Privatization

All Statues Should Be Private

We should celebrate our fandom on our own dime, and on our own property.

|

It's difficult to evoke much concern for the removal of statues of slavery advocates from public property, but the historical revisionism hasn't stopped there, of course. As the removals have devolved from a policy debate to a mob activity, they've engulfed morally sketchy politicians, debatable public figures and, inevitably, people about whom the mob seems to have serious misconceptions. Given that bronze and stone replicas of fallible human beings seem incapable of serving any unifying purpose for people forced to pay taxes to erect them, it's time to get government out of the monument business. From now on, let private groups celebrate their fandom on their own dime, and on their own property.

First, the statue-removal brigade came after the usual Confederate suspects, for the obvious reason that the secessionists of the time were primarily motivated by the desire to continue owning other human beings. That's understandable⁠—African-Americans have every reason to resent passing public property for which their tax dollars paid only to see a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a man who not only fought in defense of slavery, but as his next trick served as the first head of the Ku Klux Klan. Much the same can be said of monuments to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson.

But in an age that's reconsidering race relations and the legacy of slavery, it can be difficult to know where to stop the revisionism. The presidency was dominated in the country's early years by aristocratic southern slaveholders. That makes George Washington and Thomas Jefferson fair game in the eyes of the mob. Owning slaves isn't all they did by far, as the history books still point out, but they certainly were guilty of that sin.

Then, there's Ulysses S. Grant, who owned a slave⁠ (given to Grant as a gift) for a year. Grant later led Union forces to victory over the pro-slavery Confederacy, and presided over an administration of Reconstruction that gets more credit now than in the past.

It gets even foggier after that. Abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier was targeted by protesters who obviously had no idea who he was.

So was Miguel de Cervantes, the Spanish writer who, far from being an oppressor, was himself a slave.

What all of these statues had in common is that they offended members of the public at a time when everything is up for grabs and Americans agree on exactly nothing, including the proper balance of virtues and flaws in fallible human beings. The majority of statues torn down were erected at taxpayers' expense, maintained on land paid for with money extracted from everybody's pockets, and offended (rightly or wrongly) people who resent being represented by them.

Less controversial has been the decision by the American Museum of Natural History to remove a statue of Teddy Roosevelt from its front entrance. While the statue is officially on public land, it clearly is intended as part of the museum and is seen as such. The museum is a private entity and is no longer comfortable with the way the statue represents the organizationa decision it has the right to make.

Much the same is true of the statue in Seattle of Vladimir Lenin, the communist dictator of the Soviet Union. While Lenin was a totalitarian and a thug, the statue is located (hilariously, given the subject's militant socialism) on private property, leaving its fate in the hands of its owners.

And that, in an age in which there are few shared values or heroes, is the best way to deal with monuments. We no longer agreeif we ever didon which qualities should be celebrated and what failings should be overlooked. We're increasingly vocal about such disagreements, to the point that people are willing to tear down statues that offend them, and any future images are bound to cause more offense.

A statue on private property, erected with funds only from supporters, dragoons no unwilling parties into the message it expresses. Nobody need feel that they're being forced to share in the celebration of people or ideals they oppose. A private construction can be left up as long as it pleases the owners or pulled down at their whim. And anybody who damages or destroys the monument without permission is an obvious vandal, subject to appropriate punishment.

Personally, I might raise a statue to Daniel Shays, after whom the tax revolt was named, or to James McFarlane, a leader of the Whiskey Rebellion, or to Henry David Thoreau, jailed for an act of civil disobedience in opposition to slavery, war and overbearing government, or to Harriet Tubman, who put her own life on the line to free the oppressed, or to William McCoy, the Prohibition-sabotaging bootlegger who inspired the term "the real McCoy." There are plenty of candidates whose actions I might want to commemoratethough I imagine all would rub other people the wrong way for what they did or because of flaws seen as countering their accomplishments.

People who disagree with me should, in turn, be free to erect monuments that offend me and my friendsat their own expense, of course. If I don't have to pay for it, it's no concern of mine how they choose to share their messages.

If the confinement of monument construction to a private activity sounds like we're giving up on the idea that we have much in common to celebrate, that's probably true. But agreements of the past were overstated anyway. African-Americans didn't just recently start resenting paying for statues of Nathan Bedford Forrestthey've had reason to loathe him from the beginning.

Now, the old disagreements are just more visible than ever and new ones set us ever-further at odds.

To give us less reason to fight, make all statues private projects, to be erected and maintained at the expense of the willing. Private funding of monuments won't eliminate our disagreements, but it should help keep the resulting conflicts out of the streets.

NEXT: Trump Worries That More Coronavirus Testing Makes America Look Bad

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

  1. okay. Now do marriage and association.

    1. Apparently you didn’t RTFA. Do it on your own dime.

      1. Apparently you forgot that you told has you eat shit.

        1. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour.

          See—>More here

          1. Wow. You deserve a statue.

        2. Do you even english, bro?

          1. 英语?

            1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. GBc
              Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…………………………Go to this link

    2. I disagree. Patrice O’Neal deserves a public statue.

  2. Given that the Supreme Court is had repeatedly ruled that the government is entitled to its own speech, and that it is under no obligation to take a neutral viewpoint with its speech, I’m not sure how far this argument will take you, even in this period of rampant iconoclasm.

    1. Supreme Court has repeatedly*

  3. To give us less reason to fight, make all statues private projects, to be erected and maintained at the expense of the willing. Private funding of monuments won’t eliminate our disagreements, but it should help keep the resulting conflicts out of the streets.

    Only a reason writer could be so stupid or dishonest to claim that these statues being privately owned would placate the mobs destroying them.

    1. Only a Reason commenter could be so stupid or dishonest as to pretend that the world is so black and white that private ownership of statues would make no difference.

      1. Most of the simple people who see the world as black and white are the ones out there toppling the statues.

      2. Are you seriously trying to imply that no privately owned statues have been defaced or vandalized during these riots?

        1. Are you seriously trying to raise a straw statue?

          1. Gosh, you are so smart and clever.

            1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

              Here’s what I do………………Home Profit System

          2. The author misses the logical conclusion of all statues being private. There are two obvious possible outcomes. First the owner hurts or kills someone for destroying a statue and is convicted, either in court or in public opinion (or likely both). The second is cops are called to arrest the protestors and someone is harmed in the process and the cops are vilianized for using force to protect a statue on private property. I can already see the Reason articles. And considering the majority of cities that this is going on in, it would not matter if it was private property any act by a private citizen to protect their own property will likely result in the property owner being punished.

            1. We see this in Seattle and CHAZ/CHOP were property is being destroyed and citizens being intimidated trying to access their own businesses and homes, and the cops are basically told to do nothing.

            2. Also, before you state this is wild guessing on my part, these are conclusions based upon actual cases. We’ve seen people, even in states with a form of the Castle Doctrine, prosecuted for using force. Granted they usually go free, but the prosecution is often the punishment in and of itself. Not to mention the bad publicity, death threats and even physical violence the property owners have been exposed to.

              1. We’ve seen shop owners arrested for trying to defend their property during the looting. We’ve seen police arrest an elderly woman in her own house because she had a .22 revolver (during Hurricane Katrina). Etc.

            3. Even in that instance, you have the “attractive nuisance” laws. This kind of delinquency never ends. And those practicing it are snot-nosed ignorami who are always with us. The statement of this awful movement has been made and everyone understands it. Most of America wants us to move on and never again erect another statue in honor of Grant or Lee, et al.

              1. Why not of Grant? And what is most of America?

        2. There’s a private statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest on the side of the highway into Nashville. It’s not high quality and was actually pretty ugly, but it pissed off the libtards the last time around they were destroying statues. Because they couldn’t get the government to tear it down, one of the assholes covered it in bright pink paint “for justice” or some bullshit. Instead of cleaning it off, the owner left the paint on because it draws even more attention to the statue. I’ve linked an article so you can see how ugly it is. Still pretty funny though.

          https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ugly-nathan-bedford-forrest-statue

          1. Wow, he was just a lil guy

        3. That’s adifferent matter altogether. If people vandalize private property a citizen has been deprived of personal property and personal expression.

          Such clear expressions as statues should not be paid for or placed on public property.

      3. It would make zero difference. These idiots have shown no concern for who owns these statues or what they even are. If you think it would make a difference, you are either lying to yourself or a complete idiot or both.

        1. Exactly. The mob won’t be placated. They will never say, “okay, that’s enough, you took down the statues we wanted you to, now we’re satisfied and will stop rioting.”

          Grievance is their power. They won’t give that up.

          1. Every capitulation to the Marxist horde gives it more power.
            Tuccile can get buried with them

            1. Sticking the word loaded Marxist Horde sounds very different from the Democratic Majority. But giving people more power isn’t something to rally against. The People should have all power. The answer to mob rule is not dictatorship. The answer is for public officials to accept the will of the majority. It’s called democracy.

              1. Except we aren’t a democracy. And no, we don’t always accept the will of the majority, it we would never have ended segregation.

              2. “The answer to mob rule is not dictatorship. The answer is for public officials to accept the will of the majority. It’s called democracy.”

                “Mob violence = democracy, so just give into their demands.”

                “Freethinksman”
                What is it with you leftists and your unwillingness to simply own your ideology? You’re clearly not a free thinker – you state it outright above. Are you trying to be ironic? Are you trying to delude yourself? Because if you’re trying to trick others, it’s a really weak effort.

              3. “The answer to mob rule is not dictatorship. The answer is for public officials to accept the will of the majority. It’s called democracy.”

                soldiermedic is absolutely right, we aren’t a democracy and this mob certainly doesn’t want to move it in that direction. They’re getting everything the want via temper tantrum at the moment. Whether anyone actually would or should want more of a democracy is another debate.

                Anyone that is buying the argument that this has ANYTHING at all to do with monuments is incredibly gullible. This is where they’ve decided to put the goal posts today with the full knowledge that they’re going to wake up an move the where ever they damn well please tomorrow. There’s no use trying to have an dialog with them. They don’t want that. They want to trick everyone into a game of “heads they win, tails you lose”. As long as we’re stupid enough to let the far left frame the debate while everyone else plays full time defense there are no wins, just lesser losses. This is exactly how they want it.

                Democracy is only okay with them until it doesn’t get them what they want. Then it’s protests. Then it’s riots. Eventually it’s firing squads.

              4. Democracy is not a mob tearing down a statue on its own accord. That is a Marxist mob. Democracy is a city first voting on whether or not to take down a particular statue and, if more than 1/2 vote to remove it, then removing it.

          2. The point is not to placate or not placate the mob. The point is what is the just propertarian position on public monuments.

