Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Not Even Lincoln Is Spared the Wrath of the Statue Topplers

Who would have guessed the author of the Gettysburg Address was a white supremacist?

It began with Confederate monuments, but it was only a matter of time before the history of everyone ever commemorated in America was in dispute. Even Abraham Lincoln.

The statue of the 16th president and liberator of slaves at the top of Bascom Hill is one of the most beloved sites on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Graduating students and their families wait in line for hours in the spring to have their pictures taken in Lincoln's lap.

Wunk Sheek, an indigenous student group, does not share this sentiment. The group has charged that a statue of Lincoln has no place on campus.

"Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let's be real: He owned slaves, and as natives, we want people to know that he ordered the execution of native men," Misha Johnson, co-president of fiscal relations for Wunk Sheek told the Daily Cardinal, one of the student newspapers. "Just to have him here at the top of Bascom is just really belittling."

It is wrong to say Lincoln ever owned slaves, but he was president during the Dakota War of 1862 and he did authorize the execution on December 26, 1862 of 38 Dakota men out of more than 300 convicted of war crimes in military tribunals.

According to College Fix, university administration has said it has no intention of moving Lincoln anywhere. But the school is planning on putting up a handful of signs around campus to "interpret the 12,000 year history" of those who inhabited the land upon which the university was built.

Madison's Lincoln has been under siege for a while now. Two years ago, during the height of Black Lives Matter protests, a group, "About Race UW," proposed removing the statue, but the idea never gained traction.

Since then the Lincoln statue has been subjected to graffiti decrying all white people as racist and draped in a black tarp after the 2016 election.

The UW student government this past Spring approved a resolution to educate the community about Lincoln's oppression of Native Americans, a resolution the administration never took up.

Pressure to address racism and white supremacy after the terrible events at Charlottesville, where Neo-Nazis marched in the streets and one counter protester was killed, likely prompted UW Madison students and administrators to renew efforts to address the campus' history, including the Lincoln statue.

Week Shunk insists the focus not be turned from Lincoln's part in the Dakota War punishment. The history, like all history, is more complicated than it has been portrayed by the activists.

Between 400 and 800 U.S. citizens, 77 U.S. soldiers and more than 150 Dakota Native Americans died, although definitive numbers are hard to find.

"Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made," Lincoln reportedly told the U.S. Senate after reviewing each trial of the over 300 Dakota men accused of war crimes.

The causes leading up to a terrible and bloody war, the treatment of Native Americans after the war, and the fairness of the military tribunals are all valid parts of a larger historical discussion. Portraying Lincoln as a white supremacist who signed off on the execution of Native Americans distorts the discussion. Demanding the Lincoln statue be removed is demanding the discussion be silenced.

Answering the demands of activists without any certainty that the complexities and nuances of history will be included reflects a troubling trend. Whether Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, or Lincoln, people need to be exposed to and learn to navigate the complexity of their shared history.

Not enough history is required of students. Revising how history is taught in schools and universities is a possible solution to the complex question. Perhaps teachers could incorporate more first person accounts from a broader spectrum of voices to paint a more accurate picture of the past. Moving away from textbook learning could be the first step toward engaging students to not only think for themselves, but to grapple with the moral complexity of history's key figures.


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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Plus he was Republican!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    *looks around*

    Isn't that why we're tearing him down?

  • ||

    Republican-leaning third party candidate. Alt-right before it was not cool to be alt-right.

  • The Last American Hero||

    But he was a pre-FDR Republican. You see, before FDR, the republican voters were all democrats and the democrat voters were all republicans. It's how modern progressives cover up their troubled history with racism and eugenics - just claim that all the voters switched sides at some arbitrary point in time.

  • Bubba Jones||

    SOUTHERN STRATEGY.

    NIXON

  • SIV||

    It worked so well that George Wallace won all the electors from the Deep South states!

  • colorblindkid||

    If we're going back 12,000 years, can we blame the Native Americans for mass extinctions and environmental destruction greater than what the Europeans did? Camels, cheetahs, giant sloths, dire wolves, mammoths, horses, lions, and many others were all hunted to extinction by the Native Americans, leading to drastic changes in the ecosystems in every corner of the continent.

  • ||

    The Pueblo had to leave Colorado because they had over-farmed and exhausted the land, leading to a famine. The reason they built towns in the cliff-faces was because they wound up needing every square inch of land on top of the mesas, but they only lived in those towns for about one generation before they had to uproot and move south due to the results of their environmental exploitation.

    Likewise, in the nineteenth century, the Plains Indians were infamous for leaving piles of rotting buffalo carcasses after taking what they needed from a kill. Natives using every part of the animal? Myth.

    Do you what does use every part of the animal? Modern capitalist society.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "in the nineteenth century, the Plains Indians were infamous for leaving piles of rotting buffalo carcasses after taking what they needed from a kill"

    I thought that was manifest-destiny propaganda. Or was my thinking that, anti-manifest-destiny propaganda...?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I imagine that any relatively stable groups would use most parts of the animal. That's just standard operating procedure for most of human history. The migratory nature of certain tribes, those trying to travel light, would probably be the different ones.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I have paid the necessary sacrament to the Wiki God, and in return he has bestowed upon me His wisdom:

    "a slaughter of 50 animals produced far more food than could possibly be eaten by the band, a wastage that was often commented upon by European and American observers. Sometimes a herd would be killed just to get at the delicacies such as the fat-filled tongues. Bison that escaped the trap were hunted down and killed so they could not warn the other bison."

    And apparently the Comanche and a few other tribes were totally on board with the over-hunting thing once they got horses and firearms. So, it is mostly true, though it was still US strategic extermination programs that really did the bison in.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...delicacies such as the fat-filled tongues."

