Politics: General Removal of Statues Thread

[NationalTitles18]

IDK if the South has a monopoly on the Q-crap. However, the "refuse the vaccine and love the plague" position hurts. If the Delta strain starts ripping through, I think a lot of holdouts will panic...

Not if, but when. Cases have taken off here about as bad as it ever was and more hospitalizations with this round.

 

[Tidewater]

We have reached the point where all the Confederate soldiers, their kids, and most of their grandkids are dead. So you aren’t going to personally offend anyone by badmouthing the CSA. If you get upset by someone saying your great-great-grandfather was on the wrong side of the war, you need to let it go.

The issues are not dead and gone.
Dwight L. Dumond, a northern man (Michigan native, studied and taught at the University of Michigan) writing in a period when historians would honestly state the position of even those with whom they disagreed defined the issue this way:

The state-rights men considered the federal government an agent of the sovereign states, entrusted with certain carefully defined powers, for the performance of specific duties. State governments, they maintained, did not derive any power whatsoever from the Constitution or the federal government; on the contrary, whatever powers the latter possesses were bestowed upon it by the states through the Constitution. Its powers being derivative, the state which delegated them might take them away. Whatever powers had not been delegated to the federal government nor prohibited the states had been reserved to the respective states. The fact that a division of powers had been made confirmed the intention of limitations, and implied a power capable of enforcing restrictions. The question was, where did this power of determining the extent of limitations and reserved powers reside? Webster and the federal school said that in all suits in law and equity the Supreme Court was the final judge, and that in cases not capable of being argued before that tribunal Congress must judge of, and finally interpret, the powers of the federal government. Calhoun, Hayne, and the state-rights school held this doctrine to be a presumption utterly unwarranted either by interpretation of the Constitution itself or the circumstances of its inception. They regarded the Constitution as an instrument of union between states which had never surrendered their sovereignty nor agreed to unlimited submission to the government created by the compact. The states, and not the government so created, were the final judges of the extent of their reserved powers. In case the federal government arrogated authority beyond the limits of the delegation or encroached upon the reservations, each state had the right to determine for itself the nature and extent of remedial measures.
They maintained that it is the nature of all delegated power to increase; that, if the general government were invested with the right to determine the limits of its own powers and enforce its decisions, the Constitution would no longer act as a shield against encroachments upon the vested rights of the people and the independence of the states; that, under the theory of the federal school, there was no real, positive division of powers, since Congress or the Supreme Court, or the two operating harmoniously, might enlarge upon the delegated powers by usurpations; that, therefore, in the last analysis, a government which is the sole judge of the limits of its own powers becomes an absolutism. They contended that the principal justification for the creation of a government by a free people is to afford protection for minorities against the despotism of majorities in cases of internal dissension and sectional disputes; and that, unless some protective power be provided as a restraint upon the will of the many as against the few, the latter, however justifiable their position and sacred their menaced rights, must yield to the stronger party. If, therefore, the majority were invested with definitive rights and unlimited executive powers, the rights of the minority must, of necessity, become subject to the selfish pleasure and unrestrained ambitions of a legislative majority. The Southerners insisted that there must be a self-protecting power in the hands of the minority. Limitations placed upon the power of the federal government by states would no longer restrain, and powers which had never been delegated by the states would be usurped, unless the ultimate source of authority in all cases of dispute rested with the states for whose benefit limitations had been imposed and reservations had been made. It was not in the nature of things for majorities to search constitutions to determine in what respects the rights of minorities were to be observed. These were never safe if protest and remonstrance were the only recourses available. State interposition and secession were, therefore, the only safe and effective measures of resistance, and the right of a state to exercise them was indisputable. They were effective remedies, too long fallen into disuse, in the opinion of the state-rights men, but not completely forgotten nor in any sense discarded.
Dwight Lowell Dumond, The Secession Movement 1860‑1861, p. 2-4.