            1. No, it’s not.
              You’re either willfully ignorant or very stupid

        2. No joke. They took down Grant who did more for blacks than anybody involved or applauding these protests.

          1. In Wisconsin last night they took down a statue of Colonel Christian Heg, a Norwegian immigrant, an abolitionist, who formed the Scandinavian Brigade during the Civil War, fought in the Western theater for the Union, was killed in action. They also attacked a Democratic State Senator, and put him in the hospital briefly (because he took their picture). Considering he is a Democrat from Madison, I would assume he is/was sympathetic to their cause.

            1. Also, openly gay. But THAT is not a hate crime for reasons.

            2. “They also attacked a Democratic State Senator, and put him in the hospital briefly (because he took their picture). Considering he is a Democrat from Madison, I would assume he is/was sympathetic to their cause.”

              Cue, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.”

              1. I am not sure I understand the reference.

                1. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice bit from Fantasia, where Mickey Mouse borrows his Sorcerer’s wand or book to apparate the mop he’s using to clean out a room. The mop once started, doesn’t stop, to Mickey’s eventual misfortune.

                  Pretty classic Disney cartoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrm8usaH0sM

                  In this case, this Democratic politician was likely fine with starting unrest, and now finds he can’t turn it off. And it hurts.

                  1. Okay. I thought it was something to do with the Mickey cartoon not the Nicolas Cage movie but wasn’t connecting the dots. Thank you.

          2. … And the New England colonists who orchestrated the Boston Tea Party swore similar oaths against tea, since actions speak and words only bafflegab.

        3. It would totally make a difference, for the simple fact that most of these public statues are in highly visible places on public property in town squares and parks. As far as I know, most parks and town squares are public property.

          But that’s beside the point. This is the libertarian answer. The government should not be spending taxpayer money on statues.

          1. Okay, so you can build statues to thing unpopular with the mob as long as they are out of the way where no one will notice.

            That helps a lot. And why shouldn’t the government be building statues? What makes building a statue any worse than building anything else? Nothing really. Libertarians who would say no would say so because they are morons who can’t figure out why they are not anarchists.

            1. The government should not be building statues because it is not the government’s job to do that. If you take the classical minarchist “night watchman” position, the government has three jobs: defense, the courts, and policing. Everything else should be done privately. Additionally, as 2-chilli has pointed out, the government is supposed to serve everyone. If people can’t agree on what kind of statues the government should put up, which is clearly the case, then it should put up no statues.

              Seriously, what is the conservative argument for putting up statues? Did any of the great minds of the conservative tradition ever argue for the necessity of government statues before it recently became a culture war issue? Can you point me to some great quotes from Edmund Burke, GK Chesterton, Barry Goldwater, or even Buckley, Sowell, Schlafly, Sobran, or Norquist arguing for the importance of statues?

              1. If you take the classical minarchist “night watchman” position

                The populace at large doesn’t, and does not agree that “The government should not be building statues because it is not the government’s job to do that.”

                Why is your position the correct one and not theirs? People are free to choose the role their governement plays in their lives, no?

                Additionally, as 2-chilli has pointed out, the government is supposed to serve everyone.

                He, and you, are wrong. The government cannot and never could serve everyone, even in the “night watchman” state so requiring that here is bad faith argumentation.

                1. sorry tag fail

                2. This is a libertarian site and we take libertarian positions here. My position is correct because it stems from libertarian principles. What are your principles and how does your position on government statues arise from those principles?

                  1. I see. This libertarian site exists on planet earth, where libertarians are barely acknowledged and their principles mocked. Add to that the fact that yours is only one kind of libertarianism, and my question stands. “We are talking about this on a libertarian website” is no answer.

                    What are your principles

                    Were I making declarations about “correct” viewpoints, then asking me that would make sense. I did not, so it is simply a distraction from my questions.

                    1. My view is correct from a libertarian perspective based on the non-aggression principle. It is correct if you start from those principles . That is the only kind of normative argument you can have. If you want to argue for a different kind of libertarianism, the burden is on you. You haven’t made any kind of case for a different kind of libertarianism.

                      If you are not arguing from any kind of principles, then what is your point? Do you even have one?

              2. Government should also not be in the business of funding public artwork, in general. At least not at the current level of oversight they have.

                Florida state college of engineering had a huge, abstract, angular collection of yellow metal suspended from the ceiling in the 3-story atrium. It was widely known as the (school) bus wreck.

      4. Private ownership of businesses didn’t make any difference shit eater.

      5. Can you explain why it would make a difference? Do you really think the mob is saying “LIMIT THIS TO PUBLICLY OWNED STATUES, GUYS!!”?

        They’d also have no real right to defend the property with sufficient force to repel these drooling morons.

      6. Talcum X has just called for the destruction of artworks depicting Jesus as white. I assume such representations are all on private property.

    2. Why can’t they admit these people are social troglodytes and communists and this isn’t about race so much as toppling our society by any means necessary?

      1. I mean they are coming for Lincoln, Grant, Washington and Jefferson.

        1. Colonel Heg, albeit an obscure character outside the Norwegian-American community (and probably even within this group, I only know about him because I’ve researched the Scandinavian Brigade) who formed a brigade of Scandinavian, mainly Norwegians, immigrants to fight for the Union and was very anti-slavery. A man killed in action for the express purposes of maintaining the Union and ending slavery. Ending slavery was actually one of his primary goals. Most Scandinavian immigrants and German immigrants in the north were opposed to slavery (unlike the Irish immigrant community at the time, who were much more divided).

          1. *Regiment not brigade. Hey did command the 3rd brigade because of his ability to command the 15th Wisconsin Regiment (Scandinavian Regiment, it was also the only fully Scandinavian Regiment in the war).

      2. Because they are terrified of the mob and complete cowards. It takes courage to tell the truth. They have none, so they lie.

        1. It’s amazing how little balls they have. Robby Soave is the most radical and bravest guy on your libertarian website it might be beyond saving. No offense to Robby who has just gotten better or better at what he does. Pretty sure he’s totally red pilled at this point.

          1. Soave is the best of the lot. You are right about that.

            1. We’ll, Stossel, but of the regular writers, yes Soave is the best. Which is a sad commentary on how bad the magazine has gotten.

              1. Are we talking about writing ability or principled reasoning? If we are talking about principled reasoning, than Doherty and 2-chilli are probably the most consistent. 2-chilli used to be one of the most beloved writers, before the influx of the Trump hordes into the comment section.

                As for writing ability, that’s a little tougher to judge. Robby has certainly gotten better over the years. I’ve never really though about who’s writing style I enjoy the most. I think it is sometimes hard to separate how much you agree with the content with how much you enjoy the style.

                1. Tucille is good, as is Sullum and Bailey.

          2. Robby is a squish, to be sure, but he’s by far the best they got

            1. I see what you did there…

          3. Well, to be sure, Robby is both sides.

        2. It’s not that. At all. They are fellow travelers.

          1. Maybe. But their behavior would be the same either way.

        3. “Okay, if we do this for you, will you at least burn our stuff last?”

      3. Pretty much this. It’s no longer about race relations or George Floyd or police brutality. It’s about destroying “The Four Olds.” These people are basically wannabe red guards who think they see an opportunity to enact their version of The Cultural Revolution.

        That and just destroying stuff because they think it’s fun. How else to explain the toppling of the Cervantes statue? He had fuck all to do with slavery, other than being a former slave himself, and nothing to do with American race relationships yet they tore it down anyway just because.

        1. How else to explain the toppling of the Cervantes statue?

          They ran out of windmills and harpooning white whales is really hard?

    3. I would not say that he is stupid or dishonest but I agree with your premise

    4. its not like the protesters are not destroying private business oh wait.

      Its f ing stupid of reason to not do a little research before writing since all memorials in DC are privately funded and the government only maintains a place for them.

      1. ^THIS^ is the case for nearly every Confederate statue and memorial as well as most of the other statues of historical figures and war memorials erected prior to WWII.

        Then UDC paid for most the memorials and rich guys and/or totally voluntary contributions from citizens. In many cases (Lee and Jackson parks in C-ville, Monument Avenue in Richmond and most notably Stone Mountain) the land the totally privately funded statues are on was private and donated to to the municipality or state that enthusiastically welcomed the gift. Some even came with legal clauses that the recipient must maintain the memorial and if failing to do it reverts to the estate of the giver.

    5. “And anybody who damages or destroys the monument without permission is an obvious vandal, subject to appropriate punishment.”

      I don’t think JD thinks that seeing he addressed it in the article. Also he used the word less not placate or eliminate. That could mean 1% or 99% less disagreement over them. Seems like a good way to separate the nuttiest people from those who have a more principled stance.

      1. So we end all public art including publicly funded art museums on the hope that 1% of these lunatics will be placated.

        Yeah, that makes sense.

        1. No, we end all public art because not everyone wants to pay for public art.

          1. Not everyone wants to pay for the police or the courts or anything else the government does. Should we end those too?

            If you are going to claim that only programs with 100% consent should be funded, then just admit to being anarchist and saying you want no government. You won’t do that because you are so fucking stupid you manage to make anarchists look smart and honest by comparison.

            1. The question is whether government payment/support advances a legitimate government concern. Government’s only purpose is to secure rights. Neither paying for arts nor monuments furthers that purpose.

              Much of what government does should be ended. Law enforcement (in some capacity, not necessarily police), courts, and other functions which should assist in protecting the rights of individuals are the few things which should not be ended.

              (That said, even law enforcement shouldn’t be a federal function at all – some of these things properly belong to the states).

              1. The question is whether government payment/support advances a legitimate government concern. Government’s only purpose is to secure rights.

                My rights don’t come from the government and they are not secured by the government. My rights are innate and exist regardless of the government. So, if that is the only purpose of government, it has no purpose and you are an anarchist.

                Try again.

                1. I never said come from, of course they’re innate and exist regardless of government. I said *secure*, which fully acknowledges that rights exist without government, government is just a tool to help us stop other people from violating them. (Note, this is a claim about what government should be, not what it currently is).

                  Your argument has no logic. Rights being innate doesn’t mean they are incapable of being secured. (To claim otherwise is to claim that rights can *never* be violated by any action, which is obviously nonsense). And if they can be secured, government can (at least theoretically) be an agent doing so.

                  I can even identify specific government constructs (courts, a legal system which protect rights and enforces contracts, and law enforcement under such a system) that would do so. That’s clearly not anarchism, and only an idiot would think it is.

                  (Note that much of the discussion by serious anarchists on how anarchy would work specifically discusses how these functions could be achieved *without government*, so these are certainly essential functions for society, and people like me disagree with anarchists to the extent that we think government is legitimate for the purpose of doing these kinds of things. See also: Nozick’s argument that anarchy will necessarily and unavoidably become a minimal state).

            2. No police are the a legitimate function of a government when they protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Art isn’t. I have a right to protect my home; ergo I can cede* that power to the government. I have no right to force people to pay for art.

