Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,794
Caribbean
It isn't the legitimacy of the documents I'm questioning. I do however question whether anybody agrees with your interpretation of those documents. You interpret them as establishing it as "clear fact" that the union was split in two when states ratified the Constitution. I asked for any Constitutional scholar who supported that interpretation, but you have yet to produce one. Handwaving to a book without citing even one instance contained in it will not suffice.
You have said that you are not using the word interpretation to imply misinterpretation, but it sure comes across like that to me.

Try this. Identify a single passage of the Constitution that I have quoted here, and my so-called "interpretation" of it - and show the discrepancy between what it says and means, and my "interpretation." And use actual quotes.

Again, it is necessary to point out that Dreamregent answered my question as to whether he felt free to "interpret" the word "stop" to mean "go." He said, "yes." And you have expressed no problem with that. It appears that you objection is not to the methods of so-called interpretation, very with the results. As long as one reaches the right result, method of interpretation doesn't draw any criticism from you.

As to so-called "scholars," where is there any discrepancy between my so-called "interpretation" and that of Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. At first blush, I have no trouble relying on them, as my expert witnesses, along with other Founders and Framers. You should consider that in a real trial or mock trial, your experts - credible sources and scholars, as you call them - will be subject to Daubert Hearings and cross examinations. So, if your sources have a substantive argument, you should post it here. I'll look at these arguments on their own merits; and tell you why these arguments are or are not an impediments to Davis's lawfulness of secession defense. All expert witnesses have credentials.

Regarding "Inference"
It is true that there is no single clause regarding the lawfulness or non-lawfulness of secession. Everyone knows this. All those who argued against secession lawfulness here, drew inferences drew inferences from nothing, which I called - implied by the wind. You had no objection to it.

I would argue that I am not inferring or interpreting, but just reading exact words for exactly what they state. It is not Code Blue that says the only authority of the federal government is that which is specifically delegated - and not one power more - because every other right and power is retained by the States (and no power preventing secession is delegated). It is the Constitution that says that. It is not Code Blue that says a State may repeal its own enactments unless such would be on the list of powers prohibited to the States. It is the Constitution that says that. It is not Code Blue that says the ratification were conditional, but the ratification documents themselves that so state. At some point, you need to acknowledge that words have meanings, and that stop means stop all by itself and required no "inference" from Code Blue.

I would also like to point that the context in which I am posting is the mock trial of Jefferson Davis, and how his defense that secession is legal would work. So, if there were an objective adjudication on this, I wonder if you recognize the degree to which you willingness to let all manner of wild speculative (mis)interetation pass unchallenged while trying imply I am creating an interpretation that is something other than the exact text of the documents - would undermine your credibility with those doing the judging.

The union did not cease to exist at any time in the late 18th century, nor were there two unions. The same union continued to exist, bound more firmly together by ratification of the Constitution. You have yet to give firm support for any claim to the contrary.
That's good to know, but you still have not explained exactly how you came up with this "interpretation" of events. Specifically, you have not explained how on that date when the ninth State ratified the Constitution and it became "established" in those nine States, exactly what is the legal status of the other four States - and how this is one union, when on its face, there are still four States with self-declared membership in a perpetual union who can convene their Congress and make laws for those four States perpetually. Those four are free of the other nine, and vice verse. You have to explain that, not me. You have to explain how 9 States are governing themselves under one organic law, and 4 States are governing themselves.under another organic law - but somehow there is only one union. :)

And to be crystal clear, I am not claiming there are two unions per se, just that it looks like two unions. It walks, talks, and quacks like two unions. If you can prove there is only one, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. Then perhaps you have taken a step closer to proving the South could not legally seceded and that Davis was not a foreign combatant instead of traitor. It is also your uphill climb to show that Madison in Federalist 43 is not describing how 13 States could secede from the Perpetual Union of 1781. I find him to be a "credible source" on this issue. Don't you?

And to take just one more swing at "credible sources." In a real adjudication, the advocate making the case has to establish a personal credibility with the jury or finders of fact. One can implacably post absurdity in a chat room and it has little apparent effect. However, if one wishes to argue in front of real live supposedly objective judges that there is a household with 9 members and a familial hierarchy and a household with 4 members.and a familial hierarchy - but it is really 1 household??? Or say that you have the prerogative to interpret that "stop" implies "go"??? In my opinion, that advocates personal credibility would be so destroyed that it could not be revived by expert witness.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
3,556
So what does everyone think here about the trend in recent years of the removal of statues of Confederate personalities like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, and the removal of Confederate symbols from Southern state flags, is this historically justified, like the removal of Nazi symbols in Germany? And as an aside, what do people here think of movies like Gettysburg or Gods and Generals being just plain unmarketable in today's society, is this a good thing generally or a bad thing?
Ludicrous, find me a historical figure who didn't sin by modern values? If we allow the Germans to honour the servicemen of WW2 we can let people honour the confederacy.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,690
Republika Srpska
Ludicrous, find me a historical figure who didn't sin by modern values? If we allow the Germans to honour the servicemen of WW2 we can let people honour the confederacy.
There is a difference between simply honoring the dead and celebrating the regime those dead fought for. Lost Causers don't simply honor the Southern dead, they are promoting the idea that the Confederacy was a just regime that fought for liberty.
 
Apr 2012
1,026
The Netherlands
Ludicrous, find me a historical figure who didn't sin by modern values? If we allow the Germans to honour the servicemen of WW2 we can let people honour the confederacy.
Do Germans typically honor the servicemen of WW2? I thought Germany was very insistent on stressing how terrible it all was.

