So what do you do about the embarrassing celebration of the confederacy that is Stone Mountain.

[variant]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I see it as an act of self-preservation and not aggression.

Taking action that will inevitably start a war against a clearly superior opponent isn't an act of self-preservation.

 

[variant]

After exhausting all peaceful options, yes. The Confederates sent a delegation to DC in an attempt to purchase the federal land. At some point, self-preservation must take place.

They had a disagreement over whose land that was. Given it was federal land D.C. had no reason to cede it to rebels.

So, again they used their guns to solve the issue and a war broke out.

 

[cow451]

They had a disagreement over whose land that was. Given it was federal land D.C. had no reason to ceded it to rebels.

So, again they used their guns to solve the issue and a war broke out.

Second Amendment, you know.

 

[variant]

Second Amendment, you know.

I wouldn't call the confederacy starting the civil war a banner day for the second amendments record.

Nor would I call shelling a federal fort peaceful, or an act of self preservation.

 

[cow451]

I wouldn't call the confederacy starting the civil war a banner day for the second amendments record.

Nor would I call shelling a federal fort peaceful, or an act of self preservation.

Shows how you don’t understand the Second Amendment.

 

[tbstor]

They had a disagreement over whose land that was. Given it was federal land D.C. had no reason to ceded it to rebels.

So, again they used their guns to solve the issue and a war broke out.

The land fell within the territorial claims of the seceded states. Obviously there was a disagreement. The Confederates attempted to resolve the disagreement peacefully. The North refused. So, force was used in an act of self-preservation.

 

[variant]

The land fell within the territorial claims of the seceded states. Obviously there was a disagreement. The Confederates attempted to resolve the disagreement peacefully. The North refused. So, force was used in an act of self-preservation.

Spin it however you like. The South made it a shooting war.

Then they lost, and thus also lost the rights to decide whether people can own each other.

Later on some complete bigots decided to carve the notable generals likenesses into a mountain to commemorate the formation of the KKK, and reverencing the confederacy and white supremacy, and people still defend them for it.

I think stone mountain should stay as a monument to complete bigots and their desire to express themselves for all to see. Just explain it to people while they are there.

 

[tbstor]

Spin it however you like. The South made it a shooting war.

Then they lost, and thus also lost the rights to decide whether people can own each other.

Later on some complete bigots decided to carve the notable generals likenesses into a mountain to commemorate the formation of the KKK, and reverencing the confederacy and white supremacy, and people still defend them for it.

I think stone mountain should stay as a monument to complete bigots and their desire to express themselves for all to see. Just explain it to people while they are there.

The South "made it a shooting war" in the same sense that a homeowner using a gun to defend their property makes it a "shooting encounter."

And I'm glad you support the continued existence of Stone Mountain, a point we can agree on.

 

[SummerMadness]

To those defending this piece of white supremacy, which argument are we going with today, the Democratic Party is racist now because the Confederacy were Democratic states or must we now honor these great icons of Southern heritage? You know, it's not racist at all... but remember the history of the racist Democrats!

 

[variant]

The South "made it a shooting war" in the same sense that a homeowner using a gun to defend their property makes it a "shooting encounter."

If by "defending ones property" you mean trying to evict people who already live there, and whose stated task is to defend the place.

The civil war was a rebellion, and would have been, even if they had won. There was no reason for the US government to consider the claims of ownership valid.

 

[variant]

To those defending this piece of white supremacy, which argument are we going with today, the Democratic Party is racist now because the Confederacy were Democratic states or must we now honor these great icons of Southern heritage? You know, it's not racist at all... but remember the history of the racist Democrats!

We're supposed to remember that, before most of our lifetimes began it was the democrats who were the racist segregationists, and forget about what has happened more recently.

We're also supposed to also think that the confederacy was an honorable and stoic assertion of states rights (also democrats) instead of a white power organization bent on being able to maintain it's "property" (in this case other people).

Attacking federal troops, inside a federal fort, is also some sort of "property rights" issue.

I'm not one to think that we should take the lead of the confederacy on what property rights should look like.

 

[durangodawood]

I support the dilapidation and decay of Stone Mountain.

 

[tbstor]

If by "defending ones property" you mean trying to evict people who already live there, and whose stated task is to defend the place.

