Richmond is taking down Confederate statues: Is this the end for other Confederate memorials?

#2,226
#2,226
n_huffhines said:
Most states seceded when they were ordered to invade South Carolina. You can fault the entire confederacy as an institution for its stance on slavery, but let's get more granular than that. Robert E Lee was for freeing the slaves in word and in deed. He fought for the confederacy but expressly not for the purposes of maintaining slavery. There is no good reason to oppose a Robert E Lee memorial, unless you wanna put guys like Jefferson and Washington in the crosshairs, too. Lee's monument is gone because he's not understood.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, MemphisVol77 and AshG
#2,228
#2,228
w
AshG said:
This will be the only time I ever willfully mention this group, but PragerU's breakdown of the Civil War is crystal clear, includes significant evidence for their claims, and spells out the timeline without mincing words.

The Articles of Secession for the Confederate States are also clear as a bell, each one mentioning slavery as the primary reason for leaving the union.

I may have my signals crossed and totally be missing what you're saying here, though.
Click to expand...

I like Prager and don't know what his view on this is. Nor do I need to in order to know the North did not invade the South and go to war to end slavery, and I think people who put forth that argument do a historical disservice. The articles prominently feature slavery, but it is hardly the only complaint; to reduce it thus, ignores decades of dispute over tariffs, expenditures, representation, and access to new territories.

But play devil's advocate and let's say slavery was the only issue raised. The claim the war was fought to end slavery is still false because it misses half its argument - that Lincoln plunged the nation into war to preserve the nation, not end slavery.

Slavery was ending in the West and the old guard could not forestall industrialization. Whatever designs the South had on the southern hemisphere for a slavocracy would not have long delayed its demise, and was whistling past the graveyard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, hog88, davethevol and 1 other person
#2,229
#2,229
NCFisher said:
w

I like Prager and don't know what his view on this is. Nor do I need to in order to know the North did not invade the South and go to war to end slavery, and I think people who put forth that argument do a historical disservice. The articles prominently feature slavery, but it is hardly the only complaint; to reduce it thus, ignores decades of dispute over tariffs, expenditures, representation, and access to new territories.

But play devil's advocate and let's say slavery was the only issue raised. The claim the war was fought to end slavery is still false because it misses half its argument - that Lincoln plunged the nation into war to preserve the nation, not end slavery.

Slavery was ending in the West and the old guard could not forestall industrialization. Whatever designs the South had on the southern hemisphere for a slavocracy would not have long delayed its demise, and was whistling past the graveyard.
Click to expand...

The slavery issue aside, the confederacy left the union. The confederacy made their own constitution, hated the U.S. flag and made their own president and Constitution.

Some of my ancestry made this decision to leave the Union. I appreciate their resolve but will not celebrate it. No reason to have erected memorials to those who hate America .
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#2,230
#2,230
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
The slavery issue aside, the confederacy left the union. The confederacy made their own constitution, hated the U.S. flag and made their own president and Constitution.

Some of my ancestry made this decision to leave the Union. I appreciate their resolve but will not celebrate it. No reason to have erected memorials to those who hate America .
Click to expand...
They wanted to leave. No reason they shouldn’t have been allowed to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,232
#2,232
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
The slavery issue aside, the confederacy left the union. The confederacy made their own constitution, hated the U.S. flag and made their own president and Constitution.

Some of my ancestry made this decision to leave the Union. I appreciate their resolve but will not celebrate it. No reason to have erected memorials to those who hate America .
Click to expand...

They hated the government of the United States, not America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#2,233
#2,233
O
davethevol said:
They wanted to leave. No reason they shouldn’t have been allowed to do so.
Click to expand...

Other than they were not strong enough to stand on their own.

Lesson learned, if you aren't strong enough to overthrow the government then change it from within or change yourself. Or not and keep rehashing that the states are not sovereign.
 
#2,235
#2,235
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
O


Other than they were not strong enough to stand on their own.

Lesson learned, if you aren't strong enough to overthrow the government then change it from within or change yourself. Or not and keep rehashing that the states are not sovereign.
Click to expand...

the confederacy had no desire to overthrow the government of the United States, they just didn’t want to be a part of it anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,238
#2,238
hog88 said:
Injuns should have better controlled their borders and immigration. We should learn a lesson from them.
Click to expand...

In the end, the result would have been the same. If they wanted to live, they had to make deals.

Weak argument trying to compare to the U.S. immigration policy. But it was funny.
 
#2,239
#2,239
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
In the end, the result would have been the same. If they wanted to live, they had to make deals.

Weak argument trying to compare to the U.S. immigration policy. But it was funny.
Click to expand...

How is it a weak argument? The injuns didn’t control their borders, allowed foreigners with no common interests or culture settle and overrun them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,240
#2,240
hog88 said:
the confederacy had no desire to overthrow the government of the United States, they just didn’t want to be a part of it anymore.
Click to expand...

Problem is the confederacy was not strong enough to truly make their own country. The Government upheld the U.S. Constitution and beat the foreign enemy of the confederacy.

We tried giving states sovereignty under the articles of confederation and it failed, horribly.
 