              *yes social contract theory, I know you didn’t sign it (for the AnCaps)

        2. That isn’t what I said. I don’t think any of the lunatics will be placated; their lunatics. But there are plenty of Dems and others sitting at home wondering why they are forced to pay for some asshole Confederate monument. Those people turn a blind eye (wrongly) towards the destruction of statues because they don’t agree with the government paying for such abhorrent symbols.

          But yeah I shouldn’t have to pay for art either like the Piss Jesus, fuck that shit.

          1. No one is being forced to pay for shit. The monuments are already there. Your point would be true if they were building them now. But they are already built. The only thing you are being forced to pay for now is to clean up the mess make by these people.

            Since the monument is already there, what bothers you so much about it? Nothing that wouldn’t also bother you about it if it were privately owned.

            1. So no upkeep is needed? As far as I know, everything built by man needs upkeep and someone needs to be paid to that work.

              And they don’t bother me. I loved touring Gettysburg and Antietam.

    6. It shouldn’t be about placating mobs or not.

      Government monuments assert a government control of history – to dictate who and what is remembered, and how. The very notion is downright Orwellian. This is the reason to remove all the government monuments.

      1. The government does not dictate who or what is remembered since you can put up whatever monument you like, excluding zoning regulations. that said all DC monument were paid for by volunteer organizations no tax money was used

        1. If government maintains them, it is paying for them. If government owns the land, it is paying for them. Few (if any) DC monuments were paid for and fully maintained till today solely by private capital. And at least some were erected with government funding. For example, the Lincoln Memorial was the ultimate result of an act of Congress in 1910. And while the Washington Monument started with private donations, the second phase of construction was primarily funded by money appropriated by Congress.

          And government plays a significant role in what is remembered and how it is remembered, in terms of what monuments it maintains and erects (among other things government does, like stamp subject matter, history curricula, art funding, etc..).

    7. Years ago, a group setup a Confederate flag on private property nearby. People have been trying to get the government to remove it ever since.

      1. Aren’t there a couple handfuls of Reason articles every year about YouTubers or Twitch streamers or others who have a gun or a flag (even Texas Revolution or Gadsden and Culpeper Militia flags) up in the background of their stream and get shamed and deplatformed because of it?

        To act like “having the icon on private property solves the problem” is exceptionally naive. Especially in this day and age.

        1. It’s not naive, it’s deliberate.
          Reason is a full ally of the Marxists, and they have an assigned role

          1. In rememberance of the real J.D. Tuccille, I’m willing to believe his replacement is just naive.

    8. Also, we went through this with SCOTUS and the ‘Peace Cross’. The Memorial was erected on private property and the property was acquired by the state for transportation purposes under the condition that the memorial stood.

      I don’t see how you’re aware of immenent domain and just assume that the existence of any given statue or art on public property is illegitimate without a healthy dose of underlying revisionism/cultural marxism.

      “The cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf; and we ought to guard equally against both.”

      Passive aggression, libertarianism’s Achilles heel.

    9. Agreed, why do so many first look for ways to appease the mob? That is how we got here to start with. I think it is the proper role of government to honor society’s heroes.

      As far as taking down the statues, that is also an appropriate role for the elected government. If legislatures want to do something, write new laws for what government statues can represent and then take the ones down that do not meet the law. Mob rule is not the way to decide what goes and stays.

      1. I think it is the proper role of government to honor society’s heroes.

        A government of/for/by the people could certainly be doing a lot worse.

        Of course I’d zero out the whole budget if possible. Barring that, defense and welfare spending are way higher on the list than federal memorials.

    10. I didn’t see “placate” in the article.

      Further, I don’t see how anything could placate the current mob, much less private statues.

      However the article does explain, very easily, a simple way to remove some government, however slight, from the equation.

      For a current example, see the American Battlefield Trust. Though not quite a complete example (as I understand they donate purchased land back to the park service), it is a start.

  4. From now on, let private groups celebrate their fandom on their own dime, and on their own property.

    As long as those private also retain the right to defend their property, up to and including the use of deadly force when the mob inevitably comes for their property, fine.

    1. Privatizing the monuments would probably embolden the rioters, because the penalties for vandalism of private property aren’t nearly as harsh.

      1. I would think the degree to which they’re emboldened would depend on to what degree the property owners are willing and able to defend their property with deadly force if necessary. If they think they might get shot I would think they’d be a lot less likely to attempt to come onto private property to try and tear down a statue they don’t like.

        1. The government guns, including the nukes, are on their side, so.

        2. you not allowed to defend your private property anymore since its all insured and this is ver very very important what the rioters are doing by destroying private property. Reason is stupid the protesters do not respect private property or was all that looting and burning of business a dream I had.

          1. Seriously, are you allergic to punctuation? Your screeds are almost unintelligible.

        3. I would suppose it would depend on who the monument was erected for. The kind of people who would put up a statue of Big Bird are less likely to defend that with lethal force than a person or group of people who put up a statue of Rothbard.

      2. because the penalties for vandalism of private property aren’t nearly as harsh.

        Unless that private property owner is using deadly force…

      3. The penalties for private vs public may be less harsh.

        But I can imagine the prosecution for destruction of private property could be more swift.

    1. If I were a talented artist, I’d create the following political cartoon.

      Two ISIS officials stand together. One says to the other, “We have employed a new morality police in our war against Western values! They’re highly effective!” The other asks, “Really, what?” The first one responds, “Millennials!” In the background is a group of ANTIFA toppling priceless cultural heritage sites.

    2. Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    3. Dude, those Sumerians owned slaves and shit.

  5. So if all statues must be private, I guess we are going to close down every art museum and there can be no art in any publicly owned space whatsoever.

    Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable solution. God forbid we tell these asshole Maoist to go fuck themselves. We could never do that. Instead let’s just end any and all public art altogether.

    1. But NOT end the tax funding of artists, because they would then have to get a real job.

    2. The inability to defend the existence of these statues represents the massive cultural collapse we’re witnessing in real time. Even if you don’t “like” or “approve” of the16th, 17th, 18th century morality of the represented figures, the wholesale destruction and massive approval of the erasure of history should be the most disturbing part of the equation, not the existence of the statue.

      The fact that more members of polite society and the chattering classes can’t bring themselves to be concerned with this bizarre display of the erasure of history tells you all you need to know about our ability to think critically. Imagine if Europe toppled every statue because the 12th century figure was known to display behaviors someone wasn’t comfortable with.

      Should we burn down the Taj Majal? Since there’s no rapid pathway to “privatize it”, we should just raze it and replace it with an little protest mural of Marxists standing with their fist raised in the air.

      1. What should be do about the national mall itself? According Tuccille, we should just sell it off to the highest bidder and if some internet billionaire wants to buy the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials and tear them down, so be it.

        Lack of critical thinking skills is certainly a big part of it.

        1. the thing is we all own the national mall collectively. that ownership does not give other owners a right to destroy co owned property

      2. the wholesale destruction and massive approval of the erasure of history should be the most disturbing part of the equation, not the existence of the statue.

        So you guys really are arguing that a statue is the only way to pass on historical knowledge.

        1. Of course not, what a ridiculous straw man argument.

          1. Why is removing a statue erasure of history?

            1. My favorite is when you ask stupid fucking questions like that and think you’re not clowning yourself.

            2. In the exact same way “the destruction of the Four Olds” erased history.

              It’s a wide-ranging campaign to tear down any and all symbols of the problematic past. It sounds like you might be confused and believe that this is where this stops.

              1. Visual evidences of old things were destroyed, and there was an orgy of burning of old books and smashing of old art objects.

                Young Red Guards invaded homes and shattered family altars that denoted continued Confucian reverence for generations of forbears. The few temples, mosques and churches still used for religious purposes were closed and put to secular use. Even those that had been left open for sightseeing purposes, such as the great Buddhist, Lama and Taoist temples of Peking, were barred and their statues, altars and other furnishings were removed.

                Ya! But this is different! This is progress!

              2. I don’t agree with a bunch of violent assholes rampaging across the country destroying everything in their path. The best outcome would probably be for all of them, or at least most of them, to be shot before they do too much damage.

                What I see here is a bunch of people whining “not muh statues!” and “not muh churches!” now they done gone too far.

                1. So other than the fact that you support tearing down statues and, apparently, churches now too…. you don’t support violent assholes rampaging across the country destroying everything in their path?

                  Did you forget that everyone here knows you are a full throated Marxist-Leninist piece of shit?

                2. “I don’t agree ”

                  No one cares.

                  “What I see here is a bunch of people whining”

                  Just you really.

                3. “What I see here is a bunch of people whining “not muh statues!” and “not muh churches!” now they done gone too far.”

                  Quite a few of us opposed even the Confederate statues coming down as clearly it wouldn’t satiate them.

                4. What I see here is a bunch of people whining “not muh statues!” and “not muh churches!” now they done gone too far.

                  So you don’t like people destroying things but you also can’t stand the people who are standing up and saying it should stop.

                  Normally you are just stupid and annoying. Today, you have talked yourself into such a corner you have degenerated into full on irrationality. If you really object to this, then you should be agreeing with the people who want it stopped. Your statement is so irrational it is hard to even figure out the words to respond to it.

        2. No. Why would you think that? Do you not understand that art is an important part of that and destroying art always the first step and most important step to it’s destruction?

          Of course you don’t. That because you are an idiot but make up for it by being ignorant.

          1. He understands all of that perfectly, he’s just a Marxist and destruction of history, along with mass murder, is just part of his ideology.

          2. Do you not understand that art is an important part of that and destroying art always the first step and most important step to it’s destruction?

            Maybe I don’t want to fund either your art addiction or your hard-on for hero worship. Ever think of that?

            1. First the retard stupidly asks this

              “So you guys really are arguing that a statue is the only way to pass on historical knowledge.”

              THEN, having been shut the fuck up, he stupidly non-sequiturs to THIS in a futile face saving maneuver

              “Maybe I don’t want to fund either your art addiction or your hard-on for hero worship. Ever think of that?”

              Jesus, sarc is actually the smarter of you two.

              1. That’s a lot of words just to say waaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

                1. Far be it from me to argue with how you characterize your own words.

                  1. IKR? I quoted him! He literally said his own words were ” a lot of words just to say waaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh”

                    AHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

                2. That time Sparky says his quotes are “a lot of words just to say waaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh”

                  LOLOLOL I win again

                3. “No u”

                  B R A V O
                  R
                  A
                  V
                  O

                  1. Holy shit, you learned to spell. Color me impressed.

                    1. That would be something that impresses one of your intellect.

                    2. “Oh shit, I’ve made myself look like a complete and total fucking moron. I know, I’ll throw out a non-sequitur about spelling despite the fact that the person to whom I am replying has not made a single spelling or grammatical error anywhere on this page or any other.”

                      B R A V O
                      R
                      A
                      V
                      O

            2. If you don’t want to fund it, then vote against creating it. That doesn’t mean you make all that exists private to placate the mob.

              And that doesn’t in any way respond to my point that allowing this to happen is the first step towards letting these assholes erase the entire past, which is their goal.

