Virginia governor to announce removal of Lee statue

AP via WSPA ^ | June 3, 2020 | ALAN SUDERMAN and SARAH RANKIN

[buckalfa]

Primary Menu NEWS VIDEO WEATHER SPORTS LIVIN’ UPSTATE YOUR CAROLINA COMMUNITY REPORT IT! ABOUT US CW62 Search LIVE NOW Watch 7News Live at 5

Virginia governor to announce removal of Lee statue NEWS by: ALAN SUDERMAN and SARAH RANKIN Associated Press

Posted: Jun 3, 2020 / 05:26 PM EDT / Updated: Jun 3, 2020 / 05:41 PM EDT

FILE – This Tuesday, June 2, 2020 file photo shows a large group of protesters gather around the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue near downtown in Richmond, Va. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is expected to announce plans Thursday for the removal of an iconic statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Richmond’s prominent Monument Avenue. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, File)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is expected to announce plans Thursday for the removal of an iconic statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Richmond’s prominent Monument Avenue.

A senior administration official told The Associated Press that the governor will direct the statue to be moved off its massive pedestal and put into storage while his administration seeks input on a new location.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've read that speech without the confederacy amen corner's cherry picking. Yes, he made those comments, but he was quoting an earlier speech when he wouldn't have had the power to abolish slavery.

And here you are cherry picking the parts of the speech you like. Do you not believe him when he urged the passage of the Corwin Amendment which would have had the practical effect of guaranteeing slavery indefinitely?

He also had to deal with the reality that many in the north also wanted to keep slavery, so he had to talk from both sides of his mouth as politicians do.

Talk from both sides of his mouth? The reason politicians do this is because their "principles" are flexible meaning they will become whatever they need to become to attain political or economic gain for themselves and their coalition. Their real "principle" is maintaining power, and they will often do whatever they think will hold on to that power, including protecting slavery.

Now that you have identified Lincoln as talking out both sides of his mouth, how can you trust his motives for what he was doing?

His actions had the consequence of freeing the slaves, but it had an even more important consequence to his allies in preventing the loss of huge sums of money and power from their control. With the South going independent, the northern shipping and manufacturing industry would have been devastated. Allowing the South to remain independent would have created a massive economic depression in the most powerful industries of that day, which were backing Lincoln for the Presidency.

New York city and Washington DC would have taken huge losses from the South trading directly with Europe, and they would have taken even further losses from European products flowing into the South and border states at much cheaper prices than domestic manufacturing was willing to produce.

There was a mountain of money and markets at stake for Lincoln's wealthy allies in this nation if the South wasn't stopped from going around American laws intended to keep control in New York and Washington.

So given that Lincoln urged the passing of a slavery protection amendment, which issue do you think he feels the more strongly about? Getting freedom for slaves, or protecting his powerful money men in the North East?

Slavery was abolished after the Civil War. That is the bottom line.

It was the unintended consequence. Their goal was to keep it exactly as it was, but when the South put up such a great fight, they felt it was necessary to destroy the South in any way they could conceive. As long as the potential existed for the South to trade with Europe and flood the USA with cheaper European made products, the South constituted a dire threat to the industrial giants of the Northeast; those people who came to be called "robber barons" and who's descendants are still controlling Washington DC today, but which we now call "Deep State" and "Crony Capitalists."

Trump is fighting the same bastards that Lincoln helped to keep in power.

Um, you are aware this same US government did abolish slavery after the war, right?

When you use it as a political and military weapon, you don't just get to say "I didn't mean it" afterwards. Abolishing slavery destroyed the Southern economic power and prevented them from recovering enough to try an independence movement again. After the war, if slavery had remained intact, the South would have so greatly hated the North that they would have absolutely refused to use their shipping or manufacturing, and would have been a constant economic thorn in their side, undermining them in any manner they could. They would have eventually made another try to separate themselves from the people who invaded them, and eventually they would have succeeded.

Destroying their economic base prevented this from happening, and I now believe this was the greater reason why this was done. This was a cold hard money and power calculation, and the powers that be chose the outcome that best suited their future economic and political strength. About the slaves, they didn't give a d@mn. They just didn't want the threat of Southern economic power recurring.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Let's see. On one hand I have an anonymous poster who never lived in the confederacy and was born long after it was abolished telling me one thing.

On the other hand, I have Frederick Douglass, a man who was a slave in the democrat run south that was freed by the Republican run north, and who lived through these times and was an eyewitness to these events, telling me something else.

Who am I going to believe?

That was easy.

OK, to your points.

Do you not believe him when he urged the passage of the Corwin Amendment which would have had the practical effect of guaranteeing slavery indefinitely?

He didn't push for passing it, he just didn't oppose it. Why should he bother when it didn't have a chance? He would have only alienated those in the north who didn't want to abolish slavery. Yes, I admitted it again that not everyone in the north supported abolishing slavery. He had to deal with all of these different factions.

