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

This is the proper way to remove 'offensive' state property. I disagree with the reasons (Lee opposed slavery and tried to get the govt of the south to offer freedom to slaves that would fight for it, after all), but I approve of the decision and methodology.

 

You apparently never tire of contradicting yourself. I had said that the Confederate States had left the Union in order to preserve slavery, in their territory. How do you imagine that your admitting that the actions of the North, vis a vis slaves, "scared the heck out of the Southern States," supports your case, that those states' own preserving of that institution-- i.e., their seceeding in fear or apprehension, over the Northern states, at some point, trying to abridge the practice-- did not play a central role in their secession?

This is irrelevant to my contention that the Confederate States feared a threat to their ability to keep slaves in the future. Your prior quote, admitted as much, as being their true motivation.

Not to mention, to which I've already directed readers, my link which quotes the actual Confederate secession documents, of several of the states, all of which talk of slavery, and an explicit speech by the V.P. of the Confederacy.

As in the prior quote, your closing statement is all beside the point. Do you not even understand what point we are debating? It has 100% to do with the MOTIVATIONS of the SOUTHERN states. That makes it exactly 0% concerned with the motivations of the Union, or with what ended up happening in other slave states which did not secede. Capiche?

Well this gets to the heart of the claim that the war was fought over states' rights. There are two possible ways of interpreting, that overly-vague claim. The way I have been treating it, is as the idea that states rights should ALWAYS take precedence over federal power. This would mean that the Confederate States had wanted GREATER states' rights, than had been allotted, in the U.S. Constitution. It is under this perspective, that all complaints about Northern states, not honoring Southern, "property," rights, fall flat. Can you at least acknowledge that obvious fact?

The other way to interpret this citation of "states rights," as your above quote indicates, is to accept that there ARE some issues in which the federal government has primacy, and others, in which the state has ultimate sovereignty. If one is going to then claim that this was the root cause of the Southern dissatisfaction with the Union, it is incumbent upon that person, to cite the ways that the federal government was violating those proscribed boundaries, in such an egregious way, as to justify secession.

However, as with those runaway slave laws, my recollection is that the federal government, including the Supreme Court (see Dred Scott decision), not only did not, itself, violate State sovereignty, but it strongly upheld Southern claims, that needed federal enforcement.
So, if it is in this 2nd interpretation, of "states' rights," wherein lies your argument, as the basis for Southern secession, it is a mystery as to what you have been waiting for, in order to list all the ways that the U.S. government was not honoring its part of the Constitutional compact, with those states. The floor is yours; please cite these motivating federal offenses, against the states' rights, as they are assigned, in the Constitution.

 

The right to engage in revolution was clearly written in some State constitutions when the country was created. The Confederate States were under no obligation to rejoin the Union after the war. They could have remained independent as a group or as a separate country if they had wanted to. But, once they had gotten their butts whipped, most couldn't wait to rejoin.

 

California didn't end racial slavery until 1937.

Slavery is still legal in America and the State and federal governments could sell their prisoners as legal slaves for specified time periods at public slave auctions if they wanted to. It was very common after the Civil War.

 

Just shows that some people don't know how to take a win.

 

You're necro posting my reply to an other poster from september. Really?
And the war was about ending slavery. You're just explaining "the lost cause" theme all over again. It's right up there with flat earthers and the 5G conspiracy. You lot just do anything to claim your white hero's are not violent pro slaver thugs, but they were.

 

You're not a patriotic American when you claim the 13th amendment doesn't exist.

 

The 13th is unconstitutional.

 

Source it.

 

Sure.

From the constitution:

“...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

This quote is in reference to how amendments are passed. It explicitly forbids passing an amendment by denying representation to the states in order to pass an amendment. And that’s EXACTLY how the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were passed. The southern states were denied suffrage in the senate in order to force passage of those amendments.

An action which is explicitly unconstitutional and defines the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to be unconstitutional as well.

 

You're just cherry picking half a sentence and add your flimsy personal opinion. I'm not seeing a source that you're right. I asked for a source.

 

I’m not cherry picking anything. Read it yourself. Here let me help you:

Article V of the US Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If you have a different interpretation, present it.

 

Already been done: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/golden-trump-statue-cpac-1948607
And made in China!??! LOL!

 

It costs money to watch people and slavery would have been bad for international sales.

 

It costs more to both watch them and pay them. Slavery was the south's single greatest economic interest. And their international sales didn't hurt for it until the Civil War.

 

Sorry but no, ending slavery was NOT the reason Lincoln invaded the Confederacy, it was to bring them back into the Union WITH their slavery intact along side the UNION SLAVE STATES. You try to claim your woke and politically correct propaganda but the history is clear.

 

Slavery was the reason that the Confederacy seceded. And they said so. Repeatedly. And Lincoln refused peace deals that included the Confederacy keeping slavery intact if they rejoined the union.

 

Doesn't matter. States have no right to secede. The way "out "is the same way as "in"--federal legislation.

They were never "out." That's the point made by Texas v. White et al.

 

It was unnecessary to watch freed blacks after the end of slavery.

 

You are assuming that slaves are the only workers who are watched. This is incorrect.

 

For anyone who isn’t aware, slavery is still practiced to this very day in Africa and other parts of the third world. You would think liberals would be screeching about that instead of worrying about near 200-year-old statues.

 

For those who aren't aware, this is an attempt to run away from the topic.

 

Yes it was NOT about ending slavery and when those states declined to come back into the Union he first attempted to blockade a port and when that was repelled he invaded with his military set to totally destroy the homes, farms, businesses, churches and families of the South to try to forced them back into the Union WITH their slavery INTACT.

Slavery was NOT the sole issue for succession and the issue of slavery was bound to the states rights and economic arguments along with other economic (not having to do with the slavery issue) and political issues.

 

Secession. Not succession. And yes, it was the cause. Again, the people who made the decision to secede said so. You are claiming you know more than they did, about their own motives. That's insane. The economic concern WAS slavery. And, as I've proven dozens of times now, and you always run away from, their own accounts prove that they cared more about slavery than "states rights."

 

Why would you deflect from that? Why not mention it? Is it acceptable in Africa? Is it acceptable when blacks enslave others? Is that it? Tell us.