Who Gains from the Removal of Statures?

My Recent Posts

Do the removal or destruction of statues of solders and Presidents from over a century ago matter more then Black Lives or for that matter any life? I live in the shaddow of Chicago that has not ended gang violence that has been around for decades. “[T]he welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family,” [Walter E. Williams, a George Mason economist] said. “That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from 1870s on up to about 1940s, and depending on the city, 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two parent families. Illegitimacy rate is 70 percent among blacks where that is unprecedented in our history.” Thomas Sowell another black economist points out, “[b]ut if black lives really matter, as they should matter like all other lives, then it is hard to see any racial issue that matters as much as education.

The government could double the amount of money it spends on food stamps or triple the amount it spends on housing subsidies, and it will mean very little if the next generation of young blacks goes out into the world as adults without a decent education.
Many things that are supposed to help blacks actually have a track record of making things worse.” “If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn't develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media.” said Thomas Sowell another black economist.

So who wants these statue removed a why? The Romans promoted circuses as the empire was falling apart. They had an out of control welfare system spending so much of the wealth of the nation that the borders were left undefended and immigrant from around the empire provide more of the free labor. Is this just a circus act?

I see these statues and even the confederate statures as a way to tell the history of the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War kept the promise, “We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Those Civil War statues remind us of the most expensive war in our history ,by far in human lives. The foundered handed this responsibility to their prodigy.  They also remind us that the the Democratic Party broke from the union to create the Confederacy. The KKK is the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party and in many state to be part of government one had to support the KKK. And finally the Democratic members of Congress vote against the enforcement of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Civil War Amendments a century afterwards. Republican votes were needed about 17% of them voted against where about 35% of the Democrats voted against the Civil Right Bills.

It is clear that they are trying to raise themselves above the the real agenda.  The foundation of the Democratic party is founded the segregated class society with barriers between the classes.  Slavery is a clear example.  Slavery has been replaced by poverty and the destruction of the family and religious structure and the creation of economic ghettos that we now have in our cities. 


Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Aug 16, 2017 - 9:27pm
Yes the big news is that the Democratic Party is as bad as the Republican Party. I really doubt that is much of a shock to most. 
I propose we erect new statues of people kicking other statues. That's should make everyone happy. 
Bill H. Added Aug 16, 2017 - 11:01pm
Hell, let's just go ahead and erect some statues of Adolph Hitler, David Duke, or William Daniel Johnson. That should keep you and the rest of the gang happy for a while.
Mark Hunter Added Aug 17, 2017 - 2:34am
I suggest a compromise: Take the statues down from their places of display, and install them in museums, surrounded by information and items that bring a balance to the time frame they reference.
There, that should satisfy nobody.
wsucram15 Added Aug 17, 2017 - 3:44am
I agreed with all of this at first..then Baltimore took down the statues.
Its alright, but you then encounter the problem of what to replace them with and you cant erase one history with another.
They coexisted...and we need to do the same.    
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 8:44am
Great Bill H. Your Thinking Out Of The Box. So what is the message that we want to remind citizens of America? Maybe that the when the laws of a nation are written by people, then we have TYRANNY. Liberty is when the laws are tested against natural law, God's law. Gods laws never come down from a leader of a nation. I am excluding Islam since much of the Koran and their other books were written when the religious leaders were nation leaders.
John G. I am amazed at the wisdom that comes from your pen. May we bow down in front of you!

Libertarian fringe are generally racist whites, really.  Obviously they want white privilege you know like the slave owners in the south. They were mostly Democrats and they formed the government of the Confederacy. Thank you for reminding us John G..
John G. now I thought you said fringe libertarian were white racist. Why did they allow black economist as members.  Please explain I am confused.
Mark H and wsucram15 that is what is happening to keep the mob from destroying them.  This is what totalitarian governments do to history. They wipe out all the history of the past.  But they are smart and blame or rather point to the destructions as the actions of citizens.  The mob is however being lead by suggestion by the leaders of the tyranny.  Example Isis.
They can be put back in the future. This happens to some of the artifacts stolen or taken to other countries with they acceptance.
Dino Manalis Added Aug 17, 2017 - 8:53am
History cannot be erased by removing statues, history has to be remembered and learned from for us to become better human beings.
Tamara Wilhite Added Aug 17, 2017 - 10:40am
Ideologies often benefit from removing all symbols contrary to them, removing rallying points for alternative views and reminders to future generations that other ideas have held sway.
This is why Islamic nations seek to remove all symbols of other faiths, why ISIS destroyed artifacts in museums, why the Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan, why some have called for leveling the pyramids of Giza. Remove all history contrary to Islam so that people don't know there was ever anything contrary to Islam and create an oppressive, totalitarian atmosphere because nothing contrary to it is not to be tolerated.
Social justice warriors seek to do the same erasure of all history contrary to their ideology, for the same reason.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 11:33am
Dino M., nations have erased history and created history.  It takes decades, control of education, and control of the media message.   But totalitarian governments have had the time to do it.
Dannl Y.  basically well said and agrees with what I recall from my history education.  About the only slant that I do not remember is that Lincoln ordered the extermination of Atlanta.  What he found in Grant is someone that actually wanted to win the war and understood that the short term losses would be far less then the losses if it continued a lot longer.  General Sherman march through the south was aimed at splitting them in half and destroying the means to continuing the war.   They did not have the goal of burning people the people were not locked into building and then set on fire.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 12:26pm
Atlanta was a hub of railroad lines during the Civil War.  It was a city with warehouses.  So any army would burn the warehouses and destroy the railroad hub.    Cotton was one of the items stored in those building.  Cotton is extremely combustible.  in loose form it is explosive.  So the fire obviously went out of control.  I can not comment about the troops shooting people.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 12:29pm
Lincoln during much of the war was about a popular as Trump until the end could be seen which is one reason he was looking for a Grant and Sherman.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 17, 2017 - 12:47pm
I guess that the statues we have in our public places are a reflection of what values we, as a society, think are praiseworthy.   One's in Museums are another thing.   In Budapest, most of the statuary relating to Stalinist times have been moved to a park where they form a tourist attraction for those marveling at how awful must have been back then...
