Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

[tshile]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Exactly.  Which is why simply "they lost, get over it" is a bad argument.  Thats all i was saying.

 

We're not in agreement though.

 

They lost, they were allowed (those who survived) to return and go back to a somewhat normal life, after waging war against the country.

 

They should consider themselves lucky cause elsewhere they'd be lined up and shot, then dumped in mass graves.

 

They were then allowed to push their culture and ideas for decades.

 

They should definitely get over it. The south were traitors. If that truly is their heritage then they should consider themselves lucky to be here because almost anywhere else their bloodlines would have ended a long time ago.

[TheGreatBuzz]

@tshile. See you just put together a well thought out point about WHY.  And I agree.  I was addressing the people that essentially stop after the "you lost" and dont add substance.  

 

Though I will also say simply winning a war doesnt make you right nor does "we didnt end your bloodline".  It has to be fought with showing and explaining WHY you are right.

[tshile]

not statues but related...

 

My town has canceled the annual civil war March. 

 

The civil war is huge in virginia. There are reenactments and people dedicated to it all over the place, it's a very serious hobby around here.

 

People dress up and march in a reenactment style through town. 

 

I'm sure some of them have some bad views, but overall I think it would be a mistake to try to glee anything from the uniform people wear, I imagine many of them have stuff for both sides and fill the role needed at the time and they probably share equipment as needed.

 

But it's been canceled because they fear it'll spark a national controversy.

 

Kind of a shame.

[tshile]

@TheGreatBuzz

Fair enough.

 

I guess I view the "you lost, get over it" argument as implying what I said.

 

Complicating it all, here's and article I read the other night about souther soldiers and their supposed motivations

http://wizbangblog.com/2017/08/21/a-rich-mans-war-a-poor-mans-fight/

 

I thought it was a good read, and the source material is the Smithsonian magazine, I think they're reliable.

[elkabong82]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I've read every word of this thread.  Perhaps you didnt read my post.  Nowhere did I say it was the only argument being made.  I said THAT argument is not a good one.

 

 

How could I have replied to your post if I didn't read it? lol

 

And given what you now claim you actually meant isn't conveyed in that post, at all, it's definitely an undeserved comment.

 

"Or just maybe we can come up with a better argument than...."   That's directly from your post, and if you have seen better arguments in here then you wouldn't have posted that. Nobody would say maybe we can come up with a better one if they think they've already seen better ones. A significantly better response would be "the victor/spoils argument is a poor one for such and such reason, there are better arguments being made in here, such as ... "

[TheGreatBuzz]

18 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

How could I have replied to your post if I didn't read it? lol

 

And given what you now claim you actually meant isn't conveyed in that post, at all, it's definitely an undeserved comment.

 

"Or just maybe we can come up with a better argument than...."   That's directly from your post, and if you have seen better arguments in here then you wouldn't have posted that. Nobody would say maybe we can come up with a better one if they think they've already seen better ones. A significantly better response would be "the victor/spoils argument is a poor one for such and such reason, there are better arguments being made in here, such as ... "

Well you could have just skimmed it, not read it at all and hit the quote button, read it and not thought about what I may have been trying to say, etc.  There are possibilities.

 

You are right that maybe I didn't write it well and I apologize.  I'm working like crazy and trying to participate where I can and on what I think is important.  I didn't put the time into it that I should have.  That said, I don't agree that I just seeing other arguments means I shouldn't point out issues with arguments I do see.  Now, I have seen several arguments here which boil down to "they lost and need to shut up" and I think that is a poor argument.  It seems to be an even more popular argument from the talking heads on TV.  And it really is a ****ty argument.  It is fraught with flaws but the biggest one is that it implies simply winning a war means you can dictate their beliefs and cultures.  Hence, the Japan comparison.  

 

Is that more clear?

[DogofWar1]

Since Buzz's initial post pulled some language from a post of mine, it might have been tied to mine.  To jump back in, it definitely isn't "you lost and need to shut up."  Not at all.  There's a significant difference between "you need to shut up" and "you aren't allowed to whitewash your motives in history books."

