Union soldier's statues!

Spoken like a true progressive.

Progressives don’t care about what the Constitution says.

The Confederates did, and they openly refuted it:

You want me to ignore this old dog. You want me to ignore that they called the Founders wrong, and support building monuments to these ideals they said they were fighting for

Sorry, but I take them at their word. I hold them up them as human beings responsible for their own actions, not as animals beholden to circumstance.

AS - Read “When in the course of human events…”

Yes, Dave, they rejected the declaration. They rejected the Founders. They said so in their own words, so I reject them.

I will not pay to build monuments to their Ideology, that they claimed to be opposite to the Founding vision. Just as I wouldn’t pay to build monuments to the British Aristocracy, or Communism.

Both the Declaration of Independence AND the U.S. Constitution ALLOW for an uprising against a tyrannical government, and the U.S. federal government HAD become tyrannical towards the Southern States–prohibiting them from marketing their cotton overseas and demanding that a specific portion of it be sold to Northern textile mills and at THEIR prices, just as one example. In reality, Lincoln IGNORED the provisions of both documents which allow secession and chose to militarily FORCE the Southern States to remain part of the Union.


Except the tyranny they rejected was the gradual destruction of Slavery, which they themselves admitted the Constitution was designed to eliminate overtime.

Hence why they said the Constitution had to be amended or replaced. So that it would stop being hostile to their way of life.

They fought for this Dave, they fought to keep slavery, and they renounced the Constitution because it wouldn’t let them.

You can’t talk past this desire of theirs, it was baked into the cake of their cause. Which means you are wrong to force people to build monuments to that cause. You are in the wrong to demand that of people, because we know, by their own words, what their ideology was.

  1. being forced to fund the economic development of the north to their economic detriment.
  2. As was their right. I have never seen any constitutional justification for compelling member states to remain in the union in perpetuity.
  3. You will have a valid argument when you insist that union monuments suffer the same fate. The union fought to keep the south economically subjugated, not for some grand moral cause. The whole ‘grand moral cause’ thing made for nice window dressing when what was supposed to be a quick-n-easy shakedown turned into a four year debacle of blood and carnage. An expensive one. But a bunch of union politicians and their cronies got filthy rich, so there’s your ‘moral justification’. Winners write the history books, though.
1 Like

That’s BS, AS, and I think even YOU know it. There’s NOTHING in the Constitution that would lead any rational person to believe that it was designed “to eventually do away with slavery.” In fact, it took several Constitutional AMENDMENTS to achieve slavery’s end. The EP didn’t even do it. All it REALLY says is that slavery is “hereby ended” IN ALL THE STATES CURRENTLY UNDER REBELLION…and would have been totally irrelevant had the South WON instead of the Union. Don’t get me wrong. I grew up in what was, at one time, THE most racist State in the Union…and it was a NORTHERN State–Indiana. In the early part of the 20th Century, Indiana had more KKK members, per capita, than any other State in the country. In fact, you’d have a hard time being elected in Indiana for several decades WITHOUT the KKK’s endorsement. As late as the 1940’s the township in Marion County into which my family eventually moved remained so, going so far as to blow up the only house owned by a black family (they weren’t home at the time, but they quickly moved out of that township and did not try to rebuild.) Oddly, in my OWN family, I never even HEARD the “N-word” and, the first time I heard it, (in High School) didn’t have a clue what it meant and had to be warned not to use it in public by my basketball coach.

All that aside, “slavery” was NOT the impetus for the North waging war against the secessionist States. It wasn’t even in the top 5 or 6. Even Lincoln wasn’t prepared to legislatively “free the slaves” at the War’s outset and only did so through the EP as a propaganda ploy in an effort to demoralize the southern forces. The North USED the “free the slaves” meme in order to attract abolitionist-leaning volunteers to their Army, but the war was NOT waged by the North to do so. It was waged primarily to subjugate the secessionist States and bring them back under the thumb of the North-dominated federal government. You won’t hear any of that in today’s universities or public schools because, as someone else said above–history is written by the victors…or, in this case, RE-WRITTEN by the Democrats who desperately NEED the black vote, without which they could NEVER win any fair election.

1 Like

Dave, I just quoted Alexander Stephens above saying this. You should go read it now. It pretty much lays out what the Confederacy, in their words, was fighting for.

And yet, Alexander Stephens didn’t talk about this in his speech. Nor Texas, nor Georgia in their succession proclamations. But they all did talk about the erosion of slavery. They seemed to give this issue the most importance.

I’m not trying to deny the circumstances you’ve brought up, simply showing that, by their own words, that they gave Slavery as their central cause.

I take them at their word. For all you’ve tried to deflect or accuse, that’s all I’ve been doing here, ***taking them at their word. ***

Kind of sad when the “good guy” *gives *the “bad guy” access to the “grand moral cause,” don’t ya think? Does that somehow invalidate the “grand moral cause”?

