Virginia governor to announce removal of Lee statue

Have no idea to what the cartoonist is referring. This is about trying to erase history.

 

By "primary sources", I assume you're referring to the Declarations of Secession by 4 Southern states. IMO, South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States better articulates the South's grievances.

It all goes back to the Compact theory of government. This was touted in the lead-up to the Constitution and can be seen in Madison's writings.

Apparently, however, the People were sold a pig in a poke as was soon shown by the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prompted the Father of the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson) and the Father of the Constitution (Madison) to write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

The Nullification Crisis of 1832 showed again the conflict pertaining to the limits of freedom and independence of the States.

The Republican party chose to pick the scab to gain sectional power as is shown by William Seward (the favorite to win in 1860) in his "Irrepressible Conflict" speech in 1858. With that, the South clearly saw what was coming and it should have been no surprise as to what happened following the 1860 election.

Secession was not a morality play. It was a drawing a line in the sand as to the limits of power of the States vs the Federal government.

As to Virginia in particular, it did not secede over slavery. It was one of 4 States that seceded only after Lincoln called for 75,000 troop after Fort Sumter. These States would not send troops to fight their own countrymen.

That ^^^ is history.

 

The shutdowns already were in place, virtually before the first task force meeting. The idea of flipping this on the President simply is not going to work, not only on conservatives and independents, but even a liberal living in a shutdown State would admit to the obvious: It was my governor's directive.

Governors can't have it both ways: Praise and power when good things happen, but blame Trump when bad things happen. Nah, they said they own it, so Trump and everyone else agreed: They own it, and they've mismanaged it terribly.

It's the same thing with the Civil War(getting back on topic). Jefferson Davis wanted an amicable and peaceful end to the civil war(didn't even want a war at all). It was Abraham Lincoln who refused to negotiate with Davis, because in his mind to negotiate with Davis was to recognize the confederacy.

Furthermore, it wasn't just slaves, but the textile industry. The Northern industrialists pretty much needed the South for raw materials(still do by the way, as industrialization has taken more hold in the centuries to follow and now Northern States have like a few sparse farming areas.)

I do believe a compromise could have been reached where both sides would have cooperated with the other, if that was in Lincoln's political vision but it wasn't. All Lincoln cared about was the preservation of the union, which was basically a yoke on Southern States. Lincoln was Bush before Bush.

(When one includes the blockades as well as the federal occupation, much of which courts later deemed unconstitutional), if we want to talk about a whitewashing, Lincoln got the biggest whitewashing of all.(Which is why opponents should think twice about political assassinations of their opponents. It tends to deify them and undermine their cause.)

He was a war monger, a territorial President who only got the confidence of the Northern Abolitionists once the war was in the North's favor. The great irony is that the aftermath of the war not only led to the loss of 650,000 Americans but it also led to a depression in the South that lasted for over a century(until 2010.)

So forgive me if I don't praise Lincoln for his George.W.Bush-esque handling of the war and the aftermath of the war.

Nor do I hold the confederacy to be some 'racist hillbilly' army against America, rather the actual interpretation is that the Southern States did not agree to abolition(though I suspect they would have in time. If left alone, as George Washington and other earlier framers had warned.), they also couldn't stand the idea of being economic slaves to the Northern abolitionists who were industrializing but to this day, failed to industrialize the South.

The Civil War could have been avoided, without pushing one's opinions(the North) over the other(the South). Ironically, much like today. Virtue signaling feels good, but it is oppressive in that others don't agree, yet they are forced to witness this disagreeable alignment in the public space.

 

In the United States it was even after the war was over.

I did, yes slavery was one of the issues but it was not about ending it, it was about keeping the states that allowed slavery IN THE UNION.

Absolutely true for the products that slave labor produced.

His goal was to preserve the Union not end slavery. Later he needed to create a reason to keep the war going.

Because it is the motivation of those who fought for the Confederacy that is preserved in the memorials.

Slavery was a part in that they believed slavery was an issue for each state and each territory should be able to vote whether to be a slave territory and then state and the federal government should not dictate that. The power grab starting with slavery in those territories, they saw it as an expansion of government overall. The fact is had Lincoln won the first battle when he invaded the Confederacy those states would have rejoined with their slavery intact and would have remained slave states until finally slavery was no longer economically feasibly or worthwhile. The fact remains that many sons and daughters of those states died defending against and invasion and we still memorialize that as part of our history.

 

I'm thinking of the declarations of secession, the Cornerstone Speech, documentation of the white supremacy motivation for flag design, and documents from secession representatives who wrote to other states encouraging them to secede as well. There is no primary source I can find anywhere that mentions a primary cause other than slavery. At best you have some people who weren't explicit about their causes, but every time the cause was explicit, the primary cause was slavery.

"It was a drawing a line in the sand as to the limits of power of the States vs the Federal government." - This statement presumes that blacks had no individual rights and that slavery was ultimately justified. I do not share that philosophy. States wanted the "right" to deny individuals their basic human rights, and the Federal government represented a threat to that philosophy.

As far as Virginia goes, their declaration of secession was quite short, but they made no secret about how they identified themselves and their allies: "and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."

 

Fair enough... Just thought I'd give you a shout out.

But I covered Northams authority to remove JUST the Lee statue, as it's on land owned by the state, and he speaks for the state.

I'm stunned it took until post #99 to see that photo of 2 idiots, neither of them Governor Northam...

Is that your computer wallpaper or something?

 

Ugh... I just read the Wiki review of your other book.... Sounds like a complete downer... If I want to be depressed, I just need to turn on the news.... not sure I need to get it from my fiction as well...