It never passed, and he ultimately was able to abolish slavery.

Now that you have identified Lincoln as talking out both sides of his mouth, how can you trust his motives for what he was doing?

The slaves were freed. Trust the results of his actions.

His actions had the consequence of freeing the slaves, but it had an even more important consequence to his allies in preventing the loss of huge sums of money and power from their control...

In your last post you said "The US government was *NOT* going to give up 73% of it's income, no matter what rhetorical blather they would express on the subject of slavery." I'll leave it to you to reconcile these two posts.

[DiogenesLamp]

He didn't push for passing it, he just didn't oppose it.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

William Seward was the lead proponent of the Corwin Amendment in the Senate, and he assured everyone that he could get New York to pass this amendment. William Seward was Lincoln's secretary of state, and Lincoln's claim that he had not seen the amendment is very likely another case of him talking out both sides of his mouth. There is evidence that Lincoln constantly pushed behind the scenes to get this thing through the congress, which did in fact pass it. Five Northern states also voted to ratify it. If Seward could deliver New York as he promised, that would make six. With the addition of the 16 slave holding states, that would be 22 states which would approve this amendment.

This leaves only 3 more states required to pass this amendment, and I assure you that if New York (Seward) and Ohio (Corwin) passed this thing, all their little satellite states would have followed suit.

Lincoln also took what I believe to be the unprecedented step of writing letters to each governor of every state, including the seceded southern states, informing them of the passage of the Corwin amendment. If he was opposed to the passage of this amendment, why would he attempt to expedite it's passage by informing these governors?

The slaves were freed. Trust the results of his actions.

If he had said that was his intention from the beginning, then there would be some credibility to your claim, but as he intended to leave the slaves in bondage for nearly the first two years of the war, you can hardly claim he was fighting it on their behalf.

Charles Dickens summed up the situation perfectly.

"Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale. For the rest, there's not a pins difference between the two parties. They will both rant and lie and fight until they come to a compromise; and the slave may be thrown into that compromise or thrown out, just as it happens."

Had the South capitulated sooner, the slave would have been thrown out of the compromise and would have remained in bondage. Lincoln even said so in his letter to Horace Greeley.

[M Kehoe]

Well, General Robert E. Lee never wore blackface or wanted to kill babies.

5.56mm

[TwelveOfTwenty]

In true democrat form, you left out the last line of his letter, which was:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

I'll choose Frederick Douglass' account over yours. At least he was there.

[DiogenesLamp]

In true democrat form, you left out the last line of his letter, which was:

That is a great distortion. I did in fact leave out the vast bulk of his speech, and I did not happen to leave out the last line in particular. It was no more significant to my point than the vast bulk of the other stuff that was left out.

I presumed that if you wanted to read his speech, you could look it up as well as I, and read it to your heart's content.

I'll choose Frederick Douglass' account over yours. At least he was there.

I don't see the relevance of your stated desire to believe Frederick Douglass's apologetic for Lincoln. Lincoln's actions speak plainly enough if you had the objectivity to see them as they are.

Lincoln didn't invade the south for the purpose of stopping slavery. He invaded the south to stop it from advancing it's own economic interests to the detriment of the powerful men of Industry backing him as President.

He was the beginning of the "Crony Capitalism" that runs Washington now. The corruption he ushered in just came into view under the Grant administration rather than his own.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

That is a great distortion. I did in fact leave out the vast bulk of his speech, and I did not happen to leave out the last line in particular. It was no more significant to my point than the vast bulk of the other stuff that was left out.

In addition to that line, you left out mostly greetings and the sign off.

Here's the entire letter. The readers can decide for themselves if you pulled a Chuck Todd.

I don't see the relevance of your stated desire to believe Frederick Douglass's apologetic for Lincoln.

He was there. He lived in the south as a slave, and he was freed as a result of the Civil War.

Why should I believe you?

[DiogenesLamp]

In addition to that line, you left out mostly greetings and the sign off.

Okay, now you've really got me confused. I did not quote anything at all from the Letter to Horace Greeley, I did quote from Lincoln's first inaugural, which is what I assumed you were referring to. I mentioned the letter to Horace Greeley, but I did not quote anything from it at all. So instead of your accusation of "In true democrat form, you left out the last line of his letter...", you should have said "You didn't quote any part of his letter at all!"

That would have been accurate. Saying "In true democrat form, you left out the last line of his letter..." is completely inaccurate because it implies I quoted something from this letter, which I did not, at least not in the message to which you are responding.

So is it "true Democrat form..." to accuse someone of something they didn't do?

He was there. He lived in the south as a slave, and he was freed as a result of the Civil War.

