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

I’ll ask you this for the 5,000th time that you can’t answer. If they wanted to save slavery, why didn’t they sign the Corwin amendment? Lincoln even supported it.

 

These are statues of democrat slave owners.

 

I actually did already answer that. Many times. I'll do so again when I'm back at my computer instead of a phone. Meanwhile, I'll let you contemplate: If it wasn't about slavery, why did they say it was? And why did they favor the Crittenden Compromise?

 

They didn’t say it was about slavery. They said it was about the unconstitutional actions of the north and their refusal to cease. To provide EVIDENCE of that claim they reference slavery.

And they didn’t favor the crittenden compromise over the Corwin, that’s why the Corwin was passed through congress and the crittenden wasnt.

 

And you keep saying it’s about slavery. Let’s assume for a moment that the south did ratify the Corwin amendment and it became a constitutional amendment. What could the north or federal government do to stop slavery legally at that point?

 

Wait . . . before I start . . . you actually think that none of them referenced slavery as the cause of secession? Is that really where you are starting from? If so, we've got a lot to talk about, more so than just the Corwin Amendment.

They absolutely did. It was written by Southerners. Crittenden went too far for Republicans and Corwin didn't go far enough for Southern Democrats. More details to come after I see just how much I need to go into based on your answers above.

 

Continue adding free states and territories, while blocking new slave states and territories, setting slavery on course for "ultimate extinction." Which is is exactly what Republicans/Lincoln were planning before. Nothing would have really changed compared to where things were before secession.

 

That’s not what I said. Slavery was in every secession document and causes. However if you will actually READ them slavery is the catalyst. It is not the cause. The CAUSE is the refusal of the north to uphold the constitution as written. Most examples of this involved slavery and were referenced as such. However the slavery issue was easily resolved whereas the issue of the north and their proxy the federal government refusing to uphold their obligations under the constitution and their blatant actions flaunting of not following Supreme Court dictates was not easily rectified.

 

Please don’t talk about what I do or don’t know when you apparently don’t know that the SCOTUS had already ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to demand that a territory be non-slaveholding as a prerequisite of entry into the union in 1859.

Now I’ll ask you again. What could the northern states and federal government do LEGALLY to stop slavery if the Corwin amendment was ratified?

 

THE PRICE OF APPEASEMENT

Attempting to appease our selectively offended and chronically outraged mobs (S.O.C.O.M.s) that demand the destruction of all the well made & impressive monuments to Southern military leaders is a fool's errand.

Firstly, our SOCOMs will never stop burning our cities and looting our stores as long as their terrorism is rewarded.

Secondly, what happened to the "tolerance"? There is plenty of room for more monuments to Leftist heroes like George Floyd, MLK etc to exist along with the old monuments but SOCOMs are not known for their creativity, artistic skills and hard work that go in to making something as grand as the R. E. Lee monument.

Finally, we will never now the true, astronomical cost of attempting to appease SOCOMs by tearing down the Lee monument and its massive base but couldn't those funds have been more intelligently spent feeding the hungry, supplementing Richmond's failing schools, and housing the homeless?

As a blacksmith who is frequently regarded as an artist, I have lived on Richmond's formerly grand Monument Ave. and for 7 decades I have been impressed by the workmanship and creativity that went into shaping and molding stone and metal.
Working with stone and hot metal is not for the timid, slothful and indolent so from what I've seen of our SOCOMs and their apologists, I can assure you that whatever Politically Correct eyesore is cobbled together to replace the Lee monument will pale in comparison to what was formerly there.

 

Facts

 

The "catalyst/not the cause" line came after the Civil War was over when Southerners were trying to save face. During secession and during the war, they were singing a different song.

As it related to slavery. Which you would know if you followed your own advice and read the documents.

Slavery was easily resolved? Okay, now I know you haven't even done 5 minutes of homework.

I'm going to assume for now that I don't have to go into all of the details of the 1860 election and the central role that slavery played, but let me know if I actually need to go back that far.

Meanwhile, a few things to contemplate:

Now, I'm going to keep quoting Stephens, but notice how he says CAUSE here. Not CATAYLST.

 

Yes . . . in a wildly unpopular decision (in the North anyway, even among Democrats) that split the Democrat party. The Northern Democrats were in favor of slavery, but thought the decision went too far and didn't want to hinge votes in the North on it. Southern Democrats wanted to press the decision as far as they could. So they split and formed their own party. Keep in mind that, if the Dredd Scott decision continued to hold, THERE WOULD BE NO FREE STATES. Any slave holder could move to a "free state" and keep their slaves. Making it now a slave state. This was too much for Northern Democrats, who favored popular sovereignty (that means each state gets to choose whether to be slave or free), and popular sovereignty did not go far enough for Southern Democrats (so much for "states' rights").

Another new party had arisen, which apparently you didn't know about. The Republican party. They wanted that whole "ultimate extinction" thing. Their dude won the election. Presidents get to appoint SCOTUS justices, remember? Yes, the South was absolutely terrified that the "ultimate extinction" was on the horizon. They said so. I quoted them.

Man, I really thought I wouldn't have to go back and explain the 1860 election, but here we are, I guess.

They would continue doing exactly what they were doing before. The activities that South Carolina dreaded would lead to the "ultimate extinction" of their "peculiar institution" of slavery.

 

Duplicate

 

Just jumping back on this one to try to get you to look at this critically. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion is legal as a matter of medical privacy. Do you understand that it still remained a political topic and that this could change if political power changes? Hell, it's facing pretty big challenges now. Do you understand that?

Presidents have always made SCOTUS appointments, in order to change decisions that their voters don't like, part of their platform. And their opposition has always opposed them due to this danger.

