How to Decide Who in Whoville to Cancel

In January of 2021, the San Francisco Unified School District Board voted to remove several names from schools in the city, including Abraham Lincoln’s. Assuming the worst, I grabbed my musket and prepared to join the fight to uphold the Union from the new Confederate threat in the alt-right bastion of San Francisco. After firing my first musket round at anyone I saw wearing Confederate grey, I was told in the 3-minute interval it takes to reload, that there was no need for concern, Lincoln was just being canceled. To me, the case of Lincoln in San Francisco is not indicative of a reasonable debate on cancel culture, and the measure looks to have been fittingly canceled for now.

So far, the debate on how to treat historical figures who don’t fit today’s moral standards has been an unsatisfactory stalemate for both sides. The left has achieved little meaningful change while the right feels susceptible to an ever-changing moral standard. It seems reasonable in many respects to try and view the behaviors of historical figures through the eyes of increasingly diverse neighbors and friends. However, it also seems reasonable to let those who love the ones being judged have a set of moral standards, to allow them a predictive tool which will indicate who and how their heroes will be judged.

The Old Testament may offer the perfect allegory with an incredibly useful template for judging morality. In the Story of Noah, G-d, angered by the increasing wickedness of man, decides to wipe out humanity with a flood. Fox News at the time called this the ‘Ultimate in Cancel Culture’ but also denied the danger of the flood and tried to keep Florida open throughout. Out of all humans, only Noah and his family were spared. The reason given was that he was “a righteous man, blameless in his generation.” In this sense, it seems as though the moral standard in the bible is relative not absolute. Noah was being judged by how his morality compared to the people of his time.¹

It seems reasonable to try to apply this standard to many of the historical figures that have come under increased scrutiny. This would likely quell opposition from the right and possibly lead to a clearer path to meaningful change – even though it probably won’t. At the same time, the left should be willing to accept this as a suitable metric for change – even though they probably won’t. They might want to be reminded that many of the people on this list tore down preverbal statues in their day, and no matter how open-minded and forward-thinking they are, they will likely be considered barbarians by their grandchildren, or as is their more appropriate name, persons who may or may not identify themselves as grandchildren.

Suggested Metrics for Judgment:
1. The Righteous Metric: Can the Person be considered ‘Righteous in Their Time’? Did their moral lapses fit into commonly held beliefs of the time? Was there a critical mass of people, or quorum (seems like a good time for a shameless plug), speaking out against this behavior that could have made them more aware? Or were they in the top quartile of moral standards for the time?
2. Impact Metric: Did their impact on history end up benefitting those they oppressed in a unique way that would be hard to replicate without them? In other words, can the patient (the general public) survive without the tumor (the historical figure in question)?

George Washington:

Accusation: By the end of his life, George Washington personally owned 123 slaves.
Righteous Metric:
Some have defended Washington’s morality on the basis that slavery was the societal standard at the time. However, at the time of his death, ~51% of the country lived in states in which slavery was illegal.² This means that Washington was not in the top quartile of morality on this subject. As is a pattern with other slave-owning founding fathers, his writings show that he did struggle with the morality of the system. However, while some have viewed this as a redeeming trait, I would argue that it actually shows that he knew better in his heart and can’t claim ignorance. Before his death, Washington stipulated in his will that he would free his slaves upon the death of his wife, Martha. This could indicate that Washington had a delusional paternalistic view of the institution. He did not realize that leaving Martha surrounded by 123 people who would be freed upon her death offered an incredible incentive to kill her. Martha realized, and freed the 123 slaves.
Impact Metric:
Washington’s impact is often misstated. While he led the Continental Army to victory over a much more sophisticated British Army, in modern military conflicts, smaller armies win in ~40% of armed conflicts.³ As the first president, he gave direction and leadership to a country floundering after a decade in which Congress attempted to lead by committee. While neither of these accomplishments were layups anyone could have achieved, their competent execution does not seem exclusive to Washington. His real unique impact was the legacy of a peaceful transition of power. The world is littered with examples of successful revolutions in which the military maintains control or the newly installed government never seems to leave power. They often turn out bloodier and more oppressive than the governments they overthrew. Washington had this opportunity twice, as the general of the victorious army in the revolution and then as the president who had no term limits. Stepping down after two terms became the unwritten rule for presidents, until FDR broke it in 1941. It then became a rule 10 years later with the passage of the 22^nd Amendment. If you don’t think that willingly stepping down was unique to Washington, some context might help. At the time, John Jay, the First U.S. Chief Justice, pleaded with Washington not to step down. Name a modern president, and then imagine what they would do if the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said, “it’s cool, you can stay”. In 2020 sadly, all it took was the ‘My Pillow’ guy.
Conclusion: In this case, like my cousin who has a fetish for minor details, George Washington gets off on a technicality. His legacy of peaceful transition of power is too vital an organ to our democracy to be removed, and the tradition is too unique to him to be bifurcated from the person. While his willingness to give up power was likely greased by the fact that he had no natural children of his own, and therefore, less incentive to believe in a hereditary form of government, and that he was relinquishing power to peers from a similar class and background, it was still historically unique. But, while Washington was a hero, there is no reason that he can’t be taught as a flawed hero. One possible way to give some form of solace to his victims is to convert Mt. Vernon into a full-on slavery museum. While the current Mt. Vernon has a section on slavery, the entire place could be converted into a museum on the institution of slavery, similar to the Nazi death camps of Europe. Also, stop giving Washington credit for emancipating his slaves in his will, under the same logic, I can’t wait to go vegan when I die.

