Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Confederate flags again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    You're equivocating between memorials in honor of Confederate generals, like Lee, with exhibits as part of the National Holocaust museum?
    No. I am merely commenting on your segue. You can have displays that are contextualized, as I've taken the effort to show.

    As bad as I am with geography, I am relatively certain that NYC is not in France.
    Not my point, although if you will note my edit. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ldier-WWI.html


    I am aware of zero public monuments or memorials to Lenin; if they exist, I would support their removal as well. But they don't exist.

    --Sam
    Please try to make an attempt at understanding the point and not quibble over public vs private land. Monuments exist as both honoraria and examples of period art. They can also exist as one without the other. Other countries seem to have no problem maintaining those distinctions for overthrown leaders, failed rebels, and the like.

    - There is a statue of Oliver Cromwell outside of Westminster Palace
    - Charles Edward Stuart tried to take command of England in the 1740s
    - Wiremu Tamihana ended up on the losing side of the British/Maori wars in New Zealand in the 1860s.
    - Louis Joseph Papineau led a doomed uprising of French-speaking Canadians in 1837.

    That's just to name a few...
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
      The final arbiter on justice is the Divine Lawgiver. I thought that went without saying.
      Not in a secular government according to them.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No. I am merely commenting on your segue. You can have displays that are contextualized, as I've taken the effort to show.



        Not my point, although if you will note my edit. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ldier-WWI.html




        Please try to make an attempt at understanding the point and not quibble over public vs private land. Monuments exist as both honoraria and examples of period art. They can also exist as one without the other. Other countries seem to have no problem maintaining those distinctions for overthrown leaders, failed rebels, and the like.

        - There is a statue of Oliver Cromwell outside of Westminster Palace
        - Charles Edward Stuart tried to take command of England in the 1740s
        - Wiremu Tamihana ended up on the losing side of the British/Maori wars in New Zealand in the 1860s.
        - Louis Joseph Papineau led a doomed uprising of French-speaking Canadians in 1837.

        That's just to name a few...
        But I wasn't making a segue; my point about the American Bund is directly tied in to what you're talking about here. We are not just talking about statues of failed leaders, heads of state, etc. We are talking about statues, memorials, and the like on public land that tie into a specific ideology. There isn't a strain of Cromwellism in Britain that glorifies a repressive state. But statues to Lee, Jackson, and other Confederates do represent the glorification of an ideology and people who rebelled in order to preserve a repressive state. The history of how most of these statues were erected during white supremacist movements throughout the country supports the understanding that we're not just talking about understanding history here (which can be done in a museum) but talking about people (like the Virginia Flaggers) who glorify that effort to preserve a state, region, or nation that allows for the worst aspects of human repression.

        That's what the statues represent because that's what the Confederacy represented. If someone attaches a different message to these memorials, it's not a compelling reason to keep them standing.

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Not in a secular government according to them.
          What about according to Christians?

          Who or what do you think is the ultimate arbiter on what is just?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by simplicio View Post
            What about according to Christians?

            Who or what do you think is the ultimate arbiter on what is just?
            God, of course. But we are talking about making laws in a secular nation.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              But I wasn't making a segue; my point about the American Bund is directly tied in to what you're talking about here.
              No it really isn't. The Bund was in no way analogous to the Confederacy.

              We are not just talking about statues of failed leaders, heads of state, etc.
              Actually, yes we are. The Confederate States of America was a separate nation once they seceded from the USA. Secession was not illegal until after the Civil War began.

              We are talking about statues, memorials, and the like on public land that tie into a specific ideology.
              So, contextualize it. It's done with other monuments and markers. These just happen to be the target du jour.

              There isn't a strain of Cromwellism in Britain that glorifies a repressive state.
              Cromwell was one of the signatories of King Charles I's death warrant in 1649. He was a regicidal and genocidal dictator. Yet they still have a statue of him outside Parliament.

              But statues to Lee, Jackson, and other Confederates do represent the glorification of an ideology and people who rebelled in order to preserve a repressive state.
              As opposed to genocide of the Irish?

              The history of how most of these statues were erected during white supremacist movements throughout the country supports the understanding that we're not just talking about understanding history here (which can be done in a museum) but talking about people (like the Virginia Flaggers) who glorify that effort to preserve a state, region, or nation that allows for the worst aspects of human repression.
              As I said, the solution is simple. Make the monuments "outside museums" and contextualize them, and voila. Problem solved.

              That's what the statues represent because that's what the Confederacy represented. If someone attaches a different message to these memorials, it's not a compelling reason to keep them standing.
              Why not? It's easier to sway public opinion with compromise than with dictatorial fiat.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No it really isn't. The Bund was in no way analogous to the Confederacy.



                Actually, yes we are. The Confederate States of America was a separate nation once they seceded from the USA. Secession was not illegal until after the Civil War began.



                So, contextualize it. It's done with other monuments and markers. These just happen to be the target du jour.



                Cromwell was one of the signatories of King Charles I's death warrant in 1649. He was a regicidal and genocidal dictator. Yet they still have a statue of him outside Parliament.



                As opposed to genocide of the Irish?



                As I said, the solution is simple. Make the monuments "outside museums" and contextualize them, and voila. Problem solved.