So I guess if we want statues of Civil War generals in place, it must be because we are supportive of the values that they fought for.  In other words, among other things, SLAVERY.
Maintaining a record of history is something else.   In Germany it is essential that the history of Hitler's rise to power is understood and remembered by all... lest we make the same mistakes again.   But it is not the same as erecting a statue.
Yes we should learn national history, warts and all.   War for independence and native American genocide both...    Universal emancipation and slavery.. both.
Here in the UK we have a statue of Wilberforce, a leading anti slavery campaigner, whilst statues of those who made loads of money out of slavery have either been quietly removed or fallen into obscurity.
I don't doubt that, by the standards and culture of the time, many of those Generals might have been good men.   But that is not the point.   It is all about how we feel about the causes that they fought for now, today.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 4:47pm
John G., Islam by there actions and by having enclaves even in America have an ideology and dogma that is not compatible with the Declaration of Independence and the laws in our nature.   You can call these facts as anti-islam crusade or culture war John G. if you wish.  Who cares.   Not anyone with a thinking brain and love this country.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 5:20pm
Robin have you looked at those statues well oxidized surfaces?  They have been in place for around a century.  They started to appear once the Democratic Party took back the South (the democrats that created the Confederacy) and the KKK enforcement arm developed.  This happened well before the DNC 1924 New York City is called the "KlanBake."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention This Video contains an image of a Klan flag for a few seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjlCPCwtpY4
Robin they were put up because they were the leaders of the Confederacy by, the party of the state governments and local government.   Yes they do keep in the memory the Confederacy.
They are a two edge sword.  They also keep the memories of the deaths from the war, the mixture of black in the community is attached also to these statues.
Democrats that put up these statues enslave the Blacks in the ghetto Democratic Run Cities or should be say PLANTATION.  Not an accident the ghettos were created with the housing and welfare policies starting with FDR, 84 years ago.  The Democratic Party do not want statues to remind the public, black or white, of what they have done to destroy the country.   
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 5:23pm
Robin sometime the history of those that were bad say much more than the history of those that were good.  Both are needed and when one half is removed from the history of a country the country is less for it.  And it never is an accident.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 17, 2017 - 5:39pm
Thomas:   You clearly did not read what I wrote.   Remember history by all means.   You should.
But statues, when erected in public places, imply approval of the values that those people depicted stood for.   In the case of Robert E Lee: fighting to maintain slavery.
Not really the sort of values that you want trumpeted (unintended joke...) in a 21st century state that aspires to civilization.   Of course, for those who want to turn the clock back to the moral standards of an earlier time...
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 17, 2017 - 6:35pm
Dannl:   You are right I don't know much of the actual history.   I know much more about the English Civil War from the 1640s.
So please do tell me what you think Robert E Lee was fighting for.   It would be good to know.
Having thought about what I have said, I think I would like to refine it a little.   It is not what the person, who has a statue, actually thought they stood for themselves, but what the current bulk of the people today thought they stood for.
For example, to take Wilberforce.   He actually held, by modern standards, some pretty unsavoury views.  But he was one of the leading lights of the slavery abolition movement in the 1780s.   If we erect a statue to him to honour that achievement / display of values, then OK I think.
I suspect that, for many of those involved in the recent marches, Robert E Lee just represents the feeling of white supremacy.  This is, let us not forget, the supposed supremacy of one particular group of immigrants to the USA over the others (and over the original inhabitants).  
Perhaps they all get so angry and violent about it because, in their heart of hearts, they realise that they have no special claim on the land....  Perhaps they should be packing their bags and "going home".   But I hope that those from British stock don't come back here...
Britain is a country of immigrants over many hundreds and thousands of years.  Our original inhabitants have long since been first pushed aside and then integrated with waves of Celtic peoples, Romans, Saxons, Norse, Hugenots, Jews, etc etc.  More recently we have the results of Empire...with people from around the globe arriving in our land and enriching it.
Even the so called white Englishman is a mongrel of many ethnic groups.   The same is basically true in the USA I think, although maybe the bloodlines have not had quite so long to mix yet.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Aug 17, 2017 - 6:48pm
The "Civil War" was about trade and states rights. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 7:52pm
Robin, I agree, " statues, when erected in public places, imply approval of the values that those people depicted stood for," since the last of the Civil War veterans were dying off.  But at least two generation have passed and the meaning of those statues are not the same. The understanding of the negro has drastically change from inferior people be they slave or free.  Today they have occupied every level of society so no one believe they are inferior.  So Robin the reason they were put up is not relevant.  The people are names and pictures in a history book.  It is the history books that are the concert of the politicians.   Us conservative use the history of the Democratic party and its association with slavery, Jim Crow (discriminatory laws and the KKK enforcement arm), and the city ghettos that are the melting pot of crime, murder, poverty, and joblessness.  We point that they have controlled government since 1932 and must take full responsibility of the situation today.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 7:54pm
John G. any time You try slander me I see it as a complement since I have such a low opinion of your thoughts.  and I am not alone.  Maybe you will grow up some day.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 8:06pm
Lincoln clearly said the civil war was about the agreement, contract, the citizens of then 13 colonies made to form a union.  The citizen elected representative of their communities that then went to state conventions to represent the vote, choice of their community.  Obviously communication and traveling conditions made this the best approach to gather the vote of people.   Then the state conventions set the vote of the state to the central government.  