So his experience made him an expert on Lincoln? It's my recollection that Lincoln had disdain for Frederick Douglas, so i'm not sure Lincoln would have been confiding in him regarding his plans or intentions.

We people who lived later can often get a better picture of events than the participants because we can see information they did not have available to them at the time. Like the financial records showing how much Southern trade caused to flow into the US Treasury, as well as into the pockets of Lincolns "Robber Barons" in New York City.

Why should I believe you?

You shouldn't. I never ask anyone to believe anything on my word alone. I constantly urge them to read the histories I point out to them, and think for themselves rather than just parroting the propaganda we've all been taught our entire lives.

Anyone who believes something simply on someone else's say so is a fool.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

So is it "true Democrat form..." to accuse someone of something they didn't do?

That you cherry pick what suits your beliefs? That's true IMHO. That I got the speeches you referenced crossed? I'll take your word for it.

So his experience made him an expert on Lincoln? It's my recollection that Lincoln had disdain for Frederick Douglas, so i'm not sure Lincoln would have been confiding in him regarding his plans or intentions.

Where do you get that? Abraham Lincoln Meets Frederick Douglass.

We people who lived later can often get a better picture of events than the participants because we can see information they did not have available to them at the time.

Where do you think the information we look at now came from? From the people who lived through it.

Like the financial records showing how much Southern trade caused to flow into the US Treasury, as well as into the pockets of Lincolns "Robber Barons" in New York City.

So what? You keep throwing that around as if it proves anything. I get it. Everyone in the north was not for abolition. That was what President Lincoln had to deal with when he was elected in 1860. Frederick Douglass, who had no reason to trust whites, understood this.

It doesn't prove anything. When it was all over, slavery was abolished by the positive actions of President Lincoln and the Republicans.

You shouldn't. I never ask anyone to believe anything on my word alone. I constantly urge them to read the histories I point out to them, and think for themselves rather than just parroting the propaganda we've all been taught our entire lives.

I doubt you and I agree on what is the propaganda, but Kudos to you for challenging others to research for themselves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where do you get that? Abraham Lincoln Meets Frederick Douglass.

That certainly supports your position, but it sounds like a play someone had written rather than a contemporary account of what happened. I've read elsewhere that Lincoln wasn't too fond of Frederick Douglas, but I have no doubt he did the politically expedient thing in public.

It doesn't prove anything. When it was all over, slavery was abolished by the positive actions of President Lincoln and the Republicans.

That is in fact so, but it misses the point. The goal wasn't to abolish slavery, and this point seemingly gets lost on everyone who has no interest in understanding what the real goal was.

The real goal was to maintain control of the South's economic activities and prevent them from becoming a threat to the powerful men in the North who's ideological descendants have been controlling Washington DC ever since.

I doubt you and I agree on what is the propaganda, but Kudos to you for challenging others to research for themselves.

If you tell people something, they just think you are trying to convince them of something. If you tell them how and where to find the information they need, they will convince themselves. Nobody listens to anyone better than they listen to themselves.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

That certainly supports your position, but it sounds like a play someone had written rather than a contemporary account of what happened. I've read elsewhere that Lincoln wasn't too fond of Frederick Douglas, but I have no doubt he did the politically expedient thing in public.

The real goal was to maintain control of the South's economic activities and prevent them from becoming a threat to the powerful men in the North who's ideological descendants have been controlling Washington DC ever since.

Well then I guess we'll all have to decide what to believe, you or our lying eyes.

[DiogenesLamp]

You may not grasp this, but not only were the Southern states responsible for 73% of all the taxes paid into the US Government, 60% of the money from slavery ended up in the pockets of people in New York and Washington DC.

In 1860, the Federal government's prime source of income was tariffs. Tariffs were collected on import goods. Import goods were paid for with export goods, of which the South produced 73% of the total export value for the entire nation.

They were creating the import traffic that paid the taxes into the Federal government, and since they created 73% of the export value, they effectively created 73% of the return import value, on which the tariff's were collected.

The Southern 1/5th of the US population was producing 73% of the taxes, while the Northern 4/5ths of the population was only producing 27% of the taxes.

Don't take my word for it. Look it up here.

But only look it up if you want to know the truth. If you want to continue enjoying your comfortable myth, then by all means refuse to look at anything which proves it wrong.

Oh, and by the way, that book was written and published by a New Yorker in 1860. He was a Northerner and it was before the war when it was published.

[I got the rope]

Bttt

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Don't take my word for it. Look it up here.

I don't have to, because it doesn't prove anything.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I take that back, it does prove something. These numbers were from 1860, but SC started their efforts to leave the union in 1852 due to their fear of the abolitionists taking their slaves. That shows that the abolitionist movement was in full swing in spite of this.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't have to, because it doesn't prove anything.

It clearly does. Washington DC and New York power brokers (same bastards we are still fighting for control of the country today.) would lose millions if the South was allowed to secede.

