I have been writing and speaking about the movement to remove statues that range from confederate leaders to Columbus to Supreme Court justices to Founders (here and here and here and here). CNN political commentator and former Congressional Black Caucus director Angela Rye (right) is the latest to expand the call for the removal of monuments. Rye stated on CNN that the country must tear down all memorials and likenesses of George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. I recently wrote about the call for the removal of monuments to George Washington.
Rye declared on CNN that “George Washington was a slaveowner. Whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not, he wasn’t protecting my freedom.”
As discussed in my prior column, George Washington came to oppose slavery and was the only slave owning president and the only slave owning Founder who freed his slaves. That does not excuse his holding of slaves during his life but it does make him a more complex historical figure on the question. Washington and Jefferson helped lay the foundations for a great country that would continue to struggle with the scourge of slavery and racism. What they gave us was a system that proved better than the times and the people that created it.
As I have been discussing on air, there is an alternative to wiping out historical monuments. Just as will be done with the Jefferson Memorial, we can place these monuments into context by adding information and even additional statuary.
Rye insists that all of these statues must come down because “We have to get to the heart of the problem here and the heart is the way many of us were taught American history. American history is not all glorious.” Indeed, it is not all glorious but it was a glorious experiment with a people committed to self-determination and individual liberties. The hypocrisy of stating such ideals in a nation with slavery was not lost on some of that generation like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. However, the system that they created allowed for a nation to finally end this disgraceful practice. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of white and black soldiers would die together ridding the nation of this scourge. While aspects of our history are not glorious, we have had glorious and redemptive moments of a people struggling with our own failures. We can learn from that history, but not if we tear it down in a blind rage against our past.
What do you think?
More from the leftist “techniques of distraction” tired old bag of tricks.
“If we keep making ridiculous demands, like reparations, statue de-erecting, and _____-only (fill in the blank with any word but “white”) facilities and organizations, the taxpaying public will forget how bad most of our favorite, expensive, and inefficient liberal programs are failing and continue to fund them. We won’t have to work, or pay for food, or cover our own medical costs! Ain’t this great?!”
I swear I overheard something like the above at the last BLM planning meeting I attended.
I am glad Mr. Turley watches CNN so I don’t have to . Seriously , this movement to take down Washington and Jefferson statutes does NOT have my support. On the other hand if they do come down , there are a few other statues that could be targeted
Who attacked who at fort sumpter?
“I don’t like it” alone is not an adequate justification for something. The Confederate memorials were to men who took up arms against the United States (treason) in order to perpetuate human slavery. They were erected as public declarations of the committment of white people, particularly but not only in the south, to white supremacy decades after the end of the war. That is why it is and always has been inappropriate to memorialize them on public property and they should be taken down. Removing statues of people whose “offense” to the sensibilities of people who don’t know much about history other than what they don’t like and what upsets them because they were slave owners is not a comparable nor an adequate argument. This is an absurd desire on the part of a teeny, tiny number of people who are being given too much attention. Nobody supports this except a miniscule minority of Americans and they shouldn’t. To do so would be to encourage a sort of Americanized cultural revolution which would do no one any good. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and other revered national heroes had long lives and distinguished careers of service building this country’s foundation so that we might be the great nation we are today. They also, to all our shames, were slaveholders in a time when slavery was, however abhorrent we find it today, a centuries old, perfectly legal thing not just in the US but throughout the world. The African slave trade was the largest, most profitable industry on the planet for hundreds of years. Bottom line is the suggestion is offensive and absurd and isn’t going to happen. We should not even pay attention to such extremist and yes, uninformed opinion. I don’t like it is fine when talking about the color of your house or the kind of carpet you want in it. It is not an adequate reason to go tearing down statues of the men who constructed a nation that provides the very people calling for taking down these monuments to be able to freely call for that to happen. Slavery is a fact of history. Many, many Americans owned African slaves including a very small number of black slave owners. It was an awful thing and a permanent embarrassment to our nation but it was also perfectly legal, accepted by most people both African and non-African alike during its time. Washington, Jefferson and Jackson were far more than just slave owners. We continue to honor them and we should despite their flaws and sins just as we honor and revere Martin Luther King, Jr. despite his known flaws and indiscretions. Those things do not diminish one bit the greatness and achievements of his short life.
Horuss – it may surprise you to know that slave states existed in the North during the War of Northern Aggression. The Emancipation Proclamation only set free slaves in the South, not in the North. Funny about that.
The South did not take up arms against the United States; the United States took up arms against the Confederate States of America. What should they have done? Allow themselves to be slaughtered by foreign invaders? Obviously, Sherman, in his march of obliteration across Georgia, proved just how evil and cruel the invading Yankees were. Obviously, they fought back, to cast out the invaders.
To memorialize the despicable actions of Lincoln and his generals would have been impolitic, after the nightmare of Reconstruction and the destruction of the Southern aristocracy. They couldn’t get away with telling the true history in public spaces; next best thing: remind everyone of the heroic defenders who did their best to expel the invading armies. Permanent reminders, cast of bronze.
South Carolina started it.
Learn the history.
I know the history cold, David. If YOU knew it, you wouldn’t say such an idiotic thing. Lincoln tricked SC into firing the first shot (they stupidly fell for his scheme), and used it as a pretext to invade and destroy the entire South. South Carolina had no intention of fighting a war, much less invading the North. They handled Lincoln’s provocation badly, and paid a bitter price for it.
Patrick, Are you referring to Seward’s unauthorized negotiations? Or was there some other trick up Lincoln’s sleeve?
Patrick, was it all just a property dispute involving artillery bombardment?
The war was necessary, from the point of view of New York and Boston, because the South was now going to be a free trade zone, and it would finally be able to break free from the stranglehold the potentates of those cities had on transportation. The South could not ship its cotton to Britain out of its own ports, because the Northern ports had exclusive contracts, a sort of monopoly on transatlantic shipping, with Britain. It gets involved, but suffice it that even if Britain allowed ships from Southern states to bring them cotton, the ships would have to return empty.
The North, because it controlled these key steps in the management of the South’s production, took a huge percentage of the profit of the South’s agricultural economy. For many producers, it cost more to produce cotton than they ended up being paid. Shipping and handling from hell.
