Union soldier's statues!

  1. So they meant to milk slavery as long as possible. Allowing slave states to secede would have immediately relieved the unionists of any further moral responsibility for slavery in those states, and decisively shifted the balance of power within the remaining union against the 3 or 4 (?) remaining slave-holding states. Slavery could have been abolished there with little controversy, and when the CSA inevitably crashed and burned (due to it’s well documented shortcomings), acceptance of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments made a condition for re-admittance. But they waged an aggressive war to keep those slave states. The north started the war for the purpose of keeping slavery as long as possible.

  2. It invalidates the idea that the CW was a union crusade against slavery. It very explicitly was not.

  3. The EP was a military and political ploy issued nearly two years after the invasion of Virginia. FAIL!

  4. Well, then, you need to shut up until we ‘negotiate the process’ by which you exercise your first amendment rights. MEGA-FAIL!! Rights are not conditional on process or the reasoning behind their exercise. (exercision? whatever…) Conditional rights are not rights at all. As for “federal” land? The very word “federal” is all the answer that requires. You seem to be of the opinion that the CSA had made no contribution to the acquisition of those properties, when in fact, one of the major reasons behind secession was that Federal monies were disproportionately spent on northern projects, deliberately starving the south of the infrastructure that would make the move beyond the slave economy easier and perhaps more palatable.

  5. Just who are these victims? They appear to have won some kind of genetic lottery for the longevity gene…

  6. I don’t have to. I am not the one trying to tell other people who they may honor, and for what reason. You have to tell me why I can be required to honor a tyrant and his army of war criminals over men who fought for their rights under the constitution. My ‘selective read’ of the men and history is merely the obverse of yours. How can any monument to Lincoln ever be anything other than a monument to anti-federal, anti-constitutional tyranny?

Now where is that constitutional justification for compelling the states that formed the CSA to remain in the union?

  1. Not my fault that it was legal anywhere; I don’t approve of it wherever it is or was.
  2. I’ve heard that tired argument time and again; slavery exists even now.
  3. I know nothing of this one way or the other.
  4. Slavery is present in the North and South and all around the world. It’s called human trafficking these days.
  5. I think AS made a pretty good argument for that being the fact of the matter.
  6. I think he also made a fair argument that this was not the case.
  7. I’d say the other way around.
  8. Claptrap.

? Uh, they came up with this strategy, long before there was any talk of secession. You’re now making an anachronistic analysis of history.

> 3) The EP was a military and political ploy issued nearly two years after the invasion of Virginia. FAIL!

No… did you read what I said? I’m saying what they did with the Loyal states, was the original plan they had for the Southern ones.

EmonProc was the wartime plan they came up with on the fly. The original plan predates the war.

> 4) Well, then, you need to shut up until we ‘negotiate the process’ by which you exercise your first amendment rights. MEGA-FAIL!! Rights are not conditional on process or the reasoning behind their exercise. (exercision? whatever…) Conditional rights are not rights at all. As for “federal” land? The very word “federal” is all the answer that requires. You seem to be of the opinion that the CSA had made no contribution to the acquisition of those properties, when in fact, one of the major reasons behind secession was that Federal monies were disproportionately spent on northern projects,

Yet they didn’t complain about, or make it an issue of it during the preemptive peace negotiations?

You say this had ultimate importance, more than slavery, yet, they said squat when it would have most mattered? This doesn’t add up.

> 6) I don’t have to. I am not the one trying to tell other people who they may honor, and for what reason.

Except I didn’t. You can build monuments if you want to the Southern cause, you just don’t have the right to force others into it. I’ve stated this several times, you know that this is my position.

> You have to tell me why I can be required to honor a tyrant

It’s the U.S. Gov’t commemorating the U.S. Army. We’re not on even ground here.

Since they are servants of the Government who risked their lives to serve it, the Gov’t owes them plenty; it’s implicit in the contract.

The Gov’t doesn’t owe the people who attacked them anything, as there’s no contract, implicit or otherwise.

Ever hear of the concept of self-defense, AS??? THAT’S what the Southern States were doing. The North, on the other hand, were seeking to enforce THEIR rule over the South at the point of a gun!

… Yet they attacked first.

  1. When was the vote held that actually enacted this strategy? Because I bet if you think reaaal hard, you can remember of an instance where the republican party singularly failed to deliver what was promised, despite holding clear majorities in both houses… I will judge them by their actions, thank you.

  2. I said “one of the major”. Please do not distort what I say.** I would suppose **that it was an issue that the south had given up on resolving to their satisfaction, by that point, and focused on one for which they still had hope. It has certainly appeared in analyses that I have read as a major pre-war issue, but I won’t pretend to have read everything, and not transcripts of the negotiations if such exist. It really makes no difference what was the particular issue (or issues) leading to secession. Rights aren’t conditional on having acceptable reasons exercising them.

