Conservatives Should Feel No Investment in Confederate Monuments

In the wave of cancellations sweeping America, Confederate statues have been particularly hard hit.

They have been graffitied, assaulted, and torn down, while authorities rush to remove them.

For his part, President Donald Trump has been a steadfast defender of the statues and other forms of recognition of the Confederacy. He has come out in favor of preserving the names of military bases named after Confederate generals and pointedly said that we should build on our heritage rather than tear it down.

Conservatives tend to think the same way. They reflexively oppose politically correct campaigns to destroy anything giving offense.

They fear where the slippery slope of woke iconoclasm will lead — first it’s Jefferson Davis, ultimately George Washington.

This impulse, though, is a mistake. Confederate statues and symbols deserve to be reevaluated, and often mothballed.

n the wave of cancellations sweeping America, Confederate statues have been particularly hard hit.

They have been graffitied, assaulted, and torn down, while authorities rush to remove them.

Conservatives tend to think the same way. They reflexively oppose politically correct campaigns to destroy anything giving offense.

They fear where the slippery slope of woke iconoclasm will lead — first it’s Jefferson Davis, ultimately George Washington.

This impulse, though, is a mistake. Confederate statues and symbols deserve to be reevaluated, and often mothballed.

You certainly have a unique (and malleable) definition of rebellion that doesn’t seem to match the whole rest of the world’s.

I often find myself at odds with the rest of the world. Most of them think socialism is a good idea, and it does not bother me at all to be correct when the vast majority of everyone else is wrong.

The definition of “rebellion” in Merriam-Webster (certainly not a fringe publication) states that rebellion is:
1: Opposition to one in authority or dominance
2a: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or resistance to an established government
2b: an instance of such defiance or resistance

The premise which you assert, but which is incorrect, is that the Federal government in Washington DC represents the "authority" in question. Once secession has taken place, that government is no longer the authority. For proof of this, I point out the nation's founding document which clearly states:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We have a built in methodology for "disestablishing" an "established" government. It's part of our core structure. Therefore you definition doesn't apply, because it doesn't recognize this unique characteristic of America's foundation principle.

By this definition the Civil War was a rebellion, as was Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion, to use just a few examples from American history.

The Whiskey rebellion and Shay's rebellion do not compare to holding statewide democratic elections, and therefore implementing the express will of the people of the states involved. It is clearly recognized that these states had the right to do so in 1776, and so therefore they had this same right "four score and seven years" later.

You still have not stated why the Merriam-Webster definition was wrong and yours is correct.

Just did. Didn't think I needed to, but some people need things spelled out for them.

In addition, your definition of rebellion is very changeable. You had previously stated, and I quote, that a “rebellion is an effort to take control of an existing government”.

It certainly is in our society. As I mentioned, we have a built in methodology for going our own way, so doing that cannot be "rebellion." It's in accordance with our legal framework, not contrary to it. In such a system, the only way to "rebel" is to usurp the rightful authority, and attempt to force your control on other states which do not want it.

Lincoln "rebelled."

So, we attempted to take control of an existing government in the American Revolution?

Clearly you are not listening. That definition applies to the American (current) system of governance in which "independence" is a right. Therefore leaving is not rebellion.

The only avenue left for "rebellion" is attempting to take over an established government.

Under the British system, it is doing anything contrary to the desire of the King.

Your definition does not encompass both systems. It is only valid for the British system, not the American system.

By the way, I just love your defining out the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion since they weren’t preceeded by statewide elections.

Still not listening. The Declaration of Independence (our founding document, by the way) makes it clear that when it is the will of the people, it is valid. When it is not, it is "rebellion."

The People are sovereign under our system of governance, and the "State" is the geographically defined area representing the People. It is that way today, just as it was in 1776.

So, to summarize, Digones Lamp is right and everybody else is wrong because Diogenes Lamp says so.

I get this a lot from people who cannot understand, or refuse to understand a point they don't like. No, they are not wrong because DiogenesLamp says so. DiogenesLamp says so because they are wrong.

You have your cause and effect reversed.

I have shown you the proof as to why they are wrong, and you simply don't want to accept it.

I am also accustomed to people refusing to accept reality.

