Few Years Ago the Left Declared War on Confederate Statues; Now we have MORE Confederate Statues

[candycorn]

Oh.. So if the University has a dual name -- that protects it from the purge? Lee spent most of his adult life in the North working for military and advancing education. He made a choice. Was not vested in slavery. His HOME is now the land for Arlington Cemetery. Wanna erase that history as well?

We shouldn't celebrate traitors. Plain and simple. You signed up to fight for the enemy of the nation....you are the enemy of the nation. They deserve no public accolades, no public recognition, and zero public funding for preservation of any honorarium.

Take all of the names off the schools...
Take all of the statuary and move it into a museum (it is our history--warts and all)...
Take all of the roads and change the names....

They seceded from the Union. That was an option. The Founders addressed the need to periodically overthrow govts that didn't represent their interests. The Southern economy and culture was VASTLY different from the North and they were being forced to pay for Northern infrastructure that they didn't need.

You're not hanging enough people on your team talking about CalExit and resisting Federal immigration then. Go round up the "traitors"..

That's OUR HISTORY. It won't be re-written because you hold 250 yr old grudges. You're worse than a Southern family with a Stars and Bars. You're STILL FIGHTING the damn war. Give it up. It's looks retarded.

There’s no provision for secession in the constitution. And Madison was explicit that no such power existed. Plus, all the forts were federal property.

When the south attacked US soldiers on federal land.....they sparked the military conflict.

The Constitution only lists the RIGHTS of the federal govt. Everything else is reserved to the states and people respectively. So of course --- "there's no RIGHT of secession" in the Constitution. It's reserved to the states and the people respectively.

Have no idea what Madison quote you're referring to ----- but it's CLEARLY in our Declaration of Independence.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

• "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.

• "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

Nope. The constitution doesn’t list a single government right. Governments don’t have rights. They have powers. People have rights.

The USSC has adjudicated the issue and found that no state has the power to secede. Madison affirmed the same, recognizing that no power was possessed by any state nor ever intended to. You’re mixing up the right of revolution (to overthrow the government, which Madison most definitely recognized) with the right to secede (which Madison rejected explicitly).

Here are Madison’s writings on the topic.

“I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

James Madison.

You’re engaged in the very fallacy that Madison described, conflating the single party (a lone state) with the parties to the compact of the United States (3/4 of all the states). Only the latter has the power you insist that any individual state has. Which is among the many reasons you’re obviously wrong.

As for Jefferson, you couldn’t cite a more irrelevant founder. He wasn’t a delegate for any state in the constitutional convention, didn’t attend the constitutional convention, nor was even in the country at the time of the writing of the constitution.

James Madison, the father of the constitution, most definitely was. The USSC rejecting a power to secede resolves any legal dispute on the matter and Madison resolves any argument of intention of the founders when writing the constitution.

There was no power to secede. A state can only leave the way it entered.....via the power of the constitutional compact of the United States: a 3/4 majority.

I agree with you. There is nothing in the document that prohibits Wisconsin (just to pick a state) from launching an expedition to Mars and claiming it as part of Wisconsin. Can they do such a thing just because there is no mention in the document? As far as I know, there is nothing that prohibits Wisconsin from stamping barcodes on their citizen’s foreheads either. Should they be allowed to do so because there is no prohibition to it? Can they institute a one-child policy like China had/has? Can they outlaw Chocolate Ice Cream? Can they divide into 4 sub states—40 sub states? If Alberta were to secede from Canada or if there were an island for sale in the South Pacific; could WI annex Alberta…send in their troops to secure it in an armed conflict or buy the island?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I moved around a lot as a kid moved from Northern Il to Arkansas.

the most intolerant people are southerners, hands fucking down.

these buffoons still think the south will rise again, call themselves rebels and all sorts of idiotic nonsense.


"The war of Northern aggression"? eat a shit coated dick.


ya lost, come down from the cross and use the would to build a bridge and get over it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

ROFLMAO, the left has had the unintended consequence of raising interest in the Civil War and now we have more memorials, more statues and more awareness of the Southern point of view regarding the War of Northern Aggression.

The left just cant help themselves; 'cause they are Eternal Losers.