 

The latter is what groups glorifying the South have sought to do.  It ought to have gotten much more push-back than it did.  I have no problem with reveling in ones culture, but the problem is that much of the South's culture is so heavily steeped in this "CSA were the good guys" invented history.  Go ahead, and feel free to have your cultural themes and motifs re: food, music, colonial history for the original 13, and frontier life for the more western ones, and whatever else makes its way into the culture.  But leave the pro-Confederacy nonsense out of it.  It's not accurate, and its iconography should not have a place on United States of America public lands or in USA government buildings (with the exception of museums and maybe St. Louis for Lee bc of his engineering feat on the Mississippi river).

[Going Commando]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

They lost, they were allowed (those who survived) to return and go back to a somewhat normal life, after waging war against the country.

 

They should consider themselves lucky cause elsewhere they'd be lined up and shot, then dumped in mass graves.

 

They were then allowed to push their culture and ideas for decades.

 

They should definitely get over it. The south were traitors. If that truly is their heritage then they should consider themselves lucky to be here because almost anywhere else their bloodlines would have ended a long time ago.

 

The Union had neither the strength nor the political will to conquer the South.  The Confederate veterans weren't lucky that the North didn't execute them.  If the Union had executed the Confederate chivalry it would have caused decades of guerrilla resistance that would have exhausted Northern war willingness and probably would have ended in some sort of armistice and degraded Union.  As it was, in an amicable peace, Reconstruction ended in defeat after just ten years.

 

The South as a whole is lucky they were saved from themselves, disunion didn't serve their long term interests either.  But the North was especially lucky to have such a clean and conclusive end to the war.  Lucky they came out of it with a lasting peace, an intact Union, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.  And even still, the 14th and 15th amendments took 100 years to gain the force of law in the South.

 

Calling Confederate veterans traitors assumes that secession was unconstitutional and that revolution of the kind the Confederacy undertook was not a legal means towards achieving secession.  That was not Salmon Chase's interpretation in 1869 in Texas v. White.  The legality of secession had certainly not been settled in 1860.  Lincoln's interpretation of the South as being in rebellion was legally dubious and only sustained by force of arms.  The legality of secession hasn't even been truly settled today.  We live with an unresolved constitutional crisis, ignoring it because it hasn't been in any state's interests to secede in 150 years, and hoping that doesn't change in the future.

[LD0506]

Yanno, as distasteful as this has been it ought to be seen as a good thing. A hard thing to be sure, but in the end a good thing. This is yet another example of separate and divergent narratives trying to coexist, the whole Lost Cause and War of Northern Aggression credo being dismissed and disparaged by those not participating in it. How's that worked for ya America? But now it IS a topic of conversation, heated many times, even spiteful and mean, but a conversation nonetheless.

 

Now as a Yankee I don't know that I am the one to go telling any Southerners what do or how, but I do feel that I can ask some questions and press for clear answers. I'd like to think that given the chance our southern brethren could work this thing out if they could ever get the chance to do it without all the attendant bull**** and namecalling and condescension.  I do find myself looking to hear from those with that birthright, and sharing some when I feel they are worth it. Here's one from a guy I like a lot............

 

My Dad's Confederate Flag

And learning to let go of parts of our Southern "heritage."

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a57184/confederate-statue-removal-reasons/

 

Is it really so unimaginable that after 150 years we might be able to move on while showing each other some modicum of basic respect and civility? C'mon, let's git er done so we can move forward to arguing about WW1

[visionary]

 

[Kosher Ham]

Strange to me that one of the biggest Redskins fans that I know. Defended the flags and such...Just a few days ago years ago.

 

Silent about the same general topic...for a few years now also. 

 

Confusing

[Popeman38]

Maybe we can melt down all the statues and build a sea wall around New Orleans. 

[visionary]

 

[elkabong82]

On 8/25/2017 at 1:21 AM, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Calling Confederate veterans traitors assumes that secession was unconstitutional

 

The South left the Union over slavery. Their cause was not just, plus no action was even taken by Lincoln to end slavery before secession was declared by each state. In fact, South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even inaugaurated. They were traitors. They fit the literal definition of the word. Their actions led to the deaths of over half a million. 

