Protesters topple Silent Sam Confederate statue at UNC

I don't recall them having the power.

 

There was a whole congress with a House and Senate pretty much dedicated to that.

That wasn't enough, obviously.

 

The House was in recess. The Senate was in session specifically because of the Fort Sumter issue. Lincoln would not inform them of anything, so they adjourned in frustration. Within a day, Lincoln set his plan in motion to send a fleet to Fort Sumter.

Congress didn't reconvene until July 4, 1861, nearly 3 months after hostilities began. It was all Lincoln's show, deliberately so.

 

In his speech, he said with no blood shed.

He was not speaking of what Abe did, shed blood.

Abe invaded on July 21, 1861 while that speech is dated March 21, 1861.

 

Abe wanted war so he invaded.

 

He refers to one man who used the term revolution. But at the time of the speech, Abe would invade 4 months later and he would shed blood.

He also said:

 

Well, whatever you want to call it and for whatever reason you want to deny what the Confederate VP said, I guess.

Southern states had equal representation in our government. The legal solution to any issues resided with congress, didn't it? And, surely nobody thought the South could secede without war any more than the colonies could secede without war.

Getting back to the topic, let's remember that the articles of secession of several states and the statements of the Confederate VP featured slavery prominently. Let's remember that the statue in question was dedicated to those who were seen as fighting for slavery and by a man proud of horse whipping a black woman for insulting a white woman until her clothes were in tatters. Let's remember that it has taken DECADES to get to where we are today, dragging the anti civil rights movement along, through the KKK years, the years of people being killed for registering blacks to vote, etc., until today - when the job is absolutely NOT done, when white supremacy is still present and virulent, when government officials still work to disenfranchise minorities, and when equality remains at best an objective.

Hey, I'm a white guy from Seattle! But, I just can't understand why minorities or anyone else interested in what America stands for would continue to have the patience to allow that bygone era to be memorialized in public like that.

I just don't see the argument.

 

That's the way England and Europe looked at it. It's why England and France challenged Lincoln's naval blockade of the South.
Under international law no neutral country can be denied from conducting maritime trade with a state or country that is at war.

Many wars have been fought with only one battle being fought.

One battle is fought and the winner of the battle is declared the winner of the war.

That's what the Battle of Manassas (Battle of Bull Run) was suppose to be. One battle fought and the winner wins the war.
It was a big event like an big outdoor concert being held today. Families from all over, southerners, northerners came with their picnic baskets to watch the battle.

The grey team won.

If the grey team wanted to they could have easily occupied Washington DC by sun down but that would be cheating and crossing the line. That would have been looked upon as waging war against the U.S. Federal Government.

 

Stephens: Corner stone conclusion

That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?

Source: Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Before, During, and Since the War (Philadelphia, 1886), pp. 717-729.

 

I don't deny he said it. I also know that what the South did was secede, not revolt.

se·ces·sion
səˈseSHən/
noun

1. the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.
   "the republics want secession from the union"
   • historical
     the withdrawal of eleven southern states from the Union in 1860, leading to the Civil War

rev·o·lu·tion
ˌrevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
   synonyms: rebellion, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, uprising, riot, rioting, insurgence, seizure of power, coup (d'état)

Do you see the word 'secession' among the synonyms for revolution?

Words matter. No need for you to get dismissive just because you've been called out on playing fast and loose with such loaded words.

 

In America as today back then, this was the power.
An armed citizenry.
The militias, the citizens soldiers.

 

OK, you are a white guy who happens to decide Democrats belong in the offices of government at all stages of government.

I happen to believe that role belongs to republicans.

We both are from the West Coast. I can't explain you but I can explain me. I grew up educated as poorly as you were. The war in 1861 was painted at school as one sided and over one issue. Slavery. It trashed the South from top to bottom. We were educated to essentially hate more than slavery, we would be taught to hate people living in the South. And hate them we did.

When the States left the union, it was their business why they left. They believed a deal struck with congress could be unstruck by them. They expected Congress to step up and approve what they did. Even had they said they departed over green men from mars, it was no reason for Abe to commence the killing of what ended up over 630,000 human beings. Abe had the cards. He should have engaged congress, but he went at it alone. Governors wrote to him pleading with him to knock off that war crap. But he invaded VA.

If we all collectively understand history, what we will see is that Democrats marched to the tune of slavery. They had to be yanked by the eyeballs away from this belief in 1965 when republicans fought them off and forced the civil rights laws on them.