Thomas Jefferson:

Accusation: Slave Owner. Hypocrite. Rapist.
Impact Metric: Leader of the opposition party. Jefferson’s legacy is about valuing states’ rights over a more powerful central government and empowering people to represent their own self interests. He was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. As President, he executed the Louisiana Purchase, which removed a major colonial competitor from the continent and doubled the size of the US. While this sounds like an awesome resume, none of these accomplishments were exclusive to Jefferson. His legacy of self-interest seems to be more human nature. For all our flaws, we don’t suffer from a lack of self-interest. The declaration of Independence was really well written, but would have existed with or without Jefferson – he was assigned by committee to draft the document. Similarly, the Louisiana Purchase would have likely occurred without Jefferson. Napoleon needed the cash and approached the US about selling them the land.
Righteous Metric:
Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings is often called into question. Jefferson (44) brought his dead wife’s enslaved half-sister, Sally Hemings (14), to France when he was US Minister in 1787. Slavery was abolished in France in 1789, meaning if she wanted, Hemmings could stay in France and remain free. Later that year, the Jeffersons left France to return to the US. At 16 years old, Sally Hemings, who, at the time, is believed to have been pregnant with the first of 6 children she had with Jefferson, resisted calls to go home. Through negotiation, Jefferson was able to convince her to return home with him, promising to free her children (ALSO HIS CHILDREN!) from slavery when they reached 21 years old.
While we might consider the age gap between them to be rape, the age of consent in France and Virginia at that time, while gross, was 11 and 12 respectively. Therefore, this would be similar to a 50-year-old dating a 19-year-old in today’s society, people would think it was gross but not illegal. Which brings us to today’s sponsor.⁴
Some have pointed to the fact that Hemings willingly went back to her enslaved life with Jefferson as proof that there was some mutual affection in their relationship. However, Hemings was 16 years old, pregnant, away from her family, and in 1789 France, where poor people were starving to death and were three years away from beheading the king. It is impossible to know her motivations for agreeing to return home, but at best it was Stockholm Syndrome.
However, even judging Jefferson by the standards of his own time doesn’t clear his name. While we can often point to changing moral standards as why some things were OK in history versus today, it should also be important to note that some things that are OK today, were not ok in 18^th century society. As previously mentioned, Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson’s dead wife, Martha. The reason that they were related is because, like his son-in-law, Jefferson’s father-in-law raped his slaves. At the time in Virginia, which still enforced many holdover laws from England, it was considered incest to be with your deceased wife’s sister.⁵ While that law was abolished in 1907, in Jefferson’s time, it was the law, and if we are judging him by the standards of his time, we should consider his relationship incest.
If this isn’t enough to convince you Jefferson falls short of the Righteous Metric, there is one last datapoint that is worth noting. Thomas Jefferson kept his own children as slaves.
Jefferson seems to have had the ability to compartmentalize his behaviors and rationalize logic for any conclusion that would benefit him. This often manifest itself in incredible hypocrisies through his life. While the most glaring example is a slave owner writing that ‘all men are created equal’, he also rallied against the dangers of an increasingly centralized government, and then when president, expanded the role of The Executive in both declaring war and authorizing the Louisiana Purchase without state’s approval.
Conclusion:
Jefferson shouldn’t be erased from history. He should be the face of the person we show to children before we say, if he offers you candy to get in his van, DON’T GO! The term Jeffersonian should be changed. Instead of being synonymous with the ideals of a small government, it should be used to describe someone with the sociopathic tendencies of a serial killer.

