U.S. cities step up removal of Confederate statues, despite Virginia violence

[Mugwop]

I don't care if the statue stays or not but I have to say the timing couldn't be more awesome.

 

[maximuswarrior]

General Lee had a distinguished career in the US army prior to the civil war. He fought well in the America Mexico war. Lee's legacy goes beyond the civil war. Lee's statue should not be touched. Lee was a hero of the USA as well.

Like I said, the statue is just an excuse for blacks to test the waters. What they truly want to to lynch whites like what blacks do to whites in south Africa.

The black South Africans are lynching white South Africans? Are you even serious? You been smoking some real bad stuff lately.

I don't care if the statue stays or not but I have to say the timing couldn't be more awesome.

Couldn't agree more. The timing is superb with all that is going on currently in Trumpland.

Not everyone with a controversial past should have their statue removed. But statues of traitors should not be allowed. Confederate statues should be moved to museums. They should not be erected on public property. We don't honor traitors.

Trump comparing George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to traitors to the United States like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson was one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard.




If the geniuses had just kept their mouths shut and stayed away from Charlottesville, none of this would have happened. As always, their assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Trump is a moron, but his George Washington and Thomas Jefferson slave owner remarks were accurate. These founding fathers may not be as despicable as the other white slave owners in US history, but they were slave owners nonetheless. I agree that Trump twisted the statue argument to suit his narrative.

Robert E. Lee was a despicable man and that is the reason why white racist thugs adore him. You know that things are bad when Nazis waving Swastika flags defend any person.

 

[ultron]

The black South Africans are lynching white South Africans? Are you even serious? You been smoking some real bad stuff lately.

Tell that to white South Africans fleeing South Africa in massive numbers. They are not lying. Without whites, South Africa will not be the most prosperous country in Africa. Blacks in south Africa sure didn't build these.

Trump is a moron, but his George Washington and Thomas Jefferson slave owner remarks were accurate. These founding fathers may not be as despicable as the other white slave owners in US history, but they were slave owners nonetheless. I agree that Trump twisted the statue argument to suit his narrative.

These men established America. The establishment of America meant dooming native Americans. Native Americans would have never assimilated English culture. They were therefore all genocided.

Make no mistake, blacks are coming for their statues in the future.

Robert E. Lee was a despicable man and that is the reason why white racist thugs adore him. You know that things are bad when Nazis waving Swastika flags defend any person.

Robert Lee never mistreated anyone, not even slaves. He was a man with a good heart. He was a Virginian. Virginia was his home. It's true that the civil war was unfortunate with hundreds of thousands killed, but the civil war was not Lee's fault anymore than it was Grant's fought. Every man back then fought for his home state just like every man back in Washington's days used black slaves. Lee was not more evil than Washington.

 

[LA se Karachi]

This is the age old argument as to whether the southern states committed treason by demanding secession and starting the Civil War. Even though a few years after the war, the Supreme Court did in fact deem secession by the southern states as an "illegal act," it's still heavily debated even today as to whether it really was in fact illegal and hence treason or was it a legitimate act based on the laws of that exact time.

I don't understand you at all here. Taking up arms against the United States and fighting it (in a full-blown war, no less) to remove its authority from where you live and creating a new country is certainly Treason. The Constitution makes this very, very clear.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

https://bloodstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/article-three.jpg

I think the crux of that debate is the fact that slavery wasn't actually illegal or abolished when all of this was coming to a head, and there were major differences between the south and the Union states with regards to specifically the new territories in the west that still hadn't become official states. If you remember we discussed this briefly in the other thread. When Abraham Lincoln ran for the presidency, he vowed to disallow slavery from being implemented in those newly created territories despite there not being any official law that made slavery illegal at that time. So the southern states objected to that and once Lincoln was elected, they decided to secede and fight the national government in order to prevent him from disallowing slavery in these new territories and of course, out of fear that new anti-slavery "rule" would come to the southern states. Is that treason? This is where it becomes debatable because the other side argues that the Lincoln administration didn't have authority to prohibit the laws of slavery without passing them through congress. Basically the prime reason why Lincoln was under tremendous pressure to pass the 13th amendment before or immediately after the war ended. The emancipation proclamation wasn't enough to end slavery should the Union win the war, it was only how to legally control the spoils of war with regards to the slaves, but he needed to make it officially law that slavery was in fact abolished

You're deliberately trying to shift what's at issue here. I'm not going to address your post in its entirety. Because it seems to imply that if what you're saying is true, that what they did somehow does not constitute treason. Which is ludicrous, of course. But I will mention, however, Lincoln made it clear that he would not abolish slavery in the states where it already existed.