Those are issues that are still with us.
Most Americans are not even aware that an alternative exists to the Massachusetts School (the Federal government does not wield sovereign powers delegated by the peoples of the states, but is itself sovereign, and the sole judge of the limits of its own powers). The Virginia School (stated above by Dumond) presents an alternative interpretation. Having read the texts of Elliot's Debates (the records of the state conventions that debated the meaning of the Constitution and did the actual delegating of powers to their creation, the general government), is the only interpretation which can be supported by the ratification debates. Nobody, not a single delegate in 1787-1790 argued that the Constitution should be ratified because the general government will be sovereign and, if any state that attempts to leave the Union, they will be committing treason and the general government will be justified in invading that state, killing its citizens, and overthrowing its elected government. Despite this, four-score and five years later, Abraham Lincoln would make exactly this argument.

 

[81usaf92]

I have come to see the Lost Cause as the introductory course for Trumpism.

Yes we should analyze the soldiers POV up to a point. But the key part of the previous sentence is “up to a point”. The political reasons of the factions or state must be how we as society must judge the cause of that state or faction. Otherwise we could absolve Germany of the atrocities that they committed in the 30’s and 40’s.

-If you want to argue state’s rights was the issue… then what state’s rights in particular were the issue behind the break after Lincoln’s nomination?

-If want to argue the economic issues? What was the underlying issue affecting the Southern economy that caused the break?

- if you want to argue constitutional crisis… then what issue caused the constitutional crisis?

Why we still have folks trying to defend the CSA’s main reasons of breaking off of the USA after winning two world wars and a Cold War is baffling. But then again we have a lot of people who believed so much of what a moron says enough to storm the Capitol.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Whatever the original intent, the confederates lost. It's over and done. They were evil vile villains and they lost. They deserved to lose. And their interpretation lost with them. Good riddance.

 

[uafanataum]

The issues are not dead and gone.
Dwight L. Dumond, a northern man (Michigan native, studied and taught at the University of Michigan) writing in a period when historians would honestly state the position of even those with whom they disagreed defined the issue this way:

The state-rights men considered the federal government an agent of the sovereign states, entrusted with certain carefully defined powers, for the performance of specific duties. State governments, they maintained, did not derive any power whatsoever from the Constitution or the federal government; on the contrary, whatever powers the latter possesses were bestowed upon it by the states through the Constitution. Its powers being derivative, the state which delegated them might take them away. Whatever powers had not been delegated to the federal government nor prohibited the states had been reserved to the respective states. The fact that a division of powers had been made confirmed the intention of limitations, and implied a power capable of enforcing restrictions. The question was, where did this power of determining the extent of limitations and reserved powers reside? Webster and the federal school said that in all suits in law and equity the Supreme Court was the final judge, and that in cases not capable of being argued before that tribunal Congress must judge of, and finally interpret, the powers of the federal government. Calhoun, Hayne, and the state-rights school held this doctrine to be a presumption utterly unwarranted either by interpretation of the Constitution itself or the circumstances of its inception. They regarded the Constitution as an instrument of union between states which had never surrendered their sovereignty nor agreed to unlimited submission to the government created by the compact. The states, and not the government so created, were the final judges of the extent of their reserved powers. In case the federal government arrogated authority beyond the limits of the delegation or encroached upon the reservations, each state had the right to determine for itself the nature and extent of remedial measures.
They maintained that it is the nature of all delegated power to increase; that, if the general government were invested with the right to determine the limits of its own powers and enforce its decisions, the Constitution would no longer act as a shield against encroachments upon the vested rights of the people and the independence of the states; that, under the theory of the federal school, there was no real, positive division of powers, since Congress or the Supreme Court, or the two operating harmoniously, might enlarge upon the delegated powers by usurpations; that, therefore, in the last analysis, a government which is the sole judge of the limits of its own powers becomes an absolutism. They contended that the principal justification for the creation of a government by a free people is to afford protection for minorities against the despotism of majorities in cases of internal dissension and sectional disputes; and that, unless some protective power be provided as a restraint upon the will of the many as against the few, the latter, however justifiable their position and sacred their menaced rights, must yield to the stronger party. If, therefore, the majority were invested with definitive rights and unlimited executive powers, the rights of the minority must, of necessity, become subject to the selfish pleasure and unrestrained ambitions of a legislative majority. The Southerners insisted that there must be a self-protecting power in the hands of the minority. Limitations placed upon the power of the federal government by states would no longer restrain, and powers which had never been delegated by the states would be usurped, unless the ultimate source of authority in all cases of dispute rested with the states for whose benefit limitations had been imposed and reservations had been made. It was not in the nature of things for majorities to search constitutions to determine in what respects the rights of minorities were to be observed. These were never safe if protest and remonstrance were the only recourses available. State interposition and secession were, therefore, the only safe and effective measures of resistance, and the right of a state to exercise them was indisputable. They were effective remedies, too long fallen into disuse, in the opinion of the state-rights men, but not completely forgotten nor in any sense discarded.
Dwight Lowell Dumond, The Secession Movement 1860‑1861, p. 2-4.

