Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
You are now deliberately nitpicking. You know what I wanted to say.
You give me too much credit. lol (And sorry for calling you Betgo earlier).

You said soldiers "really did" believe they were fighting for their homes as if they were mistaken? You don't think Mayland belonged to Marylanders, who couldn't find the clause in the Constitution whereby a President can conduct unilateral war against a State?


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
Republika Srpska
You don't think Mayland belonged to Marylanders, who couldn't find the clause in the Constitution whereby a President can conduct unilateral war against a State?
And Maryland wasn't innocent either.

The Marylanders (not all of them of course) did the following:

- attempted to organize an assassination attempt on Lincoln' life

-put up Confederate flags on homes in Baltimore after Sumter

-rioted against the presence of the federal troops by organizing mobs that attacked the soldiers

-destroyed telegraph lines that led from Washington to the North, effectively leaving the capital cut off

You also have to keep in mind that a lot Maryland whites were Unionists and in fact 2/3rds of all Marylanders who fought in the ACW fought for the Union.

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
Points taken. As I posted, I am not declaring anyone in politics innocent. The question in this thread is which of the not-innocent 'deserve' to have their statutes rest in peace. And specifically on this tangent, CSA soldiers.

And since Lincoln has the statutes, and I assume you don't generally approve of executive orders that permit armies to fire at civilians - I am just pushing things to see if and where you recognize rights of self-defense.

-rioted against the presence of the federal troops by organizing mobs that attacked the soldiers
Yes, the troops would also have such rights, but who put them in harm's way? And on what legal basis? Not to dwell on the point of one man's peace protesters are another man's angry mob - Lincoln is not just going after mobs. The army arrests politicians and police.

- attempted to organize an assassination attempt on Lincoln' life.
I am not sure I would put that one on "Marylanders." Lincoln was later shot. The background, escape, and hiding of John Surrat is through Catholic institutions, and he ends up in the Papal States, where they did not turn him over to Pinkerton when he is found. This suggests Mr. Lincoln may have had deadly enemies beyond "Maryland." In my understanding, the Baltimore Plot did not result in an indictment, and alleged suspect is a barber from Corsica? Hmm.

IMO, Lincoln wanted war, and that was palpable. Yes, the Riots occur after Sumter, but also after the Peace Commission was told that Sumter would be abandoned. Lincoln is making it up as he goes along, declaring emergency power and ruling by doctrine of necessity - in the states that no one disputes are the United States.

So just consider, and I am working my way back to the earlier question
The Constitution does not say states are bound and cannot leave (and that was a common belief then, and Lincoln jailed 300 editors for writing such stuff )
If the Constitution criminalized secession, IMO the articles would have included a remedy, like use of force.
At the Constitutional Convention, the motion authorizing force against a State, is voted down. (So, this absence is deliberate and not oversight).

So Lincoln is trying to ride a thin line that doesn't exist. He is trying to say the states cannot leave, but treating them as foreign, and treating those in the states that are still in the union who disagree with him as seditious, if not treasonous.

So, how is that the average so-called "rebel" in the South (or even northern Democrat) don't see it as people defending their home and rights? (And isn't that what they say?)
Is that soldier about to undertake Pickett's Charge thinking that he is fighting for Jeff Davis's right to have slaves or defending his home and birthright?
Last edited:
Feb 2011
Again, not being American I dont want to get involved on the rights and wrongs of individual groups.

However, it is almost never correct to generalise about the beliefs and motivations of whole populations of people. Responsibility for crimes and wrongdoing cannot be affixed to whole populations; it is a matter of strict personal liability, to be determined by due process of law.

North Americans contained people of racist views (often prominent as copperheads) whilst Southerners contained many not holding such views and sometimes whole regions of unionist views rejecting slavery (eg East Tennessee, West Virginia etc). Similarly in talking of Nazi crimes, one cannot hold all Germans responsible, then or now. It is a matter of personal liability.
Jun 2015
I assume I am descended from slaves and I do not feel angry. Maybe that is unnatural, but who should I be angry with?

Is that first question rhetorical, or there an answer beyond they got here by boat. Weren't they slaves in Africa (mostly) held in coastal forts, sold in lots of hundreds? So, who made them slaves first? The other Africans.

For those who need to feel angry, I would recommend getting as much information as possible so as not misdirect the anger. Let's see, there were racist white southerners who stole their labor from 1776 to 1865, and there were racist white northerners who passed laws keeping the blacks out of almost everywhere there wasn't slavery, and the rich "abolitionists" used the slaves as a political wedge to justify eventually conquering the south - and left the freed slaves, the ones who didn't die in the resulting humanitarian disaster, right where they stood, without property or compensation amidst the racist white southerners.

As much as this has to do with black anger, I sense much has to do with white guilt - and trying to shove all of it on the south. It's very transparent. That's what I think drives so much of people not being able to admit there was nothing wrong with secession. The south must be blamed, or guess what? It's a national sin.
Also, learn proper grammar and syntax. The fact you don't comprehend that most blacks in your own country have issues towards slavery is pretty telling.

Similar History Discussions