Without much notice or debate, Maryland officials ordered the removal of the statue of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney due to his authorship of the Dredd Scott decision. At midnight, workers quietly dismantled the statue in response to the violence in Charlottesville. Taney’s statue stood for 145 years on the Maryland State House and his removal follows calls for the removal of statues not simply of confederate figures but founders like George Washington and others associated with either slavery or segregation. I have cautioned against the wholesale removal of historical images and monuments and names at universities. The flaws and failures of historical figures are often as more important than their triumphs. The Taney removal reflects a widening array of figures who are now subject to call for removal — beyond confederate statuary. It is not clear what Maryland will do with the US Coast Guard Cutter Taney which currently is part of the Baltimore Maritime Museum. It is last surviving active ship from the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941. I have spent nights on the Taney with the Cub Scouts. While this is not on state lands, it is not clear if there will also be a demand that the ship be removed given its namesake or how far this movement to remove historical references will do.
Taney’s decision in Dredd Scott remains as one of the lowest moments for the Supreme Court and for the country. Taney’s infamous words in the opinion capture the chilling racism and inhumanity of the time. Taney stated that the rights of African Americans had to be based on the original intent of the Constitution but that the framers believed that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”
Taney was wrong on the law and on the wrong side of history. He was a Jacksonian Democrat from Maryland who freed the slaves inherited from his father and gave pensions to some of them. He served as Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury. When the Civil War began, he stayed with the North and continued to serve on the Supreme Court. He also joined in Justice Joseph Story’s magnificent decision in favor of the slaves who took over the Spanish schooner Amistad. Yet he also referred to “Northern aggression” in the war and appeared to remain a supporter of slavery. Ironically, he died on the day that Maryland abolished slavery near the end of the war.
Taney had a narrow view of federal authority and judicial power. That was reflected in one of his more famous decisions in Luther v. Borden where he articulated a dividing line between between political questions and justiciable ones: “the powers given to the courts by the Constitution are judicial powers and extend to those subject, only, which are judicial in character, and not to those which are political.”
Taney’s decision in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861), remains one of the most important decisions in history limiting the power of presidents and defending the the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under the Constitution’s Suspension Clause. In the Dredd Scott decision, Taney ruled with nine other justices that Congress had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery into federal territories and that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
Taney’s decision in Dredd Scott warrants condemnation. However, the dismantling of the Taney statue indicates that the scope of the current movement for statuary removals is broader than just confederate statues. We have seen demands for the removal of Columbus statues and other historical figures. As I mentioned recently, what concerns me is the lack of any public debate over calls for the removal of memorials and others (like Justices). There are a host of justices who wrote terrible decisions that denied rights to others. For example, Tenth Circuit Courthouse is named after Byron White who authored the opinion in Bowers v. Hardwich, upholding laws criminalizing homosexuality. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell in favor of forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities. He said “society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind” and ended the opinion by declaring that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
It is not clear if other names and statues like Holmes’ or Whites or others will also be removed or what standard will be applied in such cases. From abortion to gay rights to internments, there are an array of opinions that are shock our conscience. Yet, eight other justices signed on to Buck and seven signed off on Scott. Likewise, as discussed in my recent column, there is a movement to strip away Woodrow Wilson’s name from Princeton University due to his support for segregation. There are good faith objections to some of these figures but there is currently no clear standard for which statues are to be removed. Indeed, the majority of polled citizens do not favor even the removal of the confederate statues. This would seem an ideal time for hearings in Congress and other forums to discuss how we should treat historical figures. One alternative to dismantling statues is to add additional statuary or, as will be done at the Jefferson memorial, add information on slave holding.
What do you think?
The ship will be fine.
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall also has a statue in Lawyers Mall/Statehouse Square in Annapolis.
Since his 1973 decision favoring abortion rights has resulted in the murders of over 19 million African American children alone, I don’t understand why his statue (and name on the Baltimore Airport) is allowed to stand.
How can Taney’s removal be justified and Marshall’s statue remains?
A fetus is not a child.
Learn some biology.
