Pentagon To Remove Memorial To Confederate Dead From Arlington National Cemetery , GOP Lawmakers Try To Stop It

A group of Republican lawmakers are attempting to stop the Pentagon from taking out a Confederate monument belonging to Arlington National Cemetery.

Led by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), the group of lawmakers penned a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Monday that demands he leaves the Reconciliation Monument, also known as the Confederate Memorial untouched until at least the conclusion of the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process.

The monument was set to be taken out by the Pentagon’s Naming Commission, a group formed to rename and remove military installations named after the Confederacy. This came in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, Fox News reports

"Despite bipartisan support for this monument, the Naming Commission, established by the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, clearly overstepped its legislative authority when it recommended that the Department of the Army remove the Reconciliation Monument from Arlington National Cemetery," the lawmakers wrote.

The Arlington National Cemetery website confirms this removal, with a section stating that "As required by Congress and implemented by the Secretary of Defense, Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) is required to remove the Confederate Memorial located in Section 16 of ANC."

It additionally notes that a "process to prepare for the memorial's careful removal and relocation has been initiated."

Clyde said that the memorial symbolizes American unity after the Civil War rather than bringing honor to the Confederacy, and that its removal would serve to desecrate the graves of Confederate soldiers buried there.

Calls to remove monuments and statues of American historical figures are nothing new; New York City recently weighed a plot to remove George Washington statues as part of a new ‘reparations’ plan.

"[T]he Reconciliation Monument does not honor nor commemorate the Confederacy; the memorial commemorates reconciliation and national unity," the lawmakers' letter continued.

"Furthermore, the Naming Commission’s authority explicitly prohibits the desecration of grave sites. Considering the hundreds of gravestones encircling the monument, it would be impossible for these graves to remain untouched if the Department of the Army proceeds with its proposed removal of the monument – both being a clear violation of Congress’ enacted statute and legislative intent."

Clyde, who is a Navy combat veteran, penned the letter along with 43 other House Republicans, including Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL).

The plan is for the statue to be moved to a site owned by the Virginia Military Institute, reports Cardinal News.

"The Department of Defense must respect Congress’ clear legislative intentions regarding the Naming Commission’s legislative authority, and to move forward with removal of the Reconciliation Monument would be a clear affront to the separation of powers principles outlined by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution," the lawmakers wrote.

The Pentagon currently faces a lawsuit over the statue's planned removal from Defend Arlington, a group that represents Confederate veterans, among others.

Re: 108 - I’d like to believe that looking at human chattel is different.

It isn't. If you were brought up to believe that it was right and proper, it would take time for you to question what you have been taught by your ancestors and your community, and most especially if it was profitable for you to believe these things.

I now believe that what resulted in a moral awakening for the Northern states was the lack of profitability from slavery, and once the money is gone from it, people can then look at the moral issue involved. If there was a profit to be made, most wouldn't bother, as with all the Northern shipping companies who brought in the slaves in the first place.

We fool ourselves when we believe that people will not do what they see as in their best interests regardless of the human suffering it produces, especially when that suffering happens to others who are not part of our kith and kin.

And for what it's worth, I have read arguments which assert that forcing Africans to work was the moral and proper thing to do.

I kid you not. There were people who actually argued that when encountering these primitive tribesmen in Africa, they realized that all the men just sat around all day doing nothing, and would only stir themselves to work for hunting and such. The women did most of the work in the villages, and the men were layabouts.

Some people saw it as their moral duty to force these lazy people to work, because they saw it as unnatural and immoral for men to do nothing. The bible says you must work or you shall not eat, and so people believed they were doing a good thing by making people work as God intended.

I thought it was quite funny when I read this argument about slavery, because I can see some of the Northern European mindset that could arrive at this idea. If you want to read it yourself, it is in one of the early chapters of the book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit" by Prentice Kettell, published in 1860, and it's available on Googlebooks.

But I think the primary motivation was always profit.

Most of our history is about the search for profit. It is a primary motivating force for humankind.

The owner of Dred Scott was a Republican. Lived in Massachusetts. I forget his name, but i'm sure we can look it up.

Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) was decided March 6, 1857. In May 1857, Massachusetts Republican Abolitionist Congressman Calvin Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri giving Blow ownership of Dred Scott and family. On May 26, 1857 Taylor Blow emancipated the Scotts.

