1. We've been getting more and more evidence that McCarthy was, at least generally, correct (if not correct about specific individuals).

          I believe in the future people will (hopefully) accurately look back at this time during the Great Supremacist Scare as being far worse than the Red Scare. At least McCarthy was going after people he thought to ACTUALLY be subverting America, not using it as some sick, political ploy to paint HALF the country as bigots just to install his party as THE party for eternity.

          1. The state department was dull of commies.

            Their actions led to real consequences like Eastern Europe easily falling under Commie authoritarian rule.

            Commies are an enemy and want to destroy America. We need to wake up and banish all those fuckers working to destroy us.

        2. there are real racists, marching in the streets

          not actually a scare

          the alt right is a racist movement

          not imaginary

          1. If you respond to comments like an NPC, don't be surprised if people come to think of you as an NPC.

    2. 1900-19030 is also a time sufficiently distant from the actual events for people to have cooled down, while still being a time when many actual participants were still alive.

      It also just happens to coincide with the building of many similar monuments in the north (the Gettysburg National Monument was one of the earliest - really getting going just before the turn of century) for quite similar reasons - mainly to recognize a generation that wasn't going to be alive much longer.

      1. Yeah, 1900-1930 is when the United States started hitting it stride in American Imperialism. That's when Rudyard Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden" for Roosevelt. 1900-1930 is when we decided we were a great world power--sufficient to win a huge war in Europe. What's the point of being an imperial power if you're not building monuments to yourself and your history?

        Yeah, of course the south built monuments in the era of monument building. And plenty of Americans entertained racist attitudes in that era--in both the south and the north. Why that means that Civil War monuments should be taken down because of what people today think is to get it all backwards. The Washington Monument was started in the 1840s, and its construction almost certainly included the use of slavery.

        To plenty of Americans today, however, the Washington Monument isn't about slavery. Maybe it should be! Maybe someone out there thinks it ought to be--and they should be free to argue that point. As things stand, however, the attitudes of some people at the time it was constructed has no bearing on what most Americans think today--and smearing Americans today as racists because they don't make the same associations social justice warriors do isn't just wrong because it's a political opinion. It's also factually incorrect.

        If average southerners today are racist, it isn't because of what Binion says about the people who built these statues. They're either racist or not regardless of what people did or thought 90 years ago--not that he can speak for them and their motivations either.

        1. people haven't changed or evolved in 90 years, they have the same capacity for hate and prejudice in some cases the targets of that hate and prejudice changed and in other cases they just decided it was better to keep quite. The hilarious Irony of people like Binion and his ilk is their belief they somehow wouldn't be on the vanguard and in the mainstream of racist thought at that time, In my opinion it's more likely that the mindset of someone who could be a neo nazis today is more probable to be an abolitionist than lazy thinkers like Binion. Not being racist or prejudiced against a black man in the 1860's would be looked and with almost as much disdain and incredulity as people who look at neo nazi's in this country today.

  21. This isn't as easy an issue as some of the commenters here seem to think—apart from the fact that the state justly repealed a law unnecessarily constraining the actions of local governments.

    On the one hand, the monuments are part of history, and removing them smacks of the memory hole. Decades from now, will a vegan society tear down statues of Martin Luther King, who spoke favorably of the eating of hamburgers? Let's note that the statue-tearer-downers removed Roger Taney from Baltimore and Annapolis, though Taney did not join the Confederacy.

    On the other, it's difficult to find a principle whereunder Confederate statues should be sacrosanct, but it's OK for the Iraqis to pull down Saddam Hussein, or for the Estonians to tear down statues of Lenin.

    1. No statues should be sacrosanct but the only reason this is even an issue is because it's a useful tool for the cultural left to brow beat the cultural right and the "stupid backwards" southerners who largely vote republican as racist hicks.

    2. Remember these same people who want to tear down Confederate statues are probably the same people who wrote eulogies and cried when Castro died. They only see whatever history they've been told to brlieve.

  22. If they want to take down statues in their town or state, fine. But dont turn around and demand a statue of someone like Harriet Tubman or Fredrick Douglas because you want to put on display "moral superiority" or virtue signal about how you would have been on the right side of history. Those statues have a huge value historically and need to be put somewhere in either a museum or another area.