Those are issues that are still with us.
Most Americans are not even aware that an alternative exists to the Massachusetts School (the Federal government does not wield sovereign powers delegated by the peoples of the states, but is itself sovereign, and the sole judge of the limits of its own powers). The Virginia School (stated above by Dumond) presents an alternative interpretation. Having read the texts of Elliot's Debates (the records of the state conventions that debated the meaning of the Constitution and did the actual delegating of powers to their creation, the general government), is the only interpretation which can be supported by the ratification debates. Nobody, not a single delegate in 1787-1790 argued that the Constitution should be ratified because the general government will be sovereign and, if any state that attempts to leave the Union, they will be committing treason and the general government will be justified in invading that state, killing its citizens, and overthrowing its elected government. Despite this, four-score and five years later, Abraham Lincoln would make exactly this argument.

I for one am thankful that the federal government stopped following this strict interpretation of the constitution. There are many government programs and policies that would never have been enacted if they followed your interpretation of the founding fathers intent.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

State’s rights blah blah blah blah blah. For crying out load get over it already. If the southern economy wasn’t built around slaves, there would have never been a reason to secede and no reason to go to war.

 

[92tide]

i guess this can go here.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406325817039372288

 

[Tidewater]

-If you want to argue state’s rights was the issue… then what state’s rights in particular were the issue behind the break after Lincoln’s nomination?

In the case of the Upper South, the issue was whether the federal government legitimately had the power to invade a state and overthrow the elected government and install a military governor.
Virginia's secession declaration lists one cause and one cause only, which had impelled the people of the state to withdraw from the Union: President Lincoln called for Virginia to furnish troops to invade the states between SC and Tex (which in Lincoln's view were still states in the Union) and overthrow the elected state governments of those states (which Lincoln characterized as "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law"). Virginia declared, "the powers granted under the said Constitution, [having perverted] to the injury of the people of Virginia." The people (not the state government, but the people) of Virgina declared that they would not send troops for such a purpose. They would not even remain in a Union where such a thing was possible.

This is not an esoteric quibble. Within the last year, a President of the United States was quoting exactly Lincoln's language in regard to "combinations" in Oregon and Washington. Given the violent nature of the BLM/antifa riots in Seattle and Portland, does the president have the power to invade Oregon and Washington and overthrow their elected governments by military force? If you say no, the federal government does not possess that power, then you are both opposing the contemplated Trump policy and agreeing with the Confederates of 1861.

 

[Tidewater]

i guess this can go here.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406325817039372288

I have no problem with this whatsoever.

 

[Tidewater]

I for one am thankful that the federal government stopped following this strict interpretation of the constitution. There are many government programs and policies that would never have been enacted if they followed your interpretation of the founding fathers intent.