New York Times, “Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family,” May 27, 1857

Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family.
ST. LOUIS, Tuesday May 26.
DRED SCOTT, with his wife and two daughters, were emancipated today by TAYLOR BLOW, Esq. They had all been conveyed to him by Mr. CHAFFE, of Massachusetts, for that purpose, as the law of this State on the subject requires, that the emancipation shall be performed by a citizen of Missouri. ...

- - - - -

26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 263¹
Tuesday May 26th 1857
Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.
¹ 26 Saint Louis Circuit Record 263

After Massachusetts Republican Abolitionist Congressman Calvin Chaffee was publicly revealed as the owner of the slave Etheldred Scott, he chose not to run for reelection in 1858. Through the miracles of politics, Massachusetts Republican Abolitionist Congressman Calvin Chaffee became the Librarian of the House of Representatives 1860-1862.

[cowboyusa #101] The Decleration is a creation of THE UNITED STATES.

The Declaration was an act of the Continental Congress of the colonies. The United States did not precede the DeclarationThe Declaration passed on July 2, 1776; 12 yea, 1 abstain (NY). Another vote was held July 4, 1776 which gained the vote of NY.

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; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The united States of America did not refer to some Hotel California-style compulsory union where a state could check in but never leave. No Federal government was established by the Declaration.

Thirteen free and independent states were declared.

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. On March 2, 1781, Congress assembled under the Articles.

ARTICLE I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
ARTICLE II. Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
ARTICLE III.
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
- - - - -
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
AND WHEREAS it has pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said
articles of confederation and perpetual union. KNOW YE that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent and that the union shall be perpetual.

It was a "firm league of friendship," not Hotel California.

The Articles of Confederation had no set expiration or sunset date and were therefore perpetual. By its explicit terms, no amendment could be made to the AoC except by unanimous consent of the the legislatures of the member states.

A group of member states met ostensibly with the authority to recommend amendments to the AoC. They recommended the Constitution be proposed to the member states. Proposal to the states did not gain unanimous consent of the member states. By its terms, the Constitution went into effect upon ratification by nine (9) states. Following ratification by eleven (11) states, a new government was created for a new union of the eleven states which had ratified. (Article 7: "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.") North Carolina and Rhode Island dissolved the old union. The new government went into effect March 4, 1789. George Washington was elected President, ten (10) states participating. New York was the one of eleven that did not participate. Upon ratification on November 21, 1789, North Carolina joined the new union. On May 18, 1790, the United States Senate passed a bill to ban all trade with Rhode Island. On May 29, 1790 Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, before the the United States House of Representatives could could also pass the embargo bill. Thus, more than a year after Washington assumed office as President, the union returned to thirteen (13) states.

In the meantime, Vermont had declared independence in 1777 and established itself as a free, sovereign, and independent state with self-appointed borders. Vermont joined the union as the fourteenth state in 1791 under the provision to admit an independent state, as opposed to to admission of a territory.

Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 607-608 (1933)

In view of these facts, the Special Master concluded that the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries.

[cowboyusa #100, #101] The Decleration is a creation of THE UNITED STATES.
[jeffersondem] The 13 states created the Declaration of Independence.

Splitting hairs, the Continental Congress of the thirteen colonies created the Declaration of Independence. The States did not precede the Declaration.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/continental-congress