When the “grand moral cause” is an ex post facto excuse instead of a reason? Yeah, that kinda does completely invalidate it, now that you mention it. Feel free to make the case that armed invasion for the purpose of economic extortion is morally superior to slavery. But see post #68 in this thread first.

But we must all somehow ignore Lincoln’s words which are inconvenient to the narrative you’re pushing. I take him at his written word,*** to which he explicitly lived up.

Can & will. The extortion you’re bringing up was bad, but it amounted to maybe a dollar per person.

To a slave, you take everything, their liberty, their lives, their very bodies as property. You condition them to be less than human, and demand they act the part.

These evils don’t compare. Further, while the Northern leadership hid their ulterior intentions, the Southern leadership outright proclaimed this as their main intention, unapologetically.

They had the worse evil, and they didn’t even try to hide it, because they upheld it as God anointed and good. Their words, go look at them.

A greedy man, vs a zealot denying Natural Law. We’ve always had the former in politics, regardless of the age. The latter is a cancer that sought to destroy the American ideal.

The North’ s criminal intent was less evil, so that made it okay for them start a war that killed more than 600000, which you seem to regard as petty larceny?

It wouldn’t matter if the entire sum of the North’ s extortion was a single penny, they were the aggressors, over avarice and pride. Every civil war death and all of the property damage done is part of their crime.

Over a war that only came to a head, because Lincoln was elected, and was promising to be an abolitionist candidate. The South moved, because they rejected the Republican.

And they rejected him, to protect their economic order. The Union moved to keep America a viable country; that’s how they explain it.

Regardless, the deflection ends now. No one was suggesting anyone involved were angels; that was a red herring. I’m not here to justify the Union. I’m here to tell exactly who the Confederates were, and all you’ve done is deflect, and hail them as victims of circumstance.

Yet, nothing you’ve stated changes who the Confederates were, and what their ideology in their own words was. It doesn’t change the fact that they were oppressors, and that you are here, right now, demanding the intended oppressed be forced to build monuments to them.

When those people complain, you support calling them whiners. Nothing about that is honest, and I suspect you know that. Leave the public out of it, by our own values where the individuals input is upheld, that is the correct course of action. If you want to build monuments, you can do so, if other people want to stay out of it, that’s their right as well.

  1. The south attempted a PEACEFUL separation. You know that this is true.
  2. So economic and political expedience excuse aggressive warfare? That is exactly the connotation of your words. [sarc]If only I could think of a historical
    example of that political philosophy that wound up on the losing side.[/sarc]
  3. No sir, we know who the confederates were. You appear to be here to tell us how we must think and act…and you can stuff it.
  4. My first name is Ray, but I’m not Ray Bolger. I challenge you to point out statements that I have made that support your claim as to what I
    am demanding.
  5. I will point out again that I have made no such statements, and nothing about saying that I did is honest. Again, I am not Ray Bolger.
  6. That’s fair enough…if I am allowed to opt out of support for Union monuments. But that’s not to be allowed, is it? I guess there are still some animals that are more equal than others, eh?

Yet it attacked first? Wasn’t very dedicated to peace then.

> 3) No sir, we know who the confederates were. You appear to be here to tell us how we must think and act

No, I did no such thing.

I quoted words from Confederates, and you failed to acknowledge them. You pretend they don’t matter, you make up lame excuses “Oh they’re politicians, they don’t count”.

You’ve refused to take the Confederates at their word. You treat them as if they’re animals reacting to circumstance, instead of as human beings responsible for their own words and actions.

This is no different than how the left approaches Islamism today. They fail to acknowledge their ideas, and pretend it’s simply some fault of the west, or the result of poverty.

You pretend ideas didn’t matter, and weren’t central to their cause.

> 6) That’s fair enough…if I am allowed to opt out of support for Union monuments.

This was never on equal footing; you knew this from the start.

When the Government makes statues to Union soldiers, it’s commemorating those who served and fought for them.

When the Government makes statues of Confederates, its commemorating those who attacked, invaded, and tried to unravel them.

Honoring those who served them is implicit to service, for soldiers of any era, past or present. The Government does not owe this to those who fought and killed their own, anymore than it owes it to the British or the Japanese.

When it comes to the enemy dead, we owe them one thing and one thing only; a proper burial. That’s all anyone else got, and it’s all the Government owes to the Confederates.

Anything more is something for others to do.

Nonsense. The Union blockaded southern ports to ENFORCE their restrictions on the South’s wish to sell their produce–including cotton–overseas. The South responded as you’d expect. They bombarded one of those Union forts responsible for the blockades.