                Why not? It's easier to sway public opinion with compromise than with dictatorial fiat.
                No, unilateral secession was always unlawful from the time of the Articles of Confederation, which established the "perpetual" union, through the eve of the Civil War.

                The rest of the post has been cut into pieces such that you respond to clauses without addressing the coherent thought. Please address the cohesive thought and not pick apart individual clauses. The Cromwell response is a good example of this: my point was that there's no movement in Britain glorifying the Cromwell ideology that uses his statue as a memorial but your response missed that completely by hacking the clauses apart.

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  No, unilateral secession was always unlawful from the time of the Articles of Confederation, which established the "perpetual" union, through the eve of the Civil War.
                  Nothing in the Constitution forbade secession. While the Articles suggested it, they were rejected in favor of the Constitution. It was not declared unconstitutional until Texas v. White in 1869

                  The rest of the post has been cut into pieces such that you respond to clauses without addressing the coherent thought. Please address the cohesive thought and not pick apart individual clauses. The Cromwell response is a good example of this: my point was that there's no movement in Britain glorifying the Cromwell ideology that uses his statue as a memorial but your response missed that completely by hacking the clauses apart.

                  --Sam
                  That was never my contention. I defend the statues as statues and art, not symbols. As do most supporters in Richmond where I live. I see little to no difference between a statue of Lee and the one of Cromwell. If we assign historical baggage to each, I think the genocidal maniac is worse.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  - Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Nothing in the Constitution forbade secession. While the Articles suggested it, they were rejected in favor of the Constitution. It was not declared unconstitutional until Texas v. White in 1869

                    That was never my contention. I defend the statues as statues and art, not symbols. As do most supporters in Richmond where I live. I see little to no difference between a statue of Lee and the one of Cromwell. If we assign historical baggage to each, I think the genocidal maniac is worse.
                    Where the Constitution is silent, it's reasonable to look at the Articles of Confederation, just like it's reasonable to examine common law prior to the Constitution -- as justices on SCOTUS often do. There was nothing in the Constitution which allowed for secession; Scalia considered secession unlawful from the beginning of the Union. There's nothing contemporaneous with the Constitution that would signal any support for unilateral secession and, given the appropriateness of the Union response, it's clear such an act is an act of rebellion, not lawful disengagement.

                    If they are statues and art on public land without symbolic ties to history and ideology, what's the argument for keeping them as public memories? Put 'em in a museum somewhere with other Civil War memorabilia.

                    --Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Actually, yes we are. The Confederate States of America was a separate nation once they seceded from the USA. Secession was not illegal until after the Civil War began.
                      No secession has ever been legal in the history of civilization without the consent of both parties.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        No secession has ever been legal in the history of civilization without the consent of both parties.
                        New England flirted with secession in protest to the war of 1812.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          New England flirted with secession in protest to the war of 1812.
                          An interesting question is if it would have been legal. Another question is how such a succession would have changed history.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Where the Constitution is silent, it's reasonable to look at the Articles of Confederation,
                            No. It isn't reasonable to "look at". The Articles became defunct as soon as the Constitution was ratified and the first government took office. Nothing in them was binding on the US after they were replaced.

                            just like it's reasonable to examine common law prior to the Constitution -- as justices on SCOTUS often do.
                            Maybe for legal wisdom, but not for binding law.

                            There was nothing in the Constitution which allowed for secession;
                            Nor that disallowed it.

                            Scalia considered secession unlawful from the beginning of the Union.
                            Scalia was wrong. It was not illegal until Texas v. White, but even then the Supreme Court noted that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

                            There's nothing contemporaneous with the Constitution that would signal any support for unilateral secession and,
                            Sorry to break this up, but it is 2 separate issues.

                            At the time the United States was founded, one could conceive of American citizenship as derived from a more basic identification with each of the component states, but the time has long past when the "United States of America" was a plural construction. . . . As a political matter the Civil War resolved the issue by force of arms, and the resolution was embodied in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: persons born or naturalized in the United States are indissolubly citizens of the United States, and only derivatively or contingently citizens of the "State wherein they reside."

                            - Seth F. Kreimer, Lines in the Sand; the Importance of Borders in American Federalism, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 973, 983 (2002).

                            given the appropriateness of the Union response, it's clear such an act is an act of rebellion, not lawful disengagement.
                            The Union only responded after almost a year, and only after Fort Sumter.

                            If they are statues and art on public land without symbolic ties to history and ideology, what's the argument for keeping them as public memories? Put 'em in a museum somewhere with other Civil War memorabilia.

                            --Sam
                            Just like I said... make those public places "Outdoor Museums"
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                              New England flirted with secession in protest to the war of 1812.
                              So what?!?!?!?? Flirted means nothing. Western Pennsylvania tried secession. It remains illegal throughout the world since empires and nations existed. Secession is only legal if all or both parties agree, for example Czechoslovakia.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-09-2020, 08:34 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                So what?!?!?!?? Flirted means nothing. Western Pennsylvania tried secession. It remains illegal throughout the world since empires and nations existed. Secession is only legal if all or both parties agree, for example Czechoslovakia.
                                By doing nothing for 10 months, the North tacitly agreed.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                288 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X