The state governments voted to separate from the union.  Broke the contract of the people. and broke the contract of the union.  The Confederacy formed an army to defend its border.   The union representative left.  No bill was presented to authorize a separation.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 8:13pm
For those not familiar the leading founders that were slave owners to a man realized that slavery violated their principles.  That included Thomas Jefferson.  The Northwest Ordinance did not allow slavery.  By the time of the Louisiana Purchase the Democratic Party formed and as their president he chose to allow slavery in that territory.  However, he did not allow the importation of slaves.  Birth rate of slave made that decision ineffective.  The South seem to be better organized and  used economic interests to quell resistance to the spread of slavery.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 17, 2017 - 9:19pm
Tonight I learned that many of the statures per installed in the 1960's as a response to segregation.  The 1959, 1960 civil rights bill under Eisenhower and the 1964 under LBJ.  However there is a section of Arlington National Cemetery with Confederate solders and a stature.  The solders of that generation honored the solders, their brothers in many cases, from the opposite side.
JJ Montagnier Added Aug 18, 2017 - 9:54am
Why not just put up new statues to counter-balance the old statues (politically speaking), instead of tearing down and demolishing statues, (causing all sorts of resentment and social unrest)?
George Kocan Added Aug 18, 2017 - 10:27am
Removing statues is a technique to control the study of history.  This is of most important to Democrat intellectuals as it was important to communists in control of Russia and other places.  George Orwell satirized this in his prescient novel, "1984," where he introduced into the English language the "memory hole."  That is where incorrect depictions of history went.  Of course, the Democrat activists and utopians will not stop.  The goal is to discredit the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution.  The goal is to replace a limited government with a government that can implement the agenda of the Democrat Party.  That requires a dictatorship. 
Jeff Jackson Added Aug 18, 2017 - 10:54am
FDR had a mistress, so we'll have to take down any statues of him. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves, so those memorials have to go as well. JFK had numerous mistresses, so that airport and all the other schools across the country will have to have their names changed or be torn down. And..... Gasp! Martin Luther King had mistresses, so, well, you know, he goes into "non-memorializable" catagory as well.
Dave Volek Added Aug 18, 2017 - 4:44pm
You bring up an interesting scenario. History has more than a few movers and shakers who were also flawed characters. Should we remove the monuments we have made for them? 
I don't have an answer, but  I think we should leave these decisions to local authorities. If there is not a significant majority wanting a change, leave things be for another decade.
Maybe our trend of corporate naming will make this all redundant. Instead of JFK airport, we might call it Exxon Airport is exchange for $$$$$.
Once again, you like the spin of Democrats=bad and Republicans=good. My understanding of history is that the Democratic party of 100 or 150 years ago is not the same party it is today. Citing their transgressions of yestercentury to imply they will commit the same kind of political atrocities today shows a spin thinking--not looking at the real reasons for history taking the course that it does.
Political parties evolve. They even do things that is contrary to their outward ideology.
Dave Volek Added Aug 18, 2017 - 5:00pm
Dannyl: I too wonder what would have happened had the North just let the South go. World trends were shaping up such that invasion by UK was unlikely (the main reason for the states to join together in the first place). Slavery was becoming more and more unpopular; the South was going to have to deal with this world trend regardless of the Civil War.
Those Civil War statues remind us of the most expensive war in our history ,by far in human lives. The foundered handed this responsibility to their prodigy.
If that is the purpose, then make statues that reflect the horrors of war. Not some general posing on a horse!
Sorry, I'm of the impression that these symbols are subtly used to justify a certain degree of racism. It may not be slavery any more, but it is still there.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 18, 2017 - 9:25pm
George K., well said.  
Jeff J., sexual infidelity is actually in the liberals or socialist eyes something to be lifted up.  Whit the goal of destroying Judeo-Christian moral then you must promote sexual infidelity.
David V., actually it is Democrats=bad and Republicans=not good.  The only difference between George W Bush and Barack H Obama the the rate not the direction.  And David, your understanding of history is that the Democratic party of 100 or 150 years ago is not the same party it is today. Is true in the details but not in the overall aim.  The Democrats still wish to enslave a lower class but today it contains more then half the population, that is socialism which has the same goal of a more radical form of Socialism, Communism.   The end of liberty and the institutionalizing of a governing class that are master minds and know the thinking of the people and once the people give them power they will never relinquish it except by the end of a barrel.  Example Venezuela.
Thomas V., I said the statues were a double edge sword.  The people that put them up have one meaning, we will not let the north push the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendment down our throats, the three civil right laws, and court orders integration, but today that meaning has change to represent something else.   The Socialist what them gone because it points to the Democratic party as the party of slavery and oppression.  They want the Declaration of Independence to be burned as the Nazis did book that when against their beliefs.
I thing most of the citizens take those statues to first represent the bravery of the individual solders on both sides that died which was true when they were installed, and their deaths, the war finally resulted in the fulfillment of the principles in the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."  This the founders could not accomplish in their life time so they past the responsibility to their prodigy.  At least anyone that understand the document.
Being a double edge sword has value because if you are a southern then reality is integration and you can not deny the results because you have to live in an integrated place where the person that sign your pay check could be black, the bank and every other business you deal with you have to deal with black people.  It is reality.
Those black people that are not trapped in the ghettos of the cities you seldom hear from.  They have been silenced by the media but living in integrated community where the wealth of the member are similar.  I can assure you color makes no difference.  The words of the  document have come true for lots of blacks, and they will see who is responsible.  
When you remove all thing that you were told as the reason as false Which is happening today appears to be chaos, but that chaos has pulled back the curtains to the truth.  They can not make up lies and present them fast enough before chaos changes the picture.  The attempt is exposed and the lie unhidden.  What remains is responsible.  