Thanks though... good tip...

 

In Richmond's case, erasing history is going to erase tourism.

Richmond's history as capital of the Confederacy is one of its few tourist attractions and Monument Avenue is part of that. Once the statues are removed few history buffs will have a reason to travel into the city. All of the battlefields in the area are in Hanover, Henrico and Chesterfield counties (not including the battlefields in and around Petersburg 25 miles to the south).

 

No, liberals want to change the past even though it's physically impossible. Liberals have the mindset that the truth is whatever they want it to be.

 

Then you reject the concept of inalienable rights and, instead, believe that "rights" belong only to the government and to those they have the grace to dispense them to. I disagree.

You did not answer my question. You are only pretending to and then desperately scrambling to change the subject to the motivations of the Union, avoiding the motivations of the Confederacy at all costs. Thats why you can't simply answer the question directly.

The North was also agrarian. This is a bad argument. I'm sorry that the truth is, once again, inconvenient for your agenda, but it remains the truth.

How many decades before you can bring yourself to address the motivations of the Confederacy?

The Confederacy was founded to preserve slavery. Your wish to either ignore history or memorialize that purpose is the problem.

If the Confederacy really believed that slavery was an issue for each state to decide (itself a disgusting concept antithetical to the very concept of inalienable rights at all), then they would have allowed their own states to decide. They didn't. All of their states had to "respect" the institution of slavery. Wonder why?

The fact remains that the Confederacy's primary purpose, by their own admission, a fact you can't come to grips with, was the preservation of slavery. This is historical fact. I don't care how much it offends you, but it remains fact. I don't care how desperate you are to change the subject to Lincoln or the Union (which you, no doubt, will continue doing in your next post in order to continue dodging my question) but it remains a fact.

The Confederacy violently rebelled against our country in order to preserve slavery. No matter how much it may offend you, this is objectively true. Memorialize white supremacy and violent attacks on our country all you want; just do it on your own property and don't cry when taxpayers no longer wish to fund your misguided memorials. Slave-holding states left the Union in order to preserve slavery, then they used violence to confiscate our country's property. This is nothing to celebrate, and if your sense of Southern identity and pride hinges on this, then it never had a solid foundation to begin with.

 

All the South cared about was owning black people. You know, like with actual yokes and not figurative ones you use to characterize the concept of cracking down on slavery.

Your heroes took up arms against our country in order to continue ACTUALLY oppressing people. But, yeah, pretend to care about "pushing one's opinions." Cute.

 

Snicker....so this is the new line, it's not him in the picture. You two faced dems crack me up!

 

Make sure you throw in hero's to cast doubt on others character, lol. Nobody today supports slavery just stop with the nonsensical posting. Slavery was a horrible history of all mankind and certainly all races. Whites, Blacks, and even Brown people have owned and sold slaved throughout mankind.

 

Got it... Oh yes! POTUS Pelosi how could I forget !

 

Ahh...in that case I guess Governor Kluckerface (and/or the GA) has the authority to remove the statue.

It's your governor - the racist half-wit you voted for:

Coonman...

smfh

 

What the hell are you talking about? Quote one thing I said that was incorrect. One.

 

It's been the "line" since 2/2/19, when he denied it was him in the picture, and nobody has come forward to claim otherwise..... although I heard Tara Reade was considering it...

 

I laid out a thread for you to follow. You obviously have not read the writings I mentioned. South Carolina's Address mentions quite more than slavery, namely tariffs and the Compact between the States.

White Supremacy for a flag design? If you're referring to the Confederate Battle Flag, it was inspired by the St. Andrew's Cross, Scotland's national flag.

The "oppression of the Southern slaveholding States" you refer to is of States making war on other States.

As I said previously, this was not a morality play. It was about the limits of government and Constitutional interpretation.

It is a fact that both the Father of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution had "buyer's remorse" within 10 years of the ratification of the Constitution due to the way it was being interpreted and used by the Federal government. Something clearly went wrong with the original intent. It was something that was struggled with for years, culminating in the War Between the States.

As to the morality of slavery and its ending, the Republican party, via the War, did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Slavery would have ended shortly (John Deere would have seen to that if nothing else), but the change from a Republic of Independent States to a consolidated Central government was lost forever.

Simply put, the South fought for the former. The North fought for the latter.

 

Japan attacking the US wasn't the reason Japanese were put in camps. FDR was concerned Japanese Americans would side with Japan and conduct terrorists activities inside the US. Well the German and Italian Americans could have done the say thing. It was your second point for the reason why Germans and Italians weren't put in camps. As for the topic if a statue of Lee is taken down because it offends blacks, then I'm pretty sure Japanese Americans don't appreciate seeing statues of FDR.

 

I didn't mean you personally. You make a good point that keeping people historically illiterate may preserve sanity, but it may have the opposite effect. Once this offensive symbol is removed, they remain easily triggered and there is no way to shield them from being offended for the rest of their lives.

 

We laughed, we cried, we hurled...

Ralph Northam Can't Moonwalk His Way Out Of This

 

I agree. Since slavery is based on robbing one of the fruits of their labor, Dems are slightly more worthy of displaying the statue than Trump.

 

Why do you want Obama dead?

 

the president declared a national emergency, then issues the guidelines to America to shutdown, then issues guidelines on how to reopen, if you have an issue with it, you have an issue with Trump, as they were his guidelines

 

Not according to the states that made it up and those that fought were defending their homes, families, farms, businesses and their states from a foreign invader.