Confederate memorials turn up faster than they can be removed a year after Charlottesville

That explains, for example, why the organization’s tally of Confederate monuments (a subset of memorials) has increased from 718 in 2016 to 772, even though over the same period 49 monuments were removed. They include Memphis’ statues of Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general accused of presiding over the slaughter of black Union troops. After the war he became the first "grand wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan.

It was the city of Charlottesville's plan to remove statues of Lee and Jackson from two parks that sparked demonstrations last August by far-right groups. A riot erupted when the protesters clashed with counterprotesters; one counterprotester was killed when she was rammed by a car driven into a crowd by a man linked to white supremacist groups.


The conflict became a national political debate after President Trump appeared to equate the white supremacists and their opponents, referring at one point to "very fine people on both sides."

A year later, the statues that prompted it all remain in place; state law prohibits local governments from "disturbing or interfering with" memorials to war veterans.

Old memorials, newly recorded
Most of the law center survey’s newly recorded memorials are not themselves new. Many date from 1890 to 1914, when the South reversed the effects of Reconstruction, systematically denied blacks the right to vote and redefined the primary Confederate war aim as the protection of states’ rights, not slavery. This theory, regarded as specious by most academic historians, is called “The Lost Cause.’’

But the increase in public Confederate memorials is not entirely a matter of record-keeping. At least 44 new ones have been established since the turn of the century.​

“Few Years Ago the Left Declared War on Confederate Statues…”

This fails as a straw man fallacy and ridiculous rightwing lie – ‘the left’ did no such thing.

correct, it's a war on free speech

 

[Yarddog]

The population of the entire country is growing so naturally the population of racist confederate Republicans will grow.

Thats ridiculous, if people would leave the young and upcoming generations alone... I mean stop putting a stick in some kids eye telling him he needs to be ashamed of his parents, his grandparents, his ancestors who may have been on the wrong side in the civil war, the founders of the country, what the American flag stands for, what America stands for .... then maybe the younger kids growing up can leave the sins of their parents behind... and young people will get along much better than the current batch of has beens...but no. Political activist politicians each election cycle want to force down everyones throat what their self image should be. And if they don't get on their knees and take it.... well, that must be because they are racists.

If the population of racists happens to increase it will be more so because of people like yourself I think.

 

[Skylar]

What Madison actually pitched at the Constitutional Convention was THIS distinction. (from the Wiki under secession in the US)..

Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.[30]

In other words -- don't bother the COURTS with claim of secession -- take up arms.

Madison elaborates on the distinctions, and again obliterates your argument:



“It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.

The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, and now here less so than where it is now most contended for.”



Madison recognized no power in an individual state to secede. And in the very letter you cited, rejected the idea of “Seceding at Will” by any state. The confederacy didn’t claim to unmake the constitution or overthrow the entire government. They claimed the authority, individually to secede at will, while the constitution remained in tact.

And in the very letter you cited, Madison explains why this doesn’t work:



“The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.“



This is your own letter. And Madison kicks the entire concept of secession at will by an individual state in the teeth yet again. Madison recognized the revolutionary right of the people to annul the constitution. But the confederacy didn’t annul the constitution. They recognized that it still existed after they claim to have “left” it.

Thus, per Madison, without annulment of the constitution, the constitution remains supreme.

The unit that recognized as being the competent authority.....was the sovereign people of the several states. The several states being the 3/4 majority that were parties to the compact.

Madison explicitly rejects the idea that any line state possesses this power. And rejects the power to secede if any individual state. Only the parties to the compact, the several states, possesses such power.

Demonstrating yet sgain, that you’re quite simply wrong. There is no power to secede by an individual state.

 

[flacaltenn]

You’re engaged in the very fallacy that Madison described, conflating the single party (a lone state) with the parties to the compact of the United States (3/4 of all the states). Only the latter has the power you insist that any individual state has. Which is among the many reasons you’re obviously wrong.

Can't be wrong if I'm quoting Madison above EXPLAINING the difference between the legality of secession and the ability to revolt. And the Southern secession was NOT a "single party". Makes no diff whether it's 3/4 or 3/8.

And pardon me for using "rights' of government. I'll duly slap myself. But as you might notice, after all your mighty bickering -- there is STILL no power in the Constitution enumerated to punish secession. Any GREAT legal agreement has temination, withdrawal and/or secession clauses. This one does not.