Back to the real point:

His analogy was strictly from the perspective of slave ownership, never taking the much bigger picture into account and what Washington and Jefferson did for the country, as compared to the other two.

I'm well aware of what his analogy was. My point was that their ownership of slaves is not really the issue here. You seem to have missed that.

They were traitors, Washington and Jefferson were not. Period.

 

[Gomig-21]

I don't understand you at all here. Taking up arms against the United States and fighting it (in a full-blown war, no less) to remove its authority from where you live and creating a new country is certainly Treason. The Constitution makes this very, very clear.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

https://bloodstudies.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/article-three.jpg

You're deliberately trying to shift what's at issue here. I'm not going to address your post in its entirety, because it seems to imply that if what you're saying is true, that what they did somehow not constitute treason. Which is ludicrous, of course. But I will mention that Lincoln made it clear that he would not abolish slavery in the states where it already existed.

Just so we're clear and there is no misunderstanding, I was only offering the counter argument to whether the Confederates acted in a treasonous manner. I wasn't shifting anything, just trying to briefly outline the historical events as I know them to show that possibility. If you or anyone doesn't agree with it, that's perfectly fine. It was just for the sake of discussion. That has been the basis as to why some don't necessarily see it as treason, and why it's been debated for many years and why the statues were erected and have been there for so long etc., that's all.

The terms of surrender never had any punitive measures in them that held these people accountable for treason, either. That's another factor that those who argue the point use. Does it mean it wasn't treason? No, the supreme court did eventually rule it an "illegal act." but it's still an argument which doesn't necessarily make it as clear as you see it for many.

I'm well aware of what his analogy was. My point was that their ownership of slaves is not really the issue here. You seem to have missed that.

I was actually expounding on what you said, that he never took into consideration the difference, not arguing with you. Sorry if it didn't come out right. Cheers.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Just so we're clear and there is no misunderstanding, I was only offering the counter argument to whether the Confederates acted in a treasonous manner. I wasn't shifting anything, just trying to briefly outline the historical events as I know them to show that possibility. If you or anyone doesn't agree with it, that's perfectly fine. It was just for the sake of discussion. That has been the basis as to why some don't necessarily see it as treason, and why it's been debated for many years and why the statues were erected and have been there for so long etc., that's all.

The terms of surrender never had any punitive measures in them that held these people accountable for treason, either. That's another factor that those who argue the point use. Does it mean it wasn't treason? No, the supreme court did eventually rule it an "illegal act." but it's still an argument which doesn't necessarily make it as clear as you see it for many.

Though I up-voted your post because I understand what you're saying, I don't agree with it all. Not one bit.

One doesn't have to be a legal scholar to see that the establishment of the Confederate States of America and the Civil War were clear acts of Treason against United States of America. Lincoln said that, and so has just about everyone else. Even many defenders of the Confederacy admit this openly (though they don't care). This is not in "debate". Your post is very, very misleading. There may be a few that disagree, of course, but they are certainly a small minority.

With all due respect, it's a bit shocking for you to question whether taking up arms and fighting the United States was an act of Treason or not. The Constitution clearly states that it is.

Now, you can argue about the statues in question and why some people feel the way that they do about them, and that's perfectly fine. I understand there are those that support keeping them on public property for various different reasons---though I completely disagree. However, the fact that these figures did commit Treason against the United States is quite clear, whatever you might think about the statues.

 

[ultron]

Though I up-voted your post because I understand what you're saying, I don't agree with it all. Not one bit.

One doesn't have to be a legal scholar to see that the establishment of the Confederate States of America and the Civil War were clear acts of Treason against United States of America. Lincoln said that, and so has just about everyone else. Even many defenders of the Confederacy admit this openly (though they don't care). This is not in "debate". Your post is very, very misleading. There may be a few that disagree, of course, but they are certainly a small minority.

With all due respect, it's a bit shocking for you to question whether taking up arms and fighting the United States was an act of Treason or not. The Constitution clearly states that it is.

Now, you can argue about the statues in question and why some people feel the way that they do about them, and that's perfectly fine. I understand there are those that support keeping them on public property for various different reasons---though I completely disagree. However, the fact that these figures did commit Treason against the United States is quite clear, whatever you might think about the statues.

