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

And the Corwin amendment is not about slavery? lol
You're disproving your point that the civil war isn't about something else then slavery.... again and again.

I do think we've been over this enough.
Any other comment how it's supposedly not about slavery?

 

Of course it is... SO WHY DIDNT THEY SIGN IT? lol

 

This is again about slavery.

You claimed the civil war wasn't about it. So again: any other comment how it's supposedly not about slavery?

 

Bro. What part of this do you not understand? If it was about saving slavery, then why didn’t they sign the Corwin amendment which would have ended secession and guaranteed slavery as an inalienable constitutional right?

 

it's like a fog was lifted off the city

the tiki touch crowd actually hastened these statues removal, these "fine people" showed us the hate they really represented

 

All I see is "Corwin amendment".
It's about slavery.

Your argument contains a subject about slavery.
You claimed the civil war wasn't about slavery.

And I point out the dumb inconsistency of that claim.

 

He was right about that. Foote has been attacked as a Southern sympathizer, but Foote, like Houston concluded that the South's decision to secede was very foolish, and doomed from the start.

 

Foote, if he was a CSA sympathizer, struck me as a genuine historian who wanted to explain the Civil War to his readers.

 

I think you are right.

 

Yea, Thomas betrayed his State to which AT THE TIME was the higher loyalty. Have you ever studied American History? And yes the Civil War was a huge turning point in that and the sovereignty of States.

Which is why the leaders I previously cited praised him as an American and as a military leader Winston Churchill saying he was the noblest American at the time. Why do you think Eisenhower kept his portrait hanging in the Oval Office a position of honor? Do you believe you know more about Lee and American History than these two men?

 

Alleged loyalty to the state was an excuse to turn on their country because they were afraid slavery might end sometime in the future.

I taught it for more than three decades.

Only in the minds of secessionists who got their rears waxed.

He was flattering Southern whites.

My guess? Their relationship in WW2.

Likely, except for the time they were in leadership positions and had inside access.

 

It wasn't alledged and until you can acknowledge that fact you are arguing from a position of and inaccuracy your specious responses noted.

 

Re:

While I'm a little reluctant to contradict someone who "taught it [history] for 3 decades." I'm pretty sure that R.E. Lee & former president Eisenhower were not contemporaries and therefore could not have had any sort of relationship other than Eisenhower's admiration of Lee's honor and integrity .

Lee died in 1870 and Eisenhower was born in 1890.

I don't think you understand the overall mentality of Americans living in the mid 1800s whose first loyalty was to their State because the Federal government had so little to do with their everyday lives at the time.

Additionally, it was Lincoln who felt compelled to start a bloody and costly war while Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan, allowed 7 of the Southern to peacefully withdraw from a union that was distant and detrimental to their interests.

 

I was talking about Churchill and Eisenhower, not Lee and Eisenhower.

My segue into history was economics.

Buchanan admitted states had no right to secede unilaterally, but suggested he was powerless to stop them.

Both sides badly misjudged the other. The North would fight contrary to Southern assumptions they wouldn't, and the South would leave the union despite Northerners thinking the South had an interest in being in the union and would never leave.

States' way out is the way in--through federal legislation. There is no such thing as unilateral secession. Texas v. White.

The sad truth of the war is that the United States was on the cusp of turning into the industrial and technological power of the world. Slavery wouldn't even have been economic in a couple of decades.

 

Robert E. Lee was asked, after the war, about the erecting of statues to Confederate heroes, and he was against it.

Also, as is pointed out in John Oliver's educational, while amusing, monologue, the Confederacy was very much formed over the principle of SLAVERY, not specifically "states rights." For those who make that argument, I ask how supportive later Confederate States were, of the rights of those northern states, which passed state laws, protecting runaway slaves-- for that, Southern states were fine with the federal government, overruling the state.

 

The war was about Lincoln forcing the states that succeeded back into the Union their slavery still intact. That was his concern bringing them back into the welcome arms of the Union.

 

You have to view it from the prism of then not now. Then in the United States slaves were considered property. The issue was a state declaring the property of someone from another state was no longer their property. It was a matter of states rights to declare what was or was not property for their citizens. For instance these days if you drove you car across the stateline into California and it did not meet California regulations can they seize it from you? Can someone else "free it" from you by taking it in and denying it to you. Sounds callus indeed but again you have to look at through that prism of time.

Then there was also the issue of a growing movement in the non-slave states in the North calling for an actual slave insurrection and support for that which further alienated the slave states.

And again Lincoln did start the war, which he did first by trying to set up a block-aid of Charleston Harbor and then by invading Virginia, to end slavery it was to bring those states back into the Union with their slavery intact. In fact when Congress passed the Civil War resolution, the Crittenden-Johnson Act declaring the country in state of civil war it declared the purpose of the was to was to keep the union intact and stated not for

""overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States,""

Slavery was legal in the United States before the war, all during the war and even after the war ended. So saying it was just about slavery especially ending slavery is disingenuous. It WAS about the legal and constitutional conflict between states themselves and the federal government and the rights of the states and the free people of those states to have their property secured.

 

I have heard this claim in the past, but I don't know if it is correct. For decades after the War, blacks were exploited, tenant farmers, almost as slaves. Even today, despite all the automation, HUMAN workers are still needed & used, especially in agriculture. Since you have an economics background, can you detail the societal business model, for the late 19th century Southern States, in which slavery would have had no economic place?