 

[Lysistrata]

The OP seems to be creaming his jeans about having More statues of treasonous traitors. He "enjoys history"? You`re pretty funny.

The South was completely rehabilitated and forgiven, so there is no treason whatsoever legally, and the Southern warriors were also forgiven their tresspasses and are to be treated as US Army veterans, you myopic little bug.

I am curious as to why you have an avatar that suggests the Christian cross and your posts seem to suggest an affinity for those who fought to keep people in bondage. Come to Old Town Alexandria, VA., which was Robert E. Lee's childhood home and also the home of a very large slave market. Come visit the history of Alexandria, VA. I live around here.

BTW: you can even take a free trolley down King Street from the King Street metro station.

 

[Skylar]

You’re engaged in the very fallacy that Madison described, conflating the single party (a lone state) with the parties to the compact of the United States (3/4 of all the states). Only the latter has the power you insist that any individual state has. Which is among the many reasons you’re obviously wrong.

Can't be wrong if I'm quoting Madison above EXPLAINING the difference between the legality of secession and the ability to revolt. And the Southern secession was NOT a "single party". Makes no diff whether it's 3/4 or 3/8.

And pardon me for using "rights' of government. I'll duly slap myself. But as you might notice, after all your mighty bickering -- there is STILL no power in the Constitution enumerated to punish secession. Any GREAT legal agreement has temination, withdrawal and/or secession clauses. This one does not.

Madison didn’t explain the “legality of secession” by an individual state. He explicitly rejected the idea. He recognized the power of the people to overthrow the entire government. To “secede from oppression”.

The confederscy didn’t claim to overthrow the entire government or annul theconstitution. They claime to have merely “left” the constitution, while the constitution remains intact. In your own letter, Madison explains why this doesn’t work.


“The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.”

James Madison


This is your own letter. And you’re straight up ignoring it. You fallaciously conflate the power to secede at will by an individual state (which Madison soundly rejects) with the right to revolution by the people of overthrowing the entire government (which Madison recognizes.)

Worse, Madison elaborates on this same concept again and again, and explicitly rejects the power to secede at will over and over again.



“It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.

The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, and now here less so than where it is now most contended for.

James Madison



Which you just straight up ignore, as you did the passages contradicting you in your own letter. Despite it obliterating your entire argument. And again;



“I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.”

James Madison



Which again, you straight up ignore. Madison obliterates the entire concept of the power of an individual state to secede. Over and over again. There’s no ambiguity. Madison dismissed your argument as a fallacy.

You can ignore this. But you can’t make us ignore it. And as the USSC ruling refuting secession demonstrates elegantly, ignoring the overwhelming evidence doesn’t work in a legal argument.

 

[WEATHER53]

We don’t want to look at it
We don’t want to hear it
We dont want to read it
We don’t want you to say it

 

[Skylar]

We don’t want to look at it
We don’t want to hear it
We dont want to read it

Yeah, I know. But ignoring the facts doesn’t make them disappear.

 

[flacaltenn]

Madison didn’t explain the “legality of secession” by an individual state. He explicitly rejected the idea. He recognized the power of the people to overthrow the entire government. To “secede from oppression”.

We're not talking about "an individual state" here. If that was the scope of Madison concerns --- I might agree.

The confederscy didn’t claim to overthrow the entire government or annul theconstitution. They claime to have merely “left” the constitution, while the constitution remains intact. In your own letter, Madison explains why this doesn’t work.

As I said -- "dont take it to court" because LEGALLY there was an agreement ratified by more than 3/4 of the states. But there was no termination or secession language in the entire document. The Founders punted that play in order to avoid a struggle.

BRITAIN is right now exiting a SIMILAR MODERN agreement. Apparently, you can DO THIS without threatening conflict.

The CONFLICT occurred because a particular President decided to "save the Union" when a continguous section of States simply left the agreement.. A president who talked amply about the GLORIES of secession vis a vis the Mexican war in 1848 and how the US should export that message to the world.

Lincoln, Secession and Slavery

“In treating the history of Texas, Lincoln uttered words that would return to haunt him thirteen years later when Southern states left the Union: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.” In this rather gratuitous passage, Lincoln may have been trying to curry favor with Southern Whigs resentful of Northern congressmen, like John Quincy Adams, who had denied the legitimacy of the Texas revolution of 1835-36. Lincoln was cooperating with several Southern Whig congressmen in an attempt to help Zachary Taylor of Louisiana win their party’s presidential nomination.”