I’m going to answer this series of evasions but from this point on, any further discussion will require that you actually address the main point: Where is the constitutional justification for compelling member states to remain? Article and clause, please. Shouldn’t require more than 5 words. WHERE IS IT?

  1. If an armed man encamps on my front porch and refuses to leave after I ask him repeatedly? I’m going to shoot him…** A LOT!** The garrison at Ft. Sumter became an illegal occupying force at the secession of South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860)… unless you can show the constitutional justification for compelling member states to remain. The attack began April 12, 1861, nearly 4 months later.

  2. Just as I have quoted Lincoln, and you continue to pretend the the CW was waged by the union as a moral crusade against slavery. It was no such thing… unless you can show me the declaration of war, congressional resolution, cabinet white paper or other government document from before the invasion of the south by union forces, which declares the union’s intent is to end the scourge of slavery. The north fought to impose it’s economic will. For money.

  3. In this context, they don’t matter.

  4. Where in the constitution is the ‘idea police’ authorized? Is the purpose of the U.S. Military to enforce ideological or moral purity?

  5. I am aware that you do not consider the south to be equal. Typical north eastern liberal attitude.

  6. What they served and fought for was an armed robbery. It just cost a lot more than the north could loot.

  7. Better check your facts. Did you find that constitutional justification for compelling states to remain in the union yet? Expelling an occupying force is a defensive act, not an aggressive one. It was the north that invaded the south, not vice versa. That’s why all of the earliest battles of the civil war happened in Virginia. Which unraveled who, now? SO far as I know, the confederacy had no particular desire to destroy the government is Washington, they just didn’t want to live under it themselves.

  8. This is why the south should have been allowed to peacefully secede: we are still regarded as foreigners, anyway… lesser foreigners. Either we are all Americans, or we are two separate peoples. You can’t have it both ways. And if we are separate, if we are ‘other’, if we are ‘enemy’…? What was the point of fighting a bloody war “to preserve the union”? By what authority is this ‘union’ without unity compelled?


All you have done is evade. This entire argument has been an evasion your part.

You answered Confederates words, with accusations of what the Union has done. You haven’t once acknowledge their words, other than to try and excuse by saying “Well, that’s a politician.” <— Evasion, yes, that’s what you did there.

I responded to Lincoln, you have not responded to a single one of the Confederate leadership, other than to evade their words, and pretend it doesn’t matter.

> The garrison at Ft. Sumter became an illegal occupying force at the secession of South Carolina

Now you’re having your cake and eating it too.

Are you saying they were dedicated to a peaceful transition or not? If so, they should have kept trying to negotiate, until at the very least the Union was on the way to attack them.

There is nothing “automatic” about states seceding without consent, and the Union voluntarily leaving installations it already owned.

Secession was not a determined process with fixed steps set in stone, it did not already determine what happens to federal property; you have to negotiate that. If you think other nations don’t own islands along the coastline of others, go look at Greece or the Balkan nations.

> but from this point on, any further discussion will require that you actually address the main point: Where is the constitutional justification for compelling member states to remain?

Where does the Constitution state secession may happen through preemptive strikes? Or that the Federal Government must surrender its property?

If the process is unwritten, then it has to be negotiated or even amended, just like other mechanisms in the Constitution have been ( women voting, presidential succession, Treaty definitions) but the South decided, unilaterally, it had already settled everything on its own.

> 4) Where in the constitution is the ‘idea police’ authorized?

Evasion again, were ideas motivating them or not? Were they central to their cause or not?

What you’ve done, right here, is deflection. You didn’t answer the question, or the claim I was making, you just moved to making more accusations of the Union.

The ideas at work in the Confederacy are why people object to building statues of them. If you can’t address it, then you had no intention of actually answering the criticism. You were just going to talk past from the start.

> 8) This is why the south should have been allowed to peacefully secede: we are still regarded as foreigners, anyway… lesser foreigners. Either we are all Americans, or we are two separate peoples.

The loyalists were Americans. Where are their monuments?

There were also Americans who fought for the British in 1812. Where are their monuments?

There were Americans who fought for the Nazis. Where are their monuments?

I can and do have it both ways, just as we clearly have in any other war where Americans fought Americans. The truth is you’ve put the Civil War and the Confederates on a pedestal. I’m saying I don’t buy the reasoning you’ve given for doing so.

Foremost reason for why? Because they stated that they were our ideological opposites. They stated this. They stated they rejected the Founders, they stated that they rejected the Constitution, they stated that they rejected Natural Law, and were substituting something else in its place.

They didn’t see themselves as Americans trying to protect a more distilled American Identity; they saw themselves as creating something opposite to America entirely, that rightfully corrected the “errors” of Americanism.

They weren’t patriots to anything American, but instead, the caste and honor obsessed Antebellum order. Southern Nationalism; whatever you wish to call it.