Posted on 09/06/2021 9:14:41 PM PDT by RandFan
Richmond's statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee — the largest remaining Confederate statue in the country and a divisive symbol in a city where a number of similar statues have already been removed — will be taken down Wednesday.
"Virginia’s largest monument to the Confederate insurrection will come down this week,” Gov. Ralph Northam (D) said in a statement. “This is an important step in showing who we are and what we value as a Commonwealth.”
On Tuesday evening, crews will install protective fencing along Monument and Allen avenues, where the statue is located, to restrict cars and pedestrians, The Washington Post reported. After the statue is removed Wednesday, it will be kept at a state-owned facility.
Northam first announced plans to remove the statue in June 2020, after nationwide protests following the murder of George Floyd ramped up longstanding pressure to take down the statue.
The removal was delayed for more than a year due to two lawsuits, one filed by a group of Richmond residents and the other filed by a descendant of the family who gave the statue to Virginia.
Both complaints asserted that Northam did not have the authority to remove the statue because Virginia is restricted by language in the statue's 1889 deed. A judge ruled in the state's favor in October, but the statue remained as the plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the state's Supreme Court.
The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month ruled that the statue could come down.
“As we continue our work to address systemic racism in our society, bringing this statue down will be an important step in the ongoing process of making Virginia a more open, welcoming, fair, and just place for everyone,” state Attorney General Mark Herring (D) said following the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling.
The public can watch the removal of the statue through a Facebook livestream and on Northam's Twitter handle, @GovernorVA, according to the Post.
Yet not a one word from him on the last thread on the glorious Lost Cause where I posted more historical facts demolishing his Neo-Confederate nonsense.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3979429/posts?page=1018#1018
Larry Elder says that facts to a Democrat are like Kryptonite to Superman. The same thing goes for Southrons too.
If Lee and the Confederacy had prevailed we would certainly be a very different country today.
We are fighting a gorilla war. Didn’t you see that woman in a gorilla mask go after Larry Elder? She’s ape sh*t I tell ya!
Who are these Southern bashers you speak of?
guerrilla war !
A gorrila is a animal. The use of the term guerilla war comes from the Napoleonic wars where Spanish insurgents fought the French Army. The Russian author Tolstoy first used it in reference to insurgents fighting an occupying army.
Most Democrats are animals, aren’t they? We’ve got to stop monkeying around!
Nice photo. Of course that ship didn’t arrive until after Secesh took over Fort Sumter. In fact two warships never arrived at all. And Johnny Reb opened fire before the flotilla got there.
Yup, you got it.
ya-got-a point !
You saw what I said
You’re one of them
Really? I bash the South? Can you show me a single post I’ve made denigrating the modern South? I mean is it Germany bashing to say the Nazis killed six million Jews? Is it Japan bashing to discuss the Rape of Nanking? Do I hate Turks if I bring up the Armenian genocide?
Facts are facts, bid daddy. Suck it up buttercup!
;-)
Make that BIG daddy!
Money is fungible. You use it to buy things. Then the people you give the money to can use it to buy things. You don't have the money anymore and you aren't paying the taxes on their purchases.
I don't understand the complexities of foreign trade and currency exchange, and you don't either. I do know that if you import more than you export you may have to give up gold reserves or devalue your currency. But economies have a way of working things out on their own and you will find things to export eventually.
In any case, Southern slaveowners didn't have large piles of pounds, francs, marks, and pesetas lying around. They exchanged that currency for dollars which they used to buy things or pay for services or put in the bank. The people they in essence gave the foreign currency could use that foreign money to make purchases overseas. We have gone over this endless times.
I never said the original compact between the states and the DC government was "paradise", but it was certainly better than what we've ended up after Lincoln changed the relationship between the two.
The end of the frontier, industrialization, modernization and the increase of population changed that. There is no way that we could have the economy that we have today and the government that we had in 1850. Nor is it necessarily the case that the successor states that followed the union would have things better than we have today.
Who invaded who?
We "invaded" Germany and Japan. That doesn't mean we started the war. Talk of "invasion" turns the discussion away from the actual origins of the war.
The war revolved around whether it was legal for a state to leave, and the majority of evidence indicates that yes, states had the right to leave.
Whether a state could secede was the immediate issue of the war in 1861. The deeper reason for the war was the conflict over slavery that had been growing deeper and more pointed and more impassioned for a decade.
Given that they had been paying the bulk of taxes for decades, it was pretty much their property just from payment alone, notwithstanding the fact that it was right in their harbor entrance and created for the sole purpose of defending them from aggression by sea.