#2,241
#2,241
hog88 said:
How is it a weak argument? The injuns didn’t control their borders, allowed foreigners with no common interests or culture settle and overrun them.
Click to expand...

Again, in the end it wouldn't have mattered. The Indians were not strong enough to defeat the control of Eropeans.
 
#2,242
#2,242
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Problem is the confederacy was not strong enough to truly make their own country. The Government upheld the U.S. Constitution and beat the foreign enemy of the confederacy.

We tried giving states sovereignty under the articles of confederation and it failed, horribly.
Click to expand...

Where in the hell did you learn your history?

Nowhere in the constitution does it prevent a state or group of states from leaving the union and the SCOTUS didn’t rule on the matter until after the civil war so no, you can’t say the US Government upheld the constitution. The confederacy was no more an enemy of the US than Canada was. Also how in the hell can you say the confederacy “was not strong enough to truly make their own country”? They stood toe to toe with the almighty US for 3 years.

Please explain your logic in the statement that the articles of confederation failed and how the constitution doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of the states?
 
#2,244
#2,244
hog88 said:
Agreed it probably wouldn’t have mattered but that doesn’t make my point invalid.
Click to expand...

Okay, you have a valid point that doesn't make any sense other than you tried to blame the Indians for something they couldn't control. Haha

You tried to push an idea and it failed. Take the loss and move on.
 
#2,245
#2,245
hog88 said:
Where in the hell did you learn your history?

Nowhere in the constitution does it prevent a state or group of states from leaving the union and the SCOTUS didn’t rule on the matter until after the civil war so no, you can’t say the US Government upheld the constitution. The confederacy was no more an enemy of the US than Canada was. Also how in the hell can you say the confederacy “was not strong enough to truly make their own country”? They stood toe to toe with the almighty US for 3 years.

Please explain your logic in the statement that the articles of confederation failed and how the constitution doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of the states?
Click to expand...

Break out the history book and study why the articles of confederation failed.

The states do not have complete sovereignty, mostly due to the failed articles of confederation, thus ratifying the Constitution. One of the basic principles of the Constitution is federalism, so states do not have complete sovereignty.

You can look at the civil war a few ways but the bottom line is the confederacy succeeded from the union and created their own country at that point, SCOTUS had no say. The confederacy became a completely different country. No matter, how long the confederacy "went to toe to toe" with the union it failed.

If the confederacy could have defended its boarders then things would be different.
 
#2,246
#2,246
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Okay, you have a valid point that doesn't make any sense other than you tried to blame the Indians for something they couldn't control. Haha

You tried to push an idea and it failed. Take the loss and move on.
Click to expand...

Blame? I’m not blaming the injuns, they were technically inferior to the European people coming to the new world. Sure they could have delayed the eventual but the Europeans would have eventually settled this land but that doesn’t negate the fact that the injuns failed in securing their borders and allowed (welcomed in some cases) foreigners to overrun their society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#2,247
#2,247
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Break out the history book and study why the articles of confederation failed.

The states do not have complete sovereignty, mostly due to the failed articles of confederation, thus ratifying the Constitution. One of the basic principles of the Constitution is federalism, so states do not have complete sovereignty.

You can look at the civil war a few ways but the bottom line is the confederacy succeeded from the union and created their own country at that point, SCOTUS had no say. The confederacy became a completely different country. No matter, how long the confederacy "went to toe to toe" with the union it failed.

If the confederacy could have defended its boarders then things would be different.
Click to expand...

I get it now. You are a might makes right person, it’s the right of any powerful nation to invade the less powerful.

The articles of confederation didn’t fail, we won our independence under the articles of confederation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, MemphisVol77 and NorthDallas40
#2,248
#2,248
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
The slavery issue aside, the confederacy left the union. The confederacy made their own constitution, hated the U.S. flag and made their own president and Constitution.

Some of my ancestry made this decision to leave the Union. I appreciate their resolve but will not celebrate it. No reason to have erected memorials to those who hate America .
Click to expand...

I think 'hate' is an overused term that's used as a dismissive. It's an odd term for the secession states' disposition given that they'd stayed with 'America' for the better part of a century despite irreconcilable differences. It starts getting fuzzy when one considers America's flag flew protectively over the ships of the transAtlantic slave trade, and the Constitution used as property rights protection for the trade and ownership of the trafficked. So, does our Constitution and flag 'hate' liberty and by extension the core principle of our founding?

There's a saying in the South; "we'll stop fighting when ya'll stop shooting". I see no sense in sanitizing, nor making invisible or destroying that history so that falsehood can displace it. The AMERICAN descendants of those people wish to honor them no less than AMERICAN soldiers of any other era. By making it acceptable to remove these historical testaments, it has morphed into what I predicted, an open season on vilifying and removing EVERY white, historical figure.

The Constitution is probably as perfect a document that can be crafted by imperfect beings, a form of government devised that even its contemporary framers could not yet live by, but that lit the path we'd come to walk. If we continue to cede the conversations of society to the authoritarian factions that coerce speech, thought, and conduct, the death of the constitutional republic is assured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, toeflood and UT_Dutchman
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top