    So The Donald's body would be good for SOMETHING, at least, if we could get over taboos about cannibalism...

    Also... Is it true that "buffalo tongue sandwiches speak for themselves"?

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Tongue tacos are the best

  • gphx||

    Mexicans make the best taco bowls. Shame they have so little meat on their bones.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yes, but only with fork-ed tongue...

  • IceTrey||

    To be fair for 10,000 years there were so many bison it didn't really matter.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    According to Wikipedius, the massive herds observed by European settlers were actually an unnatural result of disease wiping out most of the Amerindian hunters, plus optimal weather conditions. Prior to that, the herds were supposedly much smaller and harried by large hunter bands. Tragedy of the Commons as usual.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I guess it makes sense if there was just an abundance of it. That sounds like pretty good living.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Consumption-based, profligate, capitalist good living.

    Those pesky injuns and their bison-guzzling SUVs (Sporting Uvula Vivisections)!

  • Cloudbuster||

    And U.S. conservation programs that saved them.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    *private capitalist pig-dog conservation programs

  • CE||

    It was ranchers.

  • ||

    I think of it because I recently read John Fremont's narrative of his cross-country expedition to find a waterway to the west coast in the early 1840s. He comments a fair amount on the wastefulness of the buffalo hunting on the plains in a way that doesn't seem tied to any propaganda purposes - I think he was just observing.

    In fairness, though, one might call the nineteenth-century Plains Indians a "disrupted culture." I don't know how they behaved before horses and firearms, but they do seem to have unbalanced a lot of existing practices and relationships.

    On an interesting side-note, Fremont ran for President as the Republican candidate in 1856. He was known for being a bit hot-headed and impulsive, and his nomination was seen as an even more hostile act than Lincoln's nomination was. The main campaign against him, IIRC, was essentially "elect him and we go to war."

  • DaveSs||

    Buffalo jumps were a common way to kill bison up until firearms.

    Given that you can't exactly control how many go over the cliff, I'd expect a lot of overkill from the practice.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Nobody here is criticizing good ol' fashioned capitalist pig-doggery, DaveSs. Just the hypocrisy of those who allege that they were Avatar extras.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Yeah, I tried to remind my lefty friends about the praise lavished on NAs for "using every part of the animal" while they were gasping at the horrors of "pink slime". Let's just say it didn't work.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Are you familiar with scrapple? That's the German-American farmer not wasting any part of the pig. After it's been butchered, drop the carcass & organs into a vat of hot water until all the fat melts and meat falls off the bone. Remove bones & cartilage and let cool. Skim off the hardened fat. Stir the mush, adding seasonings & corn meal. Pour into bread pans so that when cool it becomes a loaf that can be sliced & fried.

    Now I'm gonna have to run down to the fridge and get out the frying pan. Scrapple and a couple of dippy eggs.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Dippy eggs sounds super faggy and also something my family said when I was a kid and totally forgot.

    Scrapple is great though. Head cheese is another food that's the same basic idea.

  • Mitsima||

    LoLz, reminds me of a German friend who refused to eat American hotdogs - "Do you know what goes into that? Meat scraps and inedible parts". Me: I thought you Germans were all into recycling and reducing waste? Him: :/ Me: Capitalism ;)

  • The Last American Hero||

    +1 pink slime.

    I guess it's only cool when Native Americans or exotic countries from the far east do it.

  • colorblindkid||

    I try to make this exact point to people, with no avail. Pink slime is not unnatural at all, and is wonderful for the environment.

  • Ron||

    In California the indians set fire to forest, not to maintain the land as is being taught today but to round up and kill the animals as they fled form the fires

  • Brandybuck||

    Also, torturing and ripping still beating hearts out in service to a religious hierarchy. The idea that the native population were just hippie peyote imbibers meaning no one no harm is a vicious myth.

  • ||

    Also, torturing and ripping still beating hearts out in service to a religious hierarchy.

    I think that specific thing was just the Aztecs, really, but yeah - for every Hopi there's at least one Yuma.

    Even for the original settlers, some places they landed and the natives attacked immediately, while in others the natives welcomed them with food and shelter. The Seminole, for example, were notoriously hostile to absolutely everyone, native or not. But then, they had to live in Florida . . .

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Florida Man isn't a race, he's an *ethos*.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He is ethos, pathos and logos.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And an alpha. And his own omega.

  • ||

    Say what you will about the tenets of Florida Man . . .

  • Longtobefree||

    Before air conditioning, no less -- -- --

  • Long Woodchippers||

    The Aztecs were a large and dominant tribe that terrorized their neighbors. They fell to Cortez because he was able to enlist troops from the tribes surrounding the Aztecs.

  • AndyWingall||

    We can blame the Native Americans for introducing tobacco to the white man and thus spreading lung cancer. I say we seek some retribution. Or the American Lung Society should.

  • Rat on a train||

    They paid their due with chocolate.

  • IceTrey||

    Native chocolate was crazy bitter. It was up to white men to add sugar made by slaves to make it good!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They paid their due with tobacco. Stuff's great.

  • CE||

    And popcorn.

  • IceTrey||

    I hear they also gave us syphilis.

  • mpercy||

    When do we tear down the monument the buffalo soldiers? Those black troops committed genocide against the first Americans.

  • buybuydandavis||

    That's when intersectionality gets interesting.

    It's not like it's only Evil Whitey who was full of WrongThink in the time before Year Zero.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Revising how history is taught in schools and universities is a possible solution to the complex question.

    I think they are revising history in schools and universities.

  • Rich||

    Week Shunk

    HATE SPEECH!