Sounds like a very comfortable little world you’ve created for yourself. Hope you’re enjoying it.

We all live in reality. Some of us recognize it, and some of us don't. "Enjoying it" has nothing to do with it. It is what it is, even if you don't enjoy it.

For WBTS discussion purposes, Bouvier's law Dictionary provides a useful, contemporary source for definitions in use at the time.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

REBELLION, crim. law. The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
2. If the rebellion amount to treason, it is punished by the laws of the United States with death. If it be a mere resistance of process, it is generally punished by fine and imprisonment. See Dalloz, Dict. h. t.; Code Penal, 209.
- - - - -
INSURRECTION. A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8. gives power to congress "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
3. By the act of Congress of the 28th of February, 1795, 1 Story's L. U. S. 389, it is provided: 1. That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number, of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as be shall think proper. And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
4. - 2 That, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of congress.
5. - 3. That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the president, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the president shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

Article 4, section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article I, section 8, Clase 15, provides Congress shall have the power

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.

insurrection. (15c) A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usu. a government. ...
“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” 77 C.J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 29, at 579 (1994).

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019.

This may be what constrains President Trump without a State invitation to use federal troops.

Basically, one of the President's duties is to enforce the laws. So it says in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ..."

That is what Eisenhower was doing by enforcing what the Supreme Court said the law was and what a Federal Court ordered, and the state was clearly not complying with that order. I am glad that Eisenhower acted. I watched what was going on in Little Rock a thousand miles away on TV as it was happening - I was with a fellow fraternity brother who had graduated from Central High School three or four months before Eisenhower acted.

How does the integration law differ from other Federal laws that deal with civil rights, property rights, protection of property, and the protection of the physical person from harm? These have been violated by the mobs all over the country in recent days and are essentially being ignored by some apparently helpless, or intentionally so, governors and mayors. Shouldn't the President make sure that Federal laws that deal with such issues are enforced? Aren't they just as valid as the integration law? Does the President have to wait until a court order is ignored or fought against by local officials?

I looked up one of the Force Bills of 1871, which is still in force apparently. It was entitled, "An act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes."

Here is a link to it: Link.

I extract the following text from it [red bold highlight is mine]:

. . . or shall conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway or upon the premises of another for the purposes, either directly or indirectly, of depriving any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws, or shall conspire together for the purpose of in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny any citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws, or to injure any person in his person or his property for lawfully enforcing the right of any person or class of persons to the equal protection of the laws, each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime, and upon conviction thereof in any district or circuit court of the United States or district or supreme court of any Territory of the United States having jurisdiction of similar offenses, shall be punished by a fine not less than five hundred nor more than 5,000 dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, as the court may determine, for a period of not less than six months nor more than six years, as the court may determine, or by both such fine and imprisonment as the court shall determine. . . .

I don't see the word President in that bill, but I have seen it stated online, "The Third Force Act, dated April 1871, empowered the president to use the armed forces to combat those who conspired to deny equal protection of the laws and to suspend habeas corpus, if necessary, to enforce the act."

The Act deals primarily with the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was necessary to stop some of the violence occurring during the time. The first part of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What make the 1957 case different? Was it that the governor was actually obstructing the law from being upheld? Should Trump step in to enforce the protection of lives and property not being handled well at all by some governors and mayors. At least, Trump is threatening to take action against those who destroy statues.

What make the 1957 case different?

What distinguishes the 1957 case is Eisenhower was enforcing an order of a Federal court. Ike was assisting the Federal court marshals, or making believe and using that as a fig leaf for legality. In any case, there was no lengthy involvement for the airborne unit.

The primary law for domestic violence is the Federal Constitution, Article 4, Section 4,

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

There has been no application by a state legislature. Recall George W. Bush delaying entry into Louisiana after Katrina, waiting on the State invite. There is no Federal law or Federal court order involved. While the President sees that the laws are enforced, that is in reference to the Federal laws. Lincoln purported to act because enforcement of the Federal tax laws were being interfered with by combinations of persons, not a state or municipality. As soon as Federal troops are inserted, lawsuits will be filed.

Trump moved in the District of Columbia where he did not need a State invitation.