They weren't going to sit idly by and allow those millions to go out of their pockets.

[DiogenesLamp]

but SC started their efforts to leave the union in 1852...

South Carolina has been attempting to secede since the 1820s. They were long unhappy with the Union and wanted out.

John Calhoun was the leading advocate of South Carolina leaving the Union, and he kept stirring up support for decades prior to the Civil War. He was such a pest that in 1830 President Andrew Jackson said:

"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body!"

1852? You are at least 20 years behind the movement to leave.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

It clearly does. Washington DC and New York power brokers (same bastards we are still fighting for control of the country today.) would lose millions if the South was allowed to secede.

You must really think you have something here. Yes money was to be made with slavery by some, but others wanted it abolished. The abolitionists won, slavery was abolished, and those almighty power brokers to whom you attribute the power to control everything lost the revenue generated by slavery that you think they tried and clearly failed to preserve.

1852? You are at least 20 years behind the movement to leave.

Completely irrelevant. In 1852 they cited abolition and northern attempts to end slavery as their reason for wanting out, which proves it was about keeping their slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

You must really think you have something here. Yes money was to be made with slavery by some, but others wanted it abolished.

A teeny tiny minority of anti-slavery liberals wanted it abolished, but the vast majority of the country didn't care one way or the other so long as black people were kept out of their states.

and those almighty power brokers to whom you attribute the power to control everything lost the revenue generated by slavery that you think they tried and clearly failed to preserve.

It's amusing that you think the export revenue is the dominant pile of money at stake. It is not. The total export revenue for 1860 was 200 million out of a 4 billion economy.

The loss of the 200 million would hurt them, but what would absolutely wreck them was the Southern willingness to allow competing European products to flood the domestic markets in the US, putting the more expensive domestic producers out of business.

Here we are not talking about 200 million shifting from the North to the South, which would also happen. We are talking about a billion or so in income being destroyed through the advent of European produced replacement products.

Additionally, the greater capitalization of Southern industries would have resulted in increasing domestic competition from Southern producers at the expense of Northern producers.

New York, the Wealthiest city in the United States, would have seen it's trade traffic shifted to Southern ports, and it would have become a hollow of it's former self.

Completely irrelevant. In 1852 they cited abolition and northern attempts to end slavery as their reason for wanting out, which proves it was about keeping their slaves.

You aren't keeping up here. They wanted out in the 1820s too. They were looking for any excuse they thought would work.

Even so, whatever their excuse was, it has nothing to do with why the North launched an invasion into the South. The only reasons that matter are those of the attackers, not those of the defenders, and the attackers were invading to protect their rich people in the Northeast, and not because they cared about the suffering of the slaves which they had been greatly profiting from for the previous several decades.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

A teeny tiny minority of anti-slavery liberals wanted it abolished, but the vast majority of the country didn't care one way or the other so long as black people were kept out of their states.

That doesn't even make sense. The abolitionists won, so they were more than "A teeny tiny minority".

Whatever the numbers of those who wanted to keep slavery alive, there weren't enough of them with enough power to prevent its abolition.

And although it seems you mean to associate the abolitionists with modern liberals, you made a technically correct point that they would have been considered liberals in their day.

The loss of the 200 million would hurt them, but what would absolutely wreck them was the Southern willingness to allow competing European products to flood the domestic markets in the US, putting the more expensive domestic producers out of business. Here we are not talking about 200 million shifting from the North to the South, which would also happen. We are talking about a billion or so in income being destroyed through the advent of European produced replacement products. Additionally, the greater capitalization of Southern industries would have resulted in increasing domestic competition from Southern producers at the expense of Northern producers. New York, the Wealthiest city in the United States, would have seen it's trade traffic shifted to Southern ports, and it would have become a hollow of it's former self.

All of this is conjecture that proves nothing, but you post it as if it was historical fact. We don't know that any of this would have happened.

We do know what did happen. Slavery was abolished.

You aren't keeping up here. They wanted out in the 1820s too.

I haven't seen any indication that it went back that far, but I'll grant that aboltion wasn't the only issue. However, it was their reason for making the decision to secede.

How Did Southerners Justify Secession?

There's plenty more where this came from if you need more.

They were looking for any excuse they thought would work.

You probably can't even see what's wrong with that.

Even so, whatever their excuse was, it has nothing to do with why the North launched an invasion into the South. The only reasons that matter are those of the attackers, not those of the defenders, and the attackers were invading to protect their rich people in the Northeast, and not because they cared about the suffering of the slaves which they had been greatly profiting from for the previous several decades.

Are you even serious? If nobody cared there wouldn't have been an abolitionist movement in the first place, and the abolitionists wouldn't have won. The readers can decide for themselves whether your conjecture refutes these facts.