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

Where are the calls to tear down this slave owner?

 

He was a barbarian. He can't be judged as a white, civilized person.

 

Your inability to refute the historical facts noted then. And stop making dumb statements like I was claiming a CSA victory. Too bad Lincoln caused all those deaths instead of telling those states, do what you want there is nothing in the Constitution which says you have to stay lets be friendly neighbors and keep up with our trade and commerce.

 

What you outlined thus far is why I call Abraham Lincoln this nations worst president since he was an outlaw president.

 

Uhhh because the north had already sent a party of warships outfitted with a military force and armed to the teeth into confederate waters and another army dispatched on foot en route to ft Sumter.

 

Lee's letter:

 

There were no Union armies near Fort Sumpter when Beauregard fired the first shot.

 

The Union did not blockade the port.

 

Good point.

 

That was not in response to putting up memorials to fallen soldiers. That was in response to his attendance of a ceremony at Gettysburg.

 

"Uhhh except he never said that.
But good try But thanks for helping me find one more yankee lie you folks use as propaganda" You

The quote I cited is accurate. In fact, he said it.

“I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.” Robert E. Lee, The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911.

 

This is much closer to true history than what democrats of today teach.

 

You have yet to post a historical fact. Not even in the post to which I am replying so there is no need to refute anything even if I wanted to.

Too bad the CSA thought they could defy the Constitution and get away with it. The blood of many Americans is on their hands. But the rebels are all dead now and the Union was preserved by the second greatest president in the history of our republic.

And another symbol of this terrible episode in our history is removed. Good.

 

No. Lincoln had sent replenishment supplies to the Fort...but not reinforcements and there was no Union Army on the way. The first call for troops (75,000) was AFTER the confederacy had fired on the Fort.

 

First of all, why do you have to be so snarky and sanctimonious?
Secondly, I dare you to refute any fact that @Bluesguy has just reported.

@Bluesguy very eloquently presented the historical realities you either ignore or chose to deny..
"Freeing the slaves" was only a propaganda ploy and selectively enforced excuse by the North to continue exploiting the South.

Since the Southern states had a constitutional right under the Tenth Amendment(1) to leave an oppressive union, the previous president, James Buchanan, had allowed the first 7 States to leave in peace.

However, it was the hypocritical warmonger, Lincoln, that was willing to resort to war to force the South back into an oppressive and exploitative government while the South simply wanted to be left alone, trade freely with other countries and prosper while new innovations removed the need for slave labor.

America's schools and universities have done many Americans the disservice of training them to believe that the War was "about slavery" and a noble attempt to "save the slaves" even though Lincoln himself said he had "..... no inclination to do so." (2) among other hateful and racist assessments he made about Blacks in general.

This same hateful and racist disdain for Blacks was shared around the North and was exemplified by the N.Y. draft riots where scores of Blacks and abolitionists were killed. Countless rioters simply didn't want to die in a war to allegedly free Blacks

Only the most naive of individuals could think that the noble Northern soldier was motivated to rescue Black workers who would later take his job in the workplace.
It was repeatedly made clear that the motivation came from greed, plunder, destruction and bitterness from earlier military humiliations.

Finally, it is supremely arrogant to assume that someone of today would have recognized the the evils inherent in slavery and acted on them if they had been born in the South just before the Civil War era.

In what ways will generations 150 years from now regard us as foolish and cruel?




(1) "Confederate States of America and the Legal Right To Secede"
https://www.historyonthenet.com/confederate-states-america-2

EXCERPT "That amendment had said that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states, and not prohibited to the states by the Constitution, remained a right of the states or the people. The Constitution is silent on the question of secession. And the states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states." CONTINUED


(2) “Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People”
https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...s-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/4/

EXCERPT “While the previous quotes prove that, politically, Lincoln was not firmly insistent on freeing the slaves of the South, his following quote reveals that he personally did not want to: “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.” CONTINUED

 

Nope it was more than food and non-military supplies although that wouldn't matter he had no permission to send his navy into the SC waters and into that harbor and the purpose was to resupply a garrison in place to blockade the port.

"Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861 when the first shots of the war, fired by cadets from the Citadel, prevented the steamer Star of the West, hired to transport troops and supplies to Fort Sumter, from completing the task.

After realizing that Anderson's command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and supply Fort Sumter. The ships assigned were the steam sloops-of-war USS Pawnee and USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reinforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, FL), armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tugboats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter.[8]:240[14] By April 6, 1861, the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive was Harriet Lane, the evening of April 11, 1861.[8]:304"

It was an act of war. After that SC had every right to open fire on Fort Sumter to remove the union force and prevent a blockade of the port.

 

The war was begun by secessionists firing on Fort Sumter.
The abolition of slavery was not a Union War aim at the start because the border states remaining in the Union (to the South's great strategic disadvantage) were slave states.
As attitudes hardened with continuing battles and mounting casualties it became possible to include abolition as a war aim.
Your real complaint is that Lincoln was a much more sensitive and effective student of public opinion and how to mold it than anyone on the secessionist side.

 

Secession, as attempted by the southern states that provoked the Civil War, did not meet the Constitutional requirements.

There, one point is refuted. You both lose.

"
Do States Have the Right to Secede?
But what if we really do want to divide ourselves into actual separate nations? Could we do it?

The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

Actually, there is.

What Scalia probably meant to say was that there is no unilateral right to secede. One state can't just say, “The heck with you, U.S.A. We're out of here."

What a state (or states) can do, however, is begin the process of seeking a mutually agreed upon parting of the ways, and that process clearly exists, set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1868 ruling in Texas v. White. That ruling concluded that a state (or states) could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three fourths of the nation's legislatures. In other words, it's a tough task.

Texas v. White did, however, suggest another way a state might secede: “through revolution." That might be obvious, but it's a point that French, the author, focuses on when he talks about how a California exit could come about, as he did in the New York Times “The Argument" podcast on Oct. 30. It could happen, he suggests, if civil unrest becomes extreme, and the state and the nation simply agree to part ways to minimize the damage.

"

 

South Carolina, as a state of the Union, had no right to fire on federal forces under any circumstances.

 

Trump.

 

Yeah, sure--Bobby Lee was a fine fella--for a traitor.

 

You specious protest notwithstanding you still have not refuted anything of the historical record as I related. Lincoln committed two acts of war, first by sending troops to where they could blockade the port, then attempting to get his navy carrying soldiers and artillery to illegally enter the port to reinforce and resupply those troops. And even then after that he then sent his troops into Virginia to attack Virginians on THEIR lands. The blood is entirely on Lincolns hands there did NOT have to be a Civil War other than HIS desire to bring the seceded slaves states back into the Union and NOT to end their slavery.

 

It was an act of rebellion. The Constitution bans States from joining confederacies. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation...".

 

It was not a state of the Union. And yes it was an invading Navy attempting to blockade there, I don't care if they were in the Union, the federal government had no Constitutional power to blockade a state's port that's not a federal port a state would have every right to defend it especially in those days and times.

 

POTUS had every right to send warships into U.S. harbors.

No, they didn't. The perps were traitors.