The Tariff was another killer; the South did not manufacture textiles or end products of them; that was done in England. They created and sold raw materials and bought finished products–many of them manufactured in the North. So the South paid the Tariff, and the North did not.
So the whole thing was indeed a property dispute; Lincoln HAD to find a way to force the South to relent, lest his owners (the Northern industrialists) face ruin. So he goaded South Carolina into a dispute over federal government property within its boundaries. I don’t think he wanted the total war he found himself waging, although he was a very evil man and so it’s certainly possible. His primary task was to make certain the Tariff kept being collected, and the monopoly of transatlantic shipping his masters owned be maintained. Whatever underhanded means he would have to resort to.
The North, because it controlled these key steps in the management of the South’s production, took a huge percentage of the profit of the South’s agricultural economy. For many producers, it cost more to produce cotton than they ended up being paid. Shipping and handling from hell.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/%22Citation_needed%22.jpg
Very easily found with a key word search (I typed in “south cotton shipping britain”). Lots of hits.
Here’s a short one: http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860
Relavent quote:
“New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.”
That quotation does not support your assertion. It says that New York merchants were suppliers to Mississippi growers, details at 11. There’s nothing remarkable about that. Nor is there any evidence encoded in that sentence which indicates that the position of New York suppliers was contingent on any political configuration. New York was where that particular sort of human capital was located.
This is an incoherent complaint. The Southern economy was the slave of the Northern shipping interests. They had no way of breaking free, short of not renewing their Costco membership–er, leaving the United States, and setting up independent arrangements with the countries who wanted to purchase their cotton.
Certainly, the South would have begun processing their raw materials, cutting England out to the picture, and thus New York, and eventually manufacturing end-goods. With a tariff-free economy, the North would be crippled. Can’t have that.
This is an incoherent complaint.
It isn’t, It’s just outside your knowledge base.
The Southern economy was the slave of the Northern shipping interests.
Metaphors can be instructive or misleading. This one’s misleading. Commodity producers and shippers are two sides of an equation with one providing demand for the services of the other. The transactions between the two take place because those transactions are beneficial to both parties. One is not particularly beholden to the other unless there’s some sort of state-supervised cartel among one or the other or the market structure of the industry tends toward monopoly (which I do not believe was the case in the mid-19th century).
This is entirely false. The Southern states HAD to grow cotton, just as fishing villages HAVE to catch fish. If they have no options, they are not truly volunteering when they sell their “catch.”
The South could only create an alternate, a “choice,” if they could escape from New York. They were not engaged in a mutually beneficial, free market trade. They were, in other words, slaves.
How could they escape, and create free trade possibilities? They did just that. And then a Railroad lawyer-turned president murdered that option. Bang bang.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2LAdyE8lEU&w=560&h=315%5D
Certainly, the South would have begun processing their raw materials, cutting England out to the picture, and thus New York, and eventually manufacturing end-goods. With a tariff-free economy, the North would be crippled. Can’t have that.
The industrial mix of a country in a state of self-sustained growth is always changing. Industries decline and factors of production are redeployed to rising industries. As for ‘crippled’, you’d be hard put to find an example of an occidental economy in the late modern era which suffered a generation’s long economic implosion absent a shooting war and the economic disruption that attends shooting wars.
Well, let’s just say the North was a leach, sucking the South dry. Some ant species do this with aphids. They raise them in their burrows, for food. Take away this “cows” and the colony collapses.
I’d call that crippling.
Steal the cotton goldmine of the hobbled South from the industrializing North, and the gold-plated skid to the glorious future would suddenly turn to a ride into a dirty ditch. The North had it easy-peasy, and the South was the sucker that made it possible. Once the sucker wised up, the slave owner called out his hired men to stop the uprising against his easy game.
Slaves are not allowed to assert their independence.
This is an even better one: http://etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm
Excellent quote:
Early and mid-19th century Atlantic trade was based on “packet lines” — groups of vessels offering scheduled services. It was a coastal trade at first, but when the Black Ball Line started running between New York and Liverpool in 1817, it became the way to do business across the pond.
The trick was to have a good cargo going each way. The New York packet lines succeeded because they sucked in all the eastbound cotton cargoes from the U.S. The northeast didn’t have enough volume of paying freight on its own. So American vessels, usually owned in the Northeast, sailed off to a cotton port, carrying goods for the southern market. There they loaded cotton (or occasionally naval stores or timber) for Europe. They steamed back from Europe loaded with manufactured goods, raw materials like hemp or coal, and occasionally immigrants.
Since this “triangle trade” involved a domestic leg, foreign vessels were excluded from it (under the 1817 law), except a few English ones that could substitute a Canadian port for a Northern U.S. one. And since it was subsidized by the U.S. government, it was going to continue to be the only game in town.
Robert Greenhalgh Albion, in his laudatory history of the Port of New York, openly boasts of this selfish monopoly. “By creating a three-cornered trade in the ‘cotton triangle,’ New York dragged the commerce between the southern ports and Europe out of its normal course some two hundred miles to collect a heavy toll upon it. This trade might perfectly well have taken the form of direct shuttles between Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, or New Orleans on the one hand and Liverpool or Havre on the other, leaving New York far to one side had it not interfered in this way. To clinch this abnormal arrangement, moreover, New York developed the coastal packet lines without which it would have been extremely difficult to make the east-bound trips of the ocean packets profitable.”[2]
Even when the Southern cotton bound for Europe didn’t put in at the wharves of Sandy Hook or the East River, unloading and reloading, the combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton.
The record shows that ports with moderate quantities of outbound freight couldn’t keep up with the New York competition. Remember, this is a triangle trade. Boston started a packet line in 1833 that, to secure outbound cargo, detoured to Charleston for cotton. But about the only other local commodity it could find to move to Europe was Bostonians. Since most passengers en route to England found little attraction in a layover in South Carolina, the lines failed.[3]
And since it was subsidized by the U.S. government, it was going to continue to be the only game in town.
You cannot locate a budget line in the federal accounts for subsidies to private carriers.
Who cares? The Tariff was the subsidy. The Southern states were left holding that bag. Northern sharpies controlled the Southern economy, and the Congress kept giving the South the, what’s the polite way of saying it, the “Greek style” of sex.
Who cares? The Tariff was the subsidy.
A tariff is not a subsidy. A tariff is a tax. 19th century tariffs were not economically all that consequential. They were a means of financing the central government (whose expenditures were contextually quite small at that time).
