Tarps must come down from Confederate statues, judge says

The Daily Progress ^ | Feb 27, 2018 | The Daily Progress staff reports

[think4yrsf]

The City of Charlottesville will soon be ordered to remove the black tarps currently covering two Confederate statues downtown.

Reading from an official court letter Tuesday afternoon, Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore said he thinks the shrouds on the statues of Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson are a violation of a state code protecting the removal or disturbance of war memorials.

Moore said the city will have 15 days to remove the tarps after an official order has been signed.

[rockrr]

Because Lincoln didn't want to push the border states into supporting the Confederacy, his Emancipation Proclamation specifically DID NOT free any slaves in the states he legally had control over.

That's not the reason why Lincoln did what he did. He didn't apply the proclamation to states that weren't in a state of rebellion because he couldn't apply it to states that weren't in a state of rebellion.

Lincoln correctly knew that it would take an amendment to the constitution in order to end slavery nationally.

Oh, and BTW - Lincoln never didn't have legal control over every state - he only (temporarily) lost effective control due to the insurrection.

[DoodleDawg]

At the end of the War of Northern Aggression, there were still several states that had slaves, such as: Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, Maryland, and several others. They weren't freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, six months after the war ended.

Missouri, West Virginia, and Maryland had ended slavery on their own before the end of the rebellion. When the 13th Amendment was ratified only Kentucky and Delaware has slaves left to free.

[Svartalfiar]

Missouri, West Virginia, and Maryland had ended slavery on their own before the end of the rebellion. When the 13th Amendment was ratified only Kentucky and Delaware has slaves left to free.

Where did you get that? I'm not doing deep research, but even Wikipedia mentions:

Legally, the last 40,000-45,000 slaves were freed in the last two slave states of Kentucky and Delaware[179] by the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution on December 18, 1865. Slaves still held in Tennessee, Kentucky, Kansas, New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, Washington, D.C., and twelve parishes of Louisiana[180] also became legally free on this date.

[DoodleDawg]

Where did you get that? I'm not doing deep research, but even Wikipedia mentions...

Well since you're a fan of Wikipedia, History of Slavery in Missouri gives January 11, 1865 for the date slavery ended in that state. History of Slavery in Maryland gives November 1864 for when slavery ended in that state. History of Slavery in West Virginia gives February 1865 for when slavery was ended in that state. Slavery in Kansas Territory says slavery was ended there in 1860. Washington D.C. Emancipation Act ended slavery in D.C. in 1862. History of Slavery in Louisiana says slavery was ended there by the state constitution of 1864. Andrew Johnson and Emancipation in Tennessee says the slaves in that state were freed by proclamation in October 1864.

[Svartalfiar]

That's not the reason why Lincoln did what he did. He didn't apply the proclamation to states that weren't in a state of rebellion because he couldn't apply it to states that weren't in a state of rebellion.

Lincoln correctly knew that it would take an amendment to the constitution in order to end slavery nationally.

No, he didn't. Correspondence from before the war shows the main reason he didn't do it was to keep as many of the slave-holding states on the Union's side of the war. (If we lose Kentucky, we lose the war?) And for how much he walked all over the Constitution, I highly doubt that fidelity to that Constitution would be a good reason for almost anything he did.

Oh, and BTW - Lincoln never didn't have legal control over every state - he only (temporarily) lost effective control due to the insurrection.

Um, yes, he didn't. When a state secedes, it's no longer part of the Union. There is no legal bond between the two entities. The Union has to invade and subjugate the other country to force it back into the Union. Why do you think the majority of the war was fought in the South? Because if the North never invaded, it would have been a peaceful separation. Same thing when the 13 colonies declared separation - Britain had to invade and try to force them back into the fold. Only in that conflict, we won instead of losing.

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

Everyone knew George Whitfield in the 1740s. During a time when each region of the colonies started to adapt a unique culture, religion is what united them and kept them from dividing prior to the revolution.

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

The Federalists destroyed the anti federalists in the civil war...25 years later we had our first billion dollar budget..150 years later we are looking at a 4 trillion dollar budget and 21 trillion dollars worth of debt. The southern states detested the power of the federal government. Many southern states refused to meet with Jefferson Davis because they feared he was turning the confederacy into the pre war USA. One fifth of the population of Georgia did not die just to preserve slavery.

[x]

Um, no, it didn't. At the end of the War of Northern Aggression, there were still several states that had slaves, such as: Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri, Maryland, and several others. They weren't freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, six months after the war ended.

The Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed because of the Civil War.

So, sure, the war ended slavery. Indirectly, if you like, but inevitably.

Because Lincoln didn't want to push the border states into supporting the Confederacy, his Emancipation Proclamation specifically DID NOT free any slaves in the states he legally had control over. He only 'freed' the ones in states that were no longer part of his Union.

Because Lincoln didn't "have control" over those Border States. They had their own loyal state governments that he couldn't override.

As commander-in-chief, Lincoln could, as a war measure, declare the slaves of those fighting the US to be free.

One precedent for that was the freeing of the slaves of the Seminole Indians during the Second Seminole War.

[x]

One fifth of the population of Georgia did not die just to preserve slavery.

That figure seems way too high.

Do you have documentation?

[rockrr]

When a state legally secedes, it's no longer part of the Union.