  • StackOfCoins||

    *shakes tiny fist*

  • Rich||

  • StackOfCoins||

    "Wunk Sheek?" "Week Shunk?"

    Not that I blame Lindsay for that. "Weak Shriek" might be better.

  • Number 2||

    How about this! When the demand was raised to remove Confederate statues, we were assured that things like this would never happen, and that anyone who suggested that Washington and Lincoln were next was a blubbering fool.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sounds like this was going on well before this year as well.

  • BYODB||

    The reason I had a problem with it is because once you start tearing down monuments because of a few retards keening, you wake all the retards to begin keening about everything. Inevitably, you end up with no monuments, because everything shouldn't be remembered by someone.

    It's not a question of if these retards come after Washington and Lincoln monuments, it's when do they come down.

  • ||

    It's the same retards who want books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mocking Bird banned.

    Anyone see a trend here?

    IT'S ABOUT ERADICATING OUR HISTORY so they can begin to shape and control it from this point on.

    Hello. It's nice to be flippant and make jokes about it but this is serious shit and it was obvious to anyone with a sharp and sober mind this was NOT going to stop at Confederate monuments.

  • Ghatanathoah||

    Rufus, you are giving these idiots way more credit than they deserve. This isn't part of some sinister plot. This is just a bunch of immature idiots being idiots.

    There are some people who find portrayals of racism to be viscerally upsetting, even when the racism is clearly being portrayed as wrong, as is the case in Huckleberry Finn and TKAMB. Some of these people recognize that this is a personal preference and just avoid those books. But there are also a good many who are too emotionally immature to realize that just because someone or something made them upset, that doesn't mean they did anything wrong. So they declare such books are wrong and try to ban them.

    Of course, as soon as you give into their demands, they notice something else and get upset about that, because that's the kind of people they are. They don't have a plan. They're just idiots who get upset and yell, and get upset and yell at something else as soon as you get rid of whatever made them upset initially.

  • ||

    Rufus, you are giving these idiots way more credit than they deserve. This isn't part of some sinister plot. This is just a bunch of immature idiots being idiots.
    ...
    They don't have a plan. They're just idiots who get upset and yell, and get upset and yell at something else as soon as you get rid of whatever made them upset initially.

    ^This^

    There are a few who do want to undo history so they can rewrite they're own. They are outnumbered by the people who just want to extoll their virtues, shout down their opponents, and forget history because introversion, remembering shit, and intellectual discourse are hard.

  • CE||

    on the plus side, there will be a lot of jobs for good re-writers in the Ministry of Truth.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Washington was a slave owner so that made sense.

    Lincoln is ridiculous.

  • IceTrey||

    In Virginia it was illegal to free your slaves except upon your death which Washington did. Jefferson couldn't because they changed the law.

  • CE||

    Jefferson couldn't because he was broke.

  • SIV||

    Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to deport Blacks to Africa.

  • ||

    Depending on what you read from him and when, he wanted them to set up their own nation in C. America.

    Not that the destination matters as much as the Great Emancipator generally emancipating.

  • Hank Phillips||

    In the footsteps of Lord Dunmore.

  • ||

    No. Not any grounds doe it makes sense. In their heads it does but it shouldn't for their rest of us.

    It's censorship by other means.

    THAT'S ridiculous.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    I suggested they remove all the statues of Jim Crow politicians - but the only statues left would be of Republicans.

  • Cloudbuster||

    These "told you so" moments used to be delayed by years. Now it's weeks. Things are accelerating.

  • CptNerd||

    Living on Internet time...

  • Rich||

    Moving away from textbook learning could be the first step toward engaging students to not only think for themselves

    Hold on there, Lindsay! Let's not take this thing too far!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Certainly it's not a goal of most of our school system.

  • StackOfCoins||

    It worked for Aristotle.

  • Longtobefree||

    If we don't require textbooks, how can we control what is taught?
    Madness!

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Slippery slope -- what is you?

  • esteve7||

    Gee it's almost as if these fucks just hate america and western civ. Who could have predicted that???

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Never expected the SJWs would read that ridiculous DiLorenzo book

    Anyway can we do Woodrow Wilson next? I know he doesn't have very many but he should have zero

  • IceTrey||

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Maybe in addition to his racism (which he put into federal law, so he's uniquely despicable even for his time), we can tell them all about him getting us into an unnecessary war and insisting on terms of victory that resulted in the next war and damn near destroyed the world, or him cracking down on free speech by throwing antiwar protesters in jail, or using the newly created intelligence agencies to go after his political opponents

    But I guess the racism angle sells better

  • JeremyR||

    People love to say WW1 was unnecessary, but that basically means Germany would get to keep much of France.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    And now that we have the EU they have all of it.

  • Rat on a train||

    WIn, win?

  • The Last American Hero||

    And no Hitler, no WWII.

    Hmmm. Looking for the downside here.

  • damikesc||

    And no Hitler, no WWII.

    Hmmm. Looking for the downside here.

    With no Hitler, the Communists take over Germany instead.

    I'm not seeing that as an improvement.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    1914 would have been a repeat of 1914 if the British had not decided to choose sides. 1916 would have seen it over if the US government had not implicitly chosen sides with wink-nudge approval of all the loans to Britain.

    The 1914 Germans had no more interest in keeping France than did the 1870 Germans.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Geez. 1914 would have been a repeat of 1870.....

  • Bubba Jones||

    No fucks given.

  • Cloudbuster||

    And that would be a problem ... why? Borders weren't super-special, sacrosanct, totems handed down from God and His United Nations at that point. Germans of that day weren't Nazis, they were among the most advanced and civilized people on the continent. There probably would have never been Nazis if the U.S. hadn't interfered.