  3. I know this about your position, and I quote (post #20): " Take these statues out of places of honor" Excuse me? Who died and left you king? You have as much right to make that demand as I have to tell Alaskans not to drill in ANWR and the like. You make an authoritarian demand and attempt to justify it on libertarian grounds!

  4. “The government says so” is an excellent justification! This is the same government which exceeded it’s legal authority under the constitution to repudiate by force the principle of consent of the governed, which had been explicitly withdrawn. It used it’s armed forces to break the very law on which it was founded.

  5. Contracts to break the law are legally null and void. Union soldiers aren’t ‘owed’ any honors either.

2 Likes

Nonsense. The South had been under attack for at least the previous 10 years. All they did was RESPOND to the economic attacks BY the North.

? Republicans didn’t get a majority in the house until a year before the secession crisis, and not in the senate until the same year Lincoln was elected. Which is when the secession crisis started.

The “cordon of freedom” strategy (their words) is what they came up with in the 1850s, what the Republicans were promising if elected in 1860, and it’s precisely what the South feared.

> You make an authoritarian demand and attempt to justify it on libertarian grounds!

Nope; ANWR is the Government denying use of local resources, the statues are about you demanding resources from others.

One is non-interference, a negative right, the other is demand of an obligation, a positive-right.

Libertarians love negative rights. They’re far more suspicious of the latter.

As to “places of honor”, that’s about public land use. So long as they’re on public land, they’re leveraging public support. Which means members of the public can decry that support.

Public vs private, you know that there are different rights at work within these spheres. If all the statues were on private land, there wouldn’t be an issue, and I wouldn’t care.

Thus: sever public support, and if you keep them, put them on private land.

The only “public” land you could justify their existence on is museums.

> 4) “The government says so” is an excellent justification!

… For use of public funds? In fulfillment of a contract the Gov’t signed to those people?

I’m sorry, but you’ve kept trying to ignore context so you can mischaracterize the claims.

There is no obligation for the Government to spend money on people who attacked them; there is an obligation for them to spend it on people who served them, and risked their lives doing so. It’s just that simple.

You can’t equate those claims. It’s servants of the Gov’t vs their attackers. Pretty much anything they give the latter is good will, not a “right”.

> 5) Contracts to break the law are legally null and void. Union soldiers aren’t ‘owed’ any honors either.

Are you going to go tell a Vietnam vet that? We attacked under false pretenses, we massacred innocents, we propped up a corrupt and self-serving regime in charge of the south, and all without even declaring a war.

What about those who fought in the Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? Or the Banana republic wars where our Government’s naked imperialism was on display?

Or is it, regardless of how well thought-out our Gov’ts policies are, are the servants who served honorably still owed something?

how long are y’all gonna argue about this while other more important life threatening things are going on?

1 Like
  1. Did they pinky swear? Too bad John McCain didn’t pinky swear… Again, I base my analysis on what was done, not what was promised, and, again, the reason behind secession is irrelevant to the right to do it.

  2. Then stop demanding my resources for the monuments you want to keep.

  3. ANWR and the ANPR are public land, too. Federal land, at that. They are no more a local resource than the public lands those statues sit on.

  4. Then give the union monuments the same treatment. Let people choose which get the support.

  5. Contracts to break the law are unenforceable. The government lacked the legal authority to make that contract. They were contracted to subvert the constitution by force. I was never a signatory to that contract. I cannot see any legal or moral reason that anyone should be compelled to honor it.

  6. Refusing to remove an unwanted garrison is a hostile act, a deliberate provocation. I can’t say that it was smart to attack Fort Sumter, but it was justified.

  7. They were not “servants of the government” unless you can show me the constitutional authority for compelling states to remain in the union. I would go so far as to say that they were enemies of legitimate government, in that by fighting to exert an unconstitutional authority, they undermined the basis of the government’s legitimacy.

  8. I haven’t given any thought to how the constitution applies to those wars. If they were unconstitutional, then there is no legal or moral reason to compel anyone to honor the contracts the government made with the men who fought in them.

  9. That’s exactly how I see it…from the other side. The CSA was a bad idea, fatally flawed, doomed to failure. That didn’t give the USG the right to stop them from trying. Both sides seriously underestimated the resolve of the other.

I think I’m done. We’ve pretty well covered all the ground there is to cover, afaik.

Slim, feel free to have the last word. At this point, I will agree to disagree. You have every right to be wrong! :grin: You gave the only answer that matters in the real world all the way back in post #2. Victory. Compulsion. Force.

it would have died in America. Islam is a totally different matter. How long is this thread now and there is slavery in the world and y’all want to argue over a defunct system in this country that I might add did not apply to the north. You have a problem with slavery today? I mean real actual hateful, torturous, murderous slavery? this is not the topic.