Uh, no.
The South paid the tariff, and the North did not. And the pain the South felt because of it was substantial. It is why they almost stopped renewing their Costco membership in the 1830s, and finally did it in the 1860s.
The tariff was the primary means of financing the federal government, prior to the institution of the income tax.
Don’t you know any of this? This is simple American history. I am on the edge of not replying to your silly missives here. You sound like a complete ignoramus.
Patrick, The North had a multiplicity of political parties none of which gained control of The United States Congress, The Presidency nor The Supreme Court until the election of 1860. Meanwhile The North grew its population through a combination of immigration, small farming, industrialization and free labor despite its multiple political parties. Six out of every seven pre-Civil-War immigrants to America resided in the free-States of The North and Midwest because of the greater opportunity for free wage-labor there.
How did it come to pass that Southern dominance of the federal government prior to 1860 failed to alleviate the suffering of The South at the hands of Northern shipping merchants? Can that all be laid to the account of multiple political parties in The North?
The South paid the tariff, and the North did not.
Tariffs on any given commodity are uniform. Some are more injurious to certain economic interests than others. I put a tariff on furniture and not jam, it injures the interests of consumers of furniture vis a vis the interests of consumers of jam. No, people do not declare and fight massive intramural wars over political tangles like this. These sorts of tangles are quite normal in political life.
I shall start again at the top, to break out of this last column hell.
The tariff was the primary means of financing the federal government, prior to the institution of the income tax.
You’re calling me an idiot while repeating something I’ve said.
Federal expenditure prior to 1929 did not exceed 3% of gross domestic product bar in wartime. In 1856, customs revenue amounted to about $64 million. The value of imports that year per the Statistical Abstract amounted to just north of $314 million, meaning collections accounted for 20% of the value of imports. The economic effect of the tariffs would be apportioned between vendors and consumers according to the properties of the market for a given commodity. A 20% tariff is high by today’s standards. The thing is, the external sector (production exported and consumption accounted for by imports) was a modest share of the economy as a whole. The population of the country at the time was shy of 28 million, so customs collections were running at about $2.28 per capita.
Lindert and Williamson here
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/cromer/e211_f12/LindertWilliamson.pdf
Place the value of per capita product at $160 per annum making use of 1840 currency units. The ratio of tariff collections to personal income in this country was about 0.015 at that time, which wasn’t much out of the hide of the American consumer (though it may have been disruptive in certain discrete economic sectors).
Once again, I’m taking it to the top.
Patrick, may we then discount President Buchanan’s role in the “property dispute” at Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter?
If the “trick” was to goad President Davis into bypassing Governor Pickens [if I have his name right] in just such a way as to order General Beauregard into opening fire on Fort Sumter, then might that ploy have included Lincoln’s notification of Gov. Pickens that a relief expedition was en route to Fort Sumter?
The first few paragraphs of this article sum up my position:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-to-blame-for-first-shot/2011/04/04/AF1M5uHD_story.html?utm_term=.b9e2a0d28162
“Lincoln never made a secret of his insistence that federal property in the South would be held — forts included.”
That’s true. He said it in his first Inaugural Address:
“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. ”
But so what? When we broke away from Britain, we confiscated the King’s property on these shores. Lincoln knew that that’s what happens when
“…in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them….
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….”
Why was he so adamant about keeping a military presence in a new country that would not agree to it? It is in the same quote from that address:
“…and to collect the duties and imposts….”
They were his masters’ tax slaves, and he was charged with making certain they kept financing Washington. Just like the mafia, if you keep paying the extortion money there will be “no using of force.”
He knew perfectly well that to collect the tariff, he needed boots on the ground in the new country that was to be formed. An occupying army.
I am not discussing the causes of the Civil War which are many or how each side wanted to appear to the world, only that it appears that the fort was under federal control so any act to prevent resupply of that fort was an aggressive act.
Fine with me. George III probably thought like that, too. He was wrong. We just wanted him and his people to go away. No aggression at all.
I just was remarking on who fired the first shot.
The South wasn’t an innocent bystander and some of its leaders would have liked to expand its “empire” across the continent. We were one nation not to be divided into two. The next step was for dissolution of every portion of the country that had a complaint. Additionally had the South actually been permitted to secede one has to wonder when the war between the North and the South would be fought. What makes anyone think they would have lived in peace as both expanded and competed.By the way even with secession it is likely the North would have held its economic position based upon the South’s social perception so that problem wouldn’t have been solved by beomming a seperate nation.
allan – actually the NE states considered seceding before the South did. Fun factiod.
“We were one nation not to be divided into two.”
That’s simply ignorance talking. The states, independent, sovereign countries, for convenience’ sake, created a social club, which they could join or leave at their choosing.
“That’s simply ignorance talking. ”
Patrick, I wouldn’t use the term ignorant to another who might be smarter than you.
” The states, independent, sovereign countries, for convenience’ sake, created a social club, which they could join or leave at their choosing.”
The States agreed and signed on the line wherein the United States was more like an egg. Try dividing a raw egg. I’m not saying that states rights don’t count because I am a believer in states rights. What I am saying is there are a lot smarter and more sophisticated ways to make your case about seceding from the Union.
allan – I used to describe The Federalist Papers to my students as “The Selling of the Constitution.” The various writers said what ever they needed to convince the states to go along. Some papers to do agree with other papers, which is where the real fun begins.
Well, as Granny sez, ignerense and smarts is two diffrn’t things.
But one thing YOU don’t know from shinola is how the Yoo-nighted states came to be. Independent countries created a confederation. Not an egg. Think Costco. You can join. And you can leave.
Patrick, perhaps the egg analogy was too difficult for you to understand. That is OK because I have been listening to you blabbing about the south vs north and you seemed to be stuck on a very narrow viewpoint without any understanding of the various viewpoints or the economics of the situation.
No one can help you because you have a mindset fixed upon a hardboiled egg. That is the only type of egg a raw egg can make according to you because you have already closed all other avenues of thought.
Ignorance is bliss. Wallow in it.
allan – I think the egg analogy is not apt for the occasion.
“allan – I think the egg analogy is not apt for the occasion.”