  • damikesc||

    Maybe in addition to his racism (which he put into federal law, so he's uniquely despicable even for his time), we can tell them all about him getting us into an unnecessary war and insisting on terms of victory that resulted in the next war and damn near destroyed the world, or him cracking down on free speech by throwing antiwar protesters in jail, or using the newly created intelligence agencies to go after his political opponents

    Yeah, Wilson's Palmer raids is why I'll defend McCarthy. He actually did try to avoid naming names without an investigation (Democrats said no to that). The Palmer raids were measures worse than "McCarthyism"...plus, McCarthy was basically correct about his claims.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Fine with this too. Topple away.

  • John||

    Nothing says tolerance and urbanity like destroying art. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me you are a slathering philistine Green. It really doesn't.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I met this one guy who was big into destroying art, a Mr. Isis I believe. Great guy.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    It may have been Mr. Taliban.

    What you call "art" and "history", he calls idolatry and blasphemy. So it's okay.

  • Rich||

    "I may not know 'art', but I know what is blasphemy!"

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It is idolatry.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Oh noes, John is triggered. I thought you would be against publicly funded art, John.

  • John||

    Just because you don't want it funded doesn't mean you want it torn down once it is created. Good God you are fucking stupid

  • Ron||

    many public statues are actually paid for by donations. almost all monuments in DC are and the same with universities

  • John||

    Hey MJ. Why don't you get together with some of your friends and have an old-fashioned book burning? That sounds about your speed.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Any particular reason for this? Is it like a "who cares?" type stance, or do you agree with the political statement being made? I'm curious.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Littla column A, littla column B.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    I label thee unlabelable.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Glib is back in style.

    Everyone wants to be the Bombadil of libertarianism, and nobody wants to be the Frodo.

  • John||

    Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let's be real: He owned slaves,

    Lincoln never owned slaves. He spent his entire adult life in Indiana and Illinois, both of which were free states. These people are fucking scary stupid. Misha Johnson is a fucking retard who needs to be put under some adult supervision before she harms herself or others.

  • ||

    All white men owned slaves. Saying anything else makes you a racist.

    I'm not even sure I'm exaggerating that belief set.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    There's a lot of guilty by association beliefs. i'm still accountable for the sins of my father, even though my family came over from Germany in the 1920s, and were dirt-farmers back in the old country. Even so, we are responsible for slavery in America.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""a lot of guilty by association"'

    No kidding. Fallacies are abound. Seems like a lot of people today don't even know how to make a valid argument, much less a truthful one.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Yesterday I was arguing on Twitter with a professional colleague who also a liberal dipshit.

    According to him and others, if white people see color, they are racist; if they don't see color they are racist.

    I earnestly called racism and segregation evil and stupid, and wanted everyone to be hired on their qualifications. I said that I'd never exclude anyone based on the skin color, gender or sexual preferences - but that I wouldn't include them either. That I don't give a shit, it's all irrelevant.

    And he wanted diversity for the sake of diversity.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It is inaccurate for people to say Lincoln owned slaves because he didn't. Lincoln did marry Mary Todd a wealthy slave owning Kentucky family member though. The lefty morons in college clearly didn't learn that marrying into a family does not mean you all the family's. Property.

    Lincoln also was 100% for deporting all Fred slaves to Liberia and for buying all slaves from southern slave holders to deport them too. Lincoln agreed with the plan to get rid of all black people in the USA.

    Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and arrested dissenters of the civil war. He also ended elections and pretty much declared martial law in Maryland when there was a chance they would secede.

    So, as with many historical figures that we currently have statues of they are good and bad. You cannot erase history but can learn from it and statues help get conversations going.

  • Rod Flash||

    "The lefty morons in college clearly didn't learn that marrying into a family does not mean you all the family's. Property."

    Until they die. Which is why you married the homely bitch in the first place.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Mary Todd was the fourth of seven children and also had nine younger half-siblings. She wasn't inheriting crap.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Why don't we have statues of Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, Bull Connor, and George III then? Wouldn't those be excellent conversation starters too?

  • IceTrey||

    Well there is that that one of Lenin in Seattle.

  • SIV||

    We could have staues of those guys if somebody wanted to pay for them.

  • Cloudbuster||

    There were many statues of Stalin and Lenin, and some still exist. There are statues of George III in England.

    The main difference is that we still consider the South to be America and its history is our history. George, Lenin and Stalin are memorialized or reviled in their own lands (and former Soviet states) as the locals choose -- some regarded the Soviets as invaders, some didn't. I can't read their minds but I'd guess the existing statues of Stalin in former Soviet states probably speaks to some recognition of him as an important historical figure.

  • ||

    I can't read their minds but I'd guess the existing statues of Stalin in former Soviet states probably speaks to some recognition of him as an important historical figure.

    There are some parts of former Soviet states where Stalin is still lionized as Papa Joe. Not to give no credit to today's disinformation machinery, but they were firm believers under Stalin and have never wavered since. At worst, it's all been an American plot, at best, Stalin was a memorable high-water mark.

  • CE||

    But they waged war on us. I've seen the reenactments.

  • Rich||

    Lincoln did marry Mary Todd a wealthy slave owning Kentucky family member though.

    So, Lincoln owned a slave-owner?! That's even *worse*!

  • damikesc||

    Lincoln never owned slaves. He spent his entire adult life in Indiana and Illinois, both of which were free states. These people are fucking scary stupid. Misha Johnson is a fucking retard who needs to be put under some adult supervision before she harms herself or others.

    His family was also dirt-poor.

    Anybody claiming he owned slaves is fucking insane.