    1. Frederick Douglass deserves statues.

      The people agitating for removing the existing ones are no fans of his.

      1. So does Harriet Tubman.

        It's a shame that this won't be on our $20 bill.

        1. I too wish it were.

    2. Everyone knows this statute removal scheme is shady. Most are being done at night. These Lefties dont have the majority vote power, so they do shady shit like this.

  23. The Pennsylvania monument at Gettysburg was erected 50 years after the battle when it became obvious that the ranks of veterans was fast disappearing.
    "The Lost Cause" originally was more related to Southerners believing they never had a chance against the industrial might and manpower of the North but showed their courage and honor by fighting in a cause they knew they couldn't win. [Using different strategy, they certainly could have won.]
    The Public can decide what to do with public spaces. If that means taking down a statue of R.E. Lee or JFK or Teddy Roosevelt, or Margaret Sanger then so be it.

    1. These Lefties trying to use Pen & Phone to take down statues will wonder why MLK statues are being taken down in the middle of the night.

  24. Wow, they found someone worse than Soave.

    The KMW era is going to be remembered for this woke leftard bullshit and hard-hitting reports about the retarded navel-gazing of spoiled college kids. Great legacy. To be sure.

    1. Soave is probably the closest thing to an idealogical libertarian that is on the staff.

      1. Close being measured in stellar parallax.

        1. It's more an indictment of the staff than anything else.

          1. Kind of like how Trump is the best President in US History because of all the bad policy Democrats have given Trump to tear apart?

  25. The South was economically devastated following the Civil War. It was not until well after 1900 that much of it had recovered beyond a third world existence.

    So the argument is that since these monuments weren't put up until that time is "proof" that they were done so for no reason other than to support Jim Crow.

    How long did it take for the National WW II monument to finally be put in place? 60 years after the end of the war. People put up monuments 1) when they can afford to and 2) when the veterans are all dying of old age.

    And, Billy Binion, you are the worst fucking excuse for a libertarian I've ever encountered. Actually worse than Dalmia, and that is one very low bar.

  26. Let me get this right. Our guiding principles should include freedom from hurt feelings and disagreeable ideas, and not freedom of speech (and, god forbid, freedom of thought).

    1. HEY! If Lefties cannot be free of hurt feelings than nobody can have feelings at all.

      ...each according to their need.

  27. "Supporters of those war memorials often say they want to preserve history. But what if they've got the facts wrong?" This is great Binion, do you have the slightest understanding of the Civil War? Here is a few facts for you:
    1. The War was NOT initially about slavery, it was about whether or not secession was legal. An idea first introduced by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution. As the war went on and the death rates sky-rocketed, Lincoln needed a moral cause to continue the war, this was slavery, please read the Gettysburg Address. In fact Lincoln himself stated that had he been able to preserve the Union without ending slavery he would have done so.
    2. The ideas of secession and nullification(James Madison in the Virginia Resolution) show a different understanding of the country compared to the modern understanding. Prior to the Civil War the phrase "These United States" was used, not the modern "The United States", the idea of course being the states entered into the union and could leave and/or refuse to follow federal law (i.e the nullification crisis).
    3. As for the statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson, Lee only owned slaves for a short period of time after he inherited slaves from his father-in-law. He owned NO slaves when the Civil War began. Thomas Jackson owned TWO slaves during his life. The first was an adult male who asked Jackson to buy him with the understanding that he would pay Jackson back and thereby be free, which happened. The second was an orphaned child who Jackson and and his wife raised as their own child freed, and then sent north to receive a college education. Why would men like this fight to preserve slavery? They would not, this issue once again was whether or not secession was legal. As Lee told Lincoln when Lincoln asked Lee to command U.S. forces "I go with Virginia".

    1. The South wanted to do something acceptable(secession) for an unacceptable reason-slavery. They knew that they could not maintain veto power in the senate and left to keep slavery safe. Still, if they had started the war at Ft. Sumpter, there would have been no war. Things might have been negotiated instead.

      1. "not" started the war at Ft. Sumpter.

      2. Still, if they had started the war at Ft. Sumpter, there would have been no war.

        Nobody died as the result of aggression at Sumpter. The first two people to die in the Civil War were a civilian hotel owner who was flying a Virginia battle flag that Lincoln could see from the WH and the Lt. Colonel Lincoln sent to take down the flag by force.