Paul it is a good analogy for when the states signed the Constitution they joined together in a way that could not be separated without destroying it and by destroying it they would have left the country vulnerable to other powers, Also since both the North and the South were moving west conflict most likely would have ocurred, Many in the south had expansionist visions.
Try breaking a raw egg and divide it into two or more pieces. It doesn’t end as a pretty site.
allan – if you join an organization and you are not allowed to leave it, what do we call that? A cult? Is the United States a cult? If they can add states, they can delete states. Personally, I have always thought the states in the South had a good legal case for leaving the Union. Lincoln had no case for invading them.
“allan – if you join an organization and you are not allowed to leave it, what do we call that?”
Paul, First you don’t like the egg analogy and now you are calling the US a cult. In other words you didn’t like the egg analogy because it didn’t suit your politics, not because the egg analogy was a bad one. We have created something akin to that raw egg making it exceedingly difficult to break up. Take note, I didn’t say there was no legal case for secession rather I said “What I am saying is there are a lot smarter and more sophisticated ways to make your case about seceding from the Union.”
But let us assume that there is a “good legal case” for the south leaving the Union (something I neither agreed or disagreed with). If that was the case there is another “good legal case” for any state leaving the Union at any time. But why stop at the state. Let’s say a county within a state wishes to leave. Why not? In fact I live in a city that would make more sense if the part I live in broke off from the city and joined its immediate and closest neighbor which would make more sense. I think there is a “good legal case” for that switch as well, but it isn’t going to happen. One cannot break that raw egg without drastic changes in what exists.
The incompetent, propaganda machine, Education Industry has helped foment this ignorance.
Home-schooled? It really depends on the home, don’t you think?
FTW, Yes it does depend on the home. But, home schooling has grown exponentially in the last decade. We have a friend who taught in the education dept. @ U. of Kansas. She is conservative and did not fit in, as you might imagine. She ended up meeting a nice American Indian guy in Seattle and settled in out there, having 3 sons she home schooled, back when it was nascent. She saw a need for parents home schooling and set up a biz to support them. It grew incredibly just by word of mouth.
The profile of home schooling parents varies. Politically, many are conservative but there are good % of liberals as well. Many are religious. The most common thread are they are intelligent parents who want what is best for their child and see the Education Industry as the abject failure that it is.
Just where are the monuments to Hitler? Anyone? Bueller?
Personally it is going too far, but I suspect she is just “massaging” the Overton Window back inside the frame of the structure. Never happen. I wouldn’t allow it. And art of any kind should never be destroyed.
I am opposed to the removal and/or renaming of ALL monuments which have been built throughout history. This anti-American fervor erupting over these monuments, parks, structures, etc. were built earlier than now, and I don’t see any reason that new generations have to re-litigate issues every generation or two about the supposed evils committed by those so honored.
Several days after the rioting in Charlottesville, VA, a poll was released by Marist that showed how divisive this entire issue is. What I found most important about the poll, beside the fact that nationwide, 62% felt the monuments should remain in place, was that there was only one region of the country where fewer than 50% supported the idea of keeping the monuments: The Northeast. This was before all the calls about removing the Washington and Jefferson Memorials came up; it focused on monuments related to the War of Northern Aggression (Yes, I am from the South: South of the Panama Canal.)
This is an argument between those in the Northeast part of the United States against the people in the rest of the United States, about some memorials located (mostly) in the Southern United States.
I wonder if Professot Turley is aware that his blog has become a hangout for neo-Nazi, I mean alt-right, trolls?
examples?
Democrat definitions:
Fascist – Someone I disagree with.
Nazi – Someone I really disagree with.
White Supremacist – Someone I disagree with who is white.
Low Info Voter – Someone I disagree with who is working class.
Xenophobe – Someone I disagree with about immigration.
Islamaphobe – Someone I disagree with about Islam.
Transphobe – Someone I disagree with who understands biology.
Post Truth World – Everybody who disagrees with me.
@ ftw
If I were Jonathan, I’d have someone do a little checking. Something seems off.
Here’s an odd comment from one of the Charlottesville threads:
“I don’t read all the commentors. Sometimes when I get to my mail there might be 50-60 emails from the Turley blog stacked up. I have no idea that whether the person has already been handled or not.”
At any rate, he’s attracted an odd bunch of folks.
At any rate, he’s attracted an odd bunch of folks.
Well, there are four regular posters who appear to be adolescents (and it shows), the three person shrew caucus, one woman who appears to be of very limited intelligence and offers cookie-cutter drive-bys she apparently cribs from SJW sites, about 3 people addled by imaginary conspiracies (at least one of whom is pathological about Jews – the smart money says he’s held together with psychotropics), and a woman who writes in limericks and despises blacks. I’d wager 9 of these 12 people are Democratic voters (or aspire to be, once they can register).
Oh desperate one:
Some of us actually have full, happy, and productive lives — lives that include friends and others with whom we debate — time-permitting. We don’t have any need to spend a lot of time blathering on a blog. And you, my dear, showed your true colors when you jumped on Nick’s “Elaine” bandwagon. The Keith Ablow video was another hint.
As I stated, Jonathan has attracted a rather odd bunch of folks.
If the shoe fits.
Some of us actually have full, happy, and productive lives — lives that include friends and others with whom we debate — time-permitting. We don’t have any need to spend a lot of time blathering on a blog.
Don’t let the door hit your tuchus on the way out.
And you, my dear, showed your true colors when you jumped on Nick’s “Elaine” bandwagon.
I’ll cop to being someone who chuckles a tedious schoolteachers.
DSS is chuckling up the wrong alley, so to speak, but it’s good to know that something in this world amuses him or her.
You are wrong. It is not an argument being made just by those in northeast against the south. It is an argument being made all over the country against memorials to white supremacy and treason.
It is an argument being made all over the country against memorials to white supremacy and treason.
It would appear from survey research that about 1/2 the black population and over 60% of the general population are down with ‘white supremacy’ and ‘treason’. Suck it up.
Oh, I forgot the Cannuck who appears to suffer from some jumble of mania and autism-spectrum disorder.
Europe would be a different place if every monument to something in the past were to be taken down due to some association with this or that issue. In order for the past to serve us in the present and the future, it must remain, however, it needs to be explained, people need to be educated. One wonder’s what the impact of a statue of Robert E. Lee would have if next to it was a visual indication/statue of what he was heroically fighting to protect. Imagine a statue depicting slavery, along with a plaque explaining the realities of his reasoning for charging the enemy.