Treason is a strong word. The civil war was more of a gang war than anything else.

 

[Gomig-21]

With all due respect, it's a bit shocking for you to question whether taking up arms and fighting the United States was an act of Treason or not. The Constitution clearly states that it is.

It shouldn't be shocking because I'm not saying taking up arms and fighting the United States is not treason. What I'm saying is there is disagreement whether these southern states, and all individuals (and whom exactly are these individuals) committed treason based on the history of events that led up to not only taking up arms, but secession, the first artillery fired on Fort Sumter and the terms of surrender (which never included any punitive measures except paroling") and the fact that not one single member of the military ranks of the Confederate Army was tried let alone convicted of treason IIRC. These things must at least be considered for discussion. Even the main culprit, Jefferson Davis was only indicted, served bail and never fully prosecuted and eventually pardoned. If anyone should have been held accountable for treason and convicted, it should have been Davis. But he wasn't. Robert E. Lee was never even indicted. I would say out of all those actions, the only one that is clearly treason is taking up arms and firing the first shot at FS and of course fighting the rest of the war but, that was preceded by the act of secession. So is it really plain and simple? Did they avoid trying these high-ranking individuals for fear they might be found not guilty of treason?

Here's a couple of questions that complicate matters even more;
- is the act of secession alone considered treason?
- were all the individuals who were drafted to fight for the confederacy committing treason?
- were the people & businesses (which many were from the Union) selling food and other goods to confederate states aiding and abetting?

It's a fun discussion to have, even if you're strongly committed to your conviction in the matter.

 

[ultron]

- is the act of secession alone considered treason?

Says who the Confederates wanted secession? They were marching on DC to kill Lincoln and take over the country. They thought they were the correct side and Lincoln was the wrong side.

 

[Gomig-21]

Says who the Confederates wanted secession? They were marching on DC to kill Lincoln and take over the country. They thought they were the correct side and Lincoln was the wrong side.

7 of the 11 southern states had seceded from the Union prior to the war during 1860 through the beginning of 1861. The war didn't begin until April 12th of 1861, then the next 4 joined once the war started.

 

[shadows888]

Says who the Confederates wanted secession? They were marching on DC to kill Lincoln and take over the country. They thought they were the correct side and Lincoln was the wrong side.

well they were losers, so the winners write history. that simple LOL

 

[ultron]

7 of the 11 southern states had seceded from the Union prior to the war during 1860 through the beginning of 1861. The war didn't begin until April 12th of 1861, then the next 4 joined once the war started.

They declared they were the right America and Lincoln had the wrong America. Heck, if America could have, America would have took over Britain after the revolutionary war.

 

[LA se Karachi]

It shouldn't be shocking because I'm not saying taking up arms and fighting the United States is not treason. What I'm saying is there is disagreement whether these southern states, and all individuals (and whom exactly are these individuals) committed treason based on the history of events that led up to not only taking up arms, but secession, the first artillery fired on Fort Sumter and the terms of surrender (which never included any punitive measures except paroling") and the fact that not one single member of the military ranks of the Confederate Army was tried let alone convicted of treason IIRC. These things must at least be considered for discussion. Even the main culprit, Jefferson Davis was only indicted, served bail and never fully prosecuted and eventually pardoned. If anyone should have been held accountable for treason and convicted, it should have been Davis. But he wasn't. Robert E. Lee was never even indicted. I would say out of all those actions, the only one that is clearly treason is taking up arms and firing the first shot at FS and of course fighting the rest of the war but, that was preceded by the act of secession. So is it really plain and simple? Did they avoid trying these high-ranking individuals for fear they might be found not guilty of treason?

Here's a couple of questions that complicate matters even more;
- is the act of secession alone considered treason?
- were all the individuals who were drafted to fight for the confederacy committing treason?
- were the people & businesses (which many were from the Union) selling food and other goods to confederate states aiding and abetting?

It's a fun discussion to have, even if you're strongly committed to your conviction in the matter.

If their actions did not constitute Treason, I'm not sure what does. Just because most were not prosecuted, does not mean that they were not guilty of the crime.

The Constitution is quite clear on what Treason is. And it's quite clear that they did commit the crime.

I'll leave it there. I'm not particularity interested in discussing the details.

 

[IronHeart]

Even if we remove the statues blacks and libertards will find something else to moan about.

 

[Zibago]

Actually they are probably removing them more to save them from vandals than agreeing that they should be removed.

Putting them in museums will be a better and safer option dont you think?