Statues of Brave Heroes of the South

[Archivist]

Even before that.....
http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html

Yes, I'm aware of that. I teach history to grad students. The New England succession movement. It didn't amount to anything, and it would have been treason under the Constitution.

 

[Archivist]

The Southerners believed they had the right to secede, and therefore treason by definition was inoperative to them.

No, it was treason.

Even today, Civil War notwithstanding, there is still talk of various states seceding from the union.

The US Supreme Court has held that there is no case for a constitutional right of secession. That was in Texas v. White.

 

[paul1149]

No, it was treason.


The US Supreme Court has held that there is no case for a constitutional right of secession. That was in Texas v. White.

The point is that they believed treason was inoperative, because they were exiting the auspices of the Constitution. Texas v. White was post-CW.

 

[civilwarbuff]

and it would have been treason under the Constitution.

Only if it violated the parameters set forth in the Constitution; secession did not necessarily equate to treason. In fact secession is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The US Supreme Court has held that there is no case for a constitutional right of secession.

So does that mean that W. VA still belongs to VA?

 

[Archivist]

The point is that they believed treason was inoperative, because they were exiting the auspices of the Constitution.

Again, they were In violation Of article III section 3.

Texas v. White was post-CW.

Yes, I know that. I was responding to you statement that even today some states want to leave.

 

[Archivist]

So does that mean that W. VA still belongs to VA?

You have to understand how WV came into being. After Virginia succeeded there was a loyal government of Virginia in Wheeling. That government gave WV the power to succeed.

 

[Archivist]

Only if it violated the parameters set forth in the Constitution; secession did not necessarily equate to treason. In fact secession is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

I know it isn’t mentioned there. But Article III section 3 would still apply.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You have to understand how WV came into being. After Virginia succeeded there was a loyal government of Virginia in Wheeling. That government gave WV the power to succeed.

So the federal government violated the constitution.....well that's so much better.....LOL
BTW, I am quite aware of how W.VA came into being.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

But Article III section 3 would still apply.

How specifically?

I know it isn’t mentioned there.

If not mentioned there where is secession mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[Archivist]

So the federal government violated the constitution.....well that's so much better.....LOL

How did the Feds violate the Constitution?

BTW, I am quite aware of how W.VA came into being.....

Apparently not.

 

[Archivist]

How specifically?

Treason. Need I remind you that it was the Confederacy that fired the first shot.

If not mentioned there where is secession mentioned in the Constitution?

I already answered this.

 

[civilwarbuff]

How did the Feds violate the Constitution?

Did Virginia consent to the separation of W. Virginia?.....no. Then the feds had no right to recognize it as a separate state since it was only done on the vote of those living in W.VA.

Apparently not.

Glad I am not taking your class......

 

[civilwarbuff]

Need I remind you that it was the Confederacy that fired the first shot.

Need I remind you that they seceded several months prior to that?....and nothing happened? And yes, I am quite aware of Buchanan's inaction and statements and administration transition, etc.

I already answered this.

As applied to Article 3 Section 3 but not the entire Constitution.

 

[Running2win]

I know my history. You seem to have forgotten that when that was attempted President Andrew Jackson very quickly put a stop to it.

President Andrew Jackson on Secession and Nullification

So, why get rid of all the statues? Europe keeps all theirs up to remind people how things were and not forget. It makes no sense to try and erase history.

Plus to say the Civil war was all about slavery is like saying the Iraq war was just all about WMDs. It was an excuse to take away States rights and take away the Souths cheap labor force.

 

[Archivist]

Did Virginia consent to the separation of W. Virginia?.....no. Then the feds had no right to recognize it as a separate state since it was only done on the vote of those living in W.VA.

No, it was approved by the Restored Government of Virginia. I already explained that.

Glad I am not taking your class......

Another barb from you. Are you incapable of polite behavior?

 

[Archivist]

Need I remind you that they seceded several months prior to that?....and nothing happened? And yes, I am quite aware of Buchanan's inaction and statements and administration transition, etc.

Nothing happened until the south started a war.

As applied to Article 3 Section 3 but not the entire Constitution.

You don’t need to violate the whole Constitution. One section is sufficient.

 

[Archivist]

So, why get rid of all the statues? Europe keeps all theirs up to remind people how things were and not forget. It makes no sense to try and erase history.

Really? I thought by law all the Nazi statues and monuments in Germany were removed.

Plus to say the Civil war was all about slavery is like saying the Iraq war was just all about WMDs. It was an excuse to take away States rights and take away the Souths cheap labor force.

slavery wasn’t a cheap labor force. If a steelworker in the north died it cost the company nothing. There was no worker’s compensation then. If a slave died, every penny spent on that slave was gone.

 

[Running2win]

Really? I thought by law all the Nazi statues and monuments in Germany were removed.





slavery wasn’t a cheap labor force. If a steelworker in the north died it cost the company nothing. There was no worker’s compensation then. If a slave died, every penny spent on that slave was gone.

The South was not committing genocide, and like you said a slave was an investment, many were treated well, and it was legal-just like every society before.

The ovens are still standing, war monuments and such. That is what I was talking about... By keeping Southern statues, it is a teaching tool to say that was how it was then but now look how far we have come in the advancement of civil rights. That's how I see the debate.

We take away the past and don't teach history-or rewrite, we are destined to make the same mistakes but with a different people group-which is how we are getting today. All whites are bad and have white privilege- is the constant drum beat, so whites will be the ones going to the ovens or being slaves in the future.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Another barb from you. Are you incapable of polite behavior?

It is an honest assessment....

No, it was approved by the Restored Government of Virginia. I already explained that.

Actually you didn't but the Unionist government of Virginia, which became W. VA, was simply a political expediency of the Lincoln administration and it remained under tight control of the federal government as well as lacking a judiciary. Not anything even remotely close to the established and accepted procedure by Mass. in relinquishing Maine.