    Has anybody asked Misha for views on the folks who SOLD the slaves? You know, the Africans. As I said in college, Europeans didn't go there and kidnap folks.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Has anybody asked Misha for views on the folks who SOLD the slaves?""

    Yeah, everyone wants to blame the demand side of slavery. We suppose to ignore the supply side of it.

  • ||

    Has anybody asked Misha for views on the folks who SOLD sold the slaves? You know, the Africans. As I said in college, Europeans didn't go there and kidnap folks.

    FTFY. Slavery isn't wrong because of the buying and selling of property. It's wrong because it requires the seizure of persons fundamentally as property and thereby violating their rights.

    This is part of the problem with the "National debts aren't so bad, just print more money." idiocy. National debts are intrinsically amoral because you're accruing debt that you/we, yourself/ourselves, can't pay off.

  • ||

    Er... Europeans didn't go there and kidnap folks.

    Kidnapping (and that's being generous) was done and it wasn't the Europeans.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    As dumb as all this is, there is no real question Lincoln was a white supremacist. He was a non-abolitionist who didn't think the negro was on the same level as the white man, should not be treated equally, and should be shipped back to Africa if possible.

    If RE Lee is a white supremacist when he stated that he would gladly free the slaves to avoid the Civil War, then Abraham Lincoln is a white supremacist when he stated that he would gladly leave the slaves in chains to end it.

    You know, if we're going down the batshit-retarded road of judging people from different centuries by modern norms of morality.

  • John||

    MLK was a serial womanizer and abuser of his position. If we are going down this retarded road, I don't think many people are going to like where it leads.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I 100% guarantee you that MLK will be taken down at some point.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Post something online about MLK making statements in direct opposition to modern SJW theory, or mention that the government denied him a firearm permit - folks of all colors will line up to shit on him right now, today.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Probably homosexuality and abortion opinions will come up.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Well, there's all that subversive dog whistling for implicit bias inherent in that judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin thing. He was literally Hitler!

  • CatoTheChipper||

    MLK said all sorts of racist shit like the old racist standby about "being judged on the content of one's character."

    He was also an inveterate sexist who spouted patriarchal nonsense like, "Since crime often grows out of a sense of futility and despair, Negro parents must be urged to give their children the love, attention, and sense of belonging." And, as we see from this quotation, he referred to African Americans with the pejorative "Negro".

  • Brandybuck||

    Let's save that episode until next week. For this week let's all agree that it cannot happen and people who speculate that it will are just evil alt-right Rethuglicans.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    James Earl Ray beat you to it.

  • SIV||

    I hope our future Hispanic majority lynches his brass effigy black ass.

  • Longtobefree||

    An evangelical Christian?
    Really?
    Of course they will.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    I see people claiming that the peaceful protest bullshit has already been tried and failed.

  • IceTrey||

    He was also a homophobe.

  • GILMORE™||

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Alternative cite: Ron Paul's newsletters at your local library.

  • GILMORE™||

    I have seen no proof that Ron Paul is gay.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    That's right. He clearly turned Bruno down.

  • IceTrey||

    MLK not Lincoln.

  • GILMORE™||

    I wouldn't fuck either of them.

  • Mitsima||

    Stop it with historical quotes and consistency, you're just going to confuse the easily duped and anger the willfully ignorant; do you want that on your hands? Do you?!

  • CptNerd||

    You can't spell "fascist" without "facts"!

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    RE Lee is a white supremacist when he stated that he would gladly free the slaves to avoid the Civil War

    Link? I've seen the oft-quoted-out-of-context letter to his wife where he says slavery sucks (his perverse perspective is that it sucks for whites but is good for blacks, which is why whites need to keep doing it), but it doesn't say anything about freeing slaves to avoid war.

    During his invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee rounded up free blacks and sent them south under guard to be sold into slavery. This despite needing every available man to fight the Northern armies! He cared more about selling blacks into slavery than "defending his homeland" or whatever crap Confederate apologists use as an excuse for what he did. If there is any justice he will burn for eternity for that alone.

    I'm not thrilled about some of the things Honest Abe did, but he is no comparison to that fuckwad Lee.

  • damikesc||

    There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former.


    http://civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

    Robert E. Lee, 12/7/1856

  • ||

    Quoting Lee's opinions before the war on the internet, outside the antebellum South? Irrelevant! Out of context!

    Next you'll be saying things like a dead letter reading of Lincoln's words about the superiority of the white race are in no way comparable to the dead letter reading of Lee's notions that the White and Black races could become equals and/or live peaceably. Or you'll be pointing out that Lee killed fewer black men by his own hand, by his orders, or by his policies than Lincoln did. Or somehow idiotically asserting that both men were responsible for the war equally when, in reality, Lee was clearly some manner of unstoppable white slave devil that men like Sherman were nothing but noble in opposing.

    What matters isn't what's recorded or what actually happened or even what their intentions were. What matters is that all of that context doesn't void any small part of some peoples' grade-school narrative.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""You know, if we're going down the batshit-retarded road of judging people from different centuries by modern norms of morality."'

    There seems to be a traffic jam on that road. Too much traffic.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Just wait til someone tells them about that time he tried to send a bunch of black people to live on an island.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Gullah Gullah Island was real to me.

  • IceTrey||

    Crazy Horse killed civilians blow up his monument!

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    I mean the whole idea of monuments is a little silly. It is an atavistic throwback to when our ancestors built idols to trigger auditory hallucinations of their dead leaders.

  • IceTrey||

    Oh you've read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-carmel Mind"?

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Yes, and the sequels as well.