The problem is this. Once the federal government can disregard its proper limitations to do something good like Social Security, Medicare, it can also disregard its limitation to do bad things like place all Japanese-Americans in internment camps, or, "treat" black men with syphilis with placebos just to see what would happen, (or pick any other unacceptable policy you can imagine; loose construction authorizes it).
And it is not my interpretation. It was the interpretation of the American people when they debated and ratified the Constitution. That is probably the most solemn and sovereign debate a people can ever have. Now, we can say, "Well, the American people were stupid. To hell with the American peoples' judgment." I would say, "Okay, but I am not sure what come up with today will be better. In fact, I could be a lot worse."

 

[81usaf92]

In the case of the Upper South, the issue was whether the federal government legitimately had the power to invade a state and overthrow the elected government and install a military governor.
Virginia's secession declaration lists one cause and one cause only, which had impelled the people of the state to withdraw from the Union: President Lincoln called for Virginia to furnish troops to invade the states between SC and Tex (which in Lincoln's view were still states in the Union) and overthrow the elected state governments of those states (which Lincoln characterized as "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law"). Virginia declared, "the powers granted under the said Constitution, [having perverted] to the injury of the people of Virginia." The people (not the state government, but the people) of Virgina declared that they would not send troops for such a purpose. They would not even remain in a Union where such a thing was possible.

This is not an esoteric quibble. Within the last year, a President of the United States was quoting exactly Lincoln's language in regard to "combinations" in Oregon and Washington. Given the violent nature of the BLM/antifa riots in Seattle and Portland, does the president have the power to invade Oregon and Washington and overthrow their elected governments by military force? If you say no, the federal government does not possess that power, then you are both opposing the contemplated Trump policy and agreeing with the Confederates of 1861.

do you believe in the 14th amendment.

 

[92tide]

do you believe in the 14th amendment.

you must be new here.

 

[NationalTitles18]

In the case of the Upper South, the issue was whether the federal government legitimately had the power to invade a state and overthrow the elected government and install a military governor.
Virginia's secession declaration lists one cause and one cause only, which had impelled the people of the state to withdraw from the Union: President Lincoln called for Virginia to furnish troops to invade the states between SC and Tex (which in Lincoln's view were still states in the Union) and overthrow the elected state governments of those states (which Lincoln characterized as "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law"). Virginia declared, "the powers granted under the said Constitution, [having perverted] to the injury of the people of Virginia." The people (not the state government, but the people) of Virgina declared that they would not send troops for such a purpose. They would not even remain in a Union where such a thing was possible.

This is not an esoteric quibble. Within the last year, a President of the United States was quoting exactly Lincoln's language in regard to "combinations" in Oregon and Washington. Given the violent nature of the BLM/antifa riots in Seattle and Portland, does the president have the power to invade Oregon and Washington and overthrow their elected governments by military force? If you say no, the federal government does not possess that power, then you are both opposing the contemplated Trump policy and agreeing with the Confederates of 1861.

You'd almost think there was no rebellion at the time, reading this.

 

[92tide]

You'd almost think there was no rebellion at the time, reading this.

the cause may have been lost, but it was inherently just. they did exactly what the founder's wanted.

 

[81usaf92]

SOLDIERS: You have marched out to fight the battles of your country, and by those battles you must be rescued from the shame of slavery. Your foes have declared their purpose of bringing you to beggary; and avarice, their natural characteristic, incites them to redoubled efforts for the conquest of the South, in order that they may seize her sunny fields and happy homes. Already has the hatred of one of their great leaders attempted to make the Negro your equal by declaring his freedom. They care not for the blood of babes nor carnage of innocent women which servile insurrection thus stirred up may bring upon their heads. Worse than this, the North has sent forth another infamous chief, encouraging the lust of his hirelings to the dishonor and violation of those Southern women who have so untiringly labored to clothe our soldiers in the field and nurse our sick and wounded. If ever men were called upon to defend the beloved daughters of their country, that now is our duty. Let such thoughts nerve you up to the most dreadful shock of battle; for were it certain death, death would be better than the fate that defeat would entail upon us all. But remember, though the fiery noise of battle is indeed most terrifying, and seems to threaten universal ruin it is not so destructive as it seems, and few soldiers after all are slain. This the commanding general desires particularly to impress upon the fresh and inexperienced troops who now constitute a part of this command. Let officers and men, even under the most formidable fire, preserve a quiet demeanor and self-possessed, temper. Keep cool, obey orders, and aim low. Remember while you are doing this, and driving the enemy before you, your comrades may be relied on to support you on either side, and are in turn relying upon you.