But the clever Democrats came up with a scheme. They had the D president they could credit and they did. This brought the house down. Because he was a D, they could try to ignore the mighty wave of Ds who fought against the civil rights laws and do so by labeling those as conservatives. I know their tricks by heart.

OK, so lay facts on the table.

Due to what Democrats have done in their cities around America, do we find blacks content and full of joy they are free?

Actually it is in Democrats captured cities where blacks suffer the most. Blacks in those cities are shot during crimes and even with black cops on the force. even cops shoot blacks and it is during crimes it is done.

Are blacks better educated in black cities? Not from the reports we all read. We read that blacks do worse because they like to live among blacks, which creates black schools again, thus the blacks are lousy students. White teachers are nuts to teach to violent students so they do not want to teach at black schools.

So, given the Democrats crave the credit for the betterment of blacks, a lot of blacks want to find out when it will happen. When does that improvement democrats boast about begin? If not where they control things, where?

 

Most of that is wildly off topic. We already know what the Confederate VP called it. We already know what happened with the American colonies seceded. We already know what that statues and some of the rest actually stand for.

It's more than a hundred years later. Those who still laud those statues are part of a problem that still exists, even in government, even in our upcoming election and needs to be excised as it is counter to our constitution.

I don't know how ANYONE could walk by these statues and not know what they stand for.

 

At museums over the Civil War are plenty of weapons. I have not been to all the museums. But based on what i have seen, the finest collection of all weapons used are at Gettysburg PA in their fabulous museum. If any of you know of a better museum, please turn me onto to it. The museum in Richmond VA is good but lacks the enormous stock of firearms found at Gettysburg. Manassas is too small to compare.

 

Oh, please. That's preposterous from top to bottom.

The issue is that TODAY Republicans work to disenfranchise minority voters.

And, that is nicely parallel to the statues to the white males of the era where slaves were declared to be second class humans and thus not worthy of participation.

Say what you will about Dems. It doesn't matter. Dems just aren't the issue on this. If you think they fail, then have your Republican buddies succeed - instead of having your Republican buddies deny them the vote.

 

Any period of history means different things to different people.

You and those vandals in NC are obviously triggered. That is the "we" you speak of.Other people .... not so much.

Count me as part of the "problem".

 

OK. Will do.

But, I challenge you to fight disenfranchisement when you see it - starting in Georgia's gubernatorial election.

 

We know that when he delivered that speech, no blood was shed.

Ft. Sumter was fired on April 12, 1861 and the speech delivered on march 21, 1861. Even at Sumter no blood was shed. Bricks of the fort were hit by cannon. But the cannon of those days was a poor cannon. Today our cannons would really do damage to that fort.

This is the evil done by Abe that today we are still arguing what happened in those years of turmoil.

 

You are in Seattle. What makes Georgia's business your business?

 

Someone may be arguing, but when it comes down to it I don't see it as having ANYTHING to do with the OP.

The facts are that such statues are emblems of what was done to minorities of the time, to slavery, to discounting them as fully human, even.

And, given that has not been resolved even today means those statues stand in honor of those ideals that have lived on in the hearts of too many and are causing hardship and disenfranchisement even today.

Those statues do have to go, because they stand for a pernicious evil, an anti-Americanism that is still alive today.

 

I'm not even close to ready to tolerate government operated racist policy in the US.

In fact, Georgia's elections send people to my congress. And, I don't want them there if that's what they believe, because it is not just a personal opinion - it's government instituted racist suppression that affects everyone.

This is America, NOT the Confederacy.

 

I do not agree that the women who funded that statue were doing so to honor slavery. They honored students pressed into a war to defend their state and other states from Abe Lincoln's illegal forces.

People thinking like you think end up facing charges for destruction of state owned property.

When Abe invaded, even he did not say he invaded due to slavery. But those boys were forced to fight him over his invasion.

 

First off, I don't live in Georgia, so it's not on my radar. Since you have brought it up umpteen times in this thread, however, I looked at a couple of articles, one from the L.A. Times and one from the WaPo. No mention of disenfranchisement.

 

Well if the voters decide, as they surely will, the republican will win by perhaps 30,000 votes.

The Rs pulled 588,307 votes and the Ds pulled 555,089

If the same Ds return to vote, they lose. I do not see the larger number of Rs backing down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_gubernatorial_election,_2018#Predictions

 

Georgia looks very fertile for the republicans running for spots that will head to DC then sworn into office in DC.

2016 Pivot Counties

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Georgia,_2018