  • Longtobefree||

    How about we let them finish it first, THEN blow it up?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The remarkable thing is that they couldn't even wait a year or so before moving on to the next batch of historical figures on their "to-un-person" list. I guess that's the problem with recruiting an ideological movement from emotionally incontinent adolescents; strategic patience is not an available stratagem.

  • ||

    I honestly like it when the left follows their ideology to its logical conclusions because it exposes how stupid and shallow their whole worldview is.

    I wonder how many of the students upset with Lincoln on campus have Che Guervera shirts and posters in their dorm rooms or fly the hammer and sickle when they protest.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Were you born in 88 or is that a stormfront reference?

  • SIV||

    Enough with the Brown Scare shit, comrade.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Serious question.

  • Bubba Jones||

    His handle links to an email address with 1988. So, birthday.

  • AndyWingall||

    Guevara put homosexuals in labor camps to "make men of them" and shot thousands of college students for listening to rock n roll, that awful American imperialist invention. He wrote about it in "Motorcycle Diaries," although that version failed to make it into any of Hollywood's films about their uber cool anti-American hero. If I were to dis Che in a crowd of homosexuals or college students, I wouldn't survive my escape. I once wore a Ronald Reagan t-shirt mocking the Che one and two fat homosexual men literally drove their car onto the sidewalk, jumped out and began to beat me up before I even realized what was happening. This was in Chicago around 2006. I'm also homosexual. It's never been about issues--it's always been about communism. You cannot make this shit up.

  • AndyWingall||

    I wonder if they'll get around to toppling that statue of another white european man--the one in Seattle of Lenin. Something tells me probably not. It hasn't even faced vandalism in Seattle after 20 years.

  • IceTrey||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The mayor actually was calling to have it removed. Though he left in disgrace due to multiple charges of child molestation.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    The bitch set him up.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Lincoln used war to preserve and expand the union.

    That is how countries typically settle border disputes.

  • ||

    It's actually surprisingly apt.

    Lincoln couldn't and didn't end slavery in this country (The 13th wasn't adopted and ratified until after his death). What he could do was occupy a newly-created foreign power and selectively impose the Union's will on it. Like W nation-building in the ME except Saddam and/or the Taliban killed way more people directly and didn't really/exactly use them as slave labor.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    If you hate Abraham Lincoln, then you are so racist.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Finally something the left and the KKK can agree on.

  • Bra Ket||

    they agree on almost everything actually.

  • Devastator||

    Lincoln never owned slave. What kind of fucking idiots are these protestors anyway? Make facts up on the spot like Trump.

  • Longtobefree||

    Liberals. That kind of idiot.

  • ||

    Make facts up on the spot like Trump.

    Not true! They've thought long and hard about the facts they make up.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Not Even Lincoln Is Spared the Wrath of the Statue Topplers

    Statues of Lincoln should be torn down.
    He was the racist who ended slavery in this country.
    The bastard!

  • Rockabilly||

    The marxists will never be satisfied until all history or herstory is pure and in accordance with Central Committee.

    This is an ongoing project and is in honor of Chairman Mao's Long March to Pure Communism.

    My advise is never to apologize to the communists who see this as a sign of weakness and will forever attack you with sticks and chains.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Yeah, I think we're in the Cultural Revolution phase right now. Lincoln is part of the Four Olds.

  • CE||

    Don't tell them where Mt. Rushmore is.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Crazy brainwashed people are crazy. And brainwashed.

  • cc2||

    There are no heroes so perfect that they would survive scrutiny except some saints, but the anti-religion nutjobs won't accept any saints because they weren't revolutionary enough or woke or some shit. Every human is flawed, every artist, every politician, every farmer, all of them. And when the party line changes from day to day, there is no possibility that statues from 100 years ago will be found to be acceptable. The statue of Joan of Arc in New Orleans has even been vandalized.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I agree. The biggest problem we're seeing here is an unwillingness to see anything except black and white. People do it too extreme and make gods out of mortals as well. But right now it seems that we're seeing more of this type. Tearing down all of the past as it is always found wanting.

  • Rich||

    The statue of Joan of Arc in New Orleans has even been vandalized.

    Why? For mocking the Association of Retarded Citizens? 8-(

  • ||

    Seriously, it should be pretty evident that these people have been carrying 'Abraham Lincoln owned slaves.' around for quite some time waiting to lay it on someone. While Trump, OTOH, would carry the same notion around for the time between being asked about it and tweeting about it. Maybe a full news cycle if the media decided to call him on it.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    It is wrong to say Lincoln ever owned slaves[...]


    What do you mean "it is wrong"? It goes beyond a mere peccadillo - this is stating an obviously blatant falsehood. There are plenty of things one can hate about Lincoln but that doesn't give anyone license to tell such ridiculous lies.

  • Tony||

    There is a moral argument to be made that, as there remain victims of European colonization, we are compelled to give the country back to them from whom it was stolen. This imperative would be even stronger among natural property rights advocates who also support inheritance rights. I.e., we're all living on stolen property. Say what you will about Indians, they didn't take the Americas from anyone else.

    But we don't wanna, so we're not gonna. We're still gonna believe in stupid natural property rights bullshit though, aren't we?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Say what you will about Indians, they didn't take the Americas from anyone else."

    I look forward to your upcoming novel, "Comanches, Apaches and Aztecs: The Pioneers of Anti-Imperialism".

  • ||

    And his follow-up tome, Nigeria: Perhaps They Were Europeans All Along.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Innocence Lost: The Zulus' First Contact With European Imperialism".

  • Mitsima||

    "La Maya: Carne de Maiz"

    The Maya: Flesh from Corn

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And I haven't stolen anything from a Native American. But then, I'm sure you agree that the grand-children of mass murderers and rapists should be made to serve their fathers' sentences in their absence. It would hardly be logically consistent of you to say otherwise...