Dr. Seuss:

Accusation: Featured racial stereotypes in several of his works.
Righteous Metric:
One of the most cited examples is a depiction of a Chinese person in And to Think I Saw It On Mulberry Street dressed in stereotypical clothes and referred to as “a Chinaman that eats with sticks.”
Initially I thought this doesn’t necessarily disqualify Dr. Seuss from the Righteous Metric. The book was published in 1930, the world was a lot bigger back then. People in other countries may have seemed like caricatures because there was little access to them. This seemed indicative of having a sense of wonder in the world rather than a hateful trope. In 1930, ~0.25% of the US population was Asian, compared to ~6.0% in 2019.⁶ It seemed to me that those judging Dr. Seuss were a bit arrogant. I felt they were not adjusting their expectations for their experience in a more interconnected world. Clearly this was a smear campaign against Seuss coordinated by those Star Belly Sneetches.
However, after doing some research, I came across a cartoon titled Cross Section of the World’s Most Prosperous Department Store, published in 1929 by Seuss in a satirical magazine called Judge.

This cartoon puts Seuss’s use of racial caricatures in a different light and opens-up the likelihood that they were borne out of a different type of ignorance.
Seuss never outright apologized for these cartoons, but his later work does seem to be ahead of its time. The Sneetches, which can be interpreted as an allegory on racial inclusion, was published in 1953, nine years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the Lorax, which focused on environmental stewardship, wasn’t published until 1971. This was a full year after both Earth Day and the EPA were established, the environment was already saved by then, so thanks for nothing on that one.
Impact Metric:
Seuss’s stories and emphasis on child literacy has likely had a positive effect on his audience of children. While it is possible for others to come along and replace his dominance in the field, the fact that his books have remained at the pinnacle of children’s literature for close to 100 years indicates the unique quality of intellectual property they contain.
Conclusion: It seems reasonable to view Dr. Seuss’s later works as an apology for his previous behavior. I normally favor accepting a sincere apology when it is offered. However, whether this can be considered an apology and whether people choose to accept it is not up to me. I was not the offended party.

Bill Clinton:

Accusation: Bill Clinton has actually materially avoided a post presidential reckoning after using his position of power to coerce a 22-year-old intern into a sexual relationship. Furthermore, Clinton really upped the stakes on questionable last day pardons, after inexplicably pardoning long time donor Marc Rich.
Righteous Metric: While Bill Clinton broke no laws in his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, aside from a little bit of perjury, he never apologized for his role in ruining a young woman’s life. It seems really indecent.
Impact Metric: Bill Clinton’s presidency from a policy perspective can be characterized as having some solid singles and doubles. Although he missed out on passing his cornerstone national healthcare reform, he presided during a time characterized by a strong economy and relative peace. One very underrated accomplishment of Clinton was achieving 4 years of budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001. For context, the last prior year of budget surplus was 1969, and it sadly has not been achieved since.
Conclusion: Sexual scandal really hampered Clinton’s effectiveness in his last 4 years, however, he left office with the highest approval rating of any modern president. To increase his legacy’s accountability for his shortcomings, there should be the Bill Clinton Rule, and it should be two-pronged:
1. Coercing subordinates into sexual relationships should be an impeachable offense in itself.
2. The president should only have the unilateral ability to pardon until the mid-term elections of their 2nd term, which is the last time they are held accountable by voters.
More than what Bill Clinton did, it’s about what we as a country did. In 1998 the entire country came together in a way we hadn’t since Pearl Harbor. This is an incredible feat because it feels we increasingly hate each other. What was the event that brought us together like nothing else over the prior 50 years? The opportunity to slut-shame a 22-year-old woman. We made her life hell. She was a ubiquitous punch line for a solid 5 years. There should be a Monica Lewinsky Day during Women’s History Month every year. During that day, it should be required by law that if you were born before the late 1980’s and happen to see Monica Lewinsky walking down the street, you must stop to say “sorry for my part in making your life hell, is there anything I can do to make your day better?” If Monica does anything other than politely decline, you shouldn’t really have to follow through. It’s the fake offer that counts.

Conclusion:
There is nothing new about younger generations tearing down older ones, and older generations thinking the world can’t continue without them. It is one of the few constants in human history. One of the reasons it feels different now is because longer life expectancy has increased the number of people alive to see their society torn down. This is Jeffersonian in the new sense of the word because it has many of the characteristics of a serial killer that keeps their victims alive while they do their work.

As is increasingly becoming the case with most issues: the loudest voices are the only ones being heard. These voices belong to those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right. Therefore, we get attacks on Abraham Lincoln from the ultra-left, who think they are morally superior to him, and defenses for confederate figures on the ultra-right, because some people don’t realize that statues are for winners. The humorous, sad, and realistic outcome of this is that as the left becomes more sanctimonious in their standards, and as the right becomes more blindly defensive, we could end up tearing down all our Lincoln statues and keeping our confederate ones.

Sources:
The above article did not rely on first-hand sources. It was written using common knowledge about events as well as anecdotes, not conclusions, from biographies and historical accounts:
“Washington” By Ron Chernow
“1776” By David McCullough
“Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power” by John Meacham
“The Hemingses of Monticello” by Annette Gordon-Reed