              Come back when you can same something less stupid, which is to say, go away.

              1. And that doesn’t in any way respond to my point that allowing this to happen

                If you’re not defending shit you like then you’re allowing it to happen. Don’t put your shit on me. If the police won’t defend the shit you like then vote in someone who will hire police that will.

                1. If you’re not defending shit you like then you’re allowing it to happen.

                  Yes, it is known as “you today and me tomorrow”. What is important is the principle and the precedent not whether you like the individual statue the mob is tearing down.

                  It shouldn’t surprise me you don’t understand that but somehow it still does.

            3. And I wish to not fund anything you like or appreciate. This will not end well.

              Guess what…the mob will still hate you.

              1. And I wish to not fund anything you like or appreciate.

                Good, that’s how it should be.

                This will not end well.

                You’re probably right.

                Guess what…the mob will still hate you.

                Guess what…I don’t care if the mob hates me. They absolutely shouldn’t be able to rampage unchecked though.

                1. Smithsonian SWAT $park¥
                  June.24.2020 at 12:29 pm
                  And I wish to not fund anything you like or appreciate.

                  Good, that’s how it should be.

                  This will not end well.

                  You’re probably right.

                  Ladies and gentlemen, for amusement I present an idiot, admitting that what he wants is not a good outcome.

                  1. Diogenes’ plucked chicken better exemplified a man than poor old Sparky the Marxist.

        3. fuck off commie.

        4. So you guys really are arguing that a statue is the only way to pass on historical knowledge.

          So are you arguing that you would rather have a public school system than statues?

      3. The pyramids are a literal monument to the achievement of slave labor. It’s never been more apparent the amount of disdain our intellectual class has for our culture, history and our general spirit of entrepreneurial resolve/independence right now. Between the shaming and mocking of our small business’s concerns about the lockdown and now the erasure of our countries cultural heritage/heros as flawed as it’s human and quintessentially american.

        1. They are resentful assholes who could never achieve anything on their own, and seek to destroy past achievements of others to pacify their own inferiority

        2. The pyramids were not built with slave labor. That story came from Herodotus who was completely mistaken. It’s a myth that’s been propagated for 2,500 years because Herodotus was confused by many elements of Egyptian culture.

          1. I’d say it’s 50% Herodotus, 50% us.

            For the entitled modern American/Westerner, the idea of working and being paid strictly in the form of sustenance and room and board is exceedingly foreign, almost unconscionable.

            For the left, it must a defense mechanism, a cognitive dissonance. Otherwise, ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’ pretty explicitly lays out that your labor only “earns” you what you need.

      4. Even if you don’t “like” or “approve” of the16th, 17th, 18th century morality of the represented figures, the wholesale destruction and massive approval of the erasure of history should be the most disturbing part of the equation, not the existence of the statue.

        “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another.” – Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

        That doesn’t mean that the statue shouldn’t be allowed to stand. It’s important to remember history, warts and all. Most historically significant individuals were sons of bitches in some way when it comes right down to it. That doesn’t mean they should be forgotten about completely just because a few people with developmental deficiencies feel bad.

        Yes, Thomas Jefferson could write eloquently about inalienable human rights while simultaneously owning human beings, effectively taking away their rights to self ownership and self determination. That doesn’t make the ideas he expressed any less important or true, it just means that he was flawed, and probably “one kind of a son of a bitch or another.” The danger is if you erase any and all monuments to him, it becomes that much easier to erase him and those ideas from history and replace them with other ideas that aren’t as good such as Communism/ Marxism, which of course is the end goal of these mentally deficient retards and useful idiots.

        1. “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another.” – Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

          Actually, that’s Joss Whedon, because Firefly is fake and that’s a character.

          And, Joss Whedon is a fucking idiot, and that quote is retarded.

          1. If Joss Whedon believed this, he would’ve melted down any award he ever got.

            I am betting he did not.

            1. So, apparently Mr. Tuccille apparently believes that these thugs will stop at someone’s property line. These folk do not know the meaning of respect of others ideas, beliefs, or property.

              Even some of the prominent members of BLM admit to their Communist leanings and their intent to “remake” America.

              They came for the offensive statues and I did nothing; they came for the annoying statues and I did nothing, then they came for me. Well, not the perfect paraphrase, but it will have to do.

              Erasing history, even what modern, ignorant thugs believe are wrong is no way to remember the past or to move forward.

          2. No shit, I know how fiction works. Or are you under the impression that I think Firefly is real and Malcolm Reynolds is a real person?

            Also, FWIW, that episode was written by Ben Edlund according to IMDB, so I guess technically we’re both wrong.

            “It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of a son of a bitch or another.” – Ben Edlund

            Happy now?

            1. Ok, since you’re super butthurt about it and irrational, I was pointing out that it was a fake guy, making it a worthless quote. “Some fucking made up guy said something” has no value, at all. It might as well be something YOU said for all it is worth. His “estimation” doesn’t actually exist. So the quote it retarded.

              And frankly, I’m fairly well convinced you never considered this before. Your reaction sure makes it look that way. You even sperged over to IMDB for a bitchy little gotcha because of how upset you were.

              However, and as an aside, Whedon is the executive producer and Marita Grabiak directed it. The writer is irrelevant because we have no way of knowing who penned that line because TV shows use multiple writers and touch up dialogue all the time, but those two signed off on the final dialogue. So no, it’s still just you who was wrong.

              I mean, fuck man, you really bought into that stupid quote from a fake person, wholly the creatuon of an idiot like Whedon.

              It really had never occurred to you how stupid that was did it?

            2. And for your edification, the show lists “Joss Whedon” in the writing credits.

              https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0579530/fullcredits/writer?ref_=m_ttfc_2

              Even your bitchy little attempt at a face saving gotcha was wrong.

          3. Joss Whedon has engaged in some twisted politicking that stands in stark contrast to the philosophies promoted in his fiction (disclaimer: I have no idea what he has done he done since his stint for team Hillary). That being said, Firefly is a wonderful show and that quote was perfect in context, and actually very apropos for the current climate.

            Mal was pointing out that it is in the nature of any mob/movement to ignore information that is not relevant to its immediate goal.

        2. The statue they destroyed last night in Madison was of a Norwegian immigrant who formed a brigade of Scandinavian immigrants to fight for the Union and to end slavery. The statue wasn’t just about him but about the idea he represented. A man who fought and died for his adopted country and for a cause greater than him. Who lead immigrants, most of who barely spike English, and many of who had only arrived in the Country. It was about the spirit of the brigade, it’s service to the country and the history of Wisconsin’s Scandinavian heritage. Toppling this statue has nothing to do with they Colonel’s character (as anything I’ve read he was a fairly morale man). It has to do with erasing history and destroying European heritage. They mob just saw a white guy being celebrated and decided it needed to be destroyed. I love Firefly, but Wheedon didn’t think that quote all the way through (and it was really specific to that episode anyhow). Statues also celebrate the idea and causes the men and women represented celebrated. Destroying Grant’s statue or Colonel Heg’s shows a disrespect for the sacrifices of the men they led and the causes they fought for.

          1. Wheedon didn’t think that quote all the way through (and it was really specific to that episode anyhow). Statues also celebrate the idea and causes the men and women represented celebrated.

            WTF? That was the point that Whedon was making. That the flaws of the person represented are more often than not irrelevant to the inspirational value of a statue. And then you added some pablum about sacrifice of soldiers? Blech!

            1. In reference to Grant and Heg. Not soldiers in general.
              As to Wheedon’s point, I will admit that your interpretation is correct, mea culpa.

              1. I will admit that your interpretation is correct, mea culpa.

                Wait.. what?

                1. I was admitting you are right and I was wrong.

                  1. It’s novel here, soldiermedic; give him some time to adjust.

              2. I will also admit that someone fighting/dying for a just cause should inspire others. More than anything I get infuriated by the implication that soldiers ‘sacrifice’ more than any other father/mother/child/sibling who drags their ass to a shitty job day in and day out to the benefit of others. Soldiers get paid and get benefits. Workers lose limbs and get killed. Both are working to protect and provide for their families.

                Don’t even get me started on pansy-ass first responders who think their job is dangerous. I did my stint working road construction on sites open to traffic.

                1. I would say as a single soldier I was working to provide for more than just my family, because I didn’t have one, and even as a married soldier I went back in after 9/11 and took a pay cut from my civilian job, not to provide for my family but to serve my country.

                2. And how many shitty civilian jobs are you deployed for a year or mote away from your family, generally I’m shithole countries , were people are actively trying to kill you. Yeah, being assigned to a FOB in the Hindu Kush for the third time in give years is exactly the same level of sacrifice as someone working a factory job 40 hours a week.

                  1. Sorry, if you need to tell me you are a hero, you aren’t one. If you need to explain your sacrifice to me, it isn’t on my behalf. For all either of us knows, the Unknown Soldier may have been shot in the back fleeing his assigned position with a load of shit in his pants.

                    Real sacrifice is self-evident. I see good fathers and mothers doing it at factory jobs every single day. And I haven’t worked a 40 hour week in 25 years.

      5. http://twitter.com/TruthHammer888/status/1275094217329537025?s=19

        Someone with recent experience of what we’re going through.
        Pretty too

        1. A Venezuelan with an Italian last name. Interesting.

      6. erasure of history does not effectively communicate what these wannabe Maoists are doing. Purification of history has more of a religious connotation to it and suits better. These are the ideological descendants of old New England puritanism, channeled through Unitarian Universalism, and the early American socialist parties of late 19th century and early 20th century.

        Check out the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. It was a predecessor to the Weather Underground. These assholes have been here for a long time and they’re only going to get more violent and aggressive.

  6. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8453499/Protesters-vow-tear-Abraham-Lincolns-Emancipation-memorial-Washington-D-C.html
    His criticism came after protesters pledged to tear down Lincoln’s Emancipation Memorial in the Capitol, vowing to return to Lincoln Park Thursday night to topple the controversial statue.

    Organizers of the protest said they would not be working with the police and would achieve change ‘by any means necessary’ as they crowded near the 150-year-old statue paid for by former enslaved people.

    Although paid for by former slaves, the Emancipation Memorial is criticized as it was designed by white people and depicts a former slave in a subservient position to Lincoln.

    1. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-congresswoman-to-introduce-legislation-to-remove-emancipation-memorial-from-lincoln-park
      DC Congresswoman to introduce legislation to remove Emancipation Memorial from Lincoln Park

    2. Then there is Talcum X Sean King demanding that every depiction of Jesus as white or European must be torn down anywhere it be found.

      But hey, eliminating all publicly funded art will solve this problem.

      1. “Talcum X.” Someone seriously needs to make a t-shirt out of that.

        1. I wish I could say I came up with it. But I saw it and yes it needs to be a t-shirt. The dude is white. He is ivory soap white. It is just unbelievable he gets away with claiming to be black.