Dave Volek Added Aug 19, 2017 - 9:57am
Thomas S: If the D's ultimate goal is to enslave the lower classes, I would say the R's have the same goal-->only the means are different.
You make a good point about the black middle (and higher) class. There are avenues that been opened up in the past two generations for advancement. That needs to be acknowledged more.
As for those people in poverty, it is hard for many of them (regardless of race or religion or whatever) to rise above that poverty. Their thinking has been warped. Their opportunities are lower and they cannot see the few opportunities in front of them. They feel trapped, and that manifests itself into a certain social condition, especially when they are grouped together. For most people in poverty, their condition cannot be cured by simply adopting a John Wayne attitude. 
Dave Volek Added Aug 19, 2017 - 10:06am
Getting back to the original article--i.e. "Who benefits from the removal of the statues?"--that is indeed a provocative question.
If certain people believe that the statues are reminder of white supremacy (and I am one of those believers), then the statues become one of more than a few barriers to positive thinking to rise above poverty. If the statues are removed, this takes away one excuse not to do better. 
Who benefits if they stay? I would say those who advocate for white supremacy for sure. History will not disappear if the statues are removed.
I do acknowledge that the statues may have some historical significance. So this issue has its various shades of grey.
I would like to see each community make its own decision about the statues. People from outside the community should have no say in how the community wants to portray itself.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 19, 2017 - 11:00am
Bill H. we do have historical reminders of people like Hitler in our museums and textbooks because they are historically significant people and if WWII had been fought here I do think it would have been appropriate to have monuments in historically significant places.
Many monuments are not glorious tributes to the people whose lives and causes they remind us of, there are monuments where Nazi death camps once stood that certainly don't inspire pride in the local population.  They leave them there because they are historically significant and are there to remind travelers and future generations of what happened in the past so we hopefully can avoid repeating our mistakes.
At the center of the current issue is a statue of Robert E. Lee, who by all accounts was widely admired and respected by many historically important people on both sides of the Civil War conflict including Lincoln himself.  This is not  George Duke we're talking about, it's someone who chose to fight with his countrymen and suffered tremendously as a result.   His statue reminds me of the Civil War's history, and I believe enlightened everyone who passed by it and took the time to find out who he was and what the conflict was about.
Once it's gone there will be one less very visible reminder of  our history to inspire future generations to do better.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 19, 2017 - 11:14am
No one benefits in the end from the removal of our historically significant memorials.
Historic reminders are irreplaceable markers that help connect us to our past, and in my opinion should be regarded as national treasures.
All things related to the Confederacy have been somehow given a modern interpretative twist which today unrealistically suggests the North went to war with the South for the purpose of putting an end to slavery.  That is absolutely not true, but doesn't stop this current PC movement to erase all the remaining symbols of the Confederacy because "the Confederacy was all about keeping slavery alive".
In our modern PC world every white person with Southern Ancestry has a stench associated with their very existence that can't be purged even if their Ancestors never owned slaves, and that stench is quickly spreading to all white people because they are said to share the guilt since their skin is white.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 19, 2017 - 11:22am
There is a distinct difference between a museum and a statue.
A museum is for remembering all things... good and bad.  Hence it is quite right, for example, that Auschwitz should be preserved, if only to remind us where the chanting of slogans like "blood and soil" (which it is reported that many of the Charlotteville protesters were doing) can lead.   Last time it was 50 million dead.
Statues, on the other hand, are erected to praise someone.   Hence they should reflect the values held by the community in which they are erected.   If they also erected a statue to a famous anti slavery campaigner, then you could say that this was commensurate with a society that keeps telling the rest of the world that it is a bastion of freedom.   But having a statue to someone who fought effectively to maintain slavery, even if perhaps he was also kind to (white) children and animals, is just not on.
Just take it down and move it into the town museum, where hopefully the story of the American Civil war and the slave owning past can be told in a more balanced fashion.
Maybe, as a somewhat inadequate compromise, you can erect a much larger statue to an anti slavery campaigner from the area.
Unless, that is, you want to support the idea of slavery and the oppression of its past victims?
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 19, 2017 - 1:04pm
Dannl:  You clearly don't get my point.  
Slavery is still with us in many forms and should be opposed wheresoever it is found.   Many illegal immigrants are effectively forced into a form of slavery.  However we should understand the difference between slavery and collectively agreed codes of behaviour (AKA laws in a democratic society).   
There is no such thing as absolute freedom.   No man, unless he has lived in a wilderness without the benefits of human technology, education or contact with other humans, is an island.   Hence we all have to accept some restrictions on our freedom of behaviour.   Otherwise my freedom becomes your oppression.   You can only try and aim at a maximum level of freedom for everyone.
But I don't think many Americans get that.  I blame the soundbite media environment, Hollywood and the ridiculous national mythology of the Wild West etc.
So your right to keep slaves etc may be (or have been) sacred to you and so you want statues to glorify that...   But I imagine that the slaves (and their descendants) have a rather different view.    Land of the free for some... land of the oppressed for rather more...
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 19, 2017 - 1:14pm
Rusty Smith well said. monuments to bad thing that happen remind us as much as monuments of good thing or people.
Dave V. and Robin RBS the reason I suggested the double edge sword concept was for those that believe in white supremacy and the meaning of statues is to praise the person of the statue and what they stood for. Daily observation does not support that thinking unless you have tunnel vision. Refuse to see the truth. I can do nothing. No one can.
DAnnl Y. you do a great job in pointing out that man is erratic in our reasoning and response, not consistant. Maybe that is why civilization keeps advancing. We are allowed to make choices and experiment. Most fail but occasionally the community see an improvement, we all advance.
Individual communities are making the decision that they can not put an 24hr guard and have in the ready dozens of troops ready to respond to a Antifa group of thugs that decide to destroy their statue. They will find the weak statues and destroy them.