        1. The first two people to die in the Civil War

          Sorry, the first two people to die of aggression. There was a death as the result of celebratory/ceremonial cannon fire after the attack on Sumpter had ended.

        2. BTW guys, It's Fort Sumter. Not to be the spelling Confederate.

    2. 1. The War was NOT initially about slavery, it was about whether or not secession was legal.

      Ah, so they fought a war to secede over whether or not they'd be allowed to secede peacefully.


      There were many issues upon which the parties and the areas differed at the time. The only one that was non-negotiable was slavery. Everything else could have been--and in some cases was--being worked out.

      Except slavery.

      Slavery was a prominent reason for secession given by the first two states to secede. Of the 11 that seceded, 7 gave reasons. 6 of those mentioned slavery.

      I know it is the fashion to insist that it was not slavery, but states rights that was the cause of the Civil War. But which states rights are we talking about? Yes, the ones about the legality of keeping and owning slaves. Those state rights.

      Can we not accept this? Must we pretend that there was some other reason?

      1. "I know it is the fashion to insist that it was not slavery, but states rights that was the cause of the Civil War. "

        I did not say the Civil War was not about slavery, I said it was not initially about slavery.

        "Slavery was a prominent reason for secession given by the first two states to secede. Of the 11 that seceded, 7 gave reasons. 6 of those mentioned slavery."

        True, but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. Why did Lincoln refuse to allow the southern states to secede? Slavery? No, Lincoln's own stated goal was to preserve the union. To him slavery and the abolition thereof was at best a secondary issue.

        "Ah, so they fought a war to secede over whether or not they’d be allowed to secede peacefully."

        Yes, the same as the American Revolution was fought over whether or not a colony could secede peacefully from their parent country. The same as Vietnam's attempt to secede from French colonial rule. There are countless examples throughout history of one group of people attempting to separate from another, to my knowledge it is rarely done peacefully.

        1. Every secession document mentions Slavery, usually in the first sentence

          it was about slavery

          1. Yes, secession was about slavery. As I stated THE WAR was not initially about slavery. Lincoln could have easily allowed those states who wished to secede to do so.

          2. Your citation fell off.

            I have already linked the declaration of secession 2 times today.

            1. I have already linked the declaration of secession 2 times today.

              There are 11. 7 that give reasons. 4 that do not. Of the 7 that give reasons, 6 include slavery as prominent among those reasons, if not first.

              1. I bet every CSA reason includes a states right issue. In fact multiple states rights issues.

  28. I thought this was a libertarian website?! Shouldn't there be libertarians writing libertarian stuff on here instead of this statist liberal mumbo jumbo crap?!

    1. unreason staff are NOT Libertarians. You will find us Libertarians sprinkled in the Commentariat being followed by unreason sock troll bots.

      Libertarians are for free markets and principles. unreason is now for website clicks and principals.

    2. So sad you have to read opinions that disagree with your own

      1. He's the craziest of the all ... thinks we're all too stupid to spot him as the busiest Trump Troll. Libertarians are NOT Trump Trolls. (lol)

        Unlike Trump and LC1789, libertarians would never lie to defend neo-nazis and white nationalists.. Shame on those traitors to individual liberty.

  29. Lefties forget that their use of a Pen & Phone can be reversed by Pen & Phone in the future.

  30. What is wrong with removing statues of traitors who fought to keep millions of people enslaved?

    1. You are removing MLK, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama statutes too?

      Wow! Good for you. let us know when the nighttime removal will be.

      1. How about Trump, the fucking liar who insulted and yelled that the mass assaults in Charlottesville were launched by the Alt-Left,

        Of those names you mentioned ... MLK, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama ... how many conspired with neo-nazis and white supremacists, so shamelessly?

          1. He declared war on nazis, Gomer/

            1. He imprisoned 70,000 Japanese, moron.

              Stalin also went to war with Nazis. He your man??

              1. ANOTHER crazed fuckup and cowardly diversion from PROOF of Trump's support for racists and neo-nazi. 🙂

                The topic is neo-nazis and white supremacists, Why do YOU defend them AGAIN, you sick hate-monger??

                Stalin also went to war with Nazis. He your man??