Fetal homicide laws say they are, Mr. Liberal. 38 states currently recognize “the unborn child” [the most used term..fetus used less often] as homicide victims. and, Mr. Child hater, this includes those backward states like California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota..I could go on. Abortion is the obsession of old liberal women and old hippie men like you. It’s a losing issue, but please keep spewing your unscientific propaganda.
I just checked California abortion law and you are wrong.
Learn some basic biology before you spout off…
Fetal homicide laws, ass eyes. Not abortion laws which you consider a sacrament. You kill a pregnant woman and you are also responsible for the death of the unborn child. California Penal Code 187[a]. Now do something useful, go make me a sandwich. You should be smart enough to do that..I’ve seen retards working @ Subway.
The downtown Subway is closed for remodeling after an arson set fire. Did you do it?
California = Nuthouse
Abortion = Complete Insanity
“Abortion law” is an oxymoron and a contradiction in rationality and terms.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Excellent retort, Nick!
No, because he diverted the point, not directly addressed it.
Accept it David. Nick was right and you are wrong. But, that is a story that is repeated over and over again.
He was off topic.
No he wasn’t. He said “Fetal homicide laws say they are” and you started to talk about abortion laws.
You don’t even recognize that a fetus at a certain age can live outside of the womb and is the same as a child except for location.
You even think you are a diversity expert living in an area that is 94% non-black non-hispanic.
The original post was about Thurgood Marshall.
Not what you stated.
Nick was responding to your statement, “A fetus is not a child.”
I know you are going through your second childhood, but…
A fetus is an unborn child and at certain ages the fetus is developed enough so it can live outside the womb.
David, you are the one that needs to learn biology.
The first part of your first sentence is wrong. The second part is correct.
Go study some more before spouting off…
If you wish to use the dictionary word “offspring” go ahead, but the definition of offspring is a person’s child when we are dealing with humans.
You might prefer to call a living human a fetus so you can kill it a lot easier and play definitional games while you wash the blood off your hands, but we know that at a certain age that fetus that is killed could have lived outside the womb as a child so the difference is location without any real differentiation between the two.
Check the various dictionaries and take note that your definitions of things are shallow and lack an understanding of the full meaning of many words and deeds.
The biological definition of a human fetus is precise. Go learn it rather than bloviating.
David, I’ll make it easy for uninquisitive mind.
if you have an Apple try clicking on the word “fetus” and look at the definition. Alternatively go and look other dictionaries. Some people will say anything to avoid being called child killers.
I know the definition and it appears you fail to read correctly.
Start with “zygote”.
I can’t help it, but everytime I open the dictionary it repeats the same definition you can’t seem to grasp.You do realize that something can have more than one correct name don’t you?
Click on the word and see for yourself.
“A fetus is not a child.”
Yeah. Except it is.
__________________________________________________________________________
What’s wrong with this picture? Answer: The stages of the human life cycle do not exist without a fetus.
– Birth
– Infancy
– Childhood
– Adolescence
– Adulthood
___________________________________________________________________________________
It’s not that liberals are fraudulent and deceptive.
It’s that they are liars.
Pity the long suffering students in public school and liberal universities.
Truth – there outta be a law.
A “fetus” is a child. Learn some biology.
Jay Susan – Marshall’s statue must come down.
On the contrary, he was a fine supreme.
If America had experienced “fine supremes,”
Americans would not even know what a
redistributive (replete with masses of beneficiaries
of “Affirmative Action Privilege”) welfare state is
much less be burdened by an onerous one.
so by removing all offensive parts of history we are going to learn from it by repeating it, destroying all that is ourselves whether past and/or present so as to create a new future that is blind and ignorant of its past. Stupidity to the extreme.
If we want to go this route then I find slavery offensive. Lets tear it from the history books.
Remove all coverage of the Civil War and Slavery.
Ban the plagiarized ‘Roots’ as well. Do not talk about MLK either.
Anonemouse – Alex Haley having to admit he plagarized the whole Africa section of his book was a major literary scandal. And yet, people seem to have forgotten, or it is no longer mentioned.
The media has refused to touch it. Why? Because ‘Roots’ was ripped off from a book written by a White man.
Anonemouse – Alex Haley having to admit he plagarized the whole Africa section of his book was a major literary scandal.