Department of State
Office of the Historian

Continental Congress, 1774–1781
The Continental Congress was the governing body by which the American colonial governments coordinated their resistance to British rule during the first two years of the American Revolution. The Congress balanced the interests of the different colonies and also established itself as the official colonial liaison to Great Britain. As the war progressed, the Congress became the effective national government of the country, and, as such, conducted diplomacy on behalf of the new United States.
The Congress first met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, with delegates from each of the 13 colonies except Georgia. On October 20, the Congress adopted the Articles of Association, which stated that if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed by December 1, 1774, a boycott of British goods would begin in the colonies. The Articles also outlined plans for an embargo on exports if the Intolerable Acts were not repealed before September 10, 1775.
On October 21, the delegates approved separate statements for the people of Great Britain and the North American colonies, explaining the colonial position, and on October 26 a similar address was approved for the people of Quebec.
Furthermore, on October 26, the delegates drafted a formal petition outlining the colonists' grievances for British King George III. Many delegates were skeptical about changing the king’s attitude towards the colonies, but believed that every opportunity should be exhausted to de-escalate the conflict before taking more radical action. They did not draft such a letter to the British Parliament as the colonists viewed the Parliament as the aggressor behind the recent Intolerable Acts. Lastly, not fully expecting the standoff in Massachusetts to explode into full-scale war, the Congress agreed to reconvene in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775.
By the time Congress met again, war was already underway, and thus the delegates to the Second Continental Congress formed the Continental Army and dispatched George Washington to Massachusetts as its commander. Meanwhile, Congress drafted the Olive Branch Petition, which attempted to suggest means of resolving disputes between the colonies and Great Britain. Congress sent the petition to King George III on July 8, but he refused to receive it.
As British authority crumbled in the colonies, the Continental Congress effectively took over as the de facto national government, thereby exceeding the initial authority granted to it by the individual colonial governments. However, the local groups that had formed to enforce the colonial boycott continued to support the Congress. The Second Congress continued to meet until March 1, 1781, when the Articles of Confederation that established a new national government for the United States took effect.
As the de facto national government, the Continental Congress assumed the role of negotiating diplomatic agreements with foreign nations. The British Parliament banned trade with the colonies and authorized the seizure of colonial vessels on December 23. These actions served to further erode the positions of anti-independence moderates in Congress and bolster those of pro-independence leaders. On April 6, 1776, Congress responded to Parliament's actions by opening American ports to all foreign ships except British vessels. Reports from American agent Arthur Lee in London also served to support the revolutionary cause. Lee’s reports suggested that France was interested in assisting the colonies in their fight against Great Britain.
With a peaceful resolution increasingly unlikely in 1775, Congress began to explore other diplomatic channels and dispatched congressional delegate Silas Deane to France in April of 1776.
Silas Deane
Deane succeeded in securing informal French support by May. By then, Congress was increasingly conducting international diplomacy and had drafted the Model Treaty with which it hoped to seek alliances with Spain and France. On July 4, 1776 the Congress took the important step of formally declaring the colonies’ independence from Great Britain.
[...]

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/declaration-of-independence

Declaration of Independence (1776)

Citation: Engrossed copy of the Declaration of Independence, August 2, 1776; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, Record Group 360; National Archives. Declaration of Independence, printed by John Dunlap, July 4, 1776, Records of the Continental and Confederation, Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, Record Group 360; National Archives.

The Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. It was engrossed on parchment and on August 2, 1776, delegates began signing it.
Although the section of the Lee Resolution dealing with independence was not adopted until July 2, Congress appointed on June 10 a committee of five to draft a statement of independence for the colonies. The committee included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, with the actual writing delegated to Jefferson.
Jefferson drafted the statement between June 11 and 28, submitted drafts to Adams and Franklin who made some changes, and then presented the draft to the Congress following the July 2nd adoption of the independence section of the Lee Resolution. The congressional revision process took all of July 3rd and most of July 4th. Finally, in the afternoon of July 4th, the Declaration was adopted.
Under the supervision of the Jefferson committee, the approved Declaration was printed on July 5th and a copy was attached to the "rough journal of the Continental Congress for July 4th." These printed copies, bearing only the names of John Hancock, President, and Charles Thomson, secretary, were distributed to state assemblies, conventions, committees of safety, and commanding officers of the Continental troops.
On July 19th, Congress ordered that the Declaration be engrossed on parchment with a new title, "the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of America," and "that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress." Engrossing is the process of copying an official document in a large hand. The engrosser of the Declaration was probably Timothy Matlock, an assistant to Charles Thomson, secretary to the Congress.
On August 2nd John Hancock, the President of the Congress, signed the engrossed copy with a bold signature. The other delegates, following custom, signed beginning at the right with the signatures arranged by states from northernmost New Hampshire to southernmost Georgia. Although all delegates were not present on August 2nd, 56 delegates eventually signed the document. Late signers were Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Wolcott, Lewis Morris, Thomas McKean, and Matthew Thornton, who was unable to place his signature with the other New Hampshire delegates due to a lack of space. Some delegates, including Robert R. Livingston of New York, a member of the drafting committee, never signed the Declaration.

Robert E. Lees property is located in the center of the Arlington National Cemetery , GOP Lawmakers Try To Stop Itit was bought out to get ride of him.