                ***YOU'RE AS BIG A DISGRACE AS TRUMP.

                (Will he whine like a pussy AGAIN, that I linked to my own comment ... which is where the PROOF he denies is?

        1. Nazis are Lefty socialists, so all of them.

          1. You really are a ignorant Fascism can be left or right.
            Only Mussolini's was on the left. "Guild Socialism" was strongly favored to labor unions.
            Hitler's -- like Trump's -- was corporatist, thus on the right.

            You probably equate the Scandinavian countries with Stalin's gulags ... even though they rank higher in economic freedom than the U.S.

            1. Absolutely wrong. Hitler had a variety of favored companies that were cozy with the government, including establishing prices and products, the very definition of fascism.

              Do you think Zyklon B was a commercial product?

              You are the most ignorant fool of all the trolls at reason.

              1. BigT -- FUCKS UP BIGLY

                Hitler had a variety of favored companies that were cozy with the government, including establishing prices and products, the very definition of fascism.

                BOTH EXACTLY AS I SAID. GOMER.
                PATHETIC. (sneer)

    2. How were the confederates traitors? They seceded, which in 1860 was not illegal. The theory as proposed by Jefferson in the Kentucky resolution had not been tried in court or otherwise. It's like saying the individuals who fought for and/or supported the American revolution were traitors. An incredibly small number of southerners actually owned slaves, and as I mentioned in a previous post neither Lee nor Jackson owned slaves when the war broke out. So how can one say either Lee or Jackson or the hundreds of thousands of men who fought for the Confederacy were simply fighting to "keep millions of people enslaved".

    3. Washington was a British subject who took up arms against the crown. Thus, he was a traitor.

      Should we tear down his statues? Burn paintings of him? Nuke Mount Rushmore?

      1. HE was not a traitor to the country
        The British have few statues of him

        1. He most certainly was a traitor to his country (the British empire). If the revolution failed, he would have been hanged for it.

          Apply the same standard to him as you do to Jefferson Davis.

  31. Why do people think they're making some sort of valid arguments when they point out the memorials/statues were built between 1900 and 1930 (35-65ish years after the historical event they commemorate)?

    The Washington Monument was built between 1848-1884...49 years after he died.
    The Jefferson Memorial was built between 1939-1943...113 years after he died.
    The Lincoln Memorial was built between 1914-1922...49 years after he died.
    The WII Memorial was built between 2001-2004...56 years after the end of the war.

    I don't see why WHEN the monument was built matters anyway, but these idiots need to explain why the time difference makes them different from the VAST majority of other monuments that we all appreciate...most of which had just as long of a period between event and commemoration. They're just grasping for any reason they can to justify being "on the right side of history."

  32. So the Democrats are regretting setting up these monuments in the first place.

    Of course, it is fucking obvious they are not doing this for some newfound appreciation for civil rights.

    1. Which makes it all the more confusing that the Republicans agree to pull the Democrats' chestnuts out of the fire and stand up for the other party's monuments.

      An own goal, if you ask me.

      1. Reminders of Democrats racism, which continues to this day. See Affirmative Action.

      2. Democrat need black voters to survive and taking down Democrat Civil War veterans gets some black votes.

        Any Black American who votes for the Democrat Party (the Party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK) is a fool.

  33. As long as we're discussing this issue, it's better to let local governments decide what monuments they want rather than delegate to the local vandals the decision of which monuments will be removed. If the local government is technically barred from removing the monuments, they often manage to look the other way as vandals remove the monument. "Oops, don't blame us, *we* didn't do it! (We didn't punish the vandals either)."

  34. In short, why reflexively oppose the progs on every symbolic issue? Their protestations of being hurt by the monuments should be weighed by a grain of salt - meeting resistance on this issue gives them hard-ons and lets them spread their "white supremacy" narratives.

    1. Its not every issue.

      These children need to get spanked again. Trump in 2016 and then Trump in 2020 will do that again.

  35. Let's take a look at some of the other things Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said in his speech:

    In reference to it, I make this first general remark: It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and privileges. All the great principles of Magna Chartal are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old Constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ....

    There's plenty of racism in his speech as well, but most of it no worse than what was probably being said by "all the right people" north of the Mason-Dixon line.

