Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,552
Republika Srpska
How is my interpretation questionable? The quote says that the only acceptable form of secession is secession from intolerable oppression and the quote calls this approved form of secession a revolution which, as you youself claimed, must mean that even this form is not really legal because if it was legal it wouldn't have been a revolution.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,276
Caribbean
How is my interpretation questionable?
I explained.

In proper form, after a claim has been rebutted, your are supposed to continue by surrebuttal, not by asking what the rebuttal means.

The quote says.
Repeating is not rebutting.

Are you just missing my point from earlier about "quoting" random individuals versus quoting official documents?
Why don't you address the secession clause of the Virginia Ratification Ordinance? Make a real surrebuttal?
How can you prove a man who passes a ratification law that codifies secession and establishes a Constitution that doesn't prohibit it - is actually against it? I don't think it can be done. So what if Madison changed his mind in 1833, or what if perhaps he wants to see the rancor end and is just giving Webster a pep talk. The 1788 law is the law,

Are you going through cognitive dissonance? If so, take some time and calm down.
Were you unaware that states explicitly reserved secession rights? Not revolution rights?
Do you understand that the Virginia Ratification establishes a secession right in the Constitution's galaxy of reserved rights?
Don't you think the truth better than Lincoln's propaganda? lol Maybe not.
You can explain. I'll pay attention.
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,552
Republika Srpska
How can you prove a man who passes a ratification law that codifies secession and establishes a Constitution that doesn't prohibit it - is actually against it?
How can you say a man who established a Constitution that formed a more "perfect union" than the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation is actually someone who believed unilateral secession was legal?

About your Virginia Ratification stuff, well, it is pretty consistent with what Madison wrote later. A state may leave the union if it is oppressed, but Madison later clarified by calling that a revolution. And in fact, we have another letter by Madison regarding secession:
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
How was the South abused in 1861? By not having its choice elected as President?

Besides, you are inflating this "right to revolution" stuff. I mentioned it to show that not all secessionist Southerners believed in legality of their actions and that they used "right to revolution" as a justification. I never claimed official Southern documents included the phrase.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fiver

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,276
Caribbean
How can you say a man who established a Constitution that formed a more "perfect union" than the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation is actually someone who believed unilateral secession was legal?.
For several reasons. Perfecting has nothing to do with what powers are conferred or retained in the Articles. My understanding is perfecting is the process of curing defects, not a secret code word for surrendering the state right to alter abolish government. BTW, Lincoln didn't try that one. So, I don't think that is a historical argument. I never heard that one before, so maybe it's your creation.

And in fact, we have another letter by Madison regarding secession:
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
How was the South abused in 1861? By not having its choice elected as President?
Ah the Trist letter. Rebutting your own argument. Now, see if can figure out that the Webster letter and Trist letter contradict each other. And they are only private letters, and that the Webster letter contradicts everything else Madison ever wrote for public consumption or to make law.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the reasons for which a State decides to resume its rights. You don't have an override. Neither do I. Both the Declaration (on leaving Britain) and Federalist 43 (on leaving the first Confederacy and ratifying the Constitution) cite "safety and happiness" as sufficient cause. You have your opinion and they have theirs.

About your Virginia Ratification stuff, well, it is pretty consistent with what Madison wrote later. A state may leave the union if it is oppressed, but Madison later clarified by calling that a revolution.
What do you mean my "stuff." This is a law that both establishes the Constitution and reserves the right to secession.

I would like to see your substantiate that Madison called the ratification of the US Constitution a revolution? When you can't find it, I wonder what you will say next in order to avoid dealing with black letter law reserving the right to secession.

I hope you realize you are putting forth some shaky arguments.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
There is no exact number of how many confederate statues or memorials exist in USA, but conservative numbers put it to 700, mostly being in the South, but also a few in the North. As I explained earlier, the bulk of Civil War monuments in the South, were erected between 1885 and 1915, with another surge in the 1950s and 1960s which coincides with periods of racial upheaval - and particularly to the first wave, it coincides with the promulgation of "Jim Crow Laws" and the consolidation of power of the old southern elites.
The majority those statues were erected mainly by women organizations. The main organizations behind the erection of most confederate monuments was the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), an organizations that had an aggressive political agenda to vindicate the Confederacy. The UDC publicly disseminated "Lost Cause" theories, expressed strong support for the Ku Klux Klan and were supported by Segregationist politicians. The UDC had their objective to define southern identity around images from an Old South that portrayed slavery as benign and slaves as happy and a Reconstruction that portrayed blacks as savage and immoral. That constructed narrative - that literal rewriting of history - was an important tool for the legitimization of racial segregation and white supremacy in the South during the "Jim Crow Era", without even saying that this organization that erected most of those monuments clearly expressed support and empathy for a rebellious and traitorous entity against the United States of America.
Therefore it is certain that most of those monuments were erected in a specific historical context that nowadays would not be accepted.

Most of the monuments and statues removed since the Charleston Church shooting 2015, has been mostly about removing names and statues of important confederacy historical figures and the removal of flags and symbols that depicted the confederacy. Memorials paying homage to the sacrifice of the average soldier should be reconfigured and effectively de-contextualized from the "Jim Crow Era" past. I don't see why this should be controversial.

The city of San Antonio, Texas, removed a statue to the Confederacy from one of downtown’s public squares in Sept, 2017. This statue was the focal point of a park named, oddly enough, after Colonel William Barret Travis, one of the heros of the Battle of the Alamo which has nothing to do with the Civil War. The statue was originally placed on the site by an organization that supported the Confederacy in the early 20th century.

Maybe now we can get an actual statue of Col. Travis n the park instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiver

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
The city of San Antonio, Texas, removed a statue to the Confederacy from one of downtown’s public squares in Sept, 2017. This statue was the focal point of a park named, oddly enough, after Colonel William Barret Travis, one of the heros of the Battle of the Alamo which has nothing to do with the Civil War. The statue was originally placed on the site by an organization that supported the Confederacy in the early 20th century.

Maybe now we can get an actual statue of Col. Travis n the park instead. Travis was no spotless angel either, but then who is?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
Royal, do you think that Travis might be even more controversial in San Antonio than a Confederate statue? Given the large Latino population there?
 

Zip

Jan 2018
487
Comancheria
Travis was an illegal alien, as was Crockett and many of the defenders of the Alamo. Many were freebooters such as the New Orleans Grays mercenary company.
 

Angelica

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,753
Angel City
Let see if I follow the insanity of compulsive action. The statues are inanimate they are a part of history. Do you think such action will began to wake up the morality of an individual? Consequently, we are talking about years and years of indoctrination passed down from generation to the next. Therefore, the removal a few statues along with confederate flags means nothing unless you are able to change individuals’ mentality. Our beliefs whether they are prejudice or not are internal. Their mentality needs to be overhauled not the statues.

Clearly, I understand they represent a bad part in American history as notes by many Americans. Slavery is a part of my ancestors past I would definitely like to rewrite the actions of others I cannot. At best, I can learn from it to prevent history from repeating itself.