 

Your entire post is patently absurd. The Corwin amendment states:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

The Corwin would not have made every state a slave state. If a person moved to a non slave state with slaves, they become a citizen of that state and as such subject to THAT STATE’S laws. Now it’s true people could travel with their slaves and not have them forfeit but that was always true.

Furthermore whether you or ANYONE ELSE liked it or not it was a standing scotus decision which (if I remember correctly) was agreed upon by 7 of its 9 members of the court which was legal and binding and could not be changed without a constitutional amendment which they could never pass or a complete reseating of the scotus which wouldn’t have been possible for at least 15 years and Lincoln would have been long gone from office. Furthermore by that time they would have introduced multiple slaveholding states into the union increasing the slaveholding states power.

It wasn’t the south who was worried about losing power. It was the north. Hence their instigation of war. They had lost every legal challenge and exhausted all other legal avenues. War was their only option.

 

Please actually read my post if you are going to quote it. The SCOTUS decision would have made all states slaves states, not the Corwin Amendment.

SCOTUS ruled that a slave who accompanies his master to a free state remains a slave. That would mean no more free states. All states would allow this. Northern Democrats didn't like this. Southern Democrats did. Big part of why they split.

Hm, 15 years. It's almost as if Lincoln's goal was, as he said and South Carolina seceded over, a long-term goal of "ultimate extinction." Gee, who (aside from anyone who actually read this stuff) could have possibly guessed?

Hey, you are starting to get it! The Republican party was trying to do the opposite. Introduce only free states and oppose all new slaveholding states, increasing non-slaveholding power. That's what South Carolina was worried about when they seceded, fearing that whole "ultimate extinction" thing that you are never going to be able to address.

 

Also something to contemplate @ShadowX :

Amendments can be further amended in the future. Notice how the North was okay with the simple amendment, but the South wanted (for the only time I can see in our history) an amendment with a clause saying THAT IT COULD, NOT, ITSELF, EVER BE AMENDED IN THE FUTURE?

 

They couldn’t do that because they wouldn’t have the votes to bring in non-slaveholding states and most states didn’t want to come in as nonslaveholding in the first place. Almost every single one of the territories had debates on whether to ban slavery and to a man every single one of them said if we don’t we won’t be able to become states. Your idea that they would just keep bringing in non slaveholding states when the government didn’t have the legal power to force them to be so is simply preposterous.

Moreover the Dred Scott decision didn’t make non slaveholding states in to slave states. I didn’t think you meant that because that’s just ridiculous on it’s face. The Dred decision said that people could VISIT other states with their slaves and not have them forfeit. But this was a true fact from the beginning. The scotus didn’t make that up, they simply reinforced that as being true and constitutional.

That did NOT mean you could move to a non slave state with your slaves and become a citizen of that state and keep your slaves. That’s ridiculous and NOWHERE in the Scot decision

 

Most didn't? An interesting assumption. Have a source for that? I mean, you haven't addressed any of my sources, but I'll take a look at yours.

Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say here? Sounds like you are agreeing with me?

The platform of one of the parties was almost entirely about doing just that. You may not have seen it as a threat, but the South did. And said so. Weird how the historical revisionists always want to pretend that they know more about the motives of the South than the South itself did at the time. Positively magical thinking.

Dred Scott said that, when a slave travels with his master, he remains a slave, no matter where they go. Yes, that would include moving. You should brush up on your facts. The South was ecstatic about this decision.

How is it not?

 

But by your OWN reading. The north had no more recourse. According to your interpretation of the case not only could the federal government not demand territories be non-slaveholding as a prerequisite of entry but they also couldn’t even ban slavery within their own state.

So how in gods name do you come to the conclusion that if the Corwin amendment was ratified the north could do anything about slavery? The only way they could do so was to get another amendment which they wouldn’t have had enough states for. Or reseat the scotus while PRAYING that a southern sympathizer didn’t get elected and get to put more justices on the court before the slaveholding states introduced enough slaveholding territories to take complete control.

Your argument makes no sense. The NORTH was losing power. Not the south. The south was GAINING power.

 

Both the North and the South, at the time, are on record as disagreeing that they had no recourse. Why do you think you know more than them?

Didn't have enough states for YET. That's what the South feared. That's why THEIR version of the agreement INCLUDED A CLAUSE SAYING THAT THIS AMENDMENT CAN NEVER BE AMENDED. Something I asked you about and you refused to address.

Their plan was to block additional slaveholding territories. It was in their party platform. And you forget that they were also planning on the border states turning from slave to free . . . which is what they were doing.

The election of Lincoln, and the statements from the South themselves, disproves you are argument. You are pretending to know more than they did about their own motivations.

 

How do they block additional slaveholding states? All it takes is for one state to come over to the slaveholding states side to bring in another slaveholding state. And I hate to tell you, but like today, money was more important than people’s lives. Just like was shown with the passage of the Corwin through BOTH houses of congress, most of those states would accept the slavery as long as there was another state bringing in money. But they didn’t need them all they just needed a couple of them.

If you think morality was more important than money in regards to them accepting another state... I’m sorry but that ignores history and human nature. Not to mention the machinations of congress.

 

Which is what the Republicans were formed to fight against, hence the panic in the South (which I quoted and you refused to address) when they started winning.

Addressed many times over, which you have yet to respond to.

The historical sources disagree with you. You've provided none of your own. You've addressed none of mine. You have no interest in actual history, just your narrative.

 

Oh you want some quotes? I got some for you.

I present to you The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln... in his own words:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”


“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”


“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”


“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”