          1. Ironically, my (by her own admission) radically socialist friend loathes King. She calls him a worthless grifter whose only skill is raising massive amounts of money and then dumping all the hard work in someone else’s lap. When even rabidly race-conscious blacks like my friend can’t stand you, that’s saying something.

            1. Yea, leftists were crowing on Twitter “hahaha, conservatives don’t realize we hate Shaun King (and Bill Maher) too”.
              Others kept pointing out that he has over a million followers, and nobody on the right is part of that

            2. So you’re saying she hates him for being white?

    3. Organizers of the protest said they would not be working with the police and would achieve change ‘by any means necessary’ as they crowded near the 150-year-old statue paid for by former enslaved people.

      “any means necessary” is an important part of the ideology involved here.

    4. Although paid for by former slaves, the Emancipation Memorial is criticized as it was designed by white people and depicts a former slave in a subservient position to Lincoln.

      Funny, they recognize that kneeling at someone’s feet is a “subservient position” yet they demand that white people kneel to them. Hmm, I think Terry Crews may have been on to something.

    5. My old dog would piss on that statue almost everyday when we lived right next to that park.

  7. Given that bronze and stone replicas of fallible human beings seem incapable of serving any unifying purpose for people forced to pay taxes to erect them, it’s time to get government out of the monument business. From now on, let private groups celebrate their fandom on their own dime, and on their own property.

    RIGHT. ON.

  8. So, nobody at a ‘libertarian’ site wants to discuss still having a building named after J Edgar F-cking Hoover?

    1. I like having the FBI building named after Hoover. Hoover is who those assholes are. Their headquarters should remind the public and them of it.

      1. +1000

        Lost in this whole conversation is the idea that we want our bloody history on display as a reminder to be better. The continued popularity of socialism seems to be directly related to our education system’s deliberate memory holing of it’s last hundred years of atrocities. Maybe we should be putting up statues of Lenin and Mao next to videos that run on a loop showing the results of their revolutions.

        1. We need a national museum and memorial to the victims of socialism. And every person in America should be required to take the tour at least once every five years.

          1. There should be more than one. Look at the Holocaust museum. That was a relatively short lived event, but generated a ton of material. The atrocities in the USSR went on for decades and China’s have never stopped. You could fill the whole national mall with records of Mao’s terrible legacy and still only scratch the surface.

      2. This is why libertarianism is so gay it makes people that are generally somewhat common sense minded have takes like “Hoover is a big poopy head because… well um.” Hoover more than anyone saved rule of law in this country during the depths of the Great Depression. He understood that culture can’t exist when people glamorize bank robbers and he set about destroying bank robbers and rebuilding a sense of trust in order.

        But yea he correctly thought MLK was a pink poon hound so destroy his legacy because only blacks are untainted and MLK is the new Christ.

        1. Really? “is so gay” is the best you can do? Do you literally eat paste before writing these comments?

  9. What a wonderfully rich civic life libertarianism has to offer. No public art. No public institutions. No public speech. No common spaces. Just millions of little brutalist fortresses of non-expression whose only purpose is to commercially service faggots at the point of a government gun.

    1. I’m not sure what point you thought you were making, but it came out garbled. Care to try again?

  10. Of course, we will never discuss the fact that this has nothing to do with statues or who the statues represent. This is only about edging further along the socialist plan to take over the country. First get people used to having their rights infringed. Then ease into ‘protests against anything that can be used as a call for additional government programs. Then slide a bit further into the riot kind of protest. Then verbal and physical assaults, then the stuffing of ballots boxes (electronic and real) and finally the open takeover.
    You are watching it happen; when will the freedom lovers rise up?
    The twelfth of never?

  11. While Lenin was a totalitarian and a thug, the statue is located (hilariously, given the subject’s militant socialism) on private property, leaving its fate in the hands of its owners.

    Only the very wealthy or the very poor see socialism as good thing.

    1. Ah, but you forget the mandarin caste, who get to elevate their self conceit through proximity to the “elite” and “pity” for the untouchables

  12. Libertarians for tearing down the Statue of Liberty!

    1. So have these vandals gone after all the things named after Sen. Robert Byrd (D)?

      1. This was meant to be its own comment, squirrels.

  13. NO. Don’t give in to the marching morons. Public art, including statues, is a good thing.

    We should not make public policy based on not offending the stupidest and most sensitive among us.

  14. There is certainly a reasonable debate that going forward, in a perfect libertarian world (beware of utopianism) that all monuments should be private. But we’re not in that world, and we have existing public monuments now.

    The strange thing here is, despite my general belief that government shouldn’t be in much of the business its in, it never once occurred to me to desire a statue or monument of someone I disagree with be destroyed, eliminated or ‘erased’ from history.

    “Hey, Daddy, who’s that guy?”

    “He founded the region with a group of explorers, and was a notorious slave trader.”

    etc. etc.

    In Germany, the Swastika is a banned symbol. I believe this means that historical movies that show the Swastika have to be edited for the German market. However, details of the law aside, the existence of the law represents an lack of desire to deal with your past. Destruction of statues and symbols which the modern culture is uncomfortable with is indicative of a culture that doesn’t want to learn from its past, but instead wants to forget it.

    1. I think a good corollary is what we’re seeing right now with all our major institutions, media and corporations. There has been this massive, top-down rush to praise and support Black Lives Matter. Including but not limited to firing people and public officials that don’t immediately express full-throated support of same.

      What amazes me is how few people seem to realize that Black Lives Matter is a fully Marxist organization whose central goals is the redistribution of all wealth, the elimination of international borders and destruction of the “western, nuclear family.”

      It would never even cross my mind that the government would declare this organization illegal, and begin arresting its members for sedition. But I do think that BLM provides an opportunity to educate ourselves about what it is we’re supporting and pouring millions of dollars into.

      1. This is a wonderful way to raise left wing radicals. Your objections really don’t make any sense if slavery really is such an evil that it requires a pro forma denunciation of the slave owner then statues to slave owners shouldn’t exist. We don’t build statues to people who raped or murdered in cold blood. Indian chiefs perhaps not withstanding. But of course that’s a silly conceit owning slaves at a time slavery is legal is in line with a factory owner who once used child labor. There’s a reason why rape and murder are always illegal whereas slavery oscillates between legality and illegality with informal forms of slavery always exist.

        1. We don’t build statues to people who raped or murdered in cold blood.

          Really? I see Che t-shirts all the time. There is a statue of “The Butcher of la Cabaña” in Regent’s Park, one of the Royal Parks of London.

          My guess? It’s safe. Proggies look out for their own.

          1. Unless you take their picture during a riot. Then it doesn’t matter that you are an openly gay, progressive Democratic State Senator, your ass is grass.

    2. One thing that’s amazing to me is we are just by passing the concerns of the people who were arguing about preserving the confederate statues because they rightly recognized their was never a limiting principle to this *checks notes three years ago. These people are communists and aren’t honest brokers they should be treated as such. They are dishonest liars and hacks taking their intentions and concerns at face value is fallacy as they don’t actually have any beyond the erasure of western values and total totalitarian control.

    3. In Germany, the Swastika is a banned symbol. I believe this means that historical movies that show the Swastika have to be edited for the German market.

      Not necessarily. Even today, German filmmakers can create films that depict Nazi regalia. They just have to go through a ton of red tape to get their productions greenlighted. Basically, they can’t make anything glorifying Nazism or the Third Reich, and the film has to have some redeeming artistic value.

      I’ll admit I freaked a bit out when, as a student at Uni Frankfurt, I tried to watch Triumph des Willens on YouTube.de and discovered it was blocked. I couldn’t help but wonder if my IP address had been flagged by some three-letter agency and if some nameless secret agent would come knocking on my door in the middle of the night. Fortunately, nothing came of it.

      1. Thank you for the clarification. I didn’t have time to google the details of what exceptions there might be to the law. I do believe I recall reading that plastic models with decals of the swastika couldn’t be sold in Germany. Either way, my point still stands. A culture that bans problematic symbols of the past isn’t a culture that is capable of self-reflection.

      2. Incidentally, every thinking adult should watch Triumph des Willens at least once. It’s a sobering reminder how easy it is for people, especially young men, to get swept up in the excitement and esprit de corps of movements like this. The film makes being a Hitlerjugend seem downright fun! Who wouldn’t have wanted to be part of a cause so righteous and fulfilling? If the movie is any indication, and I have no doubt it is, the rallies must have been nothing short of exhilarating, an uplifting experience bordering on religious ecstasy.

        1. Yes especially men like the excitable young man who directed it one Leni… wait a minute. European men are super gay and often have female names but leni that’s a girls name.

          1. Yes, Leni Riefenstahl was a woman. Well done.

        2. You’re pointing out the problem of imposing today’s moral standards on the past.

          Radical leftists are delusional narcissists, assuming that they would still be the paragons of social justice they see themselves as now even if they had lived 300 years ago when prevailing attitudes and opinions were so different. And even with the benefit of history they can’t see why Marx was such a petty piece of shit with worthless prescriptions.

      3. redeeming artistic value

        As determined by the modern equivalent of an actual fucking Nazi. Poetry.

        1. I have no idea what point you think you’re making with this non sequitur.

          1. Oh, sorry, let me see if I can get it down to your grade level.

            The Nazis were a fascist totalitarian regime in Germany in the 1930s and into the 1940s until the conclusion of WWII. They censored speech and artistic works.

            The people in Germany today who censor speech and artistic works and deem only themselves capable of discerning “redeeming artistic value” are behaving exactly like the people who administered the state during the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s.

            The irony of this situation is that the object of the censorship is depictions of Nazism.

            Do you understand now, or is that still too complex?

    4. “Hey Daddy who is that guy?”
      “He was an immigrant who was the first elected Scandinavian immigrant to state office. Was a founding member of the free soil party in Wisconsin. Was an outspoken abolitionist. Commanded the only fully Scandinavian Regiment in the Civil War. Was promoted for his skills to command the 3rd brigade and was killed at Chickamagua leading his troops into battle.”
      “Why did the BLM rioters destroy the statue then?”
      “Ignorance.”

  15. Here’s the question that’s not being asked, though: Does involvement in the Confederate cause cancel out everything else an individual did, both before and after the Civil War? Does ownership of even one slave, however briefly also cancel out all of an individual’s other achievements?

    US Grant, by the way, manumitted that one slave he owned even though he really could have used the money he could have gotten by selling that slave. Does that maybe matter?

    1. Apparently so. For instance, I believe that General Lee was generally a “good man”, especially after reading and learning his personal history. Again, I’m able to put his character in context with the times and conditions of the day.

      I do admit sometimes that thinking is hard, but I do try.

      1. Not really. Robert E Lee was an exemplary man as was Stonewall Jackson. These are men who literally always obeyed the rules treated women with immense respect and were truly bereft of the social snobbery that often characterizes people from Lee’s class. They owned a legal item and treated that item well far better than many northern factor owners- braying for southern blood and laughing at fantasies of slaves unleashed on southern women- treated their so called free workers.