The plagiarized segments made up about 2% of the text.
Per the 3d Mrs. Haley, the book was finished in an 18 month marathon of writing by the two of them. She said it was a disorganized mass of material at the time the two began the last leg of the project. It’s a reasonable wager she wrote the disputed passages working from notes and typescripts of notes, and was not aware that they’d been cribbed from the Courlander volume.
DSS – that is not what the jury decided.
The only statue here is of a cougar.
Stupid moves by stupid people. What next? “Improving” history by removing all objectionable passages in history books? Bottom line, this is no different than book burning, the clear signs of a society beyond the brink of collapse. These “attacks” on statues, monuments, buildings, etc., will only exacerbate a volatile situation. Instead, why not deal with the real problems of the nation, like taking care of the hungry, unemployed, homeless; dealing fairly with legal and illegal immigrants, and establishing an affordable, comprehensive, national health care? Deal with the discontent caused by injustice and gradually the hate lessens as the fear does. But if civil unrest, chaos, violence and war is desired then Trump’s America tops the list of success.
Yup.
Farhenheit 451.
Someone, anyone, who agrees with the notion of slavery should be enslaved and kept as a slave for the rest of their lifetime. Taney is one. So are all the dorks out there who stand up for Bobby Lee. Live free or die!
The town of Kingston in North Carolina was founded prior to the American Revolution. After the Revolution they removed the letter “g”. So it is Kinston. Many folks live there with their kin. It is common for a man to marry second cousin once removed. The women have been depressed ever since the “g spot” was removed.
the tyranny of the left, which it tries to keep under wraps, is now in full view. disgusting. and to think i was a liberal for 55 years. now i belong to no party. probably will never vote again, as i see the govt. as hopelessly corrupt and broken. but i always read your writings….appreciate them very much, for their fairness
Many share your sentiments. In desperation, I have joined the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM). If successful, a Republic of Texas (if it fully adheres to foundational principles) may be our last best hope. It was a great ride, but I’m afraid it’s been over for some time now. No Pollyanna I.
Get ur done
Texas?
No way! You already need two jobs to live in Texas, one just to pay your property taxes, the other to live.
After Texas leaves the union, you would need a third job after the existing bureaucracy taxes you even more to make up for the shortfall it no longer would receive from the federal government. You are dreaming to believe the parasitic bureaucracy in Texas would downsize itself or give you any more slack than the parasites in Washington. A parasite is what it is, no matter its stripes, it’s religion, its geography, or its planet. We’d all be better hanging together so we can hang’m in Washington! Property taxes in liberal Texas counties are already as high as we see on the East Coast, even New England included.
So, I guess your answer is to yield. No thanks. By the way, go to their site. Facts and figures. Texas does not need the feds. Quite the contrary. Texas would be FAR better off financially without the burden of statehood/vassal. And, of course, TNM’s sole purpose in separating would be to restore constitutional order, not to make a buck. Meaningful goal. Anyway, check out their site before drawing conclusions.
The East Coast has high property taxes, PLUS high income taxes.
I’ll stick with no personal income tax Texas, thanks.
Professor Turley,
“…courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Alexander Hamilton –
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
This is all you need to know and precisely what you misunderstand. The power is that of the People. The People exercise their power through the legislative branch which directs the executive branch. There is but one legislative branch and it is distinctly not the judicial. The judicial branch is intended honorably but singularly to be the Constitution in robes; nothing more.
The Constitution provides for the impeachment of all civil Officers of the United States for crimes of high office and, for 227 years, there have been no more egregious and deleterious crimes than those of the judicial branch. Usurpation of power by judges and justices as they “legislate from the bench” should have been swiftly terminated to establish and exercise abiding and immutable control by the People over judges, courts and justices.
Justice Taney –
“the powers given to the courts by the Constitution are judicial powers and extend to those subjects, only, which are judicial in character, and not to those which are political.”
Opposition to the words of Justice Taney constitutes opposition to the very Constitution itself. Thank you for demonstrating the total corruption of American governance by the “imperial” judiciary. Of course, the judicial branch must never issue political decisions. Had the Supreme Court not been political, it would have precluded “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” and the Civil War by declaring secession constitutional and final as the natural and god-given right of the South, just as the United States seceded from Great Britain, current day Britain engaged in its “Brexit” and California, Catalonia, Scotland, Bangladesh, Pakistan, West Virginia and every nation in the former Soviet Union, all, availed themselves of their right to secession.