    1. Of course by 'property' he meant slaves

      so there is that

      1. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property.

        Just like the "old" constitution.

        Reading is not just parsing words. It's understanding context.

        1. and as I said, the property he referred to is human beings, slaves

          1. Exclusively?

      2. Southerners only owned slaves and no other kind of property?

  36. Everyone screams when ISIS or Iran wants to remove abandoned bygone religious figures and temples but by golly better git them darn confederate statues down no matter the cost.

    1. ISIS isn't relocating those monuments to cemeteries and museums.

  37. What if they smoke some ganja one day and put up a Che Guevara statue?

    Can their successors take the statue down? If not, why not?

  38. statues to racist traitors are long overdue at the scrapyard

    They do not support history, but lie about it

    1. How does a statue lie?

  39. If they are on land owned by a city or municipality then that city or municipality should be able to decide what to do with it without interference from the state government. It's really not that difficult.

  40. TO the ignorant and uneducated claiming, yet again, the war was not about slavery:


    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.


    A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

    In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part,
    it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

    South Carolina

    Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

    The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that
    the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon
    the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but
    in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.


    A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

    The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845,
    proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation
    of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

    The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted
    said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said
    State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

    Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare,
    insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. 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



    The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention

    on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the
    powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever
    the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; 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

    1. I'm betting that each of these proclamations were a lot longer than what you've posted, and had many other points to make.

      Not that I'm accusing you of cherry picking or anything.

      1. right, so that so disproves my point.....get an education

        OR, oh, go look it up yourself

        racist traitors do not deserve statues

        1. Slavery was a cause for some states to secede, not necessarily the war. Not all of the slave holding states chose to secede. Lincoln could have just as easily allowed those states who chose to secede to do so, in which case there would be no "Civil War".

        2. racist traitors do not deserve statues

          So...tear down statues for revolutionary war heroes?

        3. Let me clear this up for you, since you can't think about two separate topics at once.

          SECESSION was about SLAVERY.
          The WAR was about SECESSION.

          1. right
            as long as you believe that

            traitors and racists
            your heros

            1. go with that, let me know when you finally pass your fourth grade reading comprehension tests.

              Liars and halfwits, you and your heroes.

              1. hmm any history test, you failed

                1. Guess again.

        4. Georgia - 20 paragraphs in their secession ordinance, not 1
          Mississippi - 20 paragraphs in their secession ordinance, not 1
          S.C. - 26 paragraphs in their secession ordinance, not 2
          Texas - 25 paragraphs in their secession ordinance, not 4
          Virginia - 4 paragraphs in their secession ordinance, not 2
          (And other than mentioning the slaveholding states, say nothing about slavery being the cause of VA's secession)

          Like I said - cherry picking.

          1. Liar
            all quotes start at the beginning of the document

            1. Then you lifted the documents from a biased source.

      2. Its a new sock troll.

        I already asked for citations to declaration of secession. He's cherry picking.

  41. Civil War
    Primary Source
    The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
    You are here
    Home › Learn › Primary Sources › The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

    Primary Sources


    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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

    Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

    While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

    Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

    The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

    But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

    All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

    The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

    Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

    The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
    The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

    With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

    The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

    For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

    The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

    A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility.

    The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

    The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

    These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

    These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

    Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

    Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861

  42. Losers don't get monuments. Should there be a Hitler statue at the Brandenburg Gate?

  43. keep on lying, it makes your hero trumpski proud

    1. Watching you break down as the thread goes on has been entertaining

      1. Thats the citation I posted earlier. This new sock troll will be entertaining for the few days his Indian internet service stays up.

  44. Local control is a good thing.

    1. Yeah they can set their own arbitrary blade lengths for pocket knives and kill people who violate them.

    2. New york city is a counter example as to why local jurisdictions should have tight limits on what rules they can make.

  45. How stupid. Judging people of the past by today's standards and morals. Many of these people were Great Leaders and Accomplished Great things but because they were men of their time we are supposed to hate disrespect them. A perfect Example was Jefferson Davis. His desire to leave the USA to form his own country over shadowed all the good things he did in his life. What next? Rename JFK Airport? Shutdown the LBJ Presidential Library. AND How about Bird from WEST VIRGINIA. All sorts of building were named after him. This writer is an idiot. I mean I wonder what Building and Statues will have to be removed in the next 100 years... Maybe MKLs monument on the Mall because it is no longer relevant?

