Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

[DogofWar1]

3 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

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.

 

I'm not sure the distinction is necessary.  Treason is relatively simple.

 

From a definition standpoint: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

 

From a statutory perspective: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381.  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

I think you're needlessly complicating this philosophically.  Losing the consent of the governed does not suddenly mean a government ceases to be legitimate.  If a government is exercising lawful control over a landmass, they're legitimate.  That doesn't mean they're good, but they are still legitimate.  The distinction between rebellion and revolution is not really necessary; under both situations the consent of the governed is lost.  Why is one legitimate and not treasonous and the other is illegitimate and treasonous?

 

Would the Founding Fathers have been treasonous if their revolution failed?  Would it have then simply been a rebellion?  Under what set of facts do the Founding Fathers commit treason against the British?  Does success or failure of an attempted overthrow determine if treason is committed or not; and if so, under which of the two, AmRev or CivWar, did treason occur?  And if treason occurred in neither, can treason be said to ever happen?

 

 

Again, I think this is over-complicating things.

 

A government controls a landmass.  The landmass can be converted to a new government via force of arms in two manners; from without and from within.  From without is being conquered.  From within is revolution/rebellion of previously lawful citizens, who took up arms against their previous government; that is, treason.

 

The Civil War AND Revolutionary War were both the latter.

 

I think we're reading Texas v. White differently.  The argument is that Texas (and the others) never left the Union, but that's because there is no constitutional method through which to leave.  They never left because they can't, there is no constitutional method via which to do so.

 

The only exceptions to this aren't meant to be constitutional, but merely practical.  From a practical standpoint, a successful revolution would remove Texas from the Union; similarly if Texas said they were leaving and the other states allowed them to, their (unconstitutional) act would, from a practical standpoint, be allowed, albeit still not constitutional.

 

 

Something to consider, from the text of the decision:

"At the time of that outbreak, Texas was confessedly one of the United States of America, having a State constitution in accordance with that of the United States, and represented by senators and representatives in the Congress at Washington. In January, 1861, a call for a convention of the people of the State was issued, signed by sixty-one individuals. The call was without authority and revolutionary. Under it delegates were elected from some sections of the State, whilst in others no vote was taken. These delegates assembled in State convention, and on the 1st of February, 1861, the convention adopted an ordinance 'to dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled, 'the Constitution of the United States of America."

 

 

Generally speaking, decisions of SCOTUS are written with a lot of intent behind their words.  While it's possible Chief Justice Chase didn't mean to tie the word in to his other uses of revolution, I somewhat doubt he would have used "revolutionary" if he hadn't meant to tie it to the concept of "revolution."

 

Which leads us to this:

1. The secession Texas voted for during the civil war was functionally a revolution.

2. The secession Texas voted for during the civil war was illegitimate and unconstitutional and therefore never happened.

3. Revolution is one of two ways to leave the union.

 

Logically it follows that revolutions are not constitutionally sanctioned.

 

Further, if revolutions are constitutional, it causes the decision to conflict with itself IF we assume Texas (and the other states) engaged in revolutionary activity.  Texas' actions were not constitutional, but if revolution is constitutional and therefore not treasonous, and Texas engaged in revolution, then their actions must be constitutional and non-treasonous.  That reading of the decision would make Texas' actions simultaneously constitutional and unconstitutional, both treason and not.

 

I don't think that was Chase's intention.  He intended it to be clear that there is no lawful method for a state to leave the USA; his line regarding revolution and consent of the states was not intended to provide a constitutional and non-treasonous loophole.

 

 

As for the two post-war acts you bring up; readmission and freely granted pardons, I think the former is overruled by the SCOTUS decision in Texas v. White, while the latter actually implies that they committed crimes by taking up arms against the government.  

 

Why would pardons be necessary for people if they had not committed treasonous acts?  If their revolution was Constitutional under the 9th, then they would have, upon performance of the revolution, become citizens of the CSA, without committing a crime against the USA.  Upon the CSA's defeat, they would become vassal/citizens of the USA once more.  No laws of the USA could have been broken for which a pardon would be necessary, because under the theory of constitutional revolution, they would never have been either citizens of the USA or on USA land (and thus subject to the USA's laws), during the timeframes for which they committed acts which could be construed as illegal.