“…what he was heroically fighting to protect. Imagine a statue depicting slavery, along with a plaque explaining the realities of his reasoning for charging the enemy.”
What he was heroically fighting to protect was his country–Virginia. It would be stupid to add something depicting slavery, because his army and his leadership had no connection to slavery. As for “explaining the realities of his reasoning for charging the enemy,” I’d be all for that; when an alien army invades your country, and murders your people, you sure as hell are justified in fighting back, and driving the invaders out. Self defense is a great thing, and Lee should always be a reminder of that, lest we forget.
Well said patrick. Armchair judgement does little to help anything. Like the founding fathers. Yeah, slaves. What do you do with them, say, hmmm, “slavery is evil, you all get out of here.” There, one of the founding fathers just ended slave owning on his property. You might say, “not even a kiss goodbye or a bite to eat before throwing us out?” But armchair history isn’t like that. Just get full of yourself, stay on your high horse, and fire away.
Say I rope someone into making a really big bronze statue of me. Nose and all. Will I be judged in the future by paying taxes to a regime that assassinated people beyond our own borders with impunity? And we have demonstrated that impunity (Libya). Will people label me as a supporter of the assassination state? Not helping out with community matters, keeping a family, and sending a son to college to improve himself?
Also, related to topic. Saw an article about cannibals who turned themselves into the authorities at Pietermaritzburg. It was so upsetting that I didn’t look into that anymore and just hoped it was by the Onion. Anyway, it looks like South Africa has gone into the garbage heap of history. Soooooooo–if it totally falls apart, where does that leave images of Nelson Mandela and DeClerc? That will all be re-examined by historians in the coming decades. Hmmmmmmm.
I think you are on the right track, but I do not feel it should be a requirement to provide an “in vogue” analysis to accompany a piece of artwork. Good point about European landmarks. Take something as messy as the Thirty Years’ War. What a mess! You might have been on the “right side” (as defined by history today) one week and then may have switched to the “wrong side” the next. Wars are messy that way, and the reasons for the hostilities expand as conflict continues.
I would add a reminder that the attack on the monuments is not for “understanding,” but to erase our identity so a new one can be prescribed for us.
A lot of BS going around. There is not enough toilet paper with Hillary on it or Trump for us to clean up.
One problem the black population has is the wretched dynamic which prevails between the rank-and-file and the political class therein, including the ‘vociferous element’ which controls political discourse but does not have any public responsibility. The actual interests of working-class blacks are hardly articulated. Instead, the interests of bourgeois occupational segments (e.g. social workers and school administrators) conjoined with the emotional shticks of the vociferous element itself are given voice. And, of course, the flagitious characters who run the media only hand the megaphone to one particular segment of people (financed with sorosphere mordida, natch). A survey researcher may tell you that most blacks don’t buy into the assumptions of BLM, that most blacks are concerned about security in their neighborhoods, and that most blacks have no interest in toppling public monuments, but these views are hardly represented in public discussion.
As for this ho, put her on the spot. Are you an heir to this country’s history, or are you not? If you’re not, why are you drawing on the benefits of the matrix in which you live and why do you fancy you’re entitled to participate in civic life? Shouldn’t you leave? Should we collect you and like-minded people in one set of territory and let you figure out how to run it?
The problem with liberals is that they live in emotional states which render it nearly impossible for the to construct counter-arguments to black nationalists or tell them to buzz off. The problem with the denizens of Conservatism, Inc. is that many of them also lack this equipment and respond weakly and cravenly to black nationalists instead of telling them “I’m not your bitch, go hang”.
Angela Rye is absolutely wrong. George Washington did protect her freedom. Without him, we (and she) would not have this country with its freedoms (speech, press, religion, association, due process, equal protection under the law – I haven’t even gotten to the 2nd, 4th and 8th Amendments yet) and everything that goes with them. Rye’s narrow view of what freedom is and what it took and takes to maintain it is nothing short of ignorant.
There is no need to apologize or to minimize Washington’s ownership of slaves. He was a slave owner. It does little to minimize that fact that he later did or did not come to oppose slavery. Nevertheless, he was a great man, perhaps the greatest American of them all. For mediocre people to criticize the great ones for their flaws is nothing short of arrogant. When a person achieves at Washington’s level, then that person can criticize Washington.
Stupid is as stupid does. Where do these people get their education? They need to get their money back.
They have a lot of plans for us,
Here are 10 more recommendations for our wallets:
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/black-lives-matter-demands
Ter ber – they are not getting in my wallet. Only my wife gets to get in my wallet, besides myself. 🙂
Paul, great idea. Pay them with one dollar bills and nickels.
Replying to Squeeky about Washington state, but without the narrow gutter format: the African Americans are mostly in Seattle and are well integrated into the community. Seattle has its problems with homeless folks and drug abuse, but not from the African Americans.
I hazard a guess that the criminal types in the Yakima to Pasco area tend to be associated with the Latin American derived communities, although the vast majority of the men in the two main state prisons are of European descent.
Washington state now has little prejudice, although there is a sprinkling of white supremacy groups. One might try to understand what attitudes led to this situation.
I don’t claim all is perfection. For example, the state legislature had to go into triple overtime to pass the state budget this past spring and into summer. Like everywhere, wages are too low for most. There is a split between the attitudes across the Cascades, I am unusual for someone in Eastern Washington, but not outstandingly so.
If you think both these women don’t have Caucasian DNA, think again. The one on our R looks about 75% white.
Also, I’m old, but I wasn’t around in Africa at the height of black slavery. I don’t know why one would presume it was not blacks who rounded up their fellow blacks to sell as slaves.
Also, is there any race including whites who were not sold into slavery?
Republicans can’t buy as many votes as these dumb as rocks women generate for Republicans. Notice Peelosi and Schurmer agree, even if they are silent.
Hey, Isaac: if Trump is dumb as rocks, how to you qualify these brain dead idiot women?
I guess our favorite Progressives are silent on this post, eh? Wonder why?
I’m not one of your favorites? I’m crushed, crushed I tell you!
The question has been asked before – where will it end? Should we eventually rename New York . . . or maybe tear it down?
Be patient. It will drown beneath the rising seas…
An arrogant assertion on her part. Just because she wants something, it does not mean she is entitled to it.