It is preposterous to claim that legal and deeded property is entitled to benefit from and subject to the Constitution, which is irrefutably limited to the citizens of the nation which adopted it. Slaves were legal and deeded property.
It is preposterous to denigrate Justice Taney for reading the literal words and “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, while supporting Justice Roberts who arbitrarily amended the Constitution and corruptly commingled the definitions of the words “state” and “federal” as an arrogant and contemptuous political act.
Slavery was known to have been in its final throes upon the adoption of the Constitution by the Founders. Washington provided freedom to his slaves in his will. Slavery should have been eliminated through the application of market devices such as marketing/promotion, boycotts and divestiture. After 250 years of legal slavery, it was criminal for Lincoln to kill Americans to change the legal status of slaves, which could have been accomplished rapidly if people in Europe and America had truly desired it. It was far worse to weaken the law in a society of laws.
Excellent comment, sir.
Well I just can’t see how anything could go wrong with this. My side is all good. No one has any flaws whatsoever. They have never done anything remotely wrong, cruel or unjust. They are perfect. So that’s why I’m really not worried at all. Well, maybe there was one time things didn’t go right, however, in this case, the artist did offend a member of the oligarchy, so I guess I’m o.k. with having his work destroyed now that I’ve come to worship the majesty that is the oligarchy!
“When Mexican artist Diego Rivera was commissioned in 1932 to do a mural in the middle of Manhattan’s Rockefeller Center, some might have wondered whether industrialist tycoon John D. Rockefeller Jr. knew what he was getting into.
In 1934, the legendary artist’s work was chiseled off the wall.
Now, in Washington, D.C., the Mexican Cultural Institute has mounted a show that tells what happened to Rivera’s mural.”
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/287745199/destroyed-by-rockefellers-mural-trespassed-on-political-vision
“Trump, Calling Journalists ‘Sick People,’ Puts Media on Edge”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/trump-rally-media-attack.html
From the article:
While criticizing media coverage has long been a surefire tactic to rile up crowds, the depth of the president’s most recent jabs took even seasoned journalists by surprise. He called journalists “sick people,” accused the news media of “trying to take away our history and our heritage” and questioned their patriotism.
“I really think they don’t like our country,” he said.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump would frequently turn the attention of rallygoers to the areas containing journalists, who would then be greeted with obscenities and taunts. Journalists are well-accustomed to being disliked at his rallies.
But Tuesday’s remarks struck a tone that alarmed journalists more than usual. Margaret Sullivan, a media columnist for The Washington Post, called it “the most sustained attack any president has ever made on the press.”
“To see this sort of attack coming yet again from the president is deeply disturbing,” said Courtney C. Radsch, the advocacy director for the Committee to Protect Journalists. “It creates an environment in which attacks on the press, both verbal and potentially physical, could become common.” – NY Times
The bizarre performances are beginning to affect the stock market. The attack on John McCain was both cruel and tasteless.
John McCain deserves all the abuse he gets, Hw and his boyfriend Lindsey are constantly agitating for war all over the world.
“It creates an environment in which attacks on the press, both verbal and potentially physical, could become common.”
Doesn’t President Trump know that inciting verbal and physical attacks on our citizens is a right reserved for the press and the extremist groups?
The lame stream media is predominatelyly void of integrity.
“…criticizing media coverage has long been a surefire tactic to rile up crowds,…”
Looks like somebody “riled up” the communists.
Can you say Steve Scalise?
“Steve Scalise must “relearn” how to walk after Alexandria shooting, Paul Ryan says”
There are madmen but in the USA there are no communists.
” in the USA there are no communists.”
Tell that to John Bachtell, the chairman of the communist party. You are a fund of misinformation.
So, there is one. But is he really a communist?
Are you of human intelligence?
See Tom Wolfe on journalists, and see Stanley Rothman’s literature on the comparative features of occupational groups. Reporters are drawn heavily from the population of those who got knocked-around in schoolyards; unlike others who suffered that, reporters have power-drives and want revenge.
