Will this convince some Biden voters to flip for Trump?
Will it motivate some reluctant Trumpers to get out & vote?
I don't think so, do you?
Further, all these points have been argued ad infinitum, certainly to my satisfaction, so why not to yours?
From the article: "A typical calumny directed at Confederate soldiers is that they don’t merit commemoration because they were traitors.
It is a lie... "
The historical truth is that President Andrew Johnson issued thousands of individual pardons to Confederates who requested them, and eventually a blanket pardon to virtually all Confederates.
So legally, the issue of "traitors" is totally mute, and it's strictly a matter of opinion as to whether Confederates waging war against the United States meets the Constitution's definition of "treason".
I would simply notice that if there was no treason, then there'd be no need for pardons.
Case closed, right?
robowombat: "No independent nation would tolerate foreign military bases in the middle of a major city. "
Total nonsense since there are US & other military bases in many foreign countries all over the world.
And not all are friendly invites -- for many years in Berlin US forces there were threatened with war, Communist Cubans today demand US withdrawal from Guantanamo Bay, Spaniards demand Brits withdraw from Gibraltar, etc.
But perhaps the best examples are the long list of British forts & trading posts in US states & Northwest Territories after the Revolutionary War was over and Brits agreed to withdraw -- they didn't, for many years.
And one result of British support for Northwest Indians was the 1791 St. Clair's Defeat, recognized as the greatest single US Army defeat (relatively speaking) in US history.
US Gen. Arthur St. Clair's force of 1,000 men was almost entirely killed near headwaters of the Wabash River in Ohio.
And yet our Founders never used British forts on US territory or British support for Northwest Indians as an excuse to start a war.
robowombat: "Lincoln would not accept secession.
The big, unasked question is why?
Not the usual intoning of saving the union’..."
Why not?
What Marxist brainwashing did you receive which lead you to believe that American ideals and the US Constitution are of no consequence, and only Marxist economics & class warfare can explain "the real reasons"?
The truth, as many have pointed out (i.e., OIFVeteran) is the President has no authority to accept unilateral unapproved declarations of secession, period.
Congress might (it would need to be adjudicated) have that authority, but the President on his own cannot authorize states to come or go.
Lincoln's best offer to secessionists is the one he made in his First Inaugural -- in effect, "peaceful coexistence".
If Confederates would allow the Feds to do their basic functions -- i.e., mail, tariffs -- he'd leave them otherwise alone.
Confederate newspapers called that a Declaration of War.
robowombat: "...why was the US unable to exist without South Carolina."
South Carolina itself contributed virtually nothing to Federal revenues.
The entire seven-state Confederacy contributed well under 10% of Federal tariff revenues.
So the "real reason" was just what they said at the time: President Buchanan announced in February 1861 that the US would not give up Fort Sumter without a fight, and President Lincoln was determined the fort not surrender for lack of basic supplies.
That's it -- Jefferson Davis then used Lincoln's resupply mission has his excuse to start war at Fort Sumter.
No insane Marxist economic theories are required to explain Lincoln's actions.
robowombat: "By 1860, it seemed pretty clear most northerners wanted no part of the South and leading northern intellectuals such as Emerson encouraged feelings of hatred and contempt for Southerners."
Rubbish.
In 1860, just as today, the vast majority of Americans North and South loved their Union, revered their Constitution and respected their Federal government.
But then, just as today, a minority of radical Democrats (then known as "Fire Eaters") began waging political warfare against the United States and were successful in convincing a majority in the Deep South that Republican victory in 1860 meant the utter destruction of life as they knew it.
Perhaps the state of Mississippi said it best:
- "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove..."