[MarkB452]

16 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

The South left the Union over slavery. Their cause was not just, plus no action was even taken by Lincoln to end slavery before secession was declared by each state. In fact, South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even inaugaurated. They were traitors. They fit the literal definition of the word. Their actions led to the deaths of over half a million. 

 

Are these people traitors too?

https://yescalifornia.org/

 

This site says their referendum is legal:

The Constitution says that each state in the Union shall retain every power which is not by the Constitution given to the federal government. The Constitution does not give the power of secession to the federal government, nor does it expressly prohibit the states from exercising this power. Therefore, the power of secession is reserved to the states, or to the people, per the Tenth Amendment.

[scruffylookin]

Boy now there is a question of them being traitors. Some people look to excuse anything.

 

They were traitors and beyond that, the were ENEMIES of the United States of America. Which is where we live now...........................right?

 

FFS

[Llevron]

27 minutes ago, MarkB452 said:

 

Are these people traitors too?

https://yescalifornia.org/

 

Let me know when they start a war over it

[DogofWar1]

That's probably the most damning thing for the South re: traitors or not; they failed to exhaust their legal options.

 

They just sort of said "we out" and then fired on Fort Sumter.

 

There might be a valid legal argument that seccession is not unconstitutional.

 

But it's got to go through proper channels.

 

If a guy owes you money, that doesn't mean you can just break his kneecaps and its okay.  There are civil solutions.  Similarly, the South should have at least allowed it to wind its way through the courts.

[Spearfeather]

22 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

Their cause was not just, plus no action was even taken by Lincoln to end slavery before secession was declared by each state. In fact, South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even inaugaurated.

 

.. but after he was elected, and I'm not saying that makes much difference, but Lincoln had made his feelings clear on the issue of slavery.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Edited August 29, 2017 by Spearfeather

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

That's probably the most damning thing for the South re: traitors or not; they failed to exhaust their legal options.

 

They just sort of said "we out" and then fired on Fort Sumter.

 

There might be a valid legal argument that seccession is not unconstitutional.

 

But it's got to go through proper channels.

 

If a guy owes you money, that doesn't mean you can just break his kneecaps and its okay.  There are civil solutions.  Similarly, the South should have at least allowed it to wind its way through the courts.

 

Couldn't you say the same about Lincoln then?  Shouldn't he then have attempted to fight the secession of the South through the court system instead of invading it with a massive army?

 

There have been attempts to secede and define secession through the legal process and the Supreme Court actually ruled on a key issue of secession in 1869, determining that the constitution did not allow for states to unilaterally secede.  Chief Justice Chase wrote in his opinion of Texas v. White that secession could only be achieved through mutual agreement of the states or by revolution.  Under that definition, South Carolina would argue they seceded by revolution.  And in view of such, they'd argue that capturing Fort Sumter was seizing a military installation of a foreign country on their lands in violation of their sovereignty.

 

The truth is there was no clear cut legal, constitutional, or philosophical consensus through which to interpret South Carolina's secession in 1860.  This was a true constitutional crisis that the framer's avoided and left for future generations to settle.  And the truth is that Lincoln's determination of the South as being in rebellion and not revolution was legally dubious, and that he was only able to justify it through force of arms.  To this day we don't have a determination of the constitutionality of secession.  Throughout our entire history our union and its legality have been sustained purely by either mutual interest or force of arms.

Edited August 29, 2017 by stevemcqueen1

[Larry]

2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

They just sort of said "we out" and then fired on Fort Sumter.

 

 

Now, now. Don't you remember your Confederate Apologist Alternative Hustory?  

 

The Yankees started the war at Fort Sumpter. When Lincoln sent unarmed ships to deliver supplies to US military personnel stationed at a US military base, in the US. 

[DogofWar1]

21 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Couldn't you say the same about Lincoln then?  Shouldn't he then have attempted to fight the secession of the South through the court system instead of invading it with a massive army?