There is also the consideration that the Dems want to goad Trump into sending in troops to create an election issue. They want to use the troops as props. Tey will keep them there until election day if they could. The lads in Northern Ireland kept the British soldiers busy for years. As a political matter, it is better for now to let the people see what a Dem-led future might look like.

When Trump just just stationed some troops in the area around D.C., the general took away their hardhats, guns and ammo. I would not want to go anywhere as a military presence except with a show of overwhelming force; such that nobody would be stupid enough to start a fight. I would not want any part of that good will ambassador crap. If the troops are deployed, they must be able to use force.

One thing for sure — we are in strange times. I have never before witnessed this particular crazy.

While the President sees that the laws are enforced, that is in reference to the Federal laws.

That was my point in citing a federal law, the Force Act of 1871. It was passed by Congress, and it specified the penalty of fines and/or prison time for people convicted of violated it. Are not today's rioters "preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws" as the 1871 Force Act specified? President Grant used these and other laws to protect blacks, but the wording of the Act also refers to "any person or any class of persons."

However, I just discovered this morning the following:

The U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings also undermined the Acts. In United States v. Reese et al. 1876 and the United States v. Cruikshank 1876 opponents of the Enforcement Acts challenged their constitutionality. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs and concluded that voting rights are best-regulated by state authorities without federal intervention.

Didn't know that until now. I though what was restraining Trump from using those old laws was the thought that the Democrats could then cite the requirement of the 1807 Insurrection Act that the governor or legislature must request the president's aid in stopping the insurrection or riots.

To do so without the request of a governor or legislature might result in a second impeachment bill against Trump. I thought for a while that might be holding Trump back.

I also found the following analysis:

Lynne Rambo, professor emerita at the Texas A&M University School of Law, said a president can invoke the Insurrection Act under five circumstances.

First, if there is a fear of action to overthrow a state, the president can send in troops if a state legislature asks him to. Second, the president can do so at the request of the state’s governor if the legislature cannot convene. In the third circumstance, if there is a threat of federal law being broken, the president could also deploy the military. Rambo said this section was used by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy against Arkansas, Mississippi and twice in Alabama when the states refused to desegregate schools.

Under the fourth and fifth circumstances, Rambo said the president can invoke the act if there is domestic violence that threatens the rights of any “part or class of the people,” and the “constituted authorities of that state are unable, fail, or refuse to protect” rights, privileges or immunity, or if the domestic violence opposes or obstructs the execution of federal law.

So without the request of a state legislature or governor, would Trump be able to send federal troops into a city or state?

Rambo said the president might also say that state authorities are refusing or failing to protect the rights of a class of people.

“There you would look for him to invoke the rights of anyone whose property is being damaged, but he would also have to be prepared to say that the states were refusing or failing to protect the rights of those owners, a rather controversial declaration,” she said.

In the third circumstance, if there is a threat of federal law being broken, the president could also deploy the military. Rambo said this section was used by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy against Arkansas....

But note Ike's care in stating "not to enforce integration." He clearly relied on a USDC order (and a plea from the mayor).

Are not today's rioters "preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws" as the 1871 Force Act specified?

I would not be comfortable relying on the Force Act of 1871.

I would note that "todays rioters" are not a State government. The Federal Constitution appears to apply against State action, and not individual action. With Ike, the State had called up the National Guard to oppose a Federal court order.

Trump is exercising restraint. Even if he could get away with sending in troops, there would be very bad optics and litigation through election day.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/42nd-congress/session-1/c42s1ch22.pdf

Force Act of 20 April 1871, 17 Stat. 13

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep106629/

United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 637-39 (1883)

