Confederate Statue Toppled in North Carolina

[Torrocca]

Ah, yes, Lincoln the Tyrant, a man who acted specifically to preserve the Union in defense of the Union after an armed, violent, open rebellion by the south. Right.

So, unable to cite any legal pretexts, you resort to crass propaganda, eh? We both know the South was in the right to secede, and you know it.

Like hell they were. One of their claimed reasons to be able to even secede was states rights, but they didn't give a damn about that; the Fugitive Slave Act alone proves that. Never mind their copycat Constitution of the American Constitution.

[Torrocca]

Nah, those statues were specifically built as one of many tools of black oppression in America during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement, AKA well after the war ended. They weren't built as memorials for the war, and they glorify traitors. Fuck the statues.

So fuck statues that glorify people who willingly defended their homes?

That's some fucked up logic right there.

They sure defended their homes by firing on Fort Sumter and then advancing North alright :^)

[Oil exporting People]

That is not how this was interpreted:

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

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That whenever the President of the United States shall be officially informed, by the authorities of any state, or by a judge of any circuit or district court of the United States, in the state, that, within the limits of such state, any law or laws of the United States, or the execution thereof, or of any process from the courts of the United States, is obstructed by the employment of military force, or by any other unlawful means, too great to be overcome by the ordinary course of judicial proceeding, or by the powers vested in the marshal by existing laws, it shall be lawful for him, the President of the United States, forthwith to issue his proclamation, declaring such fact or information, and requiring all such military and other force forthwith to disperse; and if at any time after issuing such proclamation, any such opposition or obstruction shall be made, in the manner or by the means aforesaid, the President shall be, and hereby is, authorized, promptly to employ such means to suppress the same, and to cause the said laws or process to be duly executed .

There was no legal course for secession, so Jackson could have used the bill to subjugate them. Secession was at least a legal grey area, if not illegal.

Quite clearly, if you read it, it makes it clear that a state under the laws of the United States and attempting to obstruct them; as South Carolina had not adopted articles of secession, this was quite clearly the case. Even ignoring that, Congress does not get to violate the Constitution despite what it or the Presidency may think.

[Vassenor]

Nah, those statues were specifically built as one of many tools of black oppression in America during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement, AKA well after the war ended. They weren't built as memorials for the war, and they glorify traitors. Fuck the statues.

So fuck statues that glorify people who willingly defended their homes and families?

That's some fucked up logic right there.

And their right to keep black people as property.

[Torrocca]

That is not how this was interpreted:

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

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That whenever the President of the United States shall be officially informed, by the authorities of any state, or by a judge of any circuit or district court of the United States, in the state, that, within the limits of such state, any law or laws of the United States, or the execution thereof, or of any process from the courts of the United States, is obstructed by the employment of military force, or by any other unlawful means, too great to be overcome by the ordinary course of judicial proceeding, or by the powers vested in the marshal by existing laws, it shall be lawful for him, the President of the United States, forthwith to issue his proclamation, declaring such fact or information, and requiring all such military and other force forthwith to disperse; and if at any time after issuing such proclamation, any such opposition or obstruction shall be made, in the manner or by the means aforesaid, the President shall be, and hereby is, authorized, promptly to employ such means to suppress the same, and to cause the said laws or process to be duly executed .

There was no legal course for secession, so Jackson could have used the bill to subjugate them. Secession was at least a legal grey area, if not illegal.

Quite clearly, if you read it, it makes it clear that a state under the laws of the United States and attempting to obstruct them; as South Carolina had not adopted articles of secession, this was quite clearly the case. Even ignoring that, Congress does not get to violate the Constitution despite what it or the Presidency may think.

So where's the Supreme Court case making that unconstitutional?

[Oil exporting People]

Like hell they were. One of their claimed reasons to be able to even secede was states rights, but they didn't give a damn about that; the Fugitive Slave Act alone proves that. Never mind their copycat Constitution of the American Constitution.

Power explicitly outlined under the Constitution, and thus falling outside the purview of the 10th Amendment. This is basic American Constitutional Law.

[Oil exporting People]

They sure defended their homes by firing on Fort Sumter and then advancing North alright :^)

We've already went over Fort Sumter, in that it was subject to South Carolina's decision to Secession as specified in the handover. As well, no advances into the North were made until 1863 after the Federals had invaded numerous Southern States.

[Vassenor]

Like hell they were. One of their claimed reasons to be able to even secede was states rights, but they didn't give a damn about that; the Fugitive Slave Act alone proves that. Never mind their copycat Constitution of the American Constitution.

Power explicitly outlined under the Constitution, and thus falling outside the purview of the 10th Amendment. This is basic American Constitutional Law.

So taking away the rights of other states is somehow preserving state's rights?

[Oil exporting People]

So where's the Supreme Court case making that unconstitutional?

Where is the statue in the Constitution that makes it legal?

[Torrocca]

They sure defended their homes by firing on Fort Sumter and then advancing North alright :^)

We've already went over Fort Sumter, in that it was subject to South Carolina's decision to Secession as specified in the handover. As well, no advances into the North were made until 1863 after the Federals had invaded numerous Southern States.

A federally-owned military installation does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state it resides in.

[Oil exporting People]

So taking away the rights of other states is somehow preserving state's rights?

The 10th Amendment quite clearly states that powers invested in the United States are not subject to the States, and thus when the rest of the Union joined, they explicitly agreed to these terms. You don't get to complain after you affirm to the terms of an agreement.