Arlington was his wife's ancestral estate. The entire Arlington National Cemetery was part of the estate that was unlawfully seized and unlawfully auctioned off, with the purchaser being the Federal Government. Lee's ancestor sued and the U.S. Supreme Court held that seizure and sale were unlawful, that title never vested in the government, and that valid title remained with the Lee family. The Lee family then proceeded to sell the uninhabitable land to the government for $150,000.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:1003?rgn=div1;submit=Go;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=531

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 4:531

[excerpt]

To Orville H. Browning
Private & confidential.
Hon. O. H. Browning
Executive Mansion
Washington
Sept 22d 1861.
My dear Sir
Yours of the 17th is just received; and coming from you, I confess it astonishes me. That you should object to my adhering to a law, which you had assisted in making, and presenting to me, less than a month before, is odd enough. But this is a very small part. Genl. Fremont's proclamation, as to confiscation of property, and the liberation of slaves, is purely political, and not within the range of military law, or necessity. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply "dictatorship.'' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases—confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure I have no doubt would be more popular with some thoughtless people, than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless position; nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S.—any government of Constitution and laws,—wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?
[...]

As for the permanence of property confiscation, or lack thereof, I refer you to the ancestral estate of the wife of Robert E. Lee, and the lawsuit won in the U.S. Supreme Court by her heir, George Washington Parke Custis Lee, returning title to the Lee family. This was quite distressful to the government as the Lee property was called Arlington, and it included what is known as Arlington National Cemetery, which had been started during the war, and which surely constituted a war crime, its purpose being to make the land uninhabitable, so to prevent the return of the Lee family. As the Lee family did not actually want to inhabit the land again, but pursued the litigation as a point of honor, they then sold Arlington to the government. Arlington House is the Robert E. Lee Memorial, maintained by the U.S. Government.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)

Syllabus

3. The constitutional provisions that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor private property taken for public use without just compensation, relate to those rights whose protection is peculiarly within the province of the judicial branch of the government. Cases examined which show that the courts extend protection when the rights of property are unlawfully invaded by public officers.
4. In ejectment, the title relied on by the defence was a certificate of sale of the demanded premises to the United States by the commissioners under the act of Congress for the collection of direct taxes. The certificate was impeached on the ground of the refusal of the commissioners to permit the owner to pay the tax, with interest and costs, before the day of sale, by an agent, or in any other way than by payment in person. Held, that when the commissioners had established a uniform rule that they would receive such taxes from no one but the owner in person, it avoids such sale, and a tender is unnecessary, since it would be of no avail.
5. Bennett v. Hunter, 9 Wall. 324, Tacey v. Irwin, 18 id. 549, and Atwood v. Weems, 99 U. S. 183, re-examined, and the principle they establish held to apply to a purchase at such a tax sale by the United States as well as by a private person.

To translate legalese to English, for this legal usage of the word avoid see Black's Law Dictionary: "Avoid. To annul; cancel; make void; to destroy the efficacy of anything. To evade, escape."

The Goverment never obtained good title and the subsequent sale at auction was void. Title was established in favor of the Lee family. This was not because the government failed to provide just compensation, but because the demand for payment in person, and the subsequent sale at auction to the U.S. Government were unlawful and void.

The Lee family did not just give the property back to the government, but sold it. Below is the Federal statute law appropriating $150,000 for the payment.

Appropriation to pay G.W.P.C. Lee for the rights to Arlington National Cemetary

https://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/022_statutes_at_large.pdf

22 Statutes at Large, Chapter 41, March 3, 1883, pg 584

Title to "Arlington," Virginia, secured to the United States; appropriation
To enable the Secretary of War to remove all claims and pretensions in respect of the property in the State of Virginia known as Arlington, on which a cemetery for the burial of deceased soldiers of the United States has been established, and which property was taken by the United States for public use in the year anno Domini eighteen hundred and sixty-four, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars; but this appropriation shall not be paid out of the Treasury until the Attorney-General shall be satisfied, and so certify to the Secretary of War, that the deed or deeds to be given to the United States to the end aforesaid will convey a complete title and contain covenants of general warranty and covenants against every manner of claim against or in respect of said property, whether in rem or in personam, and also against all and every claim for damages in respect of, or the use and occupation of said property, and also a release by every person entitled of all claim for and to the amount bid, or any part thereof; in behalf of the United States, on the tax sale of said property.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.