 

There have been attempts to secede and define secession through the legal process and the Supreme Court actually ruled on a key issue of secession in 1869, determining that the constitution did not allow for states to unilaterally secede.  Chief Justice Chase wrote in his opinion of Texas v. White that secession could only be achieved through mutual agreement of the states or by revolution.  Under that definition, South Carolina would argue they seceded by revolution.  And in view of such, they'd argue that capturing Fort Sumter was seizing a military installation of a foreign country on their lands in violation of their sovereignty.

 

Here's the thing, I don't think SCOTUS' statement re:revolution or consent of states was meant to suggest that revolution was constitutional.  Rather, as with the American Revolution, it would totally unshackle itself from the prior government without the prior government's consent or blessing.

 

So if the argument is that So. Car. engaged in revolution and that it is ambiguous that if such a thing was constitutional or not, I think I disagree.  Revolution is, in my mind, treason against the prior government.

 

That doesn't necessarily make revolutions and treason by revolution inherently bad, our Founding Fathers did it.  But it's still treason to the prior government.

[MarkB452]

51 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Now, now. Don't you remember your Confederate Apologist Alternative Hustory?  

 

The Yankees started the war at Fort Sumpter. When Lincoln sent unarmed ships to deliver supplies to US military personnel stationed at a US military base, in the US. 

 

Actually Buchanan sent an unarmed supply ship in Jan 1861 and it was fired upon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

 

The seceding states seized numerous Federal properties within their boundaries, including buildings, arsenals, and fortifications. President James Buchanan protested but took no military action in response. Buchanan was concerned that an overt action could cause the remaining slave states to leave the Union, and while he acknowledged there was no constitutional authority for a state to secede, he could find no constitutional authority for him to act to prevent it.[7][8]

 

Lincoln took office March 4, 1861.

He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government for the immediate evacuation of Fort Sumter, which Major Anderson refused. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate.

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

 Revolution is, in my mind, treason against the prior government.

 

That doesn't necessarily make revolutions and treason by revolution inherently bad, our Founding Fathers did it.  But it's still treason to the prior government.

 

I think you're failing to make a necessary distinction between rebellion and revolution.  The line between them is ambiguous but meaningful.  In the case of the American Revolution against the British crown and the proprietary governments sanctioned by the crown, the crown's government lost its legitimacy in the consent of the governed and it was permanently replaced by governments that secured that consent.  In such an instance, a revolution occurs and there can be no treason because the previous government no longer has legitimacy.  However, I am sure that the Crown defined their former colonies as being in rebellion, but this dispute was irrelevant because they never reclaimed control of their former colonies.

 

In the case of the Civil War, Lincoln was able to legitimize his claim that the South was in rebellion through sheer force.  The United States lost its legitimacy in the South through the loss of it's consent of the governed, but through conquest they eventually reasserted their legitimacy five years later.  Indeed Texas v. White attempted to settle the legal question of whether or not the Confederate states had left the Union during the war for the purposes of collecting war debts, and the SC ruled that they hadn't left.  But I think there are at least two important indicators that there was tacit and paramount acknowledgement that the South had not been a part of the Union during the war and undermine the argument that the Confederate citizens and veterans were traitors: the former Confederate states were forced to seek readmission to the Union postbellum, and Johnson's general amnesty and the freely granted individual pardons for all activities conducted during the war.

Edited August 29, 2017 by stevemcqueen1

[elkabong82]

6 hours ago, MarkB452 said:

 

Are these people traitors too?

https://yescalifornia.org/

 

This site says their referendum is legal:

The Constitution says that each state in the Union shall retain every power which is not by the Constitution given to the federal government. The Constitution does not give the power of secession to the federal government, nor does it expressly prohibit the states from exercising this power. Therefore, the power of secession is reserved to the states, or to the people, per the Tenth Amendment.

 

They are advocting being traitors. Can't be an actual one until an action is taken.

 

Texas vs White, 1869, Supreme Court ruled no state can secede.