Always the expert.
Dr. Rothman was an expert.
DSS says: “reporters have power-drives and want revenge”
Give us a little data to back that up, desperate — especially the part about wanting “revenge.”
anonymous, DSS generally provides a degree of content whether you agree with it or not. In your last 5 posts, nearly in a row, what did you provide?
The insanity of Leftism continues unabated. In the latest instance of insanity, ESPN pulled Asian Sports announcer Robert Lee from coverage of the forthcoming University Virginia football game because the name “Robert Lee” SOUNDS like “Robert E. Lee” and that could “trigger” some people. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/business/media/robert-lee-university-virginia-charlottesville.html?mcubz=3
Yes, at any other time in the history of the United States, such behavior would result in the individuals responsible for this decision being committed to a mental asylum. But now this is the new norm, as the Leftists are firmly in control of the U.S. Military-Industrial-Complex, including the major corporations and the mainstream media. There is no end in sight. Leftism is a cancer that must continue to expand until it kills its host. In this case, the “host” is Civilization.
Greenfield mentions a whole host of different ideologies and colors that have lived together in parks for years so I have posted the entire article here. Pick your choice and who you like someone else might hate.
All the Statues Must Go
Either all the statues go or they all stay.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
Back in May, a New Orleans statue of Joan of Arc was tagged with “Tear it Down” graffiti.
Why Joan of Arc? Any famous historical figure is by definition controversial. Joan is a French national symbol, but Shakespeare depicted her as a malicious witch. The French Quarter where the statue stands is a mostly white neighborhood. France was dealing with a controversial election.
This is what happens when you open a can of historical, religious and nationalistic worms.
The war on Confederate memorials quickly escalated into attacks on Abraham Lincoln. The Lincoln Memorial was vandalized in Washington D.C. and in Chicago, a statue of Lincoln was burned. Abraham Lincoln fought the Confederacy. But from a black nationalist perspective, Lincoln and Lee were both racist white devils. And to the left, they both embody white supremacy.
What began with tearing down General Lee, escalated to vandalizing statues of Junipero Serra.
Serra was an 18th century Catholic priest who set up missions in what is now California. He’s hated by some American Indian activists who accuse him of racism and colonialism. There are statues of Serra all over California. And while most Americans have never heard of him, a pitched battle is underway between Catholics who venerate him as a saint and left-wing activists who call him a genocidal racist.
These leftist activists began by vandalizing Columbus statues and then Junipero Serra. But Serra was also America’s first Latino saint. To Latinos, Serra is a hero. To some American Indians, he’s a villain. And Christopher Columbus is in the same boat. The statues of Columbus spread across America were often put up by Italian-American associations. Italian-Americans marched in Columbus Day festivals. Serra pits Latinos against American Indians. Italian-Americans and American Indians face off over Columbus.
The battle over Junipero Serra is a microcosm of the gaping national and religious fault lines on which so many statues stand. Our towns and cities are full of statues celebrating some group’s version of history. The civil society we used to have allowed different groups to each celebrate the heroes of their history.
It’s not just Confederate memorials that are the controversial remnants of an old war. The Hundred Years War that Joan was part of had its own winners and losers. And if that seems like ancient history, our cities are full of memorials and statues featuring Irish, Italian and Latin American nationalist figures.
Springfield, Massachusetts has a garden dedicated to the 1916 Easter Rising. There’s a statue of Irish nationalist Robert Emmet in Washington D.C.’s Triangle Park. Three miles away stands a statue of Winston Churchill near the British Embassy. There is a great deal of national history that separates both men, but they can coexist together in our civic spaces because of mutual historical tolerance.
There can be a statue of James Connolly in Chicago and of Winston Churchill in Fulton, Missouri.
If we have to start picking and choosing between Irish nationalists and British leaders, one set of statues would have to be torn down. And then eventually both sets. Every historical figure is controversial.
New York’s Central Park has equestrian statues of Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti and General Jose de San Martin. All the statues are controversial in their own way. It took years to get the Marti statue mounted. At one point anti-Castro Cuban exiles covertly put up a replica in its place in the middle of the night.