 

Indeed, in Johnson's proclamation, it states (found here: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360):

 

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."

 

 

Phew.

 

TDLR for everyone else: Treason is taking up arms against a government you are subject to.  Southerners took up arms against the USA during Civil War.  Secession is not constitutional per Texas v. White, there is no constitutional method for state to leave USA.  Therefore southerners were subject to USA and took up arms against.  Southerners were committing treason.  Southerners then pardoned for treason by Johnson.

[twa]

5 hours ago, MarkB452 said:

which Major Anderson refused.

 

Hard headed lot, prone to starting ****....I hear I'm related 

[Riggo-toni]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_599b3747e4b06a788a2af43e

 

The Confederate General Who Was Erased

 

I haven't the time to parse through this entire thread, so forgive me if already posted, but this is a great article and sheds light on the "it was all about history/heritage b.s." Fascinating how this guy (as well as Longstreet) got slandered post-war for their forward thinking (non, or at least less, racist) politics.

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Not dog whistle language at all.  Just laid out there.

[DogofWar1]

Okay, seriously, ffs, washed up confederate dudes, there are SO MANY ways to kill a man.

 

Why, oh why, is it always, ALWAYS lynching with you people?

 

Like, electric chair, lethal injection, those are actually used still and don't have racist undertones (for the most part).  Reasonable plausible deniability.

 

Firing squad, okay, little old, but still, is not nearly as associated with racism as hanging.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, get creative with it?  Y'know?  Fire ants.  New and exciting, right?!

 

Iron bull.  Get medieval on them.

 

SHARKS!

 

 

Just...not hanging.  Or, y'know, keep saying hanging, it makes it really easy for us to figure out where your head is really at.

 

Makes me think these guys have guilty consciences and this is actually a cry for help.

[c slag]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Destino said:

Just replace them with college football related statues.  Maybe throw in a NASCAR driver.  You'd take the wind right out of the white nationalist sails.  

Maybe not a Joe Paterno statue though 

[MarkB452]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 8:28 AM, Riggo-toni said:

The Confederate General Who Was Erased

 

>> Thanks...interesting read...I just suggested his name as the new name for Jefferson Davis highway in Alexandria.

[MarkB452]

9 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

SHARKS!

....but only sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!  ..ill-tempered mutated sea bass. would also be a good start as well.

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Jumbo]

this is one i pulled back in may but never posted...well before charlottesville etc. but it fits here...it's hardly breaking news or a surprise for many folks...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/confederate-white-house-museum-hangs-old-south-notions-150336869.html

 

 

Alabama history tour covers Civil War, cotton - not slaves

 

Quote

 

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Schoolchildren who visit the First White House of the Confederacy learn that its famous former resident, President Jefferson Davis, was leader of a "heroic resistance" who was "held by his Negroes in genuine affection as well as highest esteem." Such ideas, once mainstream Southern thought, have largely been abandoned by historians. But they are still part of the message at this state-supported museum in Alabama's capital city that hosts thousands of grade-school students from different ethnic backgrounds on field trips every year.

 

Some critics say presenting discredited notions about the Confederacy at the antebellum home where Davis lived in the early months of the Civil War helps perpetuate a skewed version of the past and shouldn't be supported by Alabama tax dollars. "You're essentially giving money to push historical narratives that we haven't heard since the Klan era in the 1920s," said Heidi Beirich, director of the hate-watching Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

The museum perseveres in a newer era, when many Confederate memorials across the South are being re-evaluated. South Carolina lowered the Confederate flag at the state Capitol after a 2015 mass murder at a black church in Charleston. And last month, New Orleans officials took down a 35-foot granite obelisk that honored whites who tried to topple a biracial Reconstruction government installed in New Orleans after the Civil War.