        There is no need to put his character in context. There isn’t any context which makes him anything less than one of the greatest Americans to have existed. The only context that might would be to bring him back to life and if he were to still insist on owning slaves. I can’t imagine he’d think so although I think he’d definitely see the mistake he made in fighting a conventional war against the north and surrendering his army. Better to fight as the early iteration of American “traitors” had fought.

    2. Does involvement in the Confederate cause cancel out everything else an individual did…?
      Yes.

      Does ownership of even one slave, however briefly also cancel out all of an individual’s other achievements?
      Yes.

      Even abolitionists aren’t safe. Just like not being a racist isn’t enough. You must fully support the cause in every way without question.

      1. Is this, in essence, organized labor, slave labor, or cronyism?

    3. Grant was broke and manumitted the slave. That is in financial terms like giving away your home today. It was an amazing act of kindness. But, don’t bother these ignorant assholes with facts.

      1. And they will vote for the party that championed slavery, seceded, and then oppressed blacks for another century after that.

        Black Lives Matter…sort of. Kinda.

        1. And they will vote for the party that championed slavery, seceded, and then oppressed blacks for another century after that.

          Well, if they don’t then “[they] ain’t black.”

    4. Ownership or not of slaves doesn’t matter.
      This is pure iconoclasm and fundamental assault on the US and Weztern enlightenment ideals.
      Slavery is just the excuse

    5. Forrest denounced the KKK after he left it. He also volunteered to track down and persecute whites who were responsible for killing and terrorizing freed blacks. He worked hard in his later years to reconcile southerners and freed slaves. He also worked to reconcile the south and the north. I am not excusing Forrest but am pointing out that his story is far more complicated than most people understand.
      Also, interesting enough he armed his slave and treated him the same as his other soldiers. He even allowed the slave to go on personal reconnaissance, when the slave could have easily slipped away to the Union. But his personal loyalty to Forrest kept bringing him back.

    6. US Grant, by the way, manumitted that one slave he owned even though he really could have used the money he could have gotten by selling that slave. Does that maybe matter?

      Wasn’t it a complicated legal process to do this? I vaguely remember a tour guide at Monticello explaining the practical issues of inherited slaves as the law was written at that time (I understand Grant was a bit later). Is there any truth to this at all? Could Jefferson or Washington have just waved the magic wand and set their slaves free without any legal complications or consequences to themselves or their slaves?

      1. It varied by state. Some Southern states prohibited manumission altogether.

        Washington’s situation was that he not only had some slaves of his own, but was “in control” of a larger number that Martha had inherited from her first husband, which, I’m told, complicated his options so far as manumission was concerned

        1. Yes, most of Washington’s slaves weren’t legally his. If you read his writings during the War, it is obvious his views on slavery changed dramatically, from being a proponent to being indifferent and finally to opposing it. This paralleled his views on blacks serving in the Colonial Army, as he saw their service he changed his mind because for his faults Washington believed the honorable thing was to admit when you’re wrong. And if anything else, Washington always tried to do the honorable thing, even when it harmed him.

          1. And Washington’s greatest achievement was that he voluntarily gave up power twice. First, his officers offered to make him King. The second time when he chose to leave office after two terms (and had spoken against making the presidency a lifelong office during the constitutional convention).

      2. The crown made it illegal in most colonies to emancipate any slave during the 18th century. Patrick Henry and to a lesser extent Jefferson, actually gained their first political fame fighting against these laws in the Colonial Assembly.

      3. the Nat Turner rebellion changed everything. Before then, it was easy to manumit. Courts recognized the act of manumission and in most places the status of a free black. Most manumitted blacks still would have probably had to leave that place but there were places to go.

        After 1831, manumission essentially became nearly illegal. Some places didn’t recognize it in the courts. Some places required the local legislature to authorize individual manumissions (which they obviously almost never did). Most states required newly freed blacks to leave – fast. It became illegal to teach blacks to read or write so they had no economic future anyway.

        And white southern attitudes to slavery turned 180 degrees. Earlier, slavery was seen as an existing relic – a ‘flaw’ that would decline over time. Which was also what northern whites thought – and manumission is not seen as ‘subversive’ in that view. After 1831 it instead became something that was actively ‘sold’ as a positive good for society. That whites and free blacks could never live side by side – and free blacks and enslaved blacks could never exist in the same area. Extreme hierarchy was necessary for order and the progress of civilization. With a bunch of Romantic era foofoo about how noble it all was. It’s a change that affected everything in the South and made southerners and northerners a very different people from that point on. The previous ‘Jeffersonian’ ideas of rural life and the yeoman farmer became extinct in the South. Even if the laws hadn’t changed re manumission, the act itself was now seen as subversive to your white neighbors.

        You can see the beginnings of that change in Robert Dew’s Review of the VA legislature debate on slavery in 1831/1832. and persisted as the underlying reason for all the Lost Cause mythology represented by those statues erected in the early 20th century. Keep that post-1831 antebellum attitude/culture – in a post-slavery world – so losing the ‘Civil War’ doesn’t have to actually result in any societal change.

  16. >>as his next trick served as the first head of the Ku Klux Klan.

    those crazy (D)s

    1. The Democratic party should be banned, broken up and its headquarters burned to the ground due to its history with the Klan.

    2. Speaker Pelosi demanded that 4 portraits of former Speakers be taken down due to their involvement with the the Confederacy. All 4 were D’s, of course, which was never spoken of.

      1. whoever gets to erase Speaker Pelosi wins.

      2. That business of taking down portraits of disfavored former Speakers certainly has a whiff of Stalinism about it. Airbrush them out of the photos?!

  17. make all statues private projects, to be erected and maintained at the expense of the willing

    This is the right idea, but I’m pretty sure a lot of these statues were built with private funds or donations. The problem is that they stand on public land. They should auction the statues off to private buyers, who will have to find their own place to put them.

    1. Should the sign for Columbus Ave be sold off to the highest bidder too? What about the sign for Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd?

    2. Nope.
      Not the problem at all.
      The problem is submitting to totalitarian collectivist thugs

    3. Ok since you think this is about statues.

      Should everything related to the city of Columbus be changed, at taxpayer expense?

  18. I’m curious how far Tuccille would be willing to take this argument. Signage, brochures, and even letterhead bearing the names and sometimes likenesses of historical figures are printed at taxpayer expense. Should the streets, highways, municipalities, and states named for these honored persons be renamed to something bland and generic so that taxpayer funds are not expended in their memory? Should the authorities stand idly by and allow street signs, placards, and banners to be defaced or torn down? Must all signs that bear the names of now disgraced persons be relocated to private property?

  19. https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-city-church-lawsuit-salinas

    A federal court in the San Francisco Bay Area ruled an evangelical church does not contribute to a city’s goals of a vibrant and fun atmosphere, and therefore can be excluded from operating in downtown Salinas, Calif.

    The New Harvest Christian Fellowship, a church that rented space along Salinas’ Main Street for more than 25 years, purchased a building on that same street in 2018.

    The church intended to use the first floor as a worship center, but the city intervened.

    The church, represented by the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), argued the city’s treatment was unfair under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, allowing theaters and entertainment venues, as well as nursing homes and post offices.

    On May 29, however, the court sided with the city, saying the church generates limited interest. It does not draw tourists, the court said, and therefore detracts from the city’s goals of “vibrancy” as well as a “street of fun,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wrote.

    1. generates limited interest. It does not draw tourists, the court said, and therefore detracts from the city’s goals of “vibrancy” as well as a “street of fun,”

      Hoo boy.

    2. I doubt that stands on appeal.

      1. With our SCOTUS, I am not optimistic on that in the end.

        1. Roberts could change his vote at the 11th hour.

    3. Oh, Salinas is plenty vibrant already.

      If by vibrant you mean a gang-infested shithole. Great produce from its surrounding fields and valley though.

      1. That is what “vibrant” usually means.

        1. Even to Judge van Keulen? I mean, that’s really hip for her and the city leaders of Salinas.

  20. In not a single home seen by the writer was there any family altar, any tablets to ancestors or any representation of the old gods formerly worshipped by the Chinese masses. In as Westernized a city as Hong Kong, still under British rule, such things are still commonplace in Chinese homes.

    No religious practices were discoverable during the trip in China, and guides said there were none. Religious edifices have been turned to use as schools, warehouses or recreational centers.

    Ever notice the desire by every occupying protest ever that things are always turned into “community centers”?

    Also, Western Imperialism saves cultural history of occupied country.

    It’s as if a million heads exploded, and then were silenced.

  21. in this the question that’s not being asked: Does involvement in the Confederate cause cancel out everything else an individual did, both before and after the Civil War?

    1. Of course it does. Whatever someone does in their life should be judged by who the person is, not what they actually did. If the person was involved in the Confederacy, if they owned slaves, if their politics are wrong, if they were a womanizer, etc, then they are bad and all of their accomplishments must also be bad. Jeez, man. Don’t you know anything?

      1. Leave it to you to reply to the spambot that copied the text from another post and miss the original post entirely.

    2. Commodore Norrington: One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness.
      Jack Sparrow: Though it seems enough to condemn him.
      Norrington: Indeed.

    3. No it doesn’t. But when people are celebrated BECAUSE they were associated with the Confederate cause then it’s a problem. I’m sure Nathan Forrest Bedford was kind to his dogs, but fuck Nathan Forrest Bedford!

      1. “Nathan Forrest Bedford!”

        Lol SQLSRY never change

      2. I bet MLK wasn’t even kind to his dog.

        1. Every one knows that if a camera was not on him he treated old people and kids like dirt. And dogs.

  22. https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-jimmy-kimmel-breaks-silence-over-past-blackface-in-statement-taking-swing-at-critics-the-genuinely-racist

    Jimmy Kimmel has ended his silence. He says that he won’t be bullied into silence by the “real racists”. You know the real racists, the people who haven’t worn black face and dropped N bombs the way a junkie pops pills.

    Yeah you tell em Jimmy. Only a real racist hasn’t worn black face.

    1. I’m happy to see business is brisk at the firing squads!

    2. Hoisting by their own petard is great and all but real talk … blackface that isn’t minstrel-y is not racist and we should stop pretending that is.

  23. Less controversial has been the decision by the American Museum of Natural History to remove a statue of Teddy Roosevelt from its front entrance. While the statue is officially on public land, it clearly is intended as part of the museum and is seen as such. The museum is a private entity and is no longer comfortable with the way the statue represents the organization—a decision it has the right to make.

    How much public money is this joint raking in?

    1. Tucker Carslon had high words of praise for Teddy Roosevelt the other day: https://youtu.be/cxxHV5vu1Mo

  24. So, just to make sure I understand, Reason is advocating shooting rioters, right? Because that’s what’s gonna happen when a bunch of people storm onto private property with the intent to destroy stuff, and the cops say “fuck it, not our job”. Private citizens have a right to protect their shit.