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    No, but if your grandfather stole something, you have to give it back if the heir comes calling. And contrary to what Hoppe claims, it doesn't become rightfully yours if you murder all the heirs.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I will be sure to inform the Native American community of your acquiescence to their request to forfeit your credenza. It was made from old growth redwood, you see. Early 19th century. The Native community appreciates your taste in decor, but politely submits that it is rightfully theirs, and that they will also be needing approximately 40,000 in adjusted dollars to cover the costs of the last 200 years of unpaid rental charges, as well as emotional damages. Your progressive enlightenment is appreciated.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    What the hell are you talking about. I don't have a redwood credenza.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Please tell me this reply was a failed attempt at sarcasm, rather than an actual inability to recognize my fairly unsubtle analogy.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    That was not sarcasm, but taking your analogy literally. There are other forms of humor besides sarcasm.

    Now to your analogy. At what point does plunder become legitimate property? Because that is what we are talking about here, if you can show previous ownership of the redwood tree based on libertarian principles.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The redwood in question, in my analogy, was originally grown on the territory of the Ohfuckseeya tribe of northern California (they're really edgy, you've probably never heard of them). Said tribe was conquered in 1869 by Colonel Stache at the Battle of Ouchy Elbow and was relocated to a reservation, with their beautiful redwood forest being sold off to one Mr. Ebeneezer Koch, whose family then spent the next hundred years slowly chopping apart the trees, taking regular intervals to carefully pour salt in the axe marks and making a point of killing saplings right in front of their parent trees, eventually selling a tree's worth of wood to Ye Olde Wooden Stuffe And Repair Shoppe, who then fashioned several credenzas out of said wood and sold one to Mr. Early Morning, who then passed it down to his son Groggy, and then on down to his (daughter?) Chipper. At which point the Ohfuckseeya reservation made contact with Mr./Ms. C. Morning and asserted their natural right to his/her antique.

    Did Mr. E. Koch rightfully own the redwoods? No. Did his son, Snidely Koch? Probably not. Or his grandson, Lex L. Koch? Maybe. But does C. Morning owe the Ohfuckseeyas the time of day? No.

    I don't know where exactly to draw "the line", but we are definitely well past it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Because I, like, totally needed someone to explain what sarcasm is.

  • SIV||

    Say what you will about Indians, they didn't take the Americas from anyone else.

    Don't know much about prehistory?

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Yeah, weren't there Mormons here already?

  • ||

    I knew you were ignorant but I didn't realize its depth.

    No. There's no moral argument to be made. It's the story of HUMANITY.

  • Tony||

    I guess that's one benefit of sticking to a rigid dogma. No time wasted on thought experiments!

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Meet the new Tony, stupider than some of the old Tony's.

  • CE||

    He's actually making a valid point, if an impractical one. Land taken by "right of conquest" isn't land that's morally owned. The problem is most of the land owned by homeowners has changed hand many times, with courts and local governments guaranteeing clear title. But there are large tracts of federal land which ought to be handed over to the heirs of the original inhabitants, if they can establish a reliable claim.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Say what you will about Indians, they didn't take the Americas from anyone else."

    Wrong again Tony. Cite your source.

    From the obscure and hard to find Wikipedia:
    Available scientific evidence indicates that modern humans emerged from Africa over 100,000 years ago, yet did not arrive in the Americas until less than 20,000 years ago.

    Just a few years before your "Indians". Most tribes that were on the NA continent when Europeans arrived were on land taken by force from "the ones who were before" (or some similar description, depending on the tribal legends.) Even your buddies kept fighting over, and taking from each other, various bits and pieces of land as deemed necessary at the time.

    The evil white man just happened to it best and last.

  • RabbitHead||

    Not last. Latest.

    Someone else will be along shortly. They won't be last either. It has always been thus.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    The Osage were recently driven west of the Mississippi by enemy tribes.

  • Rich||

    Say what you will about Indians, they didn't take the Americas from anyone else.

    *** rising intonation ***

    What about the buffalos?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Yeah!?

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Whereas I hold the truth: the government decides what's stealing and what isn't.

    Suck that, Indians!

  • damikesc||

    Say what you will about Indians, they didn't take the Americas from anyone else.

    By the time the Europeans got here, the Indians had been nearly wiped out by disease.

    And how do you know nobody was here when they came from Asia? Do you assume they'd be terribly anal about protecting their legacy, something few societies did thousands of years ago?

    And, using your logic --- why is there any call, at all, for Israel to give up any land? They were there long before Islam existed.

  • Longtobefree||

    On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates". Genesis 15:18

  • Mickey Rat||

    So when are you going back to the Old Country?

    And to what extent does this apply?

    Do the Turks need to vacate Istanbul and Anatolia so to give them back to the Greejd and go back to Central Asia?

    Do the English need to quit England and give it back to the Welsh and return to the Saxon homeland in Germany?

    There are thousands of other places where this will have to be done. Moving comoanies are goingto be making a killing.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Robert Heinlein didn't. Or he at least had a character in Starship Troopers spout a bunch of non-Moore deontology.

  • SIV||

    Lincoln is a communist hero and his image has been appropriated by communists

    You Lincoln-lovers remained silent so you lost the right to Lincoln as an American hero. Lincoln=Communism.

  • Lily Bulero||

    At least the students have been watching The Independents.

  • ||

    Remember when Reason published the Judge's works?

    Mi ricordi.

  • SIV||

    Commies love Lincoln

    Ima gonna go topple some pennies.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    We all know what that euphemism means. Poor rooster.