Frankly, I love this! The rabid, drooling Democratic Liberal Lynch Mob is revealing the truth about its self to the public and on CNN at that! It is a party of emotionalism, irrationality and pure dee hate, and a party that hates America.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
But will Angela Rye ever be accused of committing a hate crime? And what happens when they get to FDR? He’s revered for the New Deal, but signed an order to intern Japanese citizens; perhaps a war that pits liberal against liberal. Delicious.
That is a distinctly stupid call.
Learning more about George Washington’s travails in the attempt to free his slaves might help.
But we need to keep our history.
No, it is a distinctly Liberal Democratic Party call. These are your people who are calling for stuff like this. If you think it is stupid, then stop voting for Democrats. Disassociate yourself from these idiots.
That’s like saying locking up all those Jews is distinctly stupid, yet continuing to be a member of the Godwin’s Law Party.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The Democrats here in Washington state are relatively sane.
Perhaps because the state is less than 4% black, and therefore somewhat insulated from the racial insanity. Talks about illegitimacy and violence and a lack of education are somewhat academic in a state like Washington, which is overwhelmingly white. In Washington, you aren’t having to cough up the money to pay for the extra police, or to be careful where you gas up at. Or, to have to worry about being armed to protect yourself, and then have to worry about the gov’t disarming you. So sure, you guys can be pro gun control, and and pro a bunch of welfare, and a bunch of Medicaid, because you don’t have the underlying problems. Or if you do, maybe only in a few cities. That is my view from the outside looking in.
FWIW, the whole state of Washington has about 250,000 blacks. There are 37 cities in the U.S. that have more blacks than that:
Black Population
1 New York, NJ-NY 3,412,320
2 Atlanta, GA 1,794,205
3 Chicago, IL 1,620,641
4 Washington, DC 1,490,421
5 Philadelphia, PA 1,256,908
6 Miami, FL 1,229,061
7 Los Angeles, CA (CSA)** 1,219,671
8 Houston, TX 1,069,601
9 Dallas-Ft Worth, TX 1,005,927
10 Detroit, MI 961,871
11 Baltimore, MD 793,749
12 Memphis, TN 614,468
13 San Fransisco-Oakland (CSA)
14 Norfolk–Virginia Beach, VA 524,445
15 St. Louis, MO, IL 513,068
16 Charlotte, NC 506,743
17 Raleigh-Durham, NC (CSA) 458,630
18 New Orleans, LA 425,504
19 Cleveland, OH 412,549
20 Richmond, VA 371,424
21 Orlando, FL 361,047
22 Boston, MA 357,691
23 Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL 340,888
24 Greensboro-Winston-Salem, NC (CSA) 336,128
25 Birmingham, AL 323,519
26 Jacksonville, FL 297,789
27 Baton Rouge, LA 289,974
28 Indianapolis, IN 282,243
29 Columbus, OH 281,911
30 Jackson, MS 279,311
31 Nashville, TN 264,401
32 Cincinnati, OH 260,207
33 Columbia, SC 260,138
34 Milwaukee, WI 258,877
35 Kansas City, MO–KS 256,006
36 Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 255,030
37 Greenville -Spatanburg, SC (CSA) 254,810
http://blackdemographics.com/population/black-city-population/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I can’t be the only one who sees the irony of someone commenting from Washington State.
No Jim22, you’re not the only one. Benson brags that WA has very little prejudice, in response to Squeeky’s post that there are only 250,000 blacks in the whole state, less than 37 other CITIES. He just doesn’t think before he posts.
You seem to have a “fascination” with “liberal”….just thought I share a definition of Liberal that fits you perfectly, “…concerned mainly with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training…..”. So by this definition, you’re a liberal–make sure you don’t get a heart attack by this fact….
As for what these folks said, my only reaction: Whatever…all are entitled to their opinions–not their own facts. Just for everyone’s benefit,a similar debate was on-going in the UK when someone called for Nelson’s Memorial in London to be torn down–for those of you who may not know who he is, he’s the one that Saved England from Napoleon and paid for it with his life–I laughed at her notions–as I also couldn’t help but just laugh at the notion of it all–in the era of 24 hrs news, it is a by product..
One last thing on history: Let me remind you all that Robert e. Lee and Stonewall Jackson rebelled against the United States–and they are traitors. Stonewall Jackson was killed–and I will remind all that if it was not for the magnanimity of Ulysses S. Grant (who in my view took his queue from President Lincoln who unfortunately did not survive to heal the nation), Lee would have been shot as a traitor. Even conservatives (as you toute yourself to be and never lose a moment to remind all) should at least acknowledge that.
Cheers…
Let me remind you, that they are traitors because they lost. If they had won, secession would be a recognized legal right for American states. The right to secede has been accomplished in many places, and may be again, shortly. As for example, Catalonia in Spain and the Basque Region in Spain, where secession is a real possibility.
And let’s see, Austria seceded from Germany in 1945. Belgium from the Netherlands in 1830. Texas from Mexico in 1836. Norway from Sweden. Ireland from Great Britain.
Scotland is thinking about it from Great Britain. California is thinking about it from the U.S. Quebec came darn near to it from Canada.
Sooo, legally, I think the legal right to secede here was decided by a war, not in a court.
That is a pretty slim rope to hang traitors from.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
As the great Daniel Patrick Monayhan Said, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Saying that they had the right to pick up arms to defend evil is unfortunate–and slavery was evil and 600,000 Americans paid the price for it–I guess that’s ok in your alternative reality world. I suggest that you read the Federalist Papers on why the United States was created in the First Place–you need to go and read the Federalist Papers to brush up on your history.
As for Spain, Catalonia /Basque is the same–I am well aware of them and I will suggest that you again read your history–that until the merger of the Spanish Crown, the regions of Spain existed– and I will also remind you of the Spanish Civil War that Franco ultimately prevailed that in turn led to the Basque separatist movement until the restoration of the monarchy–so the aspirations there have been ever so for a long time–since you brought up Europe, you can also cite Belgium as well that the only thing it has to “agree with”, is the King. As for Austria, you seem to gloss over (as you have an unfortunate habit of doing) that Austria was actually taken over by Hitler–did you convienently forget that fact?