    1. “Private citizens have a right to protect their shit.”

      Oh, about that….I’m not sure you can make that inference with this group of writers. I’m just reading that the OP doesn’t want public statues, not that private statue owners in Libertopia can start killing people who show up to tear them down.

      ‘Use deadly force to protect properrrrrrrrty!? Reeeeeeee!’

  25. Question for an Antifa friend: How much explosive power will it take to deconstruct Mt. Rushmore?

    1. They won’t get past the second or third Wall-Drug sign into the state.

  26. Frankly, the whole notion of erecting statues to generals and politicians is creepy as fuck.

    We need more statues of people who didn’t go around killing and coercing and ruling over others. As the article suggests, Henry David Thoreau is a good start. But he’s not perfect, so put one up for Louisa May Alcott as well. Harriet Tubman and Booker T. Washington.

    Why is there no statue to Norman Borlaug? I think Paris might have a statue to Louis Pasteur, but what about a statue for Marie Curie?

    1. We need more statues of Adam Smith.

    2. Norman Borlag is possibly the most important and greatest man of the 20th century.

      1. Devil’s advocate: Norman Borlag was a white supremacist, change my mind.

      2. Wheat supremacist, white supremacist; tomato, tomahto.

    3. Martin Scorsese

    4. Lol libertarianism is gay autism lol.

    5. We need more statues of people who didn’t go around killing and coercing and ruling over others.

      Why does it matter? Those will be torn down just as quickly

    6. It is only creepy if you think that they killed people just to kill people. There is nothing wrong with statues of generals and presidents, nor for scientist and activist. The statues should be about their contribution to the greater good.

  27. First they came for the statues of Josef Stalin, then they came for statues of Lenin, then they came for statues of Khruschev. What next? Catherine the Great? These protesters don’t know where to start! Commies were in charge of Russian for 72 years. There’s alot of legacy there. Why don’t protesters understand that this is more about history and legacy than a shitty and genocidal government.

    1. You know there’s a statue of Lenin standing proudly about 3 miles north of the CHAZ in Seattle?

    2. Were you trying to make a point or just being your usual sophomoric self?

  28. Let the statues stay as reminders of history so it isn’t forgotten and repeated.

  29. people about whom the mob seems to have serious misconceptions.

    mobs are normally so reasonable with their decision making, they must have just been misinformed!

  30. Serious question….doesn’t it seem a bit too coincidental that BLM and Antifa rioters are so inspired by Islamic terrorists?

  31. The mobs have vandalized a statue of Miguel de Cervantes (himself a slave) in San Francisco.

    In London the anti-racist activists are demanding the removal of statues of Churchill, Trafalgar, and Mahatma Gandhi. Yes, Gandhi.

    1. I assume you mean the statue of Nelson, which is in Trafalgar Square in London. But what would be the point? You can’t even see the statue. That is the worst monument ever. The British have been terrible at building stuff for a long time now. They also have the worst skyscrapers.

  32. Somebody needs to work on 3D printed breakaway statues. That way, my favorite local grocery stores and watering holes can put up a different Confederate statue every morning and then give everyone a pass on social distancing and face coverings when BLM idiots show up to tear it down.

  33. As well as all art and buildings should all conform to non offensive details as agreed by consensus.

    Cover your fucking offensive face when you’re in public while you’re at it.

    1. Cover your fucking offensive face when you’re in public while you’re at it.

      *Affixes apple to bowler hat.*

      1. Thanks

  34. And anybody who damages or destroys the monument without permission is an obvious vandal, subject to appropriate punishment.

    FFS. So what you’re saying is that taxpayer money should be used NOW in order to defend the same property that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used for NOW because the property is on public land.

    Hey – as long as government is privately benefiting those who can afford to stick big statues on their private property, then I suppose it’s perfectly acceptable to propertarians.

  35. Here’s a solution to the statue problem. Leave the statues in place but add a vandal proof sign that says, This man was a part of American history, He tried to destroy the U.S.A. so white people could own black people. This state (name the state) made it possible for black families to be ripped apart, worked to death and raped and tortured.

    1. Or erect a statue in honour of one of the thousands of black slave owners.

      All lives matter.

    2. Here’s a solution to the statue problem.

      Translated: “I don’t mean to sound racist but…”

      1. If it was limited to only Confederate soldiers you might have a point. But no, they are now tearing down statues of outspoken abolitionist, see my reference above to Colonel Heg’s statue being torn down, and Grant’s statue being torn down. You can’t defend those actions so you focus only on the confederate monuments.

        1. Fucking squirrels.

        2. ‘He tried to destroy the U.S.A.’ applies equally to Lincoln as it does to Lee.

          ‘This state (name the state) made it possible for black families to be ripped apart, worked to death and raped and tortured’ this applies to every state in the union as well as several other states on several other continents or none at all. Limiting it to just the United States, the above practices by their own precepts supposedly predates the Revolution. Setting all of that aside to say Lincoln or Lee was right/wrong… you’re just yet another schmuck who’s hunky dory with tearing the country apart for your own perceived moral righteousness.

          1. you’re just yet another schmuck who’s hunky dory with tearing the country apart for your own perceived moral righteousness.

            And a moral righteousness that is nowhere near as tortured, violent, tragic, or heroic as Lee or Lincoln’s I might add.

          2. Squirrels or did you mean to reply to me? Because my reply above was hijacked by squirrels and was not meant to be in reply to your statement.

        3. And Washington.
          If that isn’t a declaration of war against the US, nothing is

  36. I disagree. Patrice O’Neal deserves a public statue.

  37. Real stupid idea because unless they are kept inside your house some genetic throwback will come along and destroy it and possibly you!

  38. You mention Nathan Bedford Forrest, but don’t tell the whole story. Yes he was a Confederate general, yes he was head of the first KKK when it was founded. But he left the KKK disgusted with their violence and goals. Statues serve as a reminder of our shared history, even though some of that history is negative. While I agree that many things the government currently does should belong in the private sector, removing these things from public view that are already there is ridiculous.

    1. I’ve said it before: I agree with Black Civil Rights leader, Former Congressman, and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young (and similar). I think a key point of what he says is that we should strive to positively contribute to history rather than destroy and/or conceal it.

      1. Therein lies the rub.
        The leftists have no hope of positively contributing, and no real desire to.
        They are resentful and want only to destroy the world

        1. Yeah, I realized that above.

          They can’t even conceptualize genuine moral righteousness let alone advocate for and act upon it. So they have to tear down statues of people far better than themselves in a masquerade to validate their cargo-cult religion/moralism.

          The tearing down of Cervantes’ statue is almost too ironic to be believable. Almost.

  39. “A statue on private property, erected with funds only from supporters, dragoons no unwilling parties into the message it expresses. Nobody need feel that they’re being forced to share in the celebration of people or ideals they oppose. A private construction can be left up as long as it pleases the owners or pulled down at their whim. ”

    Do you think that will be sufficient for the radical Left? Of course it won’t, they won’t stand for it being on public OR private property, they don’t want it to exist at all.

    1. Considering they’ve sued to remove crosses on private land because you can see them from public land, or crosses that were erected on private land which the government then acquired (sometimes through emminant domain), yeah anyone who thinks placing it on private land is any solution is wearing extremely rose colored glasses.

  40. Eliminate all of the hideous military monuments, including the cannons, tanks and howitzers.

    1. Fuck off.

    2. The majority of cannons, tanks, howitzers, and even a few planes and attack helicopters I’ve seen as memorials are sitting out front of American Legions and VFWs, private institutions. I’ve spent probably close to a month in total sleeping between the tanks at the First Armored Division Museum that was set up, privately, by Robert McCormick. Are you going to eliminate those as well?

  41. While we’re at it. Get the names of friggin’ politicians off airports.
    And definitely scrape any national holiday associated with a person’s name.

    1. And about that calendar… all it does is glorify religion and tyrants.
      We must do away with the whole thing.
      Get rid of the names of the months and days, and start over from zero!

  42. Mr. Tuccille – Nice choice of statues that you would like to erect on your private property!!! Hope you do so!

  43. “for the obvious reason that the secessionists of the time were primarily motivated by the desire to continue owning other human beings”

    Yeah, no. Not even worth engaging at this point.

    That aside, the larger issue with Confederate takedowns is that many of these people were not just Confederates. Robert E Lee was a Mexican-American War hero and dutifully served the United States, not the Confederate States, for 32 years. When you advocate for damnatio memoriae on the basis of service to the Confederacy, you advocate the same practice for all human beings, as nobody is perfect and we are all sinners in some form or another. Recognizing their good deeds, while also using the opportunity to teach others about their bad deeds, is morally proper and distinctly American.

    1. People who try to overthrow a country and get hundreds of thousands killed in the process aren’t usually celebrated by that country, no matter how many good deeds they did otherwise.

      And if the CW wasn’t about slavery, what was it about?

      1. “…My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that…”
        Lincoln’s letter to Greeley
        https://www.lincolncottage.org/lincoln-and-slavery-wish-vs-duty-in-the-greeley-letter/
        Further, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the Confederacy (over which Lincoln had no control) and did nothing for those held in the Union.
        For someone claiming to be educated, you certainly are misinformed.

      2. An argument based on what is “usually” done is meaningless in the context of America. We are not typical. Our leaders chose after the war not to treat Confederates as traitors. We’ll never know exactly why, but art of the reason is our collective culpability in slavery. We all permitted slavery, we all participated in slavery and the slave trade, we were (and often still are) racists, and we all didn’t do enough to answer the question of slavery before the issue came to blows. I won’t blame past peoples for their failures, but it’s not like the Civil War started overnight. I’m not referring to the root causes; open armed conflict occurred in border territories throughout the 1850s (see Bleeding Kansas). That’s when the dispute over slavery transitioned from an argument to a war. Maybe we could have done more to reach an amicable compromise. Maybe the very nature of the issue made conflict inevitable. The reasons are far removed from us today and difficult for most people to relate to.

        I didn’t say the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. I challenged the notion that slavery was the primary motivation for secessionists. The generalization is far too broad. I apologize for not emphasizing this earlier, but I’m challenging both the use of the words secessionist and primary. While there were many procedural issues at play, they all stemmed from the primary input of slavery. However, being related to slavery doesn’t mean that their opinions about the state of slavery were their primary reason. First, secessionist is either misused here or was far too vague. Not all secessionists were Confederates. Many notable abolitionists called for secession, including William Lloyd Garrison. If secessionist was being used colloquially to refer to Confederates, we far too quickly presume that anyone on the Confederate side was motivated primarily by slavery. Recall Fort Sumter: only 2 states, South Carolina and Mississippi, had seceded by the time conflict erupted. Several more states seceded during the conflict and even once the siege was resolved and the US Army was able to abandon the fort, 4 more states seceded afterwards. Neither Secessionist nor Unionist states were monoliths. Some parts of Virginia opposed the Confederacy; tens of thousands of volunteers came from Maryland and Delaware. Missouri and Kentucky were always divided. If this was only about slavery, why were so many states hesitant to join until the Union started raising a real Army and preparing for war? Why did hundreds of thousands of men, who didn’t own a single slave and hardly had rights of their own, go off to war? War should always be a last resort because motivations become complicated once you start killing people. That’s where revenge, oppression and malice enter the fray. Wars of attrition are an endless cycle of violence. Loyalties become far more complicated when you push people into a corner and don’t give them a way out. You know the saying about cornered rats.