First of all Black Lives Matter do not care about black lives because they should be picketing city halls of every major city that has a black ghetto. They should be in front of every politician's office and at every press conference or public meeting of that politician demanding the end to black on black crime. The should be at every school board and teachers conference demanding their children get educated and that the parent have choices. They can reject sending their children to schools with crime problems or to a class room with a teacher they do not want. Basically the parents can vote with their feet and the school system must stop dictating where their child goes. Black Lives Matter do no of this. They say take the police off the streets and do not arrest criminals. Now police make mistakes and their are bad policemen but Black Lives Matter do not discriminate between good and bad policemen.
Robin, I agree and to prevent slavery control of our borders is important.  legal immigrants can not be forced into slavery as easily.  Legal immigrants need a sponsor.  We need to prevent the abuse of not family member sponsors.  You said, "Slavery is still with us in many forms and should be opposed wheresoever it is found.   Many illegal immigrants are effectively forced into a form of slavery."  
Dave Volek Added Aug 19, 2017 - 6:30pm
Thomas: Good points on BLM.
Like it or not, the perspective on these statues is changing. Whether the new history is right or not, the community values need to be reflected. If the community sees the statues as a sign of white supremacy--and it does not want these values, then  the community should have the right to remove the statues.
We could argue that a left-leaning media have been influential in shaping these new perspectives. Therefore, we should not pay heed to this change, and those who have bought into this message are fools and have tunnel vision. So their voices do not count. Leave the decision to the wiser folk who can see beyond left-wing media, Right?
Rusty Smith Added Aug 20, 2017 - 11:34am
Robin the red breasted songster The South lost the war and the right to rule themselves, and 600,000 of their sons in the process.  I am not even a little surprised that they wanted to honor their fallen soldiers and the people that led them, but a little surprised that today's PC crowd is less willing to let them that than the North was right after the war ended.
The monuments they erected have reminded them and every generation since of the war they fought and the horrible price they paid.  Civil war decedents from both sides frequently gather along with tons of people  who want to learn more about what happened for re-enactments of major battles, and not to my surprise they all get along well and the slavery has nothing to do with the re-enactments except that some of the participants are proud decedents of slaves.
Today's conflict is not about succession it's all about slavery and not surprisingly most modern participants don't realize slavery was a huge issue during the civil war but the North was not fighting to end slavery.  When the war started on 2% of Southerners owned slaves.
General Lee was leading the South's attempt to succeed from the Union so the South wouldn't continue to be the North's Cash Cow, as they had been treated for quite some time.  The North dominated politics and had levied taxes and tariffs on South just as England had levied taxes on the colonies, and the South wanted to shed the yoke taxation without representation just as the colonies had done.  During the entire civil war the North permitted slavery in the North, and in fact Slavery was not made illegal in the North until after the war ended.
If the war was really fought to end slavery don't you think the North would have passed laws freeing all their own slaves before fighting a war with the South so they could free theirs?
If you rip down all the Southern monuments you will strip the South of all visible reminders that the war ever too place.  Does that really help you cause?  Even if you put them in a museum it's not the same, few travelers would ever connect a displaced monument with the historic sacred ground where it once stood, and think about what happened like travelers do when they stop at monuments along the highway.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 20, 2017 - 11:46am
Dannl Yoder  isn't real history so inconvenient sometimes!  Slavery was not made illegal in the North until after the war, kind of hard to explain if you want to believe that's why they were fighting.
There were adamant anti slavery people in the North and some of them got in lots of trouble during the war for saying that if the North won they would make slavery illegal.  Smarter people like Lincoln, who also disliked slavery, realized that the might lose the war if they announced they would ban slavery if they won because there were strong potential participants in slave owning states and territories who certainly would have supported the South if they did, that supported the North during the war.
Ask almost anyone who hasn't bothered to read Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and they will be glad to tell you, "he freed all the slaves".  NOT TRUE AT ALL, he only freed slaves in the South, well kind of, he didn't have the power to do so but did it symbolically.  
He wanted them to rebel, but make no mistake, he didn't dare offer the same freedom to slaves in the North, that might have cost him the war.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 20, 2017 - 12:04pm
Thomas Sutrina Strangely about the time the Civil War was fought slavery was on it's way out for economic reasons.  Simply put the cost of slaves, including their housing and care had become more expensive than it was worth.
Even before the war the country was overrun with dirt poor destitute masses of people like the Irish who would work for subsistence wages and then didn't have to be fed or housed when there was no work.  
The plantations had them because they were an ongoing institution.  By contrast there were not generally worth acquiring in the North by all the new industrial revolution industries that sprang up when it was just as cheap to hire cheap immigrants and children.
Dave Volek Added Aug 20, 2017 - 12:10pm
I've been thinking a bit more about your comments on BLM.
I help out a few injured workers with their worker's compensation claims. The system (in Alberta) seems to work well for short-term injuries, but when injuries are going to be of a life-time nature, the system works against the workers, trying its best to discourage workers from taking their case through the appeal processes.  These blue collar workers really don't have the skills to fight the bureaucracy. In their minds, the system is stacked against them--even though, in my experience, if one plays by the rules, the worker can get a fair hearing, albeit after a year of writing letters.
In a like manner, people living in ghettos do not have the wherewithal to pursue the actions that you claim they should be pursuing. In their minds, the system is stacked against them, so why bother trying? They have been cowed into thinking this is their status quo. And maybe there are vested interests in keeping them in that state of mind.
Rather than cast blame on the people behind BLM, try to figure out why they are thinking the way they are thinking.
Dave Volek Added Aug 20, 2017 - 12:30pm
Once again, you put up an interesting angle to a WB issue. I have heard the "economic reason" for the civil war before, but it does not come that often in popular discourse. Nor is it explained as well as you have explained it. 
