I Hate Mount Rushmore

Ryan McMaken
Mar. 24, 2015

Ninety years ago this month, on March 3, 1925, Congress authorized the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Commission, and thus began the effort to take a perfectly good mountain and ruin it with the faces of a bunch of politicians.

The idea was conceived as nothing more than a tourism gimmick. That is, it was supposed to draw tourists to South Dakota. And it has certainly accomplished this goal. Countless tourists stream into the Black Hills every year to shell out ten bucks or so (per vehicle) to make sure for themselves that Mount Rushmore looks exactly the same in person as it does on postcards. But as you can see, the surrounding area is far more attractive than the monument:

Of course, there are many good reasons to visit the Black Hills of South Dakota which are beautiful in their own right, and the little gambling town of Deadwood certainly offers more entertainment than gazing at the granite face of Abe Lincoln.

Nevertheless, we’re now stuck with this eyesore that was completed in 1941 and which features four men who have virtually nothing at all to do with the histories of South Dakota or any other state in the region. With the possible exception of Roosevelt, none of them ever set foot in the area.

And of course, the mountain is no doubt especially tiresome for the Sioux Indians who were told by the US government as recently as 1880 that the Black Hills would be theirs forever and ever, we cross our hearts and hope to die. Once gold was discovered by whites near Deadwood, however, that promise went right out the window.

So, now we have politician heads carved in stone until the end of time, or until someone dynamites them. [Note to NSA: I do not advocate for this.]

Of course, it would still be a relatively simple matter, legally, to return public lands in the region to the tribes and let them dispose of the mountain as they wish. There’s the distinct possibility they would cynically keep the mountain as is and charge gullible tourists 80 bucks a pop to get into the park. Anyone who’s spent any time as a non-Indian on a reservation knows of what I speak. Besides, they have their own mountain they’re carving into the likeness of one of their politicians (i.e., Crazy Horse.)

Those with knowledge of Western states will note that most of the reservation land, as of 1880 or so, is still largely uninhabited today:

Map source.

This at least would be a good first step in making good on some of those treaties that were unilaterally abrogated since the 1870s. One could go back further, of course, but the post-Civil War treaties are the easiest to legally re-create, and most of the land in said areas remains public lands, meaning large areas of the former reservations could simply be transferred without requiring that the property of current legal private owners be expropriated. Western Colorado, for example, which was still Ute tribal land up until 1880, is still mostly federal land today. Privately-held lands would remain private while public lands would be transferred to the Utes.

Many will tell me I’m crazy for suggesting such a thing, but I fail to see how this plan could possibly result in anything much tackier than Mount Rushmore.