 

On a recent trip to the Montgomery museum, fourth-graders from rural Wilcox County in southern Alabama trudged up a nearly 200-year-old staircase and into the Relic Room, where a painting of Gen. Robert E. Lee hangs amid the four flags of the Confederacy. Tour guide Robert Wieland tells the children the room was formerly called a "shrine." The pupils heard about the importance of the South's cotton economy and learned how to spin raw clumps of the stuff onto wooden spools but were told little about the slaves whose forced labor drove the textile industry. Tours and literature there make little mention of African Americans, except for a copy of "Jim Limber Davis: A Black Orphan in the Confederate White House," an illustrated children's book about a boy adopted by the Davis family.

 

The book is displayed across from a framed image of some of the South's most prominent leaders titled "Our Heroes and Our Flags."

 

Selma Democratic state Sen. Hank Sanders said the house, which in recent years cost Alabama taxpayers more than $100,000 a year to operate, presents a history that ignores African Americans. "What I would like to see is the whole story be told from all sides," he said. "Black history has been whitewashed."

In response to such criticism, representatives of the museum ask why they should have to tell students about the evils of slavery. "They just know it," said Gibbs Davis, a member of the nonprofit group that solicits donations for the house and maintains it.

 

<much more at link>

 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

16 hours ago, MarkB452 said:

 

>> Thanks...interesting read...I just suggested his name as the new name for Jefferson Davis highway in Alexandria.

 

Why?

[MarkB452]

8 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Why?

 

-- I think it is a good compromise between those want to keep confederate names and those want them removed.  This kind of does both.....however, it is something that people are either going to really like or really hate, so it probably won't make the cut to the second round (nor will Roadie McRoad Face which would be a merchandising jackpot).

 

I was looking for a link to the renaming website and found this statement that someone else had written about Mahone.

 

JohnButz33 5ptsFeatured
6 days ago

How about William Mahone highway?  He was a Civil War general under Lee, and after the war worked hard to achieve racial parity in the Old Dominion, both as Governor and Senator.  His whole record would satisfy both sides on this issue.  He also brought a lot of railroads to Virginia, founding the line that became Norfolk and Western.

 

Renaming Link:

https://survey.alexandriava.gov/s3/Jefferson-Davis-Highway-Renaming

[Spearfeather]

First we have goons coming in from Ohio and Georgia to Charlottesville where the " Capital of the Resistance " completely blows it.

Now we have some guys ( and girls ) from the Volunteer State coming into Richmond this weekend.

 

I'd like to tell them to stay the **** in Tennessee.

 

The Sons of Confederate Veterans in Virginia has told its members to stay away from the " rally ".

 

Virginia Commonwealth University has asked students to stay away also.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by visionary

[Llevron]

I wanna see some of these dedicated confederates throwing themselves in front of the truck as one last attempt to stop this madness. 

[SoulSkin]

How the hell are the people of Dallas supposed to remember who lost the civil war now?

 

21 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

First we have goons coming in from Ohio and Georgia to Charlottesville where the " Capital of the Resistance " completely blows it.

Now we have some guys ( and girls ) from the Volunteer State coming into Richmond this weekend.

 

I'd like to tell them to stay the **** in Tennessee.

 

The Sons of Confederate Veterans in Virginia has told its members to stay away from the " rally ".

 

Virginia Commonwealth University has asked students to stay away also.

 

Sounds like the RPD is not messing around with this. Cordoning off assembly points, closing streets, They're not allowing bags, flagpoles, sticks, helmets, shields, masks, caustic substances, etc. Seems like there will be very low tolerance for anyone coming close to breaking the law, or not paying attention to the prohibited items. They said they won't be able to separate 'the sides' though, which is a little bit ominous. These people coming are definitely gonna be open carrying and flagging about, from what I've read. Counter protesters are now coming in from out of state too. I'm with you. I wish these all these people would stay where they come from, but it's inevitable that these types of events happen here. I think I might go to the rally at the Maggie Walker statue in the AM. Not positive if I'll end up near the Lee Monument or not, but I think I probably will for at least a little bit. 

