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

They undid it AFTER the war started lol

 

No see that’s where you’re wrong.

Look we can all agree that slavery was egregious and the fugitive slave clause should have been removed from the constitution.

However the precedent CANNOT be allowed to stand unchallenged that the federal government can simply declare a portion of the constitution to be immoral, they can refuse to uphold that portion of the constitution, they can ignore TWO direct orders of unconstitutionality from the SCOTUS, they can attempt to change the constitution without going through the constitutional process and without the consent of the governed and then violently oppress anyone who opposes them.

That is UNACCEPTABLE and must be met with the utmost and fiercest opposition up to and including warfare. That’s what my ancestors did. They stood up in defense of the constitution, in the face of certain death, against a tyrannical government who was violating that constitution at will and with immunity. They did so against ALL odds; outgunned, outsupplied, with little to no infrastructure and outnumbered nearly three to one. They did so with much honor, sacrifice and blood spilled.

Those confederate men and women are the only reason we still have a constitution today as they made violating the constitution far too costly. They should be honored for that sacrifice. Not vilified.

 

I'll repeat...the Confederation troops fired first. There was no such thing as "southern territory."

 

Bullshit. The confederates fired first because the union had sent an army into their territory and had another one on foot in route. They had every right to do so. Any leader knows and is FULLY aware that sending armies into hostile territory is an act of war.

By the way, way to move the goalpost since you started by saying the confederates shot before any army was in their territory.

 

uhhh... so what. Your idea that seceding, is something on the table between a state and federal government as if these are 2 random partners having a business deal, still doesn't fly.

 

I said they fired first. But, the Confederacy was not a "legal identity." In fact, states were specifically prohibited from joining such - see Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation...". Secession was/is not a constitutional right, other than via amendment. No such legal attempt was made.

 

The SCOTUS is not some judge on the supreme court who gets to rule over how the constitution works by itself. The SCOTUS must comply with the supreme court and to the constitution, making his personal opinion not relevant. They take an oath over upholding the constitution on day 1. Are you aware of that?

 

"SCOTUS" IS the abbreviation for Supreme Court of the United States. Not sure what decisions "ShadowX" is referencing?

 

so what. lol
You act as if all states ratified it. That's a total joke.

 

So then what’s the point of the constitution? According to your logic the federal government can simply violate the constitution at will and when the states sue them and win in the scotus, the government can just ignore them. They can deny right to free speech, right to bear Arms, freedom to assemble with no consequences. And the states can’t do **** about it. They just have to deal.

 

Dred Scott and Priggs v pa

 

Wtf are you talking about. I’m talking about the scotus. The Supreme Court of the United States

 

I'm guessing he ment the president, since he supported the Corwin amendment.

 

... no I’m referring to the scotus who ruled against the north in regards to their personal Liberty laws which were ruled unconstitutional which the north continued to enforce. And Priggs v pa which said the fed government cannot force incoming territories to be non-slaveholding as a prerequisite of entry which the north continued to push and Lincoln expressly said he would continue the practice in direct violation of the scotus.

 

AAHHH....
The weird thing is, that you put up: Dred Scott and Priggs v pa = slavery topic.
Just like you put up: Corwin amendment = slavery topic.


So you're debunking your initial claim that slavery played no real roll for the idea of seceding / civil war, by keep dragging in slavery topics.
Do you realize what you're doing, or is it just me?

 

I never said it played no real role. I said that’s not why they went to war. Again slavery was the catalyst but it was not the cause. Slavery was easily dealt with by signing the Corwin amendment. What is not easily dealt with is the north’s refusal to follow the constitution as written.

What good is a constitutional amendment if the north can’t be trusted to follow the constitution?

 

Why do you think the federal government objected to either? I believe a couple of states did (Wisconsin and Vermont). Vermont never tested the fugitive slave acts in state courts. I believe both states passed laws that required state court action before the Fugitive Slave Act could be applied to specific individuals...i.e. the "claimant" had to prove "ownership." These were jury trials and some "jury nullification" occurred. But, I don't believe the federal government ever attempted to overthrow the SCOTUS decisions...until they became irrelevant during the rebellion.

 

It is the federal governments job to enforce Supreme Court decisions. Which they blatantly refused to do. But given they were nothing more than a proxy for the northern states at that point, that’s not surprising.

 

You're free to commission all the bronze statues you want. Just can't have this particular one. You'll live.

 

Secession occurred not because of what the north had done, but due to what influential southerners feared would be done under a Lincoln administration. The Fugitive Slave Act had been signed by New Yorker President Fillmore, who had also threatened to send federal troops into northern states to enforce it if necessary.

 

Buy all of the old statutes up. Melt them down. Recast the metal into miniature statutes of the original and sell them on the Internet...you'll make a fortune.

 

So what were they supposed to do? Take them to the scotus for a third time so the north can ignore them AGAIN?

 

Just remember that when it’s yalls turn. Cause I assure you these won’t go down without others going down in payback.

But even if they did, do you think the cultural commies will allow the statues of our racist founders standing?

 

The SCOTUS decisions weren't critical to the beginning of the Civil War. It was fear of the North's political power and the probability that it would be used to prevent the expansion of slavery in the new states to be formed in the west. The secessionist movement began before Lincoln took office and continued after Lincoln promised to not disturb slavery in the south. Lincoln acted to crush an illegal rebellion.

 

Ummm that issue had already been decided by the scotus. But you’re right that was a problem because the north and their proxy the federal government were going to continue to unconstitutionally require non-slavery as a prerequisite of entry for new territories, in direct violation of the scotus.