I consider Lincoln as one of the great US presidents because know he how to work with the political machinery and the mental state of his nation. While he had a vision, he knew that he could push things only so far without being pushed back too hard. He manipulated the political process to his advantage. In doing so, he accomplished much of what he wanted for his vision. America seems to bereft of that kind of leadership since Eisenhower.
If economic reasons were a major reason for the civil war, they have been lost to today's generation. I doubt many supporters of keeping the statues today say the reasons for those statues were to show the economic imbalance between the North and South. If they are, then they are hypocrites for the whites of the south were doing much worse things to the blacks than the North was ever doing to the South. If anything, the South still had a lot of influence in the westward expansion of the US: remember the free/slave state debates were quite lively. If the South was being shut out of political decisions, this is a bad example.
It's hard to see the North/South economic divide any more. It's hard to make the connection that the statues somehow fixed that problem. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 1:11pm
Rusty S., the founders that owned slaves already knew that industrialization would end slavery.  Machine muscle is cheaper then human muscle.  The Cotton Gin was machine muscle that make half the process of cotton efficient, gathering the cotton could only be done by people, and the plantations that made money off of cotton had the slaves already and they would be available for harvest, very short period of time.  So slavery hung on beyond the expectations of the founders.  
David V., actually I have been arguing what you said since I started on WB., "In a like manner, people living in ghettos do not have the wherewithal to pursue the actions that you claim they should be pursuing. In their minds, the system is stacked against them, so why bother trying?"  The Democratic party in the 84 yrs since FDR created the ghetto by public housing and assistance to builders and FDR started Aid to Dependent Children and other programs.  A welfare system that as Dr. William  and Dr. Sowell both black economist tell us destroyed the robust community and family structure in those ghettos.  Note only Pres George W Bush for 4 yrs had a GOP congress both houses  and he actually promoted FDR's program, where Dem presidents for 32 yrs had Dem congresses and some of them advance the FDR socialist plan.  Trump is the next GOP president to have for 2 years a GOP congress but as we see with swamp care the house and senate leaders are promoting FDR's program also.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 1:28pm
Dannl Y., I am not casting blame. I am pointing out the MLB do not care about black lives, see what Thomas Sowell said in the opening remark, "Rather than cast blame on the people behind BLM, try to figure out why they are thinking the way they are thinking."  
Antifa and BLM were both involved in the Charlottesville fighting. BLM can be traced to riots, destruction of property, and police shooting,  Antifa can be traced to blocking free speech, destruction of property, and attacking police.  The KKK has a history of this also.  All are funded by those promoting socialism (communism) including George Soros and teenager in Hungary with christian documentations but a Jew that participated in the ransacking of the Jewish wealth of the country or at least had a birds eye view.  I look at the writings of those that what tyrannical leaders of a country to understand the thinking of these thugs.  Start with the French Revolution and move forward to the Russian, Hitler, Mussolini, Spanish Rev., Cuba, etc. and you get a picture that the people serve the state and their lives are meaningless.  The thugs want to be part of the leadership team. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 1:39pm
David V., today's swamp is a pool of wealth.  The players are getting wealthy milking the fatted cafe of the people.  So factions in congress may be divided on many issues but that share one, $.  Thus they work together, a Cartel.    The situation in the 1800's was the same in congress.  The passage of bills opening territory to slavery did the northern industrialist no good but did not harm them.  So they supported the southern slave owners that occupied seats in legislatures.  Both milked the fatted cafe of the citizens.  
The judicial is a life appointment so they will not be influenced by politics, but they the people appointed are already political animals and stay that way for the rest of their lives.  Those appointed in the 1800's and today agree to the common ground area and agree to the compromises needed to maintain it.  thus the slave related decision in the 1800's and the human rights and commerce decision today.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 1:55pm
The heavy hand of the Federal government is causing the same effect on the states as the heavy hand of the king caused on the colony governments.  The people have put the responsibility for good reason on the Democratic party so that is why they have been loosing states to the GOP for all of Obama's term.  
The GOP state legislatures are a mixed bag of but they do not like the heavy hand of the Feds.  So in the end they will vote for a convention of states if the citizens do not put a democrat in the white house in 2020.  The GOP leadership is weakening itself because they now have the power to act and there lies can not be blamed on the lack of power.  
Leadership in both parties have lots of money but as you see in the  special election money can not purchase wins when the public knows the truth.  Once the public knows those that lied to them are funding a candidate they stop listening to their ads.  
The mix bag in the state legislature will make the choice of representative a grab bag.   So the opponents to the convention need to be rejected by the voters.  That will improve the choices.   Then we shall see if the basic guidance provided by the organizers will help direct the representative toward amendment drafts that will lead us back to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  The Bill of Rights Amendments,  The 14th, 15th, & 16th amendments that achieved the principles of the DOI.  
Rusty Smith Added Aug 20, 2017 - 5:51pm
Dannl Yoder many African ex-slaves became slave owners once they became free, and were known on an individual bases to be just as kind or abusive to their slaves as many white slave owners at that time.  
Like all slave owners they didn't think they were doing anything immoral, it was just a way to make a living and it was usually in farming which was something they knew a lot about  Many other jobs were not open to them, or the Irish or Chinese for that matter.
Many freed slaves found it hard to be free and there were even legal documents they had to sign if they wanted to be a slave after that.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 20, 2017 - 5:58pm
Dave Volek  in a very general sense the North used it's massive and overpowering political advantage to impose high tariffs on all the things the South needed to do farming while managing to keep the vast majority of what their own industrial cities produced and exported or imported super low.  They even imposed rules which taxed imports much more if they entered the country thought a Southern port.  When I say they treated the South like a Cash Cow I wasn't exaggerating.  