 

The REASONS that Californians can't seize the property of visitors from other states are:
1) California's laws do not permit it; and
2) if CA passed a law, allowing it, THEIR LAW WOULD BE SUPERCEDED BY FEDERAL LAW. It is not really a fair analogy that you offered, because no northern state said that it's citizens could seize any property, from out-of-staters. They did, however, try to NOT RECOGNIZE other state's claims that any HUMANS could BE property (and therefore did not need to be apprehended & returned to their original "owner"). A belief in "States' Rights," would ALLOW a state to pass such a law.

The southern states actually WENT to the FEDERAL Court System, in order to PREVENT those Northern States from exercising that right, of theirs, to distinguish between humans and property. There is the hypocrisy: Southern States only believed in States' Rights, as far as their own right, to pass laws, contradicting federal law. They did NOT accept, other states passing of laws that were contrary to their own, regarding slavery. For those laws, they whole-heartedly supported the idea of a federally-mandated standard, in which every state needed to recognize the property rights of every other state.

This is how FEDERAL law works; in a view in which States' Rights take primacy, this idea of deferring to the laws of other states, does not automatically exist (unless a state decides to abide by that standard).

 

It is dishonest of YOU, to imply that I ever maintained that the North's cause, during the Civil War, was to end slavery. I very well know that this was not case, and have never suggested otherwise. But the South was concerned that the Northern States had intentions to restrict and, ultimately, end slavery. And this was EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT, in their SECESSION DOCUMENTS, as you would know, if you scrolled through the John Oliver program, I posted. He also includes a speech by the Vice-President of the Confederacy, which puts into stark relief, the CENTRAL IMPORTANCE of SLAVERY, in the Confederate Secession.

 

There were attempts from the North to cause a slave rebellion. But it was the right of the state, and the territories to have slavery that was the issue not ending which was not the purpose of the war.

 

It they, CA, wanted to they could not because they cannot force their law on another state and other federal issues, the same arguments the slave states were using. The other state HAS to recognize it. And we had the fugitive slaves acts to go with that. The federal standard on slavery was that it was legal even during and after the war. And yes federal supremacy exist too.

 

The Confederate states did not leave this "issue" up to their states. ALL of their states had to be slave states, and they sought to expand the practice. They made no bones about it. They seceded, first and foremost, over slavery.

 

The resolution of your sentence is not completely intelligible, but you seem to be confirming my point: that at the heart of the Confederacy, was the idea of the preservation of slavery. All your other arguments seem only to be justifications for why it was reasonable for these states to believe that slavery was being threatened, by the northern states/federal government. That does not have any affect, on my claim, that their wanting to preserve slavery, was what led to their secession (which had begun even before any hostilities from the North, so these are only side-arguments about the War, which do not change the central, motivating factor, the institution of slavery, in the South).

Please do not ignore my explanation, once again; I tire quickly of needing to explain the exact same thing, over and over again, especially when it is to the same person.

Here is another case in point, of both something I've already explained, multiple times, AND, your making a self-contradicting argument. As to the double-sided part: you are claiming both the idea that States' Rights, not being, appropriately, given supremacy over federal law, was supposedly the Confederacy's cause-- while acknowledging that federal laws take precedence, in at least some cases. So, for this to be a cohesive argument, you would have to delineate-- much more clearly than this, for me to understand you- which things fall under federal authority and, for which others, the State's law supercedes federal law-- but which principle was being violated by the federal government, legitimizing the claim that this was the Confederate States' true grievance, and had nothing crucially to do with slavery. BTW, you would also need give justification as to why some things are, and others are not, primarily "States' Rights."

As far as re-explaining what appears to be hypocritical, about this violation of States' Rights, explanation of southern secession-- and if you can't grasp it, this time, please ask some other member, who you have less trouble understanding, to try to explain what I am saying-- here it comes.

The whole reason that any state needs to comply with the laws of any other state, is specifically because of federal supremacy. In a "States' Rights," modelled Confederacy, state laws would trump laws & practices of other states, as well as of any central authority (hence, any disputes would need be ironed-out in negotiations, directly between the concerned states). You seem to be making the same hypocritical argument, as I cited, from John Oliver, of Confederate apologists; namely, that when it came to southern laws (regarding slavery), the federal government had no place intervening. On the other hand, when it came to a "Free," state, not wanting to abide by something, concerning any of those southern laws (which were not subject to any federal oversight), it was the absolute right and obligation of the federal government to step in and override that state's right, to make its own laws. If you cannot see how disingenuously self-serving, is that argument-- that the fed has no jurisdiction over any of our own state's laws about slavery, but it is the job of the federal government to deny the right of any anti-slavery law, made by a free state-- then we are just going to have to leave it, there.

 

Slavery was being preserved the war wasn't to end it. It was the fugitive slaves and the facts groups in the north were trying to get a slave insurrection going and THAT scared the heck out of the Southern states, ie John Brown. There were slaves states in the United States throughout the war and even after it ended.

Property rights a guarantied under the Constitution are they not?

A "Free" state could be a free state, not allow THEIR citizens to own slaves. They could not take the property or allow the property of other states citizens to be nullified.

And the fact remains the war was NOT started to end slavery in the United States or the the Confederate states, it was started to keep those slaves states IN THE UNION with their slavery INTACT.