[Terricon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7i3qsg_22U
As part of a series of protests in connection to anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine, protestors in Kiev scaled a Soviet monument dedicated to the Russian revolutionary: Vladimir Lenin, fastened a rope around it and dragged it down from its pedestal causing it to crumple into the ground. Personally, of all the debate over remaining Lenin monuments around the country and what to do about them, this seems like the worst possible outcome. There was no discussion, no vote, no consensus, just a mob of thugs whipping themselves into a frenzy who found out that damnatio memoriae gives them a hard on. Not to mention that none of them will be punished for this act of public vandalism, as per usual, leading us further into this cycle of allowing criminal property damage and violence as long as it occurred during a politicized riot. If a city or other local entity wants to keep a statue around, let them. If they don't, let the professionals remove it and come up with a museum or private collector to pass it to. ISIS is not a good example to follow when it comes to handling historical artifacts. Thoughts?

[Oil exporting People]

A federally-owned military installation does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state it resides in.

Might wanna read it before you cite it:

As a result of the Enclave Clause, whenever the state government consented to the purchase of property by the federal government for a needful building, the United States obtained exclusive legislative jurisdiction over that parcel of property. In 1841, the Congress enacted a general law requiring state consent for all federal building projects.[9] Moreover, the Attorneys General of the United States ruled that, in consenting to purchase, the States could reserve no jurisdiction except for the service of criminal and civil process." [10]

[Vassenor]

So taking away the rights of other states is somehow preserving state's rights?

The 10th Amendment quite clearly states that powers invested in the United States are not subject to the States, and thus when the rest of the Union joined, they explicitly agreed to these terms. You don't get to complain after you affirm to the terms of an agreement.

Does not answer my question. Especially since it seems like the FSA is a pretty big violation of "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

[Oil exporting People]

Does not answer my question. Especially since it seems like the FSA is a pretty big violation of "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

You just answered yourself; the FSA was a power delegated in the United States to which the North agreed to when it signed onto the Constitution. If they didn't like it, secede or never sign on but they did.

[Vassenor]

Does not answer my question. Especially since it seems like the FSA is a pretty big violation of "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

You just answered yourself; the FSA was a power delegated in the United States to which the North agreed to when it signed onto the Constitution. If they didn't like it, secede or never sign on but they did.

Well I guess that means that the Southern states don't have any grounds to complain about the acts of Congress that they disliked, since they are a power delegated in the United States to which the South agreed to when it signed onto the Constitution.

So that doesn't really help the "but states rights" argument.

[Torrocca]

They sure defended their homes by firing on Fort Sumter and then advancing North alright :^)

As well, no advances into the North were made until 1863 after the Federals had invaded numerous Southern States.

Also, that's false - Four battles took place in Kentucky and ten in Missouri in 1861.

[Oil exporting People]

Well I guess that means that the Southern states don't have any grounds to complain about the acts of Congress that they disliked, since they are a power delegated in the United States to which the South agreed to when it signed onto the Constitution. So that doesn't really help the "but states rights" argument.

Under the Constitution, every State has representation under which they may fight for and against legislation, and thus all have the right to complain about said legislation but they must still follow it if passed. This is the basic underpinning of Democratic rule, after all. However, the Constitution also makes it quite clear that, if the burden is too onerous from certain legislation, the right to secession exists as a power granted under it. The North chose to not to do this path, while the South ultimately did.

[Oil exporting People]

Also, that's false - Four battles took place in Kentucky and ten in Missouri in 1861.

Missouri's legislature voted for Secession, as did part of Kentucky's government. Even ignoring that, said battles occurred below the Mason-Dixon Line, so the point stands.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A federally-owned military installation does not fall under the jurisdiction of any state it resides in.

Might wanna read it before you cite it:

As a result of the Enclave Clause, whenever the state government consented to the purchase of property by the federal government for a needful building, the United States obtained exclusive legislative jurisdiction over that parcel of property. In 1841, the Congress enacted a general law requiring state consent for all federal building projects.[9] Moreover, the Attorneys General of the United States ruled that, in consenting to purchase, the States could reserve no jurisdiction except for the service of criminal and civil process." [10]

The fort was already built.

[Torrocca]

Also, that's false - Four battles took place in Kentucky and ten in Missouri in 1861.

Missouri's legislature voted for Secession, as did part of Kentucky's government. Even ignoring that, said battles occurred below the Mason-Dixon Line, so the point stands.

Missouri and Kentucky both remained in the Union, though; hence, my point still stands that the CSA did indeed make aggressive incursions into the USA before 1863.

[Oil exporting People]

The fort was already built.

The ruling of the Attorney General, however, still applied.

[Sjovenia]

Nah, those statues were specifically built as one of many tools of black oppression in America during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement, AKA well after the war ended. They weren't built as memorials for the war, and they glorify traitors. Fuck the statues.

So fuck statues that glorify people who willingly defended their homes and families?

That's some fucked up logic right there.

Apparently....

[Vassenor]

Well I guess that means that the Southern states don't have any grounds to complain about the acts of Congress that they disliked, since they are a power delegated in the United States to which the South agreed to when it signed onto the Constitution. So that doesn't really help the "but states rights" argument.

Under the Constitution, every State has representation under which they may fight for and against legislation, and thus all have the right to complain about said legislation but they must still follow it if passed. This is the basic underpinning of Democratic rule, after all. However, the Constitution also makes it quite clear that, if the burden is too onerous from certain legislation, the right to secession exists as a power granted under it. The North chose to not to do this path, while the South ultimately did.

So where is secession an expressly granted power in the Constitution? Considering that the ruling in Texas v White was very much that it is not.

[Torrocca]

So fuck statues that glorify people who willingly defended their homes and families?

That's some fucked up logic right there.

Apparently....

They were traitors that attacked a federal military installation. There was no defense to that.