It was so much like what caused us to break free from England that I am not surprised they were able to convince the 98% of the Southern population, (who didn't own slaves), that they had to fight to throw off the oppressive yoke of the Union.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 20, 2017 - 6:19pm
Thomas Sutrina I actually think the cotton gin helped grow slavery in the beginning because it made cotton so much easier to produce, increasing the need for larger plantations. 
I don't think industrialization helped the picking side of cotton significantly until after the war was over, cotton picking was hard to automate and it was darn hard work.
As far as drawing parallels between now and then I do think  our current political climate closely resembles the one that existed between the North and South right up to the war, it was a very divided country even without the slavery questions.
Today we have the bulk of the heartland which is deep red and lives a rather redneck lifestyle that offends most of the ocean bordering states and cities.  If all the blue was on one side I do think the red would be demanding we split the country.
From my perspective most people in the blue think they are smarter, and should have the right to tell the red people what they can and can not do.  The red live with and appreciate guns, and want to tell the blue where to stick it when the blue tell them guns are evil tools that need to be banned.  At the same time the red want to ban all abortions and demand the blue do the same.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 6:24pm
Rusty let us do a little math to indicate what the possible strangle hold that the north had without a single southern senator's help.
In 1850 I count 15 free and 15 slave states, this period is based on the 1820 Missouri Compromise   added that year was California as a free state thus in 1854 16 free 15 slave, and Kansas was added in 1854 and Oregon also before 1860 to bring the free states to 18 free to 15 slave.   All taxing and spending bills still have to pass in the senate.  Wikipedia says that the filibuster rule started in 1806 to require 60% which in 1854 was 37 senators and by 1860 was up to 40 senators.  So Rusty the south if it formed a block could prevent the taxing etc. that you say happened.    
Dannl your question is beyond may knowledge.  I would have to do some research.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 6:34pm
Error in 1820 the count was 12/12   So the southern states could also control the entry of new states into the union which are the compromises. Missouri and Kansas Nebraska. 
Dave Volek Added Aug 20, 2017 - 7:38pm
Rusty: Once again, a very good analysis. You have one the best sense of logic on WB. Thanks for your insights.
Dave Volek Added Aug 20, 2017 - 7:48pm
Thomas: I'm reading a book called the "Sovereign Psyche" and I think it is going in the same direction you are going. 
There is probably a lot of truth in your statement of the games the two parties are playing. If anything, the parties know they are going to be "in control" 50% of the time, which is much better (for them) than my TDG invention where the citizens take control.
The people who aspire to climb the ladder of political parties are actually eliminating much of the potential competition by maintaining the party structure. It is very self-perpetuating! To think we can keep the structure yet get the changes we want is naive to me. We might change a few swamp demons in the next few years, but draining the swamp is not going to happen. 
If we don't change the system, your great-grandchildren will be making the same kind of commentary as you are today. 
Dave Volek Added Aug 20, 2017 - 7:50pm
Again going back to the original question: who gains?
Whether the statues stay or go, the "swamp" will win (in my humble opinion.
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 20, 2017 - 8:10pm
Will the swamp win may not be determined in Washington DC but by your state legislatures.  You have a stronger voice with state legislators then your federal legislators.  That Dave, Rusty, and Dannl gives me hope. 
The founders did not want there prodigy to have to fight a revolution so they would not be happy with the Civil War.  The experience of the conventions for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the decade of the Articles of Confederation show the drafters that the colonies or future state would be demand their independence, but they would also come together for a common cause but it would have to be a significant cause.  
Have we achieved this significant cause?   That is the question only time will tell but the signs are very positive.  I think to day 12 or 13 states have passed state bills defining the rules of a convention to draft amendments and authorized sending representatives.  I believe the needed number is 33 or 34 states.   And 37 or 38 state are needed to approve of an amendment.  
Dave Volek Added Aug 21, 2017 - 8:28am
to day 12 or 13 states have passed state bills defining the rules of a convention to draft amendments and authorized sending representatives.
This sounds like a very interesting political movement. First I ever heard about it. Can you write a new article on this topic? And provide some more details?
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 21, 2017 - 9:20am
It is on the web and they do a good job of explaining it.  https://www.conventionofstates.com/  
Many states have their own  web pages  https://www.facebook.com/COS.Illinois  http://progressillinois.com/posts/content/2014/02/21/closer-look-conservative-convention-states-project
John V start with the Constitutions article V  "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified
by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;".
Rusty Smith Added Aug 21, 2017 - 9:23pm
Thomas Sutrina  I agree that your evaluation of the political power structure makes it look like things might have been more even, but in reality it didn't work that way.  Of course you are missing an essential piece when you don't consider the fact that there were about 22 million people in the North and only 9 million in the South.  That had a large influence on what could and could not get passed in the way of tariffs and taxes.
I strongly suggest you examine what was and wasn't taxed highly in imports and exports leading up to the Civil War.  The North managed to get everything related to farming taxed highly while industrial things remained taxed low if at all.  They also put tariffs on port traffic coming though Southern Ports that didn't exist if the same goods passed though Northern Ports.
Whatever power you think the South had didn't stop the North from making the South into a Cash Cow.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 21, 2017 - 10:37pm
Rusty the house is elected by population, but the senate is two per state.  In 1920 they matched and the fight over slavery already began.  The two slave compromises were in full awareness of the rule for the senate.  The southern states would not allow the free states to get a filibuster proof Senate.  That Rusty is the point.  The south could stop any legislation by preventing it from passing in the senate, any.
I did not argue about the tax structure before the Civil War.  The south needed northern votes to get the compromises which means they gave up something.  That is what points you have presented.  But they did it by choice.  The South was not taxed to have their cotton and other farm products processed in the northern states which actually cost them less anyhow then sending the cotton to England.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 22, 2017 - 7:04am
You could take instead a teleological approach to this.   In other words, where lies the greatest gain.
