Posted on 12/16/2023 9:27:14 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
1/ Within the next several days, barring intervention from Congress, the Biden Regime, in violation of the law, will remove the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, commissioned to celebrate the reconciliation of North and South.
@blueandgray1864 @oilfieldRando
2/ The memorial is considered the masterwork of the renowned Jewish-American sculptor Sir Moses Ezekiel (a former Confederate soldier who was described by his biographer as “adamantly opposed to slavery") who is buried at its base.
3/ Ezekiel, knighted by the King of Italy, was so dedicated to North-South reconciliation that he would later host commanding Union General Ulysses S. Grant at his studio.
4/ Yet in the wake of the George Floyd moral panic, this memorial was scheduled for removal, though its removal is being done in violation of several federal laws and the clear text of the legislation, which excludes graves.
5/ As former Democrat Senator and Navy Secretary Jim Webb said:
“What was it that Union Army veteran McKinley understood about the Confederate soldiers who opposed him on the battlefield that eludes today’s monument smashers and ad hominem destroyers of historical reputations?”
6/ In fact, at the time it was constructed, some major Confederate groups opposed it because they opposed the reconciliation it symbolized.
7/ Webb, a Vietnam Veteran, has spoken about taking groups of North and South Vietnamese to the monument to show how the U.S. reconciled successfully after a bitter civil war
8/ 44 House Republicans have signed a letter opposing the removal but every Republican should be on record as opposing this lawless action
9/ But of course, this is never *really* about the Confederacy or “Confederate Statues”. The same spirit animated the recent removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson from the New York City Council, where it had stood for 187 years.
It’s not such a shocking matter to be aware that the US government has done any number of hypocritical things. One can even understand a slave owner writing “all men are created equal”, provided he doesn’t believe blacks are human beings
And it should've been done here, in the US. But it wasn't...Discussions as to whether or not it could've been done are, IMO, hypothetical and a waste of time. Otherwise, it's been an interesting discussion.
“In seceding the Southern states were giving up all claims to the Western territories and thus all chance to spread slavery there.”
Not Quite. In July of 1861 Davis ordered General Sibly to organize a force to enter the Arizona Territory and take control of it from The U.S. IMO that Davis’s objective was the abundant natural resources in the territory, not so much as to expand slavery.
s
The Emancipation Proclamation was on January 1, 1863.
W. Virginia was admitted to the Union on June 20, 1863.
On February 3, 1865, the state legislature of W. Virginia abolished slavery in the state, and at the same time ratified the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery nationally.
So jeffersondem's statement - "I believe Lincoln did add a slave state to the Union after the Emancipation Proclamation." - is correct.
So what? W. Virginia was a very special case at any rate. The specifics here should be taken into account.
Regards,
I don't doubt that Jefferson was well aware Blacks are human beings. The Declaration of Independence was more a mission statement of where we wanted to get to. Obviously nobody was prepared to live with it literally at the time.
Of course it "COULD" have been done here just as it WAS done everywhere else in the West. The key to understanding why it was not done here lies in seeing who was opposed to it - again, it was not Southerners who opposed it. Take a look at who did.
Yes, quite. You are talking about a time AFTER Lincoln initiated hostilities. Once two sides are fighting in a war, all bets are off. Each will do whatever is militarily expedient to win. When the Southern states seceded, they made no claim to the western territories of the US - only to their own sovereign territory. They were literally giving up any chance to spread slavery to those territories by the very act of secession. So obviously, their main complaint was not that they were prevented from spreading slavery - else they would not have done so.
The so what is his statement was correct. Lincoln added a state (unconstitutionally) which allowed slavery. This is yet another piece of evidence to show that abolishing slavery was not Lincoln's motivation - if his orchestration of the passage of the Corwin Amendment through Congress and its ratification by multiple states as well as his public promises to strengthen fugitive slave laws were not enough evidence that abolishing slavery was not really what he was after.
Oh, is that what jeffersondem was trying to prove?
Was this even up to debate?! I had thought that it was generally well known that Lincoln himself had said,
"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."
Lincoln wanted first to save the Union; he knew that only then would it be possible to also free the slaves.
Obviously: Losing the war / allowing the South to secede would preclude freeing all of the slaves.
Regards,
Well, a majority were not, of course... There is nothing new about politics and economics making hypocrites of people.
Happy Holidays.
They created the United States, a nation that the Conderates tried to tear apart. Facts are stubborn things.
Again, we don’t and will never agree
You are welcome to set up a Confederate Col9ny on an Island somewhere.
They created a voluntary union of sovereign states. Lincoln and his cronies overthrew that and transformed it into a centralized federal despotism ruled not by consent but rather by force. The English said it best:
“If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms.”
My Family's been here for over a century before there was a United States of America. I'll be staying thanks - that doesn't mean I have to agree to the federal despotism created by Lincoln.
The southern counties of what is now West Virginia mostly did not vote in the 1864 election because the local people still considered themselves part of the Confederate state of Virginia. The men from these counties mostly fought for the Confederacy, I think. Of course after the war they benefited from being inhabitants of a loyal Union state.
Fanatasy.
Truth, look it up.
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.