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

Not once the scotus rules against them they don’t.

 

No they didn’t. Again that’s false. Demonstrably and objectively false. They had NO NEED to go to war to preserve slavery.

The south had no NEED to go to war to preserve slavery. The North had already capitulated and offered the Corwin amendment. An amendment which would have ended secession and guaranteed slavery as an inalienable constitutional right. An amendment which had already passed Congress, had full support from Lincoln and had already been ratified by multiple union states. All the south had to do to keep slavery and preserve it as an inalienable constitutional right was ratify.

So why didn’t they? Why would ANYONE choose to risk EVERYTHING they have , including their wealth, lands, possessions, position, power, the lives of their friends and family and even their own lives in a war which they KNEW they had little to no chance of winning in order to accomplish the EXACT same goal of the preservation of slavery that they could have accomplished with zero risk and a 100% guarantee of success simply by signing a piece of paper?

The answer to that simple question is, they wouldn’t. Nobody would.

So then that begs another question. If they didn’t need to go to war to save slavery, why did they go to war? They went to war not in defense of slavery, but in defense of our constitution and the rights we all hold so dear from a government who was violating that constitution at will.

Jefferson Davis said it much better than I ever could: “I would rather leave the Union with the constitution than to remain in the Union without it.”

 

The entire theme of that it wasn't about slavery, the south weren't traitors but hero's.... is still currently lobbed into the "lost cause" myth.
You're entitled to that opinion. It's a free country. But do note what you say is regarded as total bs on par with Qanon nonsense, drenched with white supremacy.
Let's be clear in who stands where according to the other side.

 

Then you’re welcome to refute my argument. You can start here:

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement.

Years later I come back and say, “You know I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such I’m no longer going to uphold that portion of our contract whether you like it or not.” You respond and say, “That’s fine. If you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent then I want out of our partnership.”

Who is the traitor? You or I?

If I then come back and say, “No you’re not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore if placed in that position would you not fight back?

 

because they fought America to keep slavery legal

 

Bro parroting the same line while providing no rebuttal to any point made because what you’ve been taught doesn’t give you the ability to defend the actual facts should be an indication to you that you’ve been fed lies.

 

the only thing the Confederates should be remembered for is the flag of surrender, the white flag, they lost, time for some to get over it

 

You say that. While just 5 states signed it, and then 2 changed their minds and rescinded it. So much for that capitulation.

 

Of course they lost. They were outgunned, outsupplied, had little to no infrastructure and were outnumbered nearly 3:1. Not to mention the enemy had entire platoons of black soldiers whom they had absolutely no problem sending into slaughters as cannon fodder.

And the south STILL almost won, had a 4:1 kill ratio and forced the “superior” northern army to change their upper command and engage in terrorism by targeting civilians in order to secure victory. Actions which if engaged in today would have you put on trial for war crimes and hung.

 

Those same states just passed it through both houses of congress as a constitutional amendment. If the south had signed it, on what grounds do you assert they wouldn’t have gotten the few northern and border state signatures they would have needed?

 

This is weak **** right here. First of all, most of the southern states had already seceded by the time the Corwin amendment had been introduced. Second, only one state had ratified it by the time the date the war began, and it was a southern state (KY).

The South was well aware that the amendment would never get ratified. It didn’t have anywhere near enough support in the northern states.

Face it. The primary objective of the south in the civil war was to preserve slavery. You can’t polish this turd.

 

What are you talking about? They didn’t have the support? They JUST passed it through both houses of congress as a constitutional amendment. Which means they had 2/3 support. In BOTH house and senate.

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth

....

The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

....

That reason was fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.

...

 

the Confederates did fight hard for slavery, but in the end, they lost

 

I’ll call your Vice President and raise you a president.

I present to you The Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln, in his own words:

“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.”

“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

The difference being that Alexander Stephens says he was misquoted. He even made a correction for it where he explains what he was saying. His point was that without slavery, the states wouldn’t have signed the constitution to begin with. Therefore, to remove it without due process as prescribed by the constitution would undermine the entire constitution and as such the country.

 

I quoted directly from the Articles of Succession. Those are the given reasons by the states themselves.

Once again, I can believe them or you, whom do you think I will choose?

 

My apologies I misread and then didn’t read the rest of the quotes. Nevertheless you’re cherry picking. Every single article of secession clearly indicates it is the violation of the constitution they have a problem with. Their point was not that they’re taking slavery although they were not happy with that either.

Their point in every article of secession is that the northern states have consistently and willfully ignored the constitution because they didn’t like what it had to say in regards to slavery. They made the argument that the north couldn’t be trusted to follow the constitution at all. Therefore they had no other choice but to secede.

However, they couldn’t make this argument without providing evidence of their claims. So they did so and most of it had to do with slavery because that’s the part of the constitution the north refused to uphold.

But slavery was the catalyst, it was not the cause. The cause was the north’s willful violation of the constitution and their ignoring of two direct orders of unconstitutionality from the SCOTUS.

 

Ah... the "agreement"... which was about slavery, but suddenly it was not.... sure. I play along.

First of all. It's not some "agreement"... it's the freaking constitution you're talking about. Those laws there are indeed sometimes up for debate. And when it is, it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. And it ruled unilateral that secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. (Texas vs White 1869).

So what you put up works between 2 partners, but not between the federal government and individual states bound together with laws and judges.

 

Tell that to the many other constitutional amendments that made their way through Congress but were never ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Do you think the equal rights amendment is law?

 

And it’s true many times they identified slavery as a primary factor for theformation of the country, the same reason Stephens did. Without it we wouldn’t have a country. So to remove it without due process is unacceptable.

 

Uhhh that case was AFTER the civil war and was passed by a constitutional majority who was put in when southern states had no representation in congress lol

You can’t be serious that’s your argument?

 

To enslave people is unacceptable, with or without due process.

 

That's not historical accurate.
I'm missing the part where 2 out of 5 who passed it through, and then undid what they did.

 

And for the record the SCOTUS ruled against the northern states twice, which they promptly ignored. But now the southern states have to follow them?

 

And for the record the SCOTUS ruled against the northern states twice, which they promptly ignored. But now the southern states have to follow them?

You cannot refuse to uphold your obligations under an agreement and then demand through threat of violence that the other side continues to uphold theirs. That’s completely preposterous and fascist.