I understand that groups of people were marching around, in "support of the statues", chanting "blood and soil" and various other Neo Nazi type things.   Clearly they saw these statues as icons for their twisted belief structure.
In Germany they are very alive to the power of iconography.   There are no remaining statues to the celebrities and politicians of the Third Reich.   Instead they have "stumbling stones".   These are small brass cobblestones set into the floor.   They commemorate, not the well known, but simply individual ordinary people who live din the area and met their end at the hands of the regime.
Perhaps the American South could try doing the same thing.   Put down some monuments, not large ones to the famous few, but small ones in great number to remember the large number of individual human beings who have suffered at the hands of the institution of slavery and later at the hands of the white supremacists.
While you are at it, include the names of Confederate soldiers and civilians who suffered as a result of the civil war.   And perhaps the names and stories of individual native Americans who died as a result of the States Imperial expansion into the west of North America.
Now those would be suitable monuments to prompt us all to remember history.   Instead of propaganda... which is essentially what most statues are...
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 22, 2017 - 8:11am
Robin sound like an idea that could be discussed.  The casualty rate for the Civil War is 2.385% of the population.  In comparison the Revolutionary War was 0.899%.  If you remove those fighting for the British 1.35%  WWII is next at 0.307% and then the War of 1812 with 0.207%.
Rusty Smith Added Aug 22, 2017 - 11:30pm
Robin the red breasted songster you are suggesting that the South become and act ashamed of their historic past in the same way Germany is ashamed of the Holocaust, but I think they are quite different.  The South never tried to commit genocide they only wanted the same type of "freedom" that the colonies fought for in the Revolution.  
You are also suggesting whatever  pride they have in their own ancestry is evil and that instead they should all be ashamed to be the decedents..  I think whenever you attempt to demonize that many people, an entire segment of the country, you are going to have to expect them to resent your attitude.  
Just what sinful behavior do you attribute to the likes of General Lee that you think all of his countrymen should be that ashamed enough to want to rip his monument down and try to erase his legacy?
Dr. Rupert Green Added Aug 23, 2017 - 8:06am
@ Thomas. Your post asks a salient question found in my post here.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Aug 23, 2017 - 9:03am
Rusty:  But the South has a lot to be ashamed about doesn't it?   Built on slavery is not a thing to celebrate is it?    How many millions were kept in slavery?   How many died in slavery?   We all know about the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis... plus an additional 45 million of other victims.   But I don't think so many know about how many victims of slavery in Southern America there were.   I think that schoolchildren should know that...
Germany has, I think, struck the right balance.    It remembers the Nazi past without glorifying it.   It remembers the ordinary people who suffered because of the actions of that little corporal who told them all he would "make Germany great again".
It is important to remember such things.   It is important so that we do not repeat such mistakes in the future.
It is natural for patriots to want to remember the good bits about their history.   But it is also important that we remember the bad as well.  
Here in Britain, from recent history, I like to remember how we fought for the Right to Roam, founded the National Health Service and battled for equal pay for women.    Not so proud of our invasion of Iraq to look for non existent weapons because of the hubris of our then Prime Minister or our decision to leave Europe.
But we need to remember both, the good and the bad.
Here I am mainly aware of the bad parts of the history of Southern America:  slavery, participation in the genocide of native Americans, the KKK, segregation etc etc.   I know of the work of Martin Luther King of course.   But I don't know what else the South has to be proud about.  It seems to me that it is founded on human misery and suffering.  There may be some things to be proud of, I just have not heard about them.
BTW Britain carries some blame for allowing some of our citizens to support the South by blockade running and furnishing privateers.   Our hands are by no means clean and we need to remember that also.
This is not a question of competing for "greatest nation".
Thomas Sutrina Added Aug 23, 2017 - 12:48pm
Dr. Green, there are two periods where statues were put up.  The period where the statue in Arlington Cemetery when up in a field of Confederate soldiers, and then those put up during the integration period of the 1960's.  Your comment applies to the second group, "Confederate  monuments are Democratic gifts to the Confederates for them to help enslave freed Blacks and to make their children perpetually fail."   But you running for a government position and Obama winning and other blacks running for many positions.  This is the point of the double edge sword.   The statues represent failure of the second reason for putting up statues. 
Rusty Smith Added Aug 23, 2017 - 9:11pm
Robin the red breasted songster  just how did the 2 % of the South that actually owned slaves "build" those parts of our country?  Do you also think the likes of Bill Gates, are "building" and responsible for speaking for and representing the values of the rest of us, because they are super rich like the tiny minority that owned plantations?
You're demonizing a huge portion or my country with stereotypes that don't apply to the vast majority.  Even right after the war the North allowed the South to honor their fallen soldiers and erect monuments to those that led their failed attempt to succeed.  It's amazing to me that generations later so many people who weren't there and don't even understand what the fight was about, are so outspoken and intolerant of symbols they don't understand and the will of the people who live in those huge parts of this country.
By the way have you looked at what white people did to ingenious American's?  I'm not sure if you're white, but if you are I do wonder how much time you spend flagellating yourself and making sure your children are completely ashamed of your ancestry because the white people carried diseases to America that devastated the indigenous population.
Also by the way I think you need to investigate American history much more carefully, the North didn't invade the South to free their slaves, and Lee didn't fight to eject them because most Southerners wanted to keep their slaves.  Slavery remained legal in many Northern states until after the Civil War ended.  Tell me, if you were so angry about slavery that you were willing to go to war to end it, would you enlist the support of states and territories that still allowed slavery, at that time?
Dr. Rupert Green Added Aug 24, 2017 - 4:49am
@Thomas. Remember I am an immigrant and there is something called the immigrant effect.