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

well thanks for caring... lol

 

Northam is a frat boy compared to some vile Virginia racists.

 

He swore an oath to the United States, not Virginia.

 

The CSA never existed. There is no right of unilateral secession.

Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869

 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Article VI, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-2/

 

Becky Little writes:

"Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war’s end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be memorials that mourned soldiers who had died, says Mark Elliott, a history professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.

In contrast to the earlier memorials that mourned dead soldiers, these monuments tended to glorify leaders of the Confederacy like General Robert E. Lee, former President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis and General “Thomas Stonewall” Jackson.

“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s."
​

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

 

Okay, well I'm willing to see only those Civil War statues be removed that were put in place after the year 1900.
Does that sound like a fair compromise?

(Not counting statues that were just replacements for older statues)

 

Re:

What you think Scalia "probably" meant to say means nothing concerning the realities involving America in the 1860s.

Before Virginia ratified the Constitution, it stipulated that it could withdraw from the union if the central government became oppressive and because all the States are to be treated equally, any state that wanted to could withdraw from the union(1).

If withdrawing from the union were such a heinous violation of the Constitution, why did former president, James Buchanan allow the first Southern States to withdraw peacefully?



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

EXCERPT "Readers may recall that those states(VA, NY & RI) included in a clause in their ratifications of the Constitution that permitted them to withdraw from the Union if the new government should become oppressive. It was on this basis that they acceded to the Union. Virginia cited this provision of its ratification when seceding in 1861.

But since the Constitution is also based on the principle of coequality—all the states are equal in dignity and rights, and no state can have more rights than another—the right of secession cited by these three states must extend equally to all the states." CONTINUED

 

Uhhh liberals

 

The war ended in 1865 and the North kept a standing army in the south until 1874. Even if the South had the resources to build memorials to their fallen dead immediately after the war (which they didn’t due to the brutal scorched earth campaign engaged in by the union), they would not have been ALLOWED to place monuments up until after 1874 and the occupying force had been removed. Combine this with the fact that the Jim Crow era lasted until the late 1870’s all the way up until the 1940’s and you can see why this position is inherently dishonest. They are essentially making the argument that if the south did not erect their statues within a 5 year period from 1875-1880, then the southern people could not have erected them for ANY purpose other than the intimidation of blacks and to represent white power.

That is patently absurd and an incredibly dishonest position to take. Every culture has the right to honor their fallen dead. Men who left home as fathers, brothers, sons, grandfathers and grandsons to defend their people and who just never came home or received a proper burial. Wives, children, parents who had no grave to visit, no body to mourn and no closure for their pain, have a right to memorialize their loved ones. To turn that sacred act into a political battering ram is the apex of immorality.

 

I have never firebombed anything, you?

 

Per Texas v White, South Carolina never ceased to be a state in the Union. Firing on Ft. Sumter was therefore an illegal insurrection.

 

What a perfect post !

Well said sir.

 

R.E. Lee and slavery:
Let’s get real about Robert E. Lee and slavery

...remove Robert E. Lee’s name from the home he once occupied When Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s statue...
Gillian Brockell · Retropolis · Sep 10, 2021

 

Their succession was null and void: Texas v. White et al.

 

Educated people will remember and honor Robert .E. Lee long after today's Neo Carpetbaggers and braying detractors are silent and senseless dust.

“Lee was the noblest American who had ever lived and one of the greatest commanders known to the annals of war.”
Sir Winston Churchill

https://www.macon.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article195450739.html

 

No, absolutely not.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."​

Texas v, White et al.

It was an artificial island created by the feds.

Southerners opened fire on Fort Sumter.

The CSA never existed: Texas v, White et al.

Providing they swore to obey federal laws, they were given a do-over. They were forgiven traitors.

Why do you keep claiming secession is legal?

Texas v, White et al.

 

So, elect him Reality Show Entertainer-in-Chief.

 

No the average black American never was interested in history.
The Americans that played a role in removing the magnificent statue formerly in VA in Richmond on that enormous pedestal did this nation a huge injustice.

Grant defended Lee when others wanted Lee tried for Treason.

Fact is it was a hot debate over him and Jefferson Davis. Cooler heads refused to try either for Treason.

 

Oh I have been clear it was settled by and after the war although TvW, which was a texhical issue over bonds, is still a highly debated decision and even recently talk of states seceding. But at the time of Linclins attempt to blockade SC at Fort Sumpter and Lincoln's invasion States believed and there was nothing in the Constitution that said they could not leave the Union. Why didn't Lincoln take it to court?

 

That was the correct move that Abe should have followed. I do not believe he made as much an issue of Sumpter as our Democrats of today make it. And they attacked Ft. Sumpter.

 

After the fact. After Lincoln has started a war and still a highly contested and debated decision. 600,000 lives decided the question. Go back and read the threads about blue states seceding after Trump won where I noted then and ask those who supported wouldn't Trump have to send in federal troops since that was the precedent after the Civil War?

But is we go back to our founding and what the founding fathers said

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I take their word on what the Constitution says over Chase's. And of course those states, former colonies some, which did declare their independence from the United States were well aware of how that United States had gained it's independence.

 

There is lots of historical writing that Lincoln used Fort Sumpter to provoke the hostilities so he could start the bloody war.

Tulane Universary

Lincoln Provoked the War
"Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."
Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side."
https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

 

We note from things said by Democrats that though they get blamed for starting the war, modern Democrats take that with stride and want to admit what they did in 1861.

 

That came AFTER.

See above Lincoln opened hostilities in the war SC fired in self defense.