If that had been the purpose they would have built it themselves. It was built to defend the US and if you aren't part of the US, the fort isn't yours. Nor of course, did the South Carolinians or other Southerners pay the bulk of the taxes.
All other evidence of which I am aware indicates that in 1878 the understanding was that states could leave if they so chose.
Certainly not. Even in 1787, if a mechanism for secession was wanted, it would have been written into the Constitution, but it wasn't so people were going to disagree about how the union might be dissolved.
The Corwin Amendment would have made it virtually impossible to do it through law, but it would still have succumbed to social pressure.
"Social pressure" in a South that had forbidden discussion of abolition wasn't going to happen. The Corwin amendment, an unsuccessful last ditch attempt at preserving the union, would have prevented federal abolition of slavery, but it did not prevent state action. As I have repeatedly noted, what the secessionists feared is that the Republicans would build their party in the Border States and the Upper South and that this would result in abolition in those states.
The problem here is that everyone agreed to this system in the beginning, and so they don't just get to shirk their responsibility for agreeing to it.
Like many secessionists in 1860, you seem to think that support for slavery was the bedrock of the Constitution. But no, there were guarantees to slaveowners, but as the country changed the Constitution could always be amended. States could also take action against slavery. Slavery was part of the constitutional compact, but it wasn't an essential, unchangeable part.
My sympathy lies with workers who would have to compete against slave labor for their wages, so far as free market economics are concerned. I fully understand why they would hate slavery.
Your sympathy today. Yesterday and tomorrow you don't show much sympathy with free state workers.
I think slavery was going to disappear in the normal course of time, but the subjugation and bloodshed has left a legacy with which we are still living today.
The "normal course of time" could have been 50 or 75 or 100 years, or even longer. The legacy of subjection and bloodshed goes back to slavery itself, and yes, we are still living with it.
When I first heard the song, I assumed that the line "But they should never have taken the very best" referred to Robert E. Lee the Civil War general. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to refer to anything explicitly mentioned in the song.
Anyway, when 1960s Canadian musicians try to write 1860s American folk songs there are bound to be mistakes.
I had to travel quite a distance this last week to comfort a friend who's son killed himself. Didn't get back till late Monday. I only just started paying attention to this site again because real world problems sometimes get in the way of academic discussions.
But no, you’ve been posting just fine. Repeating the same old, tired lies. Won’t you come out and play? Or are you avoiding me?
Well, they are not "lies", because the things I say happen to be true, but even were they not, so long as I believed them to be true, they still wouldn't be "lies."
A "lie" is saying something you know to be untrue. Being ignorant or misunderstanding something is not the same as "lying", which is why I try to educate you and others about what was really going on in the civil war.
As for avoiding you, not so much. I had been absent for awhile for the reason I described above, and when I got back I just wanted to read the news rather than rejoin what is seemingly a pointless effort to convince people that the emperor has no clothes.
In the process of catching up with the news, I often make commentary if a topic grabs my attention. So far as i'm concerned, I have all the time in the world to get back to what I mostly regard as an exchange of snark with precious little possibility that anyone is going to convince anyone else of anything else.
But it does not bother me if you think i'm avoiding you. I assumed you would figure out that theory was wrong when I started responding to you again, in this or the other thread.
I'll have to take a look at it to see if you "demolished" my "nonsense." Odds are it will be like Mark Twain's reported demise; "Greatly exaggerated."
More like saying Michele Obama’s clothes aren’t great. No one is naked, but the truth about the apparel is obvious.
Sorry about your friend’s tragic loss. Life is tough for many of us.
“ In any case, Southern slaveowners didn’t have large piles of pounds, francs, marks, and pesetas lying around. They exchanged that currency for dollars which they used to buy things or pay for services or put in the bank.”
Actually, lots of purchases were made on credit. The medium of exchange to clear the debt was cotton. Money never changed hands.
The man issued orders for that warship and others to go confront them. He fired those warships at the confederates.
And again, you miss the point. The message to which you are responding is refuting the assertion by Jmacusa that Lincoln sent a "supply" ship.
Lincoln did not send "supply ships" he sent warships and support craft for a war mission.
Lincoln told everyone it was a "supply" mission, but he didn't send "supply" ships, he sent WAR ships.
Lincoln started his propaganda early.
And Johnny Reb opened fire before the flotilla got there.
Presumably Colonel SoCal Pubbie would have waited till he was fired upon by the warships so he could take fire from both the fort AND the warships?
Colonel SoCal Pubbie might not be very good at military strategy or tactics. When you know an enemy is coming to attack you, it is foolish to hold fire against another of the enemy's force until his reinforcements get there.
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.