Slavery will never die anywhere without force.

Yet we clearly see that the South seceded on the basis of that promise? In rejection of what they said Lincoln represented?

I mean, do you also forget why the Whigs were bisected, and the Republicans arose in the first place?

What equally of these debates of “free labor” vs “sovereignty” for the west, or rejection of the Ostend Manifesto, or the Missouri Compromise, or the Compromise of 1850?

None of that looks like incremental measures to you of a gradual effort to corner “Slave Power”?

All of the debate and policy was incidental, and not meant to harm slavery at all?

> ANWR and the ANPR are public land, too. Federal land, at that. They are no more a local resource

Semantics; they are local because of their location, and they impact even land the Federal Government does not own.

Rules for land use affect anyone who lives or operates within about 100 miles of the Federal land, at times even further away. So when you ban drilling in the former, it can prevent you from drilling in the latter.

Alaskans aren’t asking a taxpayer to subsidize them, and they aren’t objecting to decisions people they elected made.
You are doing both; either for yourself, or for someone else.

It was city officials who decided to take the statues down & give them away, not the Feds.

What Mom said. And all slavery is hateful. And the topic got dragged into it by the refighting of the Civil War (talk about flogging a dead horse).

I don’t know. I don’t really care a whole lot about the issue of statues. I’m probably against them on the grounds that I’m against government spending money on things I don’t give a crap about in generally. What I’m attempting to address and do care quite a bit about is this notion that the Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery absolutely was the central issue of the war. It related to states rights, and it’s extremely unfortunate that the federal government was able to concentrate its power by taking the moral high ground. Lincoln was an abolitionist however he intended to deal with slavery or whether he supported freeing slaves all at once. The south was leaving to protect slavery. These issues are interrelated. That’s why Lincoln was able to use the Emancipation Proclamation as a tool of his war.

While I don’t care much about statues and memorials, I personally wouldn’t recognize soldiers for their defense of slavery. I’m a huge Thomas Jefferson fan. He was brilliant – on the subject of human rights even. Yet he owned slaves. Slaver owners weren’t wrong on everything, and they weren’t right on everything. The North wasn’t right on secession, but it was right on slavery.

My 3-times great-grandfather was the commanding general of the Illinois militia. Believe me when I tell you that he couldn’t have cared less about “slavery” and that was NOT why he and his regiment fought against the South. They fought because they were told that the “union must be preserved”…period.

That is exactly my position. But I* will *recognize the confederates for their resistance to an illicit authority, and that is explicitly what Lincoln chose to make the war about. Why is it okay to make me pay for memorials to him?

You hear it said that the South can’t let it go…no…it is the NORTH that cannot let it go. The south is insulted and excoriated all the time by Northerners who call us stupid and redneck and racist. Yet racism is worse in the North. Southerners are interested in freedom, guns, hunting, liberty, sweet tea and maintaining Our way of life. Apparently northerners can’t stand that based on the number of these asses that come down here looking at our way of living and then set out to change it to what they left. I’m sick of it.

These statues are part of history and they honor men who fought for states rights and southern freedom and they deserve that recognition. Hell…what do public schools teach of our national history anymore anyway. They gave no less and no doubt more for their beliefs than the north did. How small of people to drag monuments into their hateful screed. Most people today (certainly politicians and media types) should have one percent of the character and integrity of Robert E. Lee. or a Stonewall Jackson. It would be a vast improvement of their present condition.

The fact that the memorials to northern invaders are left alone says so much about the groups calling for the destruction of historical monuments, yet many will never be able, to or refuse, to grasp that.

5 Likes

I said none of these things. The insidious part about the Confederate ideology, is that it was intelligent, and couched in the language of honor and nature.

It appealed to status, and the plight of the lower classes. It saw itself as codifying God’s design, in the face of what it saw as a dangerous and viral optimism that couldn’t see its own weakness.

I never once called their ideas “stupid”, or so much as lowbrow. I did however call it evil, as that’s exactly what racial determinism is; evil.

To deny people their liberty, their lives, their very humanity, and call it “proper”.

> These statues are part of history and they honor men who fought for states rights and southern freedom and they deserve that recognition.

Then pay for it yourself. Quit using public money, and public land.

Quit forcing the people the South victimized, into building monuments to their oppressors.

Pride does not excuse either vanity, or lack of humility. If you’re going to do that, do it on your own damn dime.

I can’t speak for your experiences outside of this forum, but here, no one was calling you “stupid,” or “redneck,” or “racist.” Here at least, yes, it is the South that isn’t letting it go.

2 Likes