It is however strenuously insisted that the legislation under consideration finds its warrant in the first and fifth sections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first section declares "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The fifth section declares "The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this amendment."
It is perfectly clear from the language of the first section that its purpose also was to place a restraint upon the action of the states. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, it was held by the majority of the Court, speaking through MR. JUSTICE MILLER, that the object of the second clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and this was conceded by MR. JUSTICE FIELD, who expressed the views of the dissenting Justices in that case. In the same case the Court, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, said that "if the states do not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation."
The purpose and effect of the two sections of the Fourteenth Amendment above quoted were clearly defined by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods 316, as follows: "It is a guaranty of protection against the acts of the state government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and legislature of the state, not a guaranty against the commission of individual offenses, and the power of Congress, whether express or implied, to legislate for the enforcement of such a guaranty does not extend to the passage of laws for the suppression of crime within the states. The enforcement of the guaranty does not require or authorize Congress to perform 'the duty that the guaranty itself supposes it to be the duty of the state to perform, and which it requires the state to perform."
When the case of United States v. Cruikshank came to this Court, the same view was taken here. The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the Court in that case, said: "The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, but this provision does not add anything to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the states upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the states, and it remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the states do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, and no more. The power of the national government is limited to this guaranty."
So, in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, it was declared by this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Strong, that "these provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment have reference to state action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals."
These authorities show conclusively that the legislation under consideration finds no warrant for its enactment in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The language of the amendment does not leave this subject in doubt. When the state has been guilty of no violation of its provisions; when it has not made or enforced any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; when no one of its departments has deprived any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; when, on the contrary, the laws of the state, as enacted by its legislative and construed by its judicial and administered by its executive departments recognize and protect the rights of all persons, the amendment imposes no duty and confers no power upon Congress.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep506263/

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993)

Scalia, J., Opinion of the Court. Jay Sekulow argued for the Plaintiff. Deputy Solicitor John G. Roberts argued for the United States as amicus.

Syllabus at 263:

Held: "The first clause of § 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics."

Opinion of the Court at 282:

Even, moreover, if the "hindrance"-clause claim did not fail for lack of class-based animus, it would still fail unless the "hindrance" clause applies to a private conspiracy aimed at rights that are constitutionally protected only against official (as opposed to private) encroachment.

Trump is exercising restraint. Even if he could get away with sending in troops, there would be very bad optics and litigation through election day.

I quite understand your point about bad optics and litigation for Trump.

Didn't seem to bother President Lyndon Johnson though when he sent troops to Washington, D.C. when rioters after the death of Martin Luther King outnumbered the DC police. Of course, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress at that time (and the press and the TV channels).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11403

Executive Order 11403 by President of the United States
Providing for the restoration of law and order in the Washington Metropolitan Area

WHEREAS I have today issued Proclamation No. 3840, calling upon persons engaged in acts of violence and disorder in the Washington metropolitan area to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith; and

WHEREAS the conditions of domestic violence and disorder described therein continue, and the persons engaging in such acts of violence have not dispersed:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and by virtue of the authority vested in me as commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia by the Act of March 1, 1889, as amended (D.C. Code, Title 39), it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to disperse all persons engaged in the acts of violence described in the proclamation, to restore law and order, and to see that the property, personnel and functions of the Federal Government, of embassies of foreign governments, and of international organizations in the Washington metropolitan area are protected against violence or other interference.

SECTION 2. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as be may deem necessary.

SECTION 3. (a) The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed to call into the active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders. Units or members may be relieved subject to recall at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use units and members called or recalled into active military service of the United States pursuant to this section.

(b) In addition, in carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to exercise any of the powers vested in me by law as commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia, during such time as any units or members of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard of the District shall not have been called into the active military service of the United States.

SECTION 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to one or more of the Secretaries of the military Departments any of the authority conferred upon him by this order.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

The White House,

4:03 P.M. Friday, April 5, 1968.

On Friday, April 5, President Johnson dispatched 11,850 federal troops and 1,750 D.C. Army National Guardsmen to assist the overwhelmed D.C. police force.[15] Marines mounted machine guns on the steps of the Capitol and Army soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Regiment guarded the White House. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, North Carolina and 6th Cavalry Regiment from Fort Meade, Maryland were among the principal federal forces sent to the city. At one point, on April 5, rioting reached within two blocks of the White House before rioters retreated. The occupation of Washington was the largest of any American city since the Civil War.

Federal troops and National Guardsmen imposed a strict curfew, worked riot control, patrolled the streets, guarded looted stores, and provided aid to those who were displaced by the rioting. They continued to remain after the rioting had officially ceased to protect against a second riot and further damage.[22][7][8]

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.