I really like the argument that we should judge historical figures by the value of their time but that doesn't really paint a rosy picture of the confederacy either since slavery was already going out of style by the time they felt they needed to fight a war over it. There's also that they were traitors and that thousands died in their rebellion. Its one thing to accept the sins of those that benefited the nation but the confederates actively hurt their nation and could have lost them half their territory if the won.
 
I don't think we should tear down our history as a nation. I honestly don't care if it hurts peoples feelings that's there's a civil war flag or a Thomas Jefferson bust. That was a time of our nation, people should get over. Like what's next; we'll be skipping over Henry 8's reign in world history, because he was an abuser?
 
May 2016
23
Wyoming U.S.A.
I remember the Civil War statues in Illinois . My mother’s grandfathers both fought in the Civil War and so she heard about
The war first hand . Back in the forties and fifties almost everyone had kin that was in that war . My ancestors were all
Farmers and all but one were in volunteer Infantry regiments. And their service was always on their tombstones..

I was raised with the history of the Civil War , the cannons and statues were in small town squares and parks .
It is very sad to Watch the removal of the statues and monuments. One of my Greatgranfathers was wounded and captured at the battle of Shiloh . He spent the rest of the war in Andersonville Prison camp .

I knew quite a few youngsters from the south in the service .Most had kin in the Civil War . Proud of their ancestors .
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,722
Seattle
As an outsider in this argument it reminds me of visiting the Kremlin in Moscow and seeing the red stars of the Soviet Union still on top of the spires. A Russian told me that this was a deliberate move to remember their history, as there had been too much erasing of the past under the old regime. Seems to me that is what those in favour of the removal of Confederate statues are trying to do - erase history and pretend it never happened. In any case these statues honour the soldiers and their sacrifice, not the cause the politicians had them fighting for. In Germany today there are memorials to the soldiers of WWII. No one conflates these with memorials to the Nazi regime.
They were erasing and erasing history, btw. First, Stalin was moved out of the mausoleum, his statues were removed, Stalingrad was renamed into Volgograd. Then later, in 1991, after the failed coup, Dzherzhinsky's statue was removed from Lubyanka. Then came the turn of Lenin's statues. Leningrad became St. Peterburg again. Then most of towns named after old Bolsheviks got their old names, and half of Moscow streets were given their old names back. The funniest situation exists in some provincial cities, where they did not remove Lenin but kept churches next to him.

I don't know how the red stars survived. Possibly because of an obvious question, what to replace them with? Before, in the tzar's time, there used to be the double-headed eagles topping the Kremlin towers, but they are not the symbols of today's Russia. And plus, the stars are unbelievably beautiful, with their special ruby glass and golden network. They look more like pieces of jewelry than anything else. Stars don't signify any specific regimen, hence they stayed.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,875
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I go back to the Italian example to make my opinion more clear.

In good substance I think that, if there is no legal base for such a decision [and as for I've understood the Supreme Court has said that there isn't legal base, if not about the confederate flag on license plates ...] it's a matter of social feelings and the so called "public opinion" should be allowed to express its own will [electors should be allowed to vote with a simple referendum].

Now, what happened in Italy?

The Kingdom of Italy had linked, historically with Fascism, up to sign [the King signed them] the notorious "racial laws", doing a bit more than nothing to impede to Mussoliti to get the power [on the contrary: Monarchy was afraid of a possible Socialist revolution and the "strong man" was just what it was waiting for. Church, aristocracy, Army and high classes followed ...].

So that, in the eyes of the Republican Italians, the Monarchy itself is a problem. Our Constitution has prohibited to male descendants of Savoy House to enter Italy [now that rule has disappeared from the Constitution].

That rule in the Constitution had also an "extended interpretation", overall in towns where there was a leftist administration. My home town has been a nice example.

We've got a statue of King Vittorio Emanuele II. He's substantially the King who made Italy, fighting the wars of independence and supporting the effort of Giuseppe Garibaldi. So he should be loved by Italians ...

Nope. When my home town had administrated by a Communist mayor that statue disappeared, hidden in a store of the Municipality, when the town had administrated by a Christian Democrate administration the statue "popped up" suddenly in a square or in front of the lake ... just to disappear again as soon as a Communist became mayor!
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,801
Ludicrous, find me a historical figure who didn't sin by modern values? If we allow the Germans to honour the servicemen of WW2 we can let people honour the confederacy.
Yes but Germans are not rasing statues to the ww2 leadership, as a means of expressing solidarity with teh values of that regime. If your going to draw parralels draw them correctly.
 
Likes: dvch

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,986
Lisbon, Portugal
I don't think we should tear down our history as a nation. I honestly don't care if it hurts peoples feelings that's there's a civil war flag or a Thomas Jefferson bust. That was a time of our nation, people should get over. Like what's next; we'll be skipping over Henry 8's reign in world history, because he was an abuser?
Some historumites around here did defend the keeping of those confederate statues out of their own feelings as well. In fact, the only defense that I see currently on the keeping of those statues in public places is out of the remembrance and honor of the confederate soldiers that died in the Civil War - a.k.a they are defending it out of their own feelings and feel emotionally hurt when those statues are tore down.

If you don't care if it hurts peoples feelings, therefore we can tore down those statues, am I right? Or is it that you only care about the feelings of a certain people and you disregard the feelings of the people of the other side of the argument?
 

Similar History Discussions