  • Longtobefree||

    Fake news.
    Not even Wikipedia claims those guys. They could have created the page in a few minutes if they really existed.

    And I quote:
    "Did you mean: wung sheep
    The page "Wunk Sheek" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created.

    There were no results matching the query."

  • Lily Bulero||

    "Two [ethnicity omitted], one sheep"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Maybe, though Wikipedia does delete articles for relevancy now.

  • Bra Ket||

    There's other groups and incidents besides them listed in the story.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let's be real: He owned slaves

    Bzzzt. Sorry, Misha Johnson is too stupid for the expenditure of the time it would take to listen to her.

    "Here's your sign."

  • Miter Broller||

    Ah, to able to look at history through the lens of perfection! P.S. why do they treat their ancestors as these passive, pastoral peoples who lived in complete harmony with the environment and each other? They were warlike, had territorial boundaries, raped, pillaged and burned. Don't often read about that?!

  • Longtobefree||

    True. And tortured.
    BUT, they were/are not of European descent, so all if forgiven.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yes, there must be victims [usually based on racial minority status] and oppressors [always based on majority racial status]. Without that where the hell would the narrative be?

  • CE||

    They are of Siberian descent, and before that, African. Just like us.

  • JWDAVIS||

    ...38 Dakota men out of more than 300 convicted of war crimes...

    War criminals today are still executed...so?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Revising how history is taught in schools and universities is a possible solution to the complex question. Perhaps teachers could incorporate more first person accounts from a broader spectrum of voices to paint a more accurate picture of the past. Moving away from textbook learning could be the first step toward engaging students to not only think for themselves, but to grapple with the moral complexity of history's key figures

    Are you stupid?

    This is what's being done--and the idiots who think Lincoln owned slaves are the result.

    History has become a sickening miasma of leftist wishful thinking masquerading as fact--first hand accounts are disparaged in favor of Marxist parablizing.

    We're not allowed to look at the complexity of history's key figures because then we might have to admit that they did something besides oppress, rape, and murder.

  • MJBinAL||

    Not only are these students stupid, but they are righteously stupid. Demanding and expecting their stupidity be enshrined and venerated.

    Wonderful. Where are their parents?

  • AndyWingall||

    If I were going to topple Lincoln's statues it would be because he suspended the U.S. Constitution "for the common good." I think the Left might find he and them have much in commonality.

  • Hank Phillips||

    You know who else suspended Constitutional provisions to put the "Common Good before the Individual Good"?

  • jmp||

    Or.... I can respond the way I ought to. Displaying patience, listening better. Not approaching this on the defensive. I can recognize that the people screaming here are in pain. We all are.

    I'm not virtue signalling. I probably won't do these things. Or I'll do them half-assed and I'll let every poor soul in my vicinity know what I am doing so that I can receive credit.

    But at the end of the day, the internal feedback I receive will admonish me and the cycle of pain will continue.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "the people screaming here are in pain"

    Not being given attention for more than 20 seconds has a tendency to make inchoate narcissists upset, yes. That is the opposite of a reason to be sympathetic to them.

  • nicmart||

    Anyone aware Lincoln's personal views knows he was a white supremacist. Maybe reason should find better informed contributors.

  • Azathoth!!||

    See?

    This moron actually BELIEVES that the leftist dribble it's had injected into it's head is REAL.

  • SecedeTexas||

    Lincoln was a tyrant. Tear down all his monuments.

  • Blandly Urbane||

    What about the children? We don't want them to have to grapple and/or think.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Abe DID sign a communist income tax law. And the Emancipation Proclamation was copied from Lord Dunmore's earlier attempt to enlist freedmen and contraband as cannon fodder for the Protective Tariff Customs Union. If the commies ever find out about the London Red Republican translation of the Manifesto, and its mention in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," CPUSA will post sentries to protect Lincoln's monuments!

  • jcbinok||

    History's messy.

    Joseph-François Lfitau, who lived for five years among the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)... wrote in 1724:

    "Nothing is more real than this superiority of the women…. All real authority is vested in them. The land, the fields and their harvest all belong to them. They are the souls of the Councils, the arbiters of peace and of war. They have charge of the public treasury. To them are given the slaves...


    Oops, Native Americans were slavers in 1724 way up by Montreal.

  • TxJack 112||

    Finally this insanity has reached the point that these groups are showing their true colors. They are not seeking "equality" in the traditional sense that Americans think when they hear the term. They are Marxists who want to destroy everything about this country and reshape it into their ideal all powerful, centralized, communist vision where basic freedoms are outlawed and the government, not the people, decide the amount of freedom granted to its citizens. Hopefully, as these morons become more and more extreme the average fence-sitter will realize how much of a threat they really are and start to help do something to stop them. Soros poured 18 billion, the bulk of his fortune, into his foundation which has but a single purpose, destroy the United States as a world power and leave the globalists in charge of everything.

  • ||

    "...the govt., not the people, decide the amount of freedom granted..."? The people have already given the govt. that power. And the govt. is still not satisfied. It will continue to expand its power until the US Empire is as free as North Korea.

    U.S.S.A. has evolved from the disolution of state sovereignty by Lincoln. No secession means the 2nd best check on the fed disappeared. The best check slowly eroaded in the govt. (public) schools.

    What difference does it make who is "in charge" of your life, if its not you?

  • ||

    The national breakup into groups with special gripes plays right into the hands of TPTB. They love to redirect discontent by encouraging infighting, especially over injustice that cannot be rectified.

    But if a statue is a reminder of evil to some, pride to others, and the rise of statism to libertarians and it provokes debate and research, so much the better. It is a good thing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online