    1. Slavery was wrong, people knew it then, they fought a war and tens of thousands died

      they were racist traitors then and now

      The people who want to keep the monuments are the ones who have forgotten history

      1. We should remove the FDR memorial – he was a horrible racist much more recently.

        If not, then all the memorials should stay.

        1. If there is an FDR memorial in my city and the city votes to remove it they have every right to. On federal land I do not know the legal technicalities but same principal.

          Don’t see what the problem is here.

          1. Lefties think erasing history and tearing down military memorials will win them political power.

            It wont.

            1. White power radicals rewriting civil war history to justify white supremacy will not fool anyone

              1. But he's the PRESIDENT!

  46. Whichever side the civil war was a bloody horror.

    Statues glorifying generals. Fuck the generals. They were not heroes. These things are the lowest form of war memorial. Propaganda to gloss over the sheer carnage, suffering, and slaughter they were responsible for. Not only that but their tactics and leadership sucked for the most part. Marching those men right into the line of cannons.

    You want a statue. Make one of Johnny Reb and Billie Union staring at each other across a field right before they die.

    Slavery was the worst stain in the history of this country. How many of those confederate foot soldiers were slave owners? No the rich plantation owners and ruling class were those officers on horseback captured so dashingly in those bronze idols. Johnnie Reb was just serving his masters like the serfs they were.

    1. above reply belongs here.....

    2. Worst stain, huh?

      Worse than committing genocide over AmerIndians?

      Without slavery there would be few Black Americans today.

      I will laugh when unreason and the newly created sock trolls scream when the statues are put back up.

      1. “Worse than committing genocide over AmerIndians?”

        OK let’s not rank genocides committed by Americans. I can go with that.

        “ Without slavery there would be few Black Americans today.”

        Lucky them.

  47. So Democrats removing statues of Democrats, erected by Democrats, so today's Democrats aren't reminded of the actions of past Democrats. Got it.

  48. Well, I guess ignorance is bliss, or just picking up history at post-reconstruction keeps us on the slavery issue from the intelligentsia.
    The northern states invaded the southern states. Lincoln pushed absolute war, taking nearly 3/4 of a million American lives. Reconstruction was further punishment, increasing the bitterness of invasion, the horrors, the humiliation.
    Take them down, create a false guilt-ridden narrative of your liking, and let history be wrong, again.
    This has no libertarian value, no historic value, other than to let you feel less guilt by jumping on a pop band wagon.
    Childish drivel. Grow up.

    1. At this juncture, it might be better to replace man-on-horseback monuments with monuments to Edison and Fulton, but of course good luck getting these "white guy statutes" erected.

      1. statues not statutes

      2. Just past the Horse Generals on Monument Avenue is a statue of the great scientist Matthew Fontaine Maury. "Pathfinder of the Seas" , Father of Modern Oceanography and Naval Meteorology" and "Electric Torpedo Warrior"

        Maury also perfected an "electric torpedo" (naval mine), which raised havoc with northern shipping. He had experience with the transatlantic cable and electricity flowing through wires underwater when working with Cyrus West Field and Samuel Finley Breese Morse. The torpedoes, similar to present-day contact mines, were said by the Secretary of the Navy in 1865 "to have cost the Union more vessels than all other causes combined

    2. The lies listed here prove it is the alt right ditto heads who have forgotten history

  49. It is not possible in words that I comprehend to describe just how utterly desolate and ignorant this article is.

  50. Ignorant fool, confusing that until reconstruction was over the southerners were not allowed to erect monuments by their northern occupiers with the Democrat run jim crow era that followed. No mention of this historical basic in another Reason article better fit for a leftist/socialist propaganda rag.
    VERY DISAPPOINTING to be found in reason.

  51. If the historical facts behind monuments have to be correct/proven/believed, what does that do to the hundreds of Holocaust memorials everywhere you look? I'd LOVE for that debate to start.
    Order in the court!

    1. Nazis are socialists so tearing down Holocaust memorials will be next to try to erase what Socialists did during WWII.