FIFY

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

That was the number used in Ken Burns Civil War 1989 documentary that I watched about two months ago....do not see anything on line to support this number. Georgia was absolutely devastated during the war....Sherman leveled the state from the Tennessee border to Savanna and it took Georgia decades to recover. Older in law family members tell passed down stories of entire devastation.
Military combat death estimates range from 10% to 20% of those served....cannot find civilian death percentages.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr quoting, i.e., Texas secession document: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable..."

rockrr post #61: "More Fake News?"

dsc #62: "When you cherry-pick and misinterpret with egregious abandon, yes.
That’s exactly what it is."

Thanks rockrr for a great post, the facts are clear.
dsc, if you have data to present which contradicts in any way rockrr's facts, then do so.
Otherwise, you lose, period.

Sorry about that.

[BroJoeK]

max Americana: "Gen Lee should have won.
Damn Yanks."

According to this list, Lee fought 15 major Civil War battles, won 6, lost 4, five inconclusive.
On defense, Lee became adept at forcing the Union to pay a high price in blood for every foot gained.
But on offense, especially at Gettysburg, Lee spent his own forces with as much abandon as "butcher" Grant ever did.
And still lost.

[BroJoeK]

WashingtonFire: "No matter what the Marxists attempt, the majority of Americans will rightly continue to see the Southerners as noble heroes who fought for their families and communities...
...the noble and gentle people of the south would have arrived there..."

All depends on your definition of "the Southerners".
Slave-holders who ruled the Confederacy were neither "noble" nor "gentle", just the opposite.
In fact, their arrogance was only exceeded by their belligerence.
For a typical example, consider SC Congressman Preston Brooks 1856 assault on MA Senator Charles Sumner.

"Brooks was widely cheered across the South, where his attack on Sumner was seen as a legitimate and socially justifiable act, upholding the honor of his family (and the South as a whole) in the face of intolerable insults from a social inferior (and the North as a whole).
South Carolinians sent Brooks dozens of new canes, with one bearing the phrase, 'Good job' "

Of course, outside the Deep South, most Southerners did not own slaves, and many regions with the fewest slaves (i.e., Appalachia) refused to join the slave-holders' secession, Confederacy & war against the United States.

Those Southerners should genuinely be known as "noble and gentle.".

You disagree?

Where some of the noblest & gentlest Southerners lived:

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Quite a loud contingent here who work in unison who don’t agree with your accurate sentiment..."

Also, a good number of pro-Confederates who "ride to the sounds of the guns" on Free Republic.
Does your side "work in unison"?
Not so much, but here is less about coordinated tactics than it is about individual "combat" between champions of one side's arguments vs. the other.

wardaddy: "As a southerner natural-born Democrat I've never trusted the Grand Old Party.....any questions"

I think everybody here understands that pro-Confederates are natural-born Democrats at heart, and becoming Republican requires a mind-set change you just can't achieve.
You see the world through Democrat eyes, even though the Democrat party itself long ago abandoned you-people for a newer, younger set of "victims" they can champion.

I don't think there's much we can do to help you, beyond making certain your old Lost Cause mythology does not become part of our history, FRiend.

Lost Cause Myth:

[HiTech RedNeck]

Flies in the perfume make it stink alrighty.

With the imported slaves that we could see came a plethora of evil spirits we couldn’t see but sure “as hell” felt.

HOW COULD CHRISTENDOM GET SO STUPIFIED. Well it did.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck: "HOW COULD CHRISTENDOM GET SO STUPIFIED. Well it did."

I take you to mean: how could Christendom ever accept slavery as legitimate?
The short answer is, slavery is as old as civilization and is dealt with at length in the Bible.
The Bible strongly opposes slavery for God's people, but is pragmatic about others, only insisting they must be treated humanely.

Historically, over many centuries Christians were more often slaves than slave-holders, but despite numerous sanctions against slavery in many countries (see here), slave-holding was not totally abolished in "Christendom" until the 19th century.

Does that answer your question?

[wardaddy]

You talk a lot bunch of shite Bro

Not even worth a reply

A southerner here refuses to condemn their ancestry and then you and your single purpose on free republic posse attribute all manner of pejorative to us

I’ve been here a long time

YOURE A COWARD JUST LIKE ALL YOUR NATIONAL REVIEW ILK GANG

NOBODY KNOWS WHO YOU ARE CAUSE YOURE JUST LITTLE PUSSIES WHO HIDE AND SNIPE

On the other hand I don’t hide so why should I listen to self righteous coward?

[wardaddy]

I forgot

You precisely proved my point with your myopic GOPe worship

Well done

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Not even worth a reply.
A southerner here refuses to condemn their ancestry and then you and your single purpose on free republic posse attribute all manner of pejorative to us."

But, of course, then you do reply and your reply is nothing more than a crock of insults, typical.
That's the inner-Democrat in you which cannot focus on issues, only on throwing out ad hominems.
Whereas today's Democrats charge opponents with being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” the famous "basket of deplorables".
That's how Democrats think and talk, it's all they've ever needed.

And that's all you have too, because as a natural-born Democrat, you never learned anything else, right?

wardaddy: "On the other hand I don’t hide so why should I listen to self righteous coward?"

I have no idea who you are and that is sort of the deal here.
It keeps people like you from threatening those you disagree with, doesn't it?