You don’t have to be a politician or soldier for your Central Park statue to be controversial. Dr. J Marion Sims, the father of modern gynecology, was targeted by black nationalist protesters for operating on slave women without anesthesia. Never mind that anesthesia wasn’t widely used at the time. To the medical profession, Dr. Sims is a hero. To the black nationalist leftists, he’s a villain.
If the anti-statue protesters get their way, the only statue left in the park will be Alice in Wonderland.
Black nationalists in New York have been allowed to name streets and parks after racists and Nazi collaborators like W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X. The other side of the bargain that allowed black nationalists to have their own heroes, no matter how racist and terrible they were, is tolerance for the other groups exercising that same privilege. The anti-statue campaign violates that bargain. And like breaking the other bargains that maintain a civil society, it begins a civil war.
It’s not just Charlottesville, Baltimore or New Orleans. It’s vandals running around California and vandalizing Columbus and Serra. It’s Lincoln being set on fire and Joan of Arc getting vandalized.
In Glendale, California, Korean and Japanese groups are battling over a memorial to the “Comfort women” who were raped by the Japanese military during WWII. It’s yet another example of how a multicultural society becomes filled with explosive battles over history that can only be resolved with mutual tolerance or centralized censorship. The left has opted for the latter. And that’s dangerous.
Trying to make things better instead often makes them worse.
After the left complained that there were too few statues of female historical figures in New York, Bryant Park got a hideous statue of a squatting Gertrude Stein. While Stein was gay, with points for the LGBT checkbox, she was also an anti-Semitic Nazi collaborator, double points withdrawn.
In a bid to court feminists, gay activists and the artsy crowd, a New York City park got a statue of the woman who suggested that Hitler should win the Nobel Peace Prize for driving the Jews out of Europe.
But that’s also how history works. Every major figure has their negative sides if you go looking for them.
Behind the self-righteousness with which the left vandalizes Confederate memorials is also a great deal of hypocrisy. The double standards immunize comrades on the left from accountability and judgement.
Without a certain degree of tolerance and historical distance, no statue can stand the test of time.
In Philadelphia, the shortage of General Lee statues instead made the statue of Frank Rizzo a target. The former mayor and top cop of Philly suffered a defaced mural and calls to take down his statue. Black nationalists hate Rizzo because of his determination to crack down on Black Panther violence and terror. But gay rights activists have also targeted the statue over accusations of “homophobia”.
But why stop with Frank?
There are thousands of statues of Martin Luther King Jr. across America. The civil rights legend was an ordained minister who believed that homosexuality was a psychological problem that needed to be addressed. People have lost their jobs for less than that.
No, there’s no help for it.
All the statues must come down. Including the huge memorial on the Mall. All the streets named after Martin Luther King Jr must be renamed. If we’re going to hold historical figures accountable for not holding the same civil rights positions that the left adopted 5 minutes ago, why not start with King?
Either that or we can once again learn tolerance by leaving each other alone.
The left’s version of tolerance is just an endless civil war that pits groups against each other. It stirs up division and hatred under the false façade of justice. Its only possible outcome is to force everyone to accept one version of history while prohibiting everyone from having their own versions of history.
That’s not America. That’s Communist China and the Soviet Union.
In America, Churchill can co-exist with Connolly. There’s room for Junipero Serra and Chief White Eagle in California. New York offers a place for a bust of Napoleon III and a statue of Garibaldi (both men had once lived in exile in the city). And there’s also room for General Grant and General Lee.
History is complicated. Tyranny is simple.
A free society isn’t maintained by the brute force of easy answers, but with difficult compromises.
Tyranny offers the easy answer of eliminating all the statues that displease us. History tells us that the statues should stay. If we embrace the easy answer, soon there won’t be any statues left.
Either all the statues must stay. Or all the statues must go.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267652/all-statues-must-go-daniel-greenfield
And they say “diversity is our strength.” Hahahahaha!
Impressive. Great examples of how ridiculous the “monument removal project” is. But it was never about the monuments anyway.
Absolutely correct.
Down with all statutes.
Thanks, allan.
A statue too many…
A post too many.
A post way too many!
Not very creative.