      1. There is no point in responding to an antisemite LC.

  52. Stay At Home  Mom From New York Shared Her Secret On How She Was Able To Rake In $1500 Weekly From Online Work Just 3 Weeks After Losing Her Old Job......... Read more  

  53. It may start with Civil War statues, but it doesn't end there. Already there are those wanting to tear down statues of Washington and Jackson in Chicago, and Mount Rushmore is also on the "hit" list. I'm not sure how many others there are. So, yes, if you cheer this on, you are cheering on the tearing down of anything related to our history.

    1. History cannot be torn down. It is not statues.

      There is no such thing as “our” history. Already that betrays an agenda.

  54. Hi Budddy….......................…
    I earned $4500 last month by working online just for 4 to 6 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Website. If You too want to earn such a big amount of money then come and join us................. Read More

  55. The statues were put up by white supremacists to celebrate white supremacy

    Lying about the illegal secession of the confederate states does nothing to change this fact

    Tell me, my white supremacist friends, if secession was legal then, it is legal now,if California wanted to leave without paying its portion of the debt, they are welcome?
    To the military bases?
    To the highways and bridges?
    To the taxpaying citizens?

    Yeah, I thought so

    your mindless silly arguments about legal secession hold no water

    they just hide your alt right sillyness

    1. Lincoln's famous "Gettysburg Address" focused on his reason for attacking the secessionists as being to preserve the Union and mentioned nothing about slavery. Although the Constitution doesn't forbid secession, it does confer upon the 3 branches authority to initiate violence, judge themselves and define "due process". But who was the author of this sacred document? A few wealthy, white, landed? Yes, but not all were. Some authors were trying to give everyone equal political rights. They admitted it was an experiment that might fail. It did. They hoped armed rebellion would correct a mistake. It didn't. Secession didn't. But not because it was illegal. The American Revolt was illegal. But it worked for awhile. Then a covert counter-American revolt by authoritarian elitists gave them an excuse to govern by force, the Constitution. And the states lost their sovereignty by the new "law", without knowing it. Only a second American Revolt, this time non-violent, to establish a voluntary government, will correct the mistake that is a coercive govt.

  56. By this logic, we should also tear down the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, The Three Soldiers, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and any other memorial that wasn't built while the action was still going on. Not to mention that by his own logic, Binion shouldn't get a headstone over his grave -- or even a grave -- unless they're constructed while he's still alive. Perhaps he shouldn't even be using the name Binion, considering the legacy of Lester Ben Binion.

    This comment not approved by Silicon Valley brain slugs.

    1. By this logic,...

      Learn what logic means.

  57. As the underlying defense for removing these statues is that they exemplify racism; How is it that Abraham Lincoln's self pronounced racism is never addressed? The evidence is cataloged in the Library of congress no less. For quick access simpley google: "Lincoln's racist speech"!

  58. Here in Northern Illinois the only monument to be found in an 80 mile radius is a statue of chief Blackhawk overlooking the Rock river in the town of Oregon Illinois. I live in Winnebago County named for the tribe of which his tribe the Sauks was a part. A quarter mile from my house is Blackhawk road and their are avenues, streets and boulevards named for him in every nearby town. He was revered by all of the Swedes Germans and other evil white immigrants in these parts for his heroic battles with...the Illinois militia. Go figure. The point is Illinois and the U.S. government won the war but were left with an abiding respect for their vanquished enemies. That history is worth remembering.

    1. I saw traces of that when I attended Southern Illinois University.
      In the first quarter (autumn) of 1960, we protested businesses in downtown Carbondale who had refused to serve black staff and delegates from the UN. The rest made history.

  59. Only about 1% of Southerners owned slaves. Can’t we honor the 99% who fought for their states?

    1. BZZZZZZZZT. If you really think only slaveowners favored slavery, you probably deny Trump's shameful lies about who launched the mass assaults in Charlottesville.

  60. I make up to 98 dollars an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $66h to $97h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!.. BizO96on.Com

  61. Why would anyone honor a feeder from the tax trough?

    1. He's the President .. and he did campaign on a 60% tax cut for himself.
      He'd have been a billionaire paying a top income tax rate of 15%.
      What's your marginal rate?

      Even his own suckup party refused to give him that.
      He got a much smaller tax cut, ON TOP OF his loophole exemption form the corporate income taxes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.