Gen. Lee statue can be removed, Virginia Supreme Court rules

how about we donate all the statues to the Trump Presidential library

 

Uh... that indian slavery act is not about slavery actually.
The thing is that native Americans were also paid with alcohol for their things. And than the authorities rounded them up for being intoxicated. People paid their fine and in return those natives were made to work to repay their fine back those who paid. We can add all kinds of question marks if this was ever done to white people, and how intoxicated those natives were, and if the fine vs how long it took to repay was anything close to fair. In the end, it of course was a loophole for racist Caucasians and Jews to keep on going.

Your example of that black individual is also about a case where the person was sentenced for breaching a law. And his sentence was hard labor for 1 year or something,... and you were allowed to pay the government to let that black person do hard labor as a prisoner for you, in your own private jail. That is rather similar to what I wrote about that Indian slavery act.


the 13th amendment actually allows this.
Prisoners in private jails still do labor.... like stopping wildfires.

 

I can’t help that you don’t like facts. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all passed in an unconstitutional manner which makes them, BY DEFINITION, unconstitutional.

For the record slavery is still constitutional as punishment for a crime. It’s just never used.

 

How about no one acts like uneducated woketards and leaves history as it is instead of trying to 'cancel' it?

 

so a vandalized statue should remain as it is, as that is then a part of history, erasing the vandalism should not be allowed

the uneducated ConfederateTards lost, they are no more, we do not keep statues of the losers that fought against the USA in the center of towns or on State house lawns

 

There were free blacks in Texas just not many of them.

 

Feel free to use Google to answer your question and slavery did not end before the war ended it was still legal in the United States.

 

No there trade issues having to do with tariffs and transportation and with Texas over federal protection sorta like what's going on now. And the South didn't "offer" it there were mutual attempts for a CEASE FIRE agreement but it fell through and not just because of the slavery issue state sovereignty was also an issue. There was a big movement in the North to just end the war and say enough is enough. That brought about the phony Emancipation Proclamation which of course did not free slaves in the North.

 

Where was it still legal in the United States, when the war ended, where there were not yet laws in place to get rid of it?

 

You do know Google search exist?

"However, slavery legally persisted in Delaware,[35] Kentucky,[36] and (to a very limited extent) New Jersey,[37][38] until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery throughout the United States on December 18, 1865, ending the distinction between slave and free states.[39]"

That is legal slavery IN the United States FOUR YEARS after the start of the war.

 

Secession had nothing to do with tariffs. The "transportation" issues were transportation OF SLAVES issues. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the South because that's what Lincoln was capable of legally doing: deciding what to do with contraband.

 

Delaware had already approved gradual emancipation. Most of the remaining slaves in Kentucky were freed during the Civil War. That just leaves (to a very limited extent) New Jersey.

 

And slavery was still legal and existed in the United States 4 years AFTER the start of the war.

 

And slavery, and the fear that it would be put under a course of ultimate extinction under Lincoln and the Republican part, was why the Southern states seceded. And they made this clear in their own writings. It wasn't about tariffs. It wasn't about states rights. It was about slavery. And they repeatedly said so.

 

Nope tariffs on foreign goods and other issues

2) Georgia accuses Northern manufacturing interests of exploiting the South and dominating the federal government.

READ MORE

Georgia: The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

3) Texas expresses dissatisfaction with federal military protection.

READ MORE

Texas: The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

Have your last say, got more important discussions going on.

 

Tariffs were not an issue. Tariffs were lower than they had been in decades. Southerners had won the tariff wars and had designed the current tariffs.

 

That would certainly ensure nobody ever saw them again...

I read Bobby Lee is going to be melted down and recast as some sort of public artwork... I think he should have been transported to one of the numerous National Military parks in the state (I recommended Chancellorsville, site of arguably his greatest victory), but alas, not gonna happen.

Here's the most naive statement of the week

SNIP
Charlottesville is hoping that melting down Lee and creating something new with that bronze will help heal very old wounds.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/charlott...tatue-for-new-public-art-piece-205900291.html

 

Honestly, Lee would probably approve. He hated the idea of Confederate monuments.

 

Charlottesville African American museum will melt down Robert E. Lee statue for new public art piece

The 1,100-pound bronze statue of Robert E. Lee that was at the center of a 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., will soon be melted down and repurposed into a new public artwork.

A proposal by the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center was accepted Tuesday by the Charlottesville City Council. Titled “Swords Into Ploughshares,” the project will see Lee’s statue re-created into an entirely new form following input from the community.

The center's executive director, Andrea Douglas, said in a video that the goal of the project is “to create something that transforms what was once toxic in our public space into something beautiful and more reflective of our entire community’s social values.”

In February 2017, the city of Charlottesville voted to remove statues of Lee and Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson. In protest, a group of white supremacists organized an Aug. 11-12 rally called “Unite the Right,” which saw white nationalists marching through Lee Park and the campus of the University of Virginia chanting, “Jews will not replace us.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/charlott...tatue-for-new-public-art-piece-205900291.html

 

True, but he also died 25 years before the creation of the first National Military Parks, so we don't know how he would have felt about monuments there... I suspect he might have been a little more approving of appropriate memorials to the generals and regiments who fought at specific battles.. on both sides (Yeah, I went there)

 

Perhaps. If he was okay with it for his fellow Confederates, he definitely would have been okay with it for both sides. He wasn't shy to his loyalty to the Union after the war was over.

 

The U.S. Constitution...

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

Jackson. Forrest, Davis and Lee were traitors. Why should we maintain statues to them? Besides, many of the statues were erected during JIm Crow to intimidate blacks.

 

@Bluesguy
Just some things to consider the next time you try to make the revisionist tariff argument.

• South Carolina had already previously threatened to secede over tariffs. No other state was willing to join them.
• None of the declarations of causes mention tariffs. The only time taxes are mentioned at all are when they are related to slavery.
• Tariffs played no role in the Peace Conference of 1861/the Crittenden Compromise. It was all about slavery.
• Tariffs played no role in the Hampton Roads Conference (which, no, wasn't just about a ceasefire as you earlier claimed; they were negotiating possible terms of surrender).
• Tariffs were at a record low when states began to secede.
• The South was IN FAVOR of the tariffs that were in place at the time and were instrumental in getting them passed. They had written (well, rewritten, anyway) them themselves. It was THEIR idea.
• Let me guess, you are trying to pull the Morrill Tariff card, right? Yeah, that doesn't work either. Sure, the Morrill Tariff would have been terrible for the South, and it had passed the House . . . Southern Democrats had enough votes in the Senate to defeat it. It had no hope of actually passing until after 7 states had seceded.

No one who has done even the smallest sliver of research can claim that secession was about tariffs, or that they were even really a significant concern at all. Then again, that seems to be a recurring theme when it comes to revisionists on this subject.

 

Yes the political forces of the North were pushing for the higher taxes in the Morrill bill and that helped push those Southern states to secede especially with the Republican win in 1860, the saw the writing on the wall and were tired of the dominance of the Northern states.

And it didn't start to free the slaves the United States was still a slave country at the end of the war.

 

Then why did the Southern states explicitly state that they were seceding over slavery? Why did none of them claim tariffs as their cause in the declarations of causes. And why couldn't you address any of the bullet points provided? Your historical revisionism is intellectually bankrupt.

You are literally claiming you know more about their motives than they did. Amazin'.