Edited September 15, 2017 by SoulSkin

[Spearfeather]

On 9/15/2017 at 1:40 PM, SoulSkin said:

 

I'm with you. I wish these all these people would stay where they come from, but it's inevitable that these types of events happen here. I think I might go to the rally at the Maggie Walker statue in the AM. Not positive if I'll end up near the Lee Monument or not, but I think I probably will for at least a little bit. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               And everyone I talked to today expressed the same sentiment : " These people ( both sides ) aren't even from here ! " and  " they're just going to come here to try to stir things up. " Talked to a woman originally from Long Island who said she had been here for about 10 years and the heat takes a little getting used to, but she really likes it here and her kids love it here. Talked to another guy who''s lived in and around Richmond most of his life ( much like myself ) and owns a shop one block from the Lee Monument who said he's had several customers who were black, tell him they can't believe how crazy people are getting over this and basically the whole thing is overblown.

They both said the same things.

Former Governor of Virginia, Doug Wilder, the grandson of slaves, the first black Governor in the United States since reconstruction, was on local radio recently and said, " As Governor, I never advocated for the statues being removed, and I still do not advocate for them being removed. " 

                                                         

   As far as the authorities are concerned, yes, they've been clear. If you have your face covered anywhere near the Lee Monument tomorrow or any monument; you will be arrested without warning. Of course you can carry a gun, but if you take it out of the holster, you will be arrested, and not in a nice way. If you step on the area around the Lee Monument, you will be arrested.

And SoulSkin, I can't tell you what to do man, and you may or may not care one bit about my advice, but for what it's worth; I wouldn't go near there tomorrow. Stay at the Maggie Walker statue and enjoy yourself there as much as possible. If you go over to the Lee Monument I mean, what are you going to do ? You want to get a first hand look and the next thing you know, you're in the middle of something you don't want any part of.

I'm praying and hoping everything stays relatively calm there.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Spearfeather

[TradeTheBeal!]

I've lived in Richmond 25 years.

I love Richmond.

 

I'll be leaving town for the weekend early tomorrow morning and I couldn't be happier about it.  

[SoulSkin]

12 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

...I can't tell you what to do man, and you may or may not care one bit about my advice, but for what it's worth; I wouldn't go near there tomorrow. Stay at the Maggie Walker statue and enjoy yourself there as much as possible. If you go over to the Lee Monument I mean, what are you going to do ? You want to get a first hand look and the next thing you know, you're in the middle of something you don't want any part of.

I'm praying and hoping everything stays relatively calm there.

 

 

It's good advice. I'm going to try to be smart and safe if I do go. I'll be on a bike, so probably at the fringes of everything anyway. I have a feeling the RPD is going to be trying to divert people from there as much as possible, and clamping down more than people expect. I heard some talk in their press conferences that made me think they might even be arresting people for things like profanity. I think there really is going to be something pretty close to a zero-tolerance policy from them. The rally at Maggie Walker is way more my style. The smart thing is to stay far away from Lee Circle, I know. 

[tshile]

10 hours ago, Llevron said:

I wanna see some of these dedicated confederates throwing themselves in front of the truck as one last attempt to stop this madness. 

But only when it's at the point where the truck cannot stop

[Cooked Crack]

Some statue news. Wonder how many people will be triggered by this one.

 

Quote

Nat Turner, the leader of a violent Virginia slave uprising, will be honored on a new emancipation statue in Richmond

 

A state commission planning a new anti-slavery monument in downtown Richmond voted Wednesday to include Nat Turner, the leader of a bloody 1831 slave uprising in Southampton County, among a group of 10 African-American figures who will be honored on the statue's base.

 

The work on the new statue being done by the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Commission has thus far avoided controversy, but the decision to include Turner - seen as a freedom fighter by many and a mass murderer by others - is likely to bring a new level of attention to the planning process for the monument meant to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of slavery.

 

Turner was by far the most hotly debated name Wednesday as a panel state lawmakers and historians tried to select 10 honorees from a list of 30 finalists.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/nat-turner-the-leader-of-a-violent-virginia-slave-uprising/article_ff963fe8-d438-5a59-858a-272120f2eb5a.html

 

[twa]

Will he be armed?...If so ,I'm good w/it/

[Gamebreaker]

If you have a problem with a Lee statue being removed, because it’s “part of our history”, yet complain about a Nat Turner statue.....? Yeah, you just might be a racist. 

[visionary]