As for Texas, FYI–It was partly due to the agitation of the United States that perceptied the Texas War of Independence–so make sure you again look at the whole history before you make statements. I have also been well aware of Quebec’s situation–and it was the foresight of enlightened leaders who understood that Quebec had a distinct role within Canada–but that has dissipated in large measure due to enlightened leaders who have always looked at things the right way–something that is lacking here in the United States–lastly, as far as California, although I am sure you’d be “Heart broken” if it was successful in seceeding, don’t be because California ain’t going anywhere.
Cheers.
Saying that the South seceded over slavery is simply facile. Slavery was the big bugaboo, but the war was fought over the right to secede. Which legally, I think the South had a better claim. As a practical matter, Lincoln probably had a better claim, the same as if we went to war to stop California from seceding. No telling which European power the South would have hooked up with if they were separate. Probably England.
But, when Lincoln himself tells you what the war was over, and it wasn’t slavery, and you choose to disbelieve him (I guess because you hate Southerners), then it is you who is cherry picking the facts. Some of you people remind me of the insane two-citizen-parent Birthers who kept insisting that a book by Emerich Vattel or a letter from John Jay trumped a SCOTUS case.
Lincoln said,and I quote, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.”
Lincoln was the one who sent the Yankee armies south; he tells you why; sooo, it’s pretty simple to me what the war was over. All you have to do is read it, right there in black and white. It’s a no-brainer.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
As I have told you when we have “deliberated” you’re entitled to your opinion–not your own facts–because you have a fundemental misunderstanding of the creation of the United States that you glossed over–I again urge you to read the Federalist Papers. One more quick point: never assume because it is bad for your health–to paraphrase Dr. King, “…choose to love because hate is to big a burden to bear…” In response to your “assumption” about “hating” southerners that has no basis in fact. Also, FYI, by quoting Lincoln, you very much undermined the very argument you’re espousing trying to justify the insurrection by the South–Lincoln noted that errors had to be rectified–because if that was not the case and the logic you’ve espoused (that is believed and embraced by at least 20% of the country for sure–mr. trump’s loyal base), Slavery should never have been held to be illegal, African Americans should still be counted as 3/5’s of a person, separate but equal should still be the law of the land and women should never have been given the right to vote.
Hmmm. I can believe Abraham Lincoln, Commander in Chief of the U.S. during the war, or I can believe a Democratic Party partisan pontificating 150+ years later. . . hmmm…..which to choose. . . I know!!! I choose Lincoln! He was there. You weren’t. He actually made decisions about the war, and you didn’t. He doesn’t have a dog in the fight in 2017, and you do. Yeah, Lincoln’s the obvious choice! A no-brainer!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Such an enormous load of falsehoods, and spoken so pompously! Congratulations!
Read this (and especially the Tom DiLorenzo article PCR links to: How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/)
The war had nothing to do with slavery; it was about tariffs, about Northern financial interests bleeding the South dry and the South being sick of it. Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, the hand picked agent of the rich industrialists of the North, and the sworn enemy of the financial interests of the agrarian South.
The South did not launch an “insurrection”; the Southern states simply left an association they freely joined. Lincoln started the war, by invading the South, like a mafia Don who attacks a fellow mobster who decides to quit the business. The South never had any intention of invading the North, or ruling in Washington. They just wanted to be free from the vice grip of the anacondas in New York and Boston.
Why you think the Federalist has anything at all to do with the creation of the United States is beyond understanding, except perhaps to prove that you are an ignoramus. The United States already existed, indeed for almost a decade, when the debate about replacing their charter was underway. The Federalist was a defense of a coup against the government of the United States.
Incidentally, the Constitution doesn’t deem African slaves “3/5’s of a person” as you ignorantly claim. In the decennial census, ALL slaves were counted, and because the North hated them so, the delegates from the Northern states insisted at the Convention that 2 out of 5 not be allowed representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Of course, the South agreed to hobble itself with this despicable compromise, artificially empowering the North, because their delegates truly wanted to overthrow the government, sadly. From the point of view of the Southern states, it would have been infinitely better if every slave was represented in Congress; it was the vile racism of the North that produced the 3/5 compromise.
Well done!
Thanks Patrick! I don’t bother trying to explain these things to people like Mike, with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears, but I’m glad someone at least puts the facts out there, if only to cause them a bit of discomfort.
And kudos to you, too, Squeeky! Still hanging in there and fighting the good fight. I strongly suspect there are talking points being circulated to call the South “traitors”, as a way to demean them and shut down the discussion. There is no reason to even acknowledge those facetious slurs. Rubber and glue and all that.
Patrick, the nullification crisis came and went 28 years before the outset of The American Civil War. The Constitution of The Confederate States of America prohibited import duties only for the express purpose of promoting industry–but not for any other purpose. The States in The Confederacy were not given the right to nullify Acts of the Confederate Congress nor the right to secede from the CSA. In fact, the Confederate President was given the same power as the U. S. President to call State militias into the service of the CSA to quell rebellions and insurrections.
The most significant differences between The Constitution of the United States of America versus The Constitution of The Confederate States of America were the clauses that deprived States and Territories in the Confederacy of passing any laws against slavery. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA, and the Alabaman politician Robert Hardy Stephens both endorsed The Confederate Constitution on the grounds that it made slavery the supreme law of all Confederate lands.
Don’t take my word for it. Check the link:
https://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
Robert Hardy Smith.
That’s all certainly true, Diane, but it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Everyone in America believed that the states, which were sovereign countries, could leave the union they had created and/or joined. New England was very serious about leaving the Union when the Federalist party was eclipsed by Jeffersonian democracy. Later, the Tariff of Abominations almost drove the South out of the Union, as you rightly say, but the Yankees backed off, temporarily putting off the need to leave.
I don’t know why you bring up “nullification”; everyone believed in it–especially in the North, where they routinely nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.
I am not denying that slavery was not a factor in the tension between the North and the South, but it simply was not a factor in the decision of the Southern states to cancel their club membership. Certainly, there was a faction in the South, known as the Fire Breathers, who were very passionate about making slavery central to the new country’s public identity, and pressed the point when the new Constitution was being crafted. They were a very vocal minority, and as is usually the case with noisy, intense, tireless outliers, they got their way; most people simply didn’t care enough to fight them off. And anyway, the question of new states in the West could not be ignored: would the new country deny slaveholders equal rights in an expanded Confederacy?