The civil war was a rebellion, and would have been, even if they had won. There was no reason for the US government to consider the claims of ownership valid.

One's mere presence on a property doesn't create a more legitimate claim by necessity. If you've been given permission to live on a piece of property by the owner, then your presence is fine. If said owner revokes said permission, your presence becomes much more suspect.

You may call the Civil War whatever you'd like. It doesn't change the reality of what happened: 11 southern states peacefully seceded, those 11 states attempted to peacefully resolve any land disputes with the North, and those southern states were prompted to use force by the North's response to the situation.

 

[tbstor]

I support the dilapidation and decay of Stone Mountain.

Does that look like using government force to prevent volunteers from maintaining the park?

 

[Goonie]

One's mere presence on a property doesn't create a more legitimate claim by necessity. If you've been given permission to live on a piece of property by the owner, then your presence is fine. If said owner revokes said permission, your presence becomes much more suspect.

You may call the Civil War whatever you'd like. It doesn't change the reality of what happened: 11 southern states peacefully seceded, those 11 states attempted to peacefully resolve any land disputes with the North, and those southern states were prompted to use force by the North's response to the situation.

Except that the occupants of the federal property had every legal and constitutional right to be there. The rebels whose states had signed up to the US Constitution that promised perpetual union and zero provision for succession on the other hand had no legal right to ask them to leave.

 

[Arcangl86]

One's mere presence on a property doesn't create a more legitimate claim by necessity. If you've been given permission to live on a piece of property by the owner, then your presence is fine. If said owner revokes said permission, your presence becomes much more suspect.

That's not what happened though. South Carolina didn't give them permission to build forts there. They outright gave the land to the federal government. The land legally wasn't under the jurisdiction of South Carolina.

You may call the Civil War whatever you'd like. It doesn't change the reality of what happened: 11 southern states peacefully seceded, those 11 states attempted to peacefully resolve any land disputes with the North, and those southern states were prompted to use force by the North's response to the situation.

The South took the first aggressive actions. WHo knows what would have happened if they didn't act first. Maybe the North would have attacked, maybe it would have been a cold war for a few years until things cooled down.

 

[durangodawood]

Does that look like using government force to prevent volunteers from maintaining the park?

I dunno. First instinct is no. But then I also believe in rule of law. And if the law dictates that the management of parks isnt a free for all, then I'd say yes.

Im also thinking of archaeological parks near me.... where it would be an enormous mess if everybody wanted to upkeep and restore things according to their own whim.

 

[variant]

One's mere presence on a property doesn't create a more legitimate claim by necessity. If you've been given permission to live on a piece of property by the owner, then your presence is fine. If said owner revokes said permission, your presence becomes much more suspect.

Again, the "ownership" was in dispute, what they attacked was in fact federal land the day before it was seized.

And they used force to do it. That's what a rebellion is.

I don't see the secession clause in the US Constitution, do you?

You may call the Civil War whatever you'd like. It doesn't change the reality of what happened: 11 southern states peacefully seceded, those 11 states attempted to peacefully resolve any land disputes with the North, and those southern states were prompted to use force by the North's response to the situation.

If they continued to peacefully come to a resolution with the north that would be true. Instead they shelled that fort with mortars.

 

[tbstor]

I dunno. First instinct is no. But then I also believe in rule of law. And if the law dictates that the management of parks isnt a free for all, then I'd say yes.

Im also thinking of archaeological parks near me.... where it would be an enormous mess if everybody wanted to upkeep and restore things according to their own whim.

I ask because there would undoubtedly be plenty of local volunteers from organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy. I believe the management of the park is already outsourced to a local Georgia family.

 

[tbstor]

Again, the "ownership" was in dispute, what they attacked was in fact federal land the day before it was seized.

And they used force to do it. That's what a rebellion is.

I don't see the secession clause in the US Constitution, do you?

That observation doesn't even begin to approach the issue of the legality of secession. It wasn't until 1869 that the SC declared secession as unconstitutional. Here's a good resource if you're interested in reading on the issue.

If they continued to peacefully come to a resolution with the north that would be true. Instead they shelled that fort with mortars.

Peace stops being an option when it is clear your sovereignty is being undermined. A robbery is "peaceful" until the victim starts shooting, I guess.