Stand well to your duty, and when these clouds break away, as they surely will, the bright sunlight of peace falling upon our free, virtuous, and happy land will be a sufficient reward for the sacrifices which we are now called upon to make.


JAMES LONGSTREET,
Major-General, Commanding.

(Source: O.R., Series I, vol. XIV, p. 605-606.)

Yeah let’s pretend that troops passing over your land to retake FEDERAL property is the real issue.

 

[81usaf92]

You'd almost think there was no rebellion at the time, reading this.

What I find amusing is that everyone of the Lost Causers acts like there was no gap from John Brown and Fort Sumter and that Lincoln was unnaturally brutal on civil rights. But what they fail to acknowledge Sumter was one of the last of nearly 20 attacks on federal arsenals by rebels and that Jefferson Davis was far worse on civil rights than Lincoln ever was.

But no we have to believe the less than 10% of practicing historians who buy into the alternative version of the Civil just like we have to believe the less than 10% of historians that say Versailles had no effect on WWII

 

[TexasBama]

I like pie

 

[81usaf92]

Funny we only are getting the Southern post war version of this as well.

Here is a Pennsylvania unit that fought at Gettysburg taking issue of confederate monuments at Gettysburg.

Call them what they really are


In turn, Post 88 doubled down via the press. “As soldiers and citizens we have no apologies to make for calling words by their proper names, ‘traitor’ a traitor and ‘rebel’ a rebel...,” a Patterson resolution stated in the October 31 edition of the Pittsburg Dispatch. “We reiterate that we are opposed to the erection of monuments by the great or small upon the battlefields of Gettysburg or any other place that will in the slightest degree make glorious the deeds of those who trampled under foot the national ensign. We believe in making treason odious.”

So its safe to say that the Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union from those who chose treason.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Funny we only are getting the Southern post war version of this as well.

Here is a Pennsylvania unit that fought at Gettysburg taking issue of confederate monuments at Gettysburg.

Call them what they really are


In turn, Post 88 doubled down via the press. “As soldiers and citizens we have no apologies to make for calling words by their proper names, ‘traitor’ a traitor and ‘rebel’ a rebel...,” a Patterson resolution stated in the October 31 edition of the Pittsburg Dispatch. “We reiterate that we are opposed to the erection of monuments by the great or small upon the battlefields of Gettysburg or any other place that will in the slightest degree make glorious the deeds of those who trampled under foot the national ensign. We believe in making treason odious.”

So its safe to say that the Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union from those who chose treason.

Let's just go ahead now and make a monument to the Qanon Shaman. Why the hell not? He only did it because his president told him to, after all.

 

[81usaf92]

Let's just go ahead now and make a monument to the Qanon Shaman. Why the hell not? He only did it because his president told him to, after all.

Yeah attacking federal property is not a crime.

Its kinda odd that the defenders of Virginians are so up in arms about John Brown attacking Harper's Ferry, but have no problem with Confederates attacking federal fortifications after a democratically decided election didnt go their way. I seem to remember the US government sending Federal troops to put down his rebellion. SO they had no problem with federal troops going across the Potomac to put down a crazy abolitionist raid on a federal arsenal, but they want to go to war when they do the exact same thing when it involves a slave owner's revolt that are increasing attacks on federal installations across the south... hmm