So while slavery had nothing to do with the decision of the Southern states to exit the union, and absolutely nothing to do with Lincoln’s decision to invade and wage war on the South, slavery was indeed a key aspect to the new country’s cultural identity, and had to be codified.
Patrick, it seems as though the most critical features of your argument, thus far, are the claims that The South did not want nor seek The Civil War, but that The North supposedly did want and seek The Civil War.
Is that a fair or an unfair characterization of your position, Patrick?
And then there’s the other shoe: Did The South have a realistic expectation that secession from The United States of America and formation of a new Nation-state, The Confederate States of America, to provide for the common defense of its independent Sovereign States, ought not to have provoked any levying of war from The Union against The Confederacy?
Is that last question unfair, Patrick?
The answer to your first question is: Yes, you understand me perfectly.
The answer to the second question is that it is indeed an unfair question, because it strips away all nuance. The Southern states certainly hoped for the best, just as a shopkeeper who decides to stop paying protection money to the Mafia hopes everything will remain peaceful–but he keeps a gun to hand just in case.
Sure, the Northern industrialists who were sucking the South dry were likely to use their puppet in the White House to stop their victims from ruining their wonderful operation, and Washington certainly wouldn’t take kindly to having all that tariff revenue abruptly cut off. So they had to be ready for an attack. But they absolutely hoped that they would be allowed to depart in peace and friendship.
Patrick, I’m glad that we can reach an understanding of exactly what issues form the basis for our disagreement.
Would you be willing to concede at least some Northern opposition to levying a war against The South? Say, Douglas’s attempts at “popular sovereignty” in the territories, for instance? There may be other examples that do not immediately spring to mind. Perhaps the split between Northern versus Southern Democrats weakened Northern opposition to war at the critical moment when The Republican Party formed from the remnants of previous Northern political parties.
In any case, I am still curious to learn why the Confederate Constitution did not explicitly grant its independent Sovereign States the critical right to secede from The Confederacy without threat of war from The CSA? What harm might that have done to the Supremacy clause literally to inscribe that critical right of secession into The Constitution of the Confederate States of America? Or would such a punctilious measure have been universally understood to have been merely superfluous?
I’m going to start fresh at the top. It’s getting too narrow down here.
patrick – good luck, I will help narrow it. 😉
They were not traitors for one reason. Until the then much debated question was tested it was a very common belief that the ability to secede was legal. That was taken from the Consent Withdrawn clause. In Ledbetters seven volumes of Forgotten American History he explains that at great and detailed length.
South Carolina seceded as an independent nation state. Thereafter opened fire on a federal installation which itself was packing up to leave. All before the CSA was formed. Texas had the absolute written right to do so and had they not joined the CSA but stood aside they would have had complete legality. But in choosing open acts of war against that which they held to be foreign country they forced the situation. USA Lincoln on the other side chose to treat them as rebels and held they were always part of the union to the point in the end the USA never did file charges against Jefferson Davis nor allowed it to go to trial.
Instead the rapidly allowed the southern states to rejoin and resume their role in the Congress or as it was termed as delegates sitting in congress. Texas lost forever it’s original right to secede as they had openly warred and were brought back into the union as one of the spoils of war Likewise in the devilish details
Here are three examples of why they were not traitors nor treasonous
All thirteen states were notionally separate identities for the five years between the Lee Resolution and the Articles of Confederation.
The Lee Resolution, passed by the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776, two days before the Declaration of Independence states:
“That these United Colonies are, and, of right, ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them, and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, passed by the Congress two days later, likewise speaks of the separate identities:
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;”
—The Declaration of Independence
Seven years later, the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War still depicts them as independent identities…
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”
The old story is the Civil War was fought over a verb. Prior all documents stated the U nited States of America are and afterward the USA is.
History is a wonderful thing if it is examined critically and honestly. The Mark David Ledbetter volumes are a good starting point to find out what you weren’t taught in school and the recent book by Mike Lee details some of the areas that were intentionally deleted. among them how the idea of a confederacy of independent nations came about
Be it as it may that evolved into a single nation of states and survived with the notion that citizens are the ultimate power, the self governing citizen. One of the later Ledbetter books describes the chief differences between the other great revolution of those times that of the French and why theirs eventually turned into a quite different result as opposed to our national experience in developing the representative constitutional republic system.
As of today the Democrats in a land with no democracy best personify the failed French (later Russian) version and that includes SADLY only because it’s so overused their right wing aka RINOs.
The 241 years of existence though shows the remarkable resiliency to being replaced with one or another of the failed systems and that as of last November was a demonstration of self governing independent and ‘unrepresented’ by any party citizens or the ultimate source of power.
A quick touch on the the Clinton Millions and why those claimed voted didn’t count. Because in 241 years over 700 attempts have been made to do away with the electoral system and none of them have made it out of congress as an amendment. Likewise no change to the other system which allows the 25 least populated states plus one to control the Senate.
The Clinton millions are a national popularity poll and nothing more.
All the Ledbetter books are available from Amazon Kindle for a very low price which makes them useful even if used for referencing specfic areas.
https://sites.google.com/site/threefoldnow/sovereignstates
one more interesting source with a long list of topics on the left hand side.
One last thing on history: Let me remind you all that Robert e. Lee and Stonewall Jackson rebelled against the United States–and they are traitors.
No, they were insurrectionists. “Treason” is precisely defined in the Constitution. You’re using a Tudor definition of treason.
Wrong. An insurrection is a violent uprising against a government or authority. That is the opposite of what they were doing; they were defending their country from invasion by a murderous army seeking to overthrow their government and conquer them.
The Southern states peacefully left the compact they had freely joined, and wished to simply be left alone. Lincoln attacked them, to force them to rejoin an association they no longer wished to be members of. So they fought back, attempting to expel the invaders. What were they SUPPOSED to do?
Before the Civil War you would have heard the phrase “the United States are…” After the Civil War it became “the United States is…” If you don’t understand that you don’t understand Lee, Jackson, Longstreet et.al.
I think that the people who are talking about tearing down the statues have not made an equivalent contribution to societal evolution or the actual development of justice for all, as these men have. They are, in that regard, bystanders or mere critic. Tell them we are sorry that we can not make the world perfect, quick enough to satisfy them and ask them what they have done.
Yup.