        Reductionist thinking is always dangerous. Everyone wants to create their clean, linear narrative of history and put a bow on it and call it a done deal. That is almost never what happened and it’s a fruitless endeavor to engage in. The desire comes from a place of malice and bigotry that concerns itself more with the past than the present or the future.

      3. I find it ironic that you think people fighting in defense of the sovereignty of their state are to blame for trying to “overthrow a country and get hundreds of thousands killed in the process.”

        If any one person is to bear the blame for 643,000 dead Americans, it is Abe Lincoln. He was the one to order the troops into confederate territory and wage a bloody war to “preserve the Union.” If you knew history you would know that the Confederates did not want a war. Jefferson Davis makes this abundantly clear in “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.”

        1. I love it when the neoconfederates come out of the woodwork. Just throw up their bat signal and ask why the civil war wasn’t about slavery. Also, fuck off traitor.

          1. One would have been a traitor to turn against his own State government. That is the primary reason why Robert E. Lee fought for the Confederacy. He was being a patriot for Virginia.

          2. “..ask why the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”

            That is the wrong question to be asking. It betrays that you have already been indoctrinated to believe something, and so you place the burden of proof on anyone who doesn’t share your opinion.

            Firstly, no one thought of slavery as the central issue of the war between South and North until the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by Lincoln in 1862 after the battle of Antietam. Even then, many people, including Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, recognized the Proclamation to be a political stunt designed as a weapon against the Confederacy. That is why not a single black was actually freed when it was issued. It intentionally did not free slaves in Union territory, including the parts of the South that were under the control of the US army: a large swath of Louisiana as well as parts of Virginia.

            To understand the reasons for the war in the first place, you have to look at history leading up to the secession movement, but regardless of all this, the reason for the war itself was that the Confederate States, and others, believed they had the Constitutional right to separate from the Union. Abraham Lincoln did not, and he took it upon himself to prove with the use of the military that no State could ever leave his precious Union, that the Union would be preserved, that it would be preserved through force, that it would be preserved with or without slavery, and that it would be preserved regardless of the cost of human life.

            Regardless of the motivation the Confederates may or may not have had for withdrawing from the Union, the southern states were fighting in self-defense, not in aggression. The real question then becomes one of the legality of secession and whether Lincoln had any constitutional justification for waging a war against states that were, in his own opinion, a part of the Union.

            So the war itself, as in the reason people fought and died, had nothing to do with slavery or any other hot topic per se. The war was fought because some people believed their State was part of a new and independent country being invaded by a foreign enemy, and other people believed that upon ratification each state had sworn eternal fealty to the federal government and was perpetually bound to the Union with no ability to opt out.

  44. Jefferson Davis was also something of a hero in the Mexican War. He went on to serve as US Senator and Secretary Of War, which gets forgotten.

    By the way, there is a huge monument to Davis at his birthplace in Fairview Kentucky. They won’t be toppling that so easily.

    1. When you lead an insurrection in attempt to tear apart your country that pretty much outshines any prior accomplishments.

      1. That’s an unequivocal condemnation of the left, but I doubt you realize it

  45. historical revisionism

    Let’s be clear: many of the confederate statues (the only ones I think a good case can be made for removal) exist because racist Southerners didn’t like losing the Civil War and being forced to treat black people with a modicum of dignity 100 years later. These statues celebrate a history that never was, and are themselves a direct attempt at historical revisionism.

    1. Yeah, those racist southerners! Everyone north of the Mason-Dixon is pure and undefiled… like that cop in Mineanapolis.

      1. There are several contenders to who wrote ‘I wish I was in Dixie’, they’re all Northerners (Kentucky or Ohio). The song was popular around the country prior to the war and was even a favorite of Lincoln’s. The Virginia Minstrels, who became famous for performing it in blackface, had their breakthrough performance in NYC.

        Those underhanded motherfuckin’ Southerners were so goddamned good at their psyops they had Northerners writing and singing their pro-slavery songs for them before the war started. Their efforts paid off handsomely when, despite losing the war, they managed to displace all black music from American cultural history (black or white) for the next 100 yrs. until the age of disco.

      2. I qualified southerners with the adjective “racist.” The racist ones rewrote history with statues. Pay attention and stop being so goddamn defensive.

    2. many of the confederate statues (the only ones I think a good case can be made for removal) exist because racist Southerners didn’t like losing the Civil War and being forced to treat black people with a modicum of dignity 100 years later.

      A little of your own revisionist bullshit ran down your chin and splattered on your keyboard. The majority of Civil War statues were erected before and during the 1920s which would be right around the time youngest of Civil War veterans started to die off. 100 yrs. after the Civil War would be the height of the Civil Rights Era, and a small minority at best, were erected in this era.

      The South had “100 yrs.” to erect statues openly titled/themed things like ‘Nigger Plowing Field’, ‘Hanging Tree’, and ‘Whipping Post’ they could’ve memorialized the most prolific slave owners. ‘I Wish I Was In Dixie’ was written by a Northerner and popular throughout the US before and even during the war, but, for some reason, they didn’t keep up their aggressive but uncoordinated and unspoken propaganda campaign. Instead, they chose to honor generals, soldiers, and politicians who were both abolitionists and slave owners, anti-war and war advocates, and among others.

      I’m sure you went back in time, read their minds, and have returned to inform us that their intentions were really some 15th dimension 100+ yr. long game of chess/psyops, but common sense dictates otherwise.

  46. The majority of statues torn down were erected at taxpayers’ expense, maintained on land paid for with money extracted from everybody’s pockets, and offended (rightly or wrongly) people who resent being represented by them.

    Citation needed

    Tucille is either being disingenuous or has no idea what the fuck he is writing about. I will grant “yeah, sometimes the city or county washes the pigeon shit off the memorial to their war dead if it hasn’t rained in a while or cuts the grass at the park that was gifted to them from some wealthy citizen who commissioned and paid for the statue that sits there”. But that’s about it.

  47. Wow, nowadays the only association people can make with the Confederacy is slavery, slavery, slavery. Lee and Davis are racists simply because of the fact that they fought for the independence of their country, and nothing they ever said or wrote will ever matter.

    1. Is it OK to kill 1, 10, or 100 innocent people to save 10, 100, 1,000,000 lives is a valid and debatable moral conundrum.

      But killing 100K, 500K, or 1M people to end slavery 10, 20, or 50 yrs. early? Shut up, pay your taxes, and put your mask back on you privileged white motherfucker.

      1. If you are referring to me, I wont do any of those things.

      2. But really, I’ve often wondered, even if people think the civil war was simply a struggle for and against the existence of slavery, how is the US justified? That is a lot of dead Americans for getting rid of slavery a few years, probably a decade or two, earlier. No other country did anything close to this. Long bloody wars are fought for many reasons (taxation, combatting special interests, type of governmental structure, conquering foreign land and people, maintaining control over certain regions of the country that want to be independent), but they are never fought over slavery. Jefferson Davis wrote to his wife that he believed the institution of slavery would inevitably come to an end in the Confederate States.

      3. Sometimes you do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. The South started a war it had no business starting against a government to which each of its States had sworn an allegiance. Lordy, I hope we don’t have to go back down and smack some sense back into them. The North’s sense-smacking fist is still sore. At some point though it might be worth considering losing the South simply a cost of doing business.

        You accept in the first sentence that the morality of killing for a just cause is relative, and then present some unfounded assumptions to claim that it isn’t. Make up your goddamned mind.

        And I will put my mask back on. The Venn diagram of those who think we should reopen the economy quickly and those who think everyone should wear masks should be a single overlapping circle. The real data (not some bullshit Qanonsense) shows that without the Federal government’s efforts the best way to slow the spread is to wear masks and wash hands. To choose to not wear a mask in order to make a political statement is just asinine terminal stupidity, but that’s where we are these days. I swear some of the morons here have enough spare chromosomes to make a dog.

        1. You got it wrong, buddy. No State ever swore allegiance to the federal government. Not even close. They ratified the Constitution, meaning they agreed to accept everything written therein. Not only is the idea of secession entirely compatible with the Constitution, but the whole nullification debate was premised on that States did not have to role with whatever the Feds came up with if it was not a part of the ratified agreement. And before you discount nullification, be aware that both Madison and Jefferson were in favor of it.

  48. I may remind readers that there can be such condition as that of “too much agreement.”

    Nicer highlights in American history rather suggest that what was popular in American liberty at such time we get to look back thereupon were a sense of independence, without which we would be reading foreign language in this passage and its subject matter would not use the letter “L” because that obligatory language would be altogether new to our eyes, in keeping with terms of being colonized by nationalists whom may have liberated us all from voting by establishing monopolies that do all hard work of voting for us.

    “An armed society is a polite society.”

  49. Oh hell yeah Daniel Shays.

    Shays rebellion does not get enough attention.

    1. Personally, I think not enough attention has been paid to the fact that to strike a blow against racism they tore down Cervantes’ statue.

      The only way it could get better is if they followed it up by committing to pushing Sisyphus’ boulder up the mountain to defeat racism and then vowing to go harpoon all the statues of Herman Meville to defeat racism.

  50. Haven’t you heard. Now they want to tear down the Lincoln memorial because of his racist views and plans for shipping all the negros to South America.

    1. Too bad he didn’t. Humans cannot integrate peacefully.

  51. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors

    1. Just stay out of the comment section. It’s likley to scare visitors away.

  52. All statutes should be of abolitionists and whistleblowers. Imagine telling on your neighbor for crimes and being a good person, or a hero, but telling on the President, FBI, or CIA makes you a whislteblower traitor criminal.

  53. Here in Miami Beach, the enormous Holocaust Memorial is built on city-owned land. Yes, the sacralizers of the misfortunes of one particular group among the many groups that suffered during World War II stole an acre of prime real estate to erect their own particular monument to show the rest of us how very special they are.
    More-special, indeed, than your group or mine, which actually fought the war.

  54. I think there might be some HOAs that would beg to differ.

  55. It’s a libertarian argument to be made that all statues ought be privately-owned, but it should not be made for the sake of placating the mobs. It’s an argument that should be made for the sake of liberty, for I dare say that publicly-funding statues is an imposition against the individual’s freedom of speech.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.