You remember NOW how we got Texas????

 

[Skylar]

Madison didn’t explain the “legality of secession” by an individual state. He explicitly rejected the idea. He recognized the power of the people to overthrow the entire government. To “secede from oppression”.

We're not talking about "an individual state" here. If that was the scope of Madison concerns --- I might agree.

Madison was absolutely talking about individual state.


“I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States”

James Madison




The single party.....was the individual state. You’re literally embracing the exact fallacy that Madison described.

Madison rejected a lone states power to secede. The single parties were equally bound to the free government. Unless the constitution was annulled, the constitution was supreme.

And under the confederacy, the US constitution wasn’t annulled. Nor was the government overthrown. Utterly obliterating your entire argument.

Sigh....again

 

[jon_berzerk]

Few Years Ago the Left Declared War on Confederate Statues; Now we have MORE Confederate Statues

the laws of unintended consequences are always funny

--LOL

 

[Skylar]

Few Years Ago the Left Declared War on Confederate Statues; Now we have MORE Confederate Statues

the laws of unintended consequences are always funny

--LOL

You may want to dig a little deeper. The reason there are more monuments....is that they discovered more.

 

[flacaltenn]

Madison was absolutely talking about individual state.

Yes. And for the THIRD TIME -- southern secession was not an individual state deciding on their lonesome to withdraw.

And under the confederacy, the US constitution wasn’t annulled. Nor was the government overthrown. Utterly obliterating your entire argument.

When you withdraw from a multi-party compact -- you have NO NEED to anull ANY continuing contract between the parties left behind. Especially if it doesn't specify a termination, withdrawal, or secession clause. The OTHER parties are WELCOME to keep it. But there was NO ENFORCEMENT specified to KEEP parties in the agreement.

That's why the UK and the EU are NOT going to war.


Also no NEED to "overthrow" the US Govt outside the Confederacy. The SOUTH didn't WANT more territory. Never sought it. Never coveted it. Never even ASKED for conflict. Just a kick in pants and "see ya".

It was Lincoln who decided to ENFORCE compliance which led to what is aptly called -- "The War of Northern Aggression". Actually flowers and a Hallmark card would have probably led to a very PEACEFUL parting.

 

[Skylar]

Madison was absolutely talking about individual state.

Yes. And for the THIRD TIME -- southern secession was not an individual state deciding on their lonesome to withdraw.

Absolute nonsense. Read the declaration of secession of South Carolina and the Ordinance to Dissolve the Union between South Carolina and the Other States.

http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/Ordinance.htm

Drafted by the lone state of South Carolina. Declaring their power as a lone state to withdraw from the union. Exactly as Madison described in detail they had no authority to do. And as you bizarrely pretend that South Carolina never tried to do.

For crying out loud, South Carolina had been babbling about secession for a half century before it actually made its formal declaration. Madison is talking about South Carolina *specifically* in his letters, as South Carolina was the one threatening secession in 1833.

So there's no possibility that there is any confusion. You're simply ignore ignore history and Madison, the father of the constitution.

You can choose to ignore history and Madison. But you can’t make us ignore either.

And under the confederacy, the US constitution wasn’t annulled. Nor was the government overthrown. Utterly obliterating your entire argument.

When you withdraw from a multi-party compact -- you have NO NEED to anull ANY continuing contract between the parties left behind.

Says you. Madison, the father or the constitution, says otherwise.


"It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.“

James Madison


So, predictably, you ignored James Madison this point as well. But why would I or any rational person ignore James Madison on the constitution, and instead believe you?

There is no reason.

This made all the clearer when Madison hammers the lack of authority of a lone state again and again on matters of secession.


“It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest."

James Madison


Contrary to your claims, the State of South Carolina (the first to claim to secede) did so unilaterally, by itself, as a single party and lone State. Says who? Says the State of South Carolina is its own declaration.

Your entire argument at this point is basically pretending that the overwhelming evidence contradicting you doesn't exist.

Alas, it does. And every time you ignore it, I'll just quote it again.