Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,169 posts, read 24,322,394 times
Reputation: 15291

Advertisements

I was very disappointed that the AHA statement addressed only the statues of generals and politicians, and had not a word to say about the many memorials to the Southern soldiers, often commemorated anonymously, who gave their lives in the war. Are they also to be torn down and their memory effaced? Are their families to be denied the consolation that, irrespective of political factors, they gave the last full measure of service to what they believed to be the just cause of defending their homes?

A note of caution to those who would call these thousands of Southern men "traitors" and excoriate them for fighting for a cause which many today believe to be both immoral and doomed to failure. For cannot the same be said of the 58,000-odd names on the Vietnam Memorial Wall? Keep in mind that many of the voices hurling vituperation at the Confederate dead also screamed insults and mocked the American veterans of Vietnam as servants of a failed, racist foreign policy, as sociopathic murderers of civilians and children, and whose service as reminiscent of the atrocities of "Genghis Khan" in the words of one particularly loathsome candidate for President.

Any organization which chooses to conflate the memory of ordinary soldiers who died in a conflict which later generations consider immoral and unworthy of honor, with the politicians and general officers who originated and inspired such a conflict, is not only making a grave historical error, but also consigning the dead soldiers and their descendants to an undeserved disgrace and dishonor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:38 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 4,492,522 times
Reputation: 3981
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou View Post
Unless we're in a culture that passes its history down orally (which we are not), then history must take some physical form. Such as a book, a painting, a movie, or a monument or statue. So these physical things become history itself, or at least our knowledge of it. It's pretty sad to see the American Historical Association claim otherwise, but I suspect that they have their own political motives.

A book is quite different than a status. A statue cost money. Either by a rich donator or a local government. It is inherently biased. And lets face it. Nobody learns history from a statue. They are memorials and such are biased in some memories. hey belong in a graveyard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:40 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,423,272 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
The same arguments made by the AHA for removal of the statues could be made for the removal of paintings, books, photos and videos, or more restricted access to them.
Not really. The First Amendment protects paintings, books, etc., and even statues on private property that don't violate zoning laws (or HOA by-laws, etc.) regarding size, etc. The First Amendment does not bar a community from removing statues on public land that the community or its democratic representatives deem offensive. The majority of residents in many communities, unlike President Trump, don't find Confederate statues "beautiful," but understandably representing evil and ugliness.

Most removed Confederate statues have not been damaged and are readily available. At least one has been relocated to a community that desired it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/u...g.html?mcubz=0

It seems likely that neo-Confederate groups and defenders of the Confederacy could find land to purchase where they could relocate many, if not all removed Confederate monuments for the price of transportation and display. Many neo-Confederates and their sympathizers might be willing to pay to see these statues, especially if accompanied by a Confederate "fake history" museum. Look at the success of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Of course, if someone owns a statue and wants to destroy it, that also is their right, if the destruction doesn't violate any law. Neo-Confederates should act quickly before some scrap dealer offers to buy the statues.

There are many bad history books in existence (ever hear of Mason Weems?). American historians admirably would rather write about historical errors and bad histories than wipe them out from existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,768 posts, read 1,581,960 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
In a nutshell, the Constitution replaced the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," in order to form "a more perfect Union." The fact that the Union was perpetual was well understood by everyone in the Civil War era, which is why Confederate leaders never attempted a lawsuit to assure their right of secession.
So, you cannot cite a Constitutional prohibition against leaving the Union. Got it. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
As noted in Post 264, the Perpetual Union was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Texas vs. White, thereby conclusively establishing that the right of secession by states does not exist in the Constitution.
Yes, SCOTUS has been wrong many times. It is not infallible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Likely, one reason that the Perpetual Union was established was that it was heavily promoted by George Washington.
As great a man as GW was, he was not among the people we typically look to for support of assertions re the Constitutionality of a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Ignorance of Constitutional law characterizes the arguments of neo-Confederates, transcending the better understanding of the Constitution by real Civil War Confederates, who recognized that they were engaged in an armed rebellion to overturn the Perpetual Union mandated by the Constitution and agreed to as essential by the Founding Fathers.
And arrogance characterizes statements such as yours, above.

I have not only studied Con Law, but, have also studied the history of our nation's formation and the arguments for and against our Constitution.

To assert that our founding fathers agreed on much is to illustrate significant ignorance, in an appallingly ignorant manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:54 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,423,272 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Really the only aspect of the Confederate cause that was bad was the support of slavery.

But, despite the current conventional wisdom stating that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, it was not.

The Civil War was initiated by the Union to prevent the Southern states from withdrawing from the United States. Lincoln stated that the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union.
What ignorance.

Confederate leaders instituted a bloody and otherwise costly armed rebellion in order to dissolve the Perpetual Union and defend the institution of slavery.

It was well known that such an action would result in armed conflict, as privately expressed by George Washington and publicly stated by Andrew Jackson, both slave owners. Texas Governor Sam Houston warned Texans as much, and refused to sign an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCNB3Y5uBRQ

Lincoln did NOT call for Union militias to be called to active duty until AFTER the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.

The Decision - Lincoln's Response to the Fort Sumter Crisis
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 10:26 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,423,272 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
So, you cannot cite a Constitutional prohibition against leaving the Union. Got it. Thanks.
I did cite the Constitutional existence of a Perpetual Union. Don't you understand the meaning of "perpetual?"



Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Yes, SCOTUS has been wrong many times.
Supreme Court rulings are binding interpretations of the Constitution, unless reversed. Texas vs. White is 150 years old and has not been reversed nor is it in any danger of being overturned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
As great a man as GW was, he was not among the people we typically look to for support of assertions re the Constitutionality of a thing.
Actually Constitutional historians almost universally acknowledge that George Washington was the inspiration for much of the Constitution, especially the formulation of executive powers. The Perpetual Union was undeniably a strong expression of Washington's reasoned and widely disseminated beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
And arrogance characterizes statements such as yours, above.
Nothing is more arrogant than promoting ignorance and historical gibberish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
I have not only studied Con Law, but, have also studied the history of our nation's formation and the arguments for and against our Constitution.

To assert that our founding fathers agreed on much is to illustrate significant ignorance, in an appallingly ignorant manner.
Obviously, your great wisdom affords you superiority over not only a Supreme Court ruling recognizing the Perpetual Union, but also over the words of Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address:

<<I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself....

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?



Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."


But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.



I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself....


From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?



Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. [Emphasis added.] A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left....


In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
>>


The Avalon Project : First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln


The vast majority of Americans, even more so today than in 1861, value the words and reasoning of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln over ignorant and self-aggrandizing individuals, typically neo-Confederates or their sympathizers, who advocate for a right of secession that never existed and view Lincoln as the aggressor and instigator of violence in the Civil War.


PATHETIC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 10:59 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,423,272 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
The reason Jefferson Davis was not tried after the Civil War was because the Confederate States were a foreign Nation. They were not "rebels" or "insurrectionists". They lawfully left the Union before they formed the Confederate States of America. The Union knew that to put Jefferson Davis on trial after the Civil War would be to risk people agreeing that it was legal for the Southern States separately and individually to leave the Union and that the Union's war to prevent the same was in fact, as the Southerners still say, a war of aggression.
More historical gibberish. The Supreme Court and the Union maintained that the Confederate states had no right to secede from the Perpetual Union and the Confederacy was never a foreign government. States did not have to honor the debt of the Confederacy or of Confederate states, because they were not legally constructed. These principles were enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Tax History Project -- Tax History -- Can the 14th Amendment Fix Everything?

Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and others were not tried for one simple reason -- generals Ulysses S. Grant and William Sherman, following the orders of President Lincoln who sought "to bind up the nation's wounds," afforded Confederate leaders parole in exchange for the surrender of their armies.

Grant vehemently disagreed with all of those, including President Johnson, who would have tried Confederate leaders for treason:

<<In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.>>

Grant Protects Lee From Treason Trial – Civil War Profiles

Grant threatened his resignation (likely with an implied threat to engage in political recourse), if President Johnson did not drop all attempts to try Confederate leaders.

<<

Grant also visited personally with President Johnson to discuss the situation, but was dismayed to find that Johnson fully intended to let the proceedings continue. Grant insisted the Appomattox terms be honored. Johnson asked when the men could be tried. “Never,” Grant responded, “unless they violate their paroles.”
Andrew Johnson, however, was just as stubborn as Grant and told the general he wouldn’t interfere with the prosecution. Grant too refused to back down, telling the President he would resign his commission if the surrender terms were not honored. Johnson realized he had lost; the public would never support him over the far-more popular Grant. Word was sent to the U.S. District Attorney in Norfolk to drop the proceedings.>>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
The Union leaders, however, understood that if they were to hold the Union together after the Civil War, they had to strive for reconstruction rather than recrimination.
Clearly President Johnson, with the support of the Radical Republicans, would have tried Confederate leaders for treason absent the powerful advocacy of General Grant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Confederate soldiers are by law considered American soldiers.
This is news to me. Please substantiate this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Slavery was indeed the straw that broke the camel's back. But to argue that the Civil War was only and all about slavery is erroneous.
The Confederates repeatedly said that the issue of slavery was the major reason for secession. In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln said:

<<One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.>> [Emphasis added.]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

Clearly much of the Union fought the Civil War to preserve the Perpetual Union, but the Confederate leaders initiated a catastrophic war in an attempt to render apart the Perpetual Union in order to create a nation that was safe for the institution of slavery.

Neo-Confederate historical interpretations are fictional bunk.

Last edited by WRnative; 08-31-2017 at 11:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 11:07 PM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,241,994 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Man that's time consuming. Not to mention the money.

I would rather they all be taken down if that's your vote. All as in MLK, Presidents, Santa Claus, Confederates, etc.

I like the idea of keeping everything as is and accepting the fact that it happened and the statues themselves being a part of history.
Mind if I ask why people keep targeting MLK and George Washington in these threads about Confederate monuments?

Do we really want to say that the first President and the most famous civil rights leader in history are people we don't want to honor today?

I'm not suggesting we set up a panel to discuss statues all day long.

I'm suggesting that if someone brings up valid arguments as to why certain individuals from our history should no longer have statues, buildings named after them, etc.... we should at least hear them out and consider what they have to say.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 11:11 PM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,241,994 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
The Confederates were Americans too. Hitler, and the Germans weren't.
Charles Manson is an American.

What is the point? The Confederates were traitors to the United States of America.

Why should we have statues of them anywhere but in museums?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 11:15 PM
 
Location: My House
34,938 posts, read 36,241,994 times
Reputation: 26552
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou View Post
The hypocrisy of singling out the Confederacy, in a country built on genocide and slave ownership, does offend me. As does the view that Robert E. Lee holds some villainous place in this nation's history, because that shows complete ignorance. If that makes me unreasonable then so be it, I guess.
Who said he was a villain? I don't think he was such a bad guy. After the war, he took off his uniform and put it away and said it wasn't something to be worn out in public ever again.

Does that even sound like a guy who wanted a statue of himself, fighting against his own countrymen, in the uniform symbolizing a failed attempt at breaking up the Union, out in the public square?

I doubt he would want them there. Museums? Sure. Why not?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top