Confederate Statue Toppled in North Carolina

[Elwher]

There are two distinct arguments going on here.

First, should there be statues memorializing the Confederate dead. To a certain extent, that is answered by the US passing a law authorizing them veterans benefits, including memorials and graves in national cemeteries. Was that a good law? That is a question which certainly can be debated.

The other question, and the one i believe was the original intent of the thread, is whether people have the=right to tear down statues they disagree with. To me, that is simple vandalism and should be prosecuted as such, since the opposite stand gives the KKK the right to tear down statues of MLK if they want. Unless, of course, you take the stand that statues you personally dislike are proper subjects of vandalism while those you like should be protected.

[Oil exporting People]

Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.

By that logic, there is no historical value in any conflicts of the 20th Century.

[The Widening Gyre]

Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.

By that logic, there is no historical value in any conflicts of the 20th Century.

... how does that follow?

[Oil exporting People]

... how does that follow?

If, because they lost, they have no historical worth, then neither does the conflicts of the 20th Century because the Germans lost; clearly, we realize the Great War and World War II had a lasting impact on the World.

[Ifreann]

... how does that follow?

If, because they lost, they have no historical worth, then neither does the conflicts of the 20th Century because the Germans lost; clearly, we realize the Great War and World War II had a lasting impact on the World.

Who said that if they lost they have no historical worth?

[Novskya]

lol im from nc and i hate the confederacy and i find this dumb

[Galloism]

Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.

By that logic, there is no historical value in any conflicts of the 20th Century.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with my previous posts.

[Blasted Craigs]

Not the ideal way to do it, but progress is progress.

none of them will be punished for this act of public vandalism,

How do you know that?

Actually, a total of eight people have been arrested so far for the vandalism.
Just throwing it out there, in case people are getting riled up thinking this will be unpunished.
Cannot say what punishment the court will give them, but they have been arrested at least.
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/eight-antifa-vandals-arrested/

[Camaalbakrius]

lol im from nc and i hate the confederacy and i find this dumb

State fan?

[Oil exporting People]

He still fought against the US government. In my opinion that makes him a traitor

Lee was not, nor was any Confederate, a traitor.

[Seangoli]

He still fought against the US government. In my opinion that makes him a traitor

Lee was not, nor was any Confederate, a traitor.

Waging war against the United States is not treason. Neat.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

He still fought against the US government. In my opinion that makes him a traitor

Lee was not, nor was any Confederate, a traitor.

He was though.

[Torrocca]

He still fought against the US government. In my opinion that makes him a traitor

Lee was not, nor was any Confederate, a traitor.

Openly rebelling against your legal government isn't treason? Sounds exactly like the type of thing a traitor would say! Quick, everyone! This guy's a traitor! Get him!

[Vassenor]

He still fought against the US government. In my opinion that makes him a traitor

Lee was not, nor was any Confederate, a traitor.

Levying war against the United States is treason. Providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States is treason.

Says so in the Constitution.

[Sjovenia]

I don't get why the statue is being torn down. Especially when the statue says "In Memory of the boys who wore gray". Its a memorial...guess we just gunna destroy the Vietnam memorial too since we did Zippo Raids and murdered innocent people, I mean the US people already treated their vets like crap after the war. What other memorials we gunna tear down?

[Vassenor]

I don't get why the statue is being torn down. Especially when the statue says "In Memory of the boys who wore gray". Its a memorial...guess we just gunna destroy the Vietnam memorial too since we did Zippo Raids and murdered innocent people, I mean the US people already treated their vets like crap after the war. What other memorials we gunna tear down?

Why should the US memorialise treason?

[Oil exporting People]

Levying war against the United States is treason. Providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States is treason.

Says so in the Constitution.

From Texas v. White:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Now, indeed the Articles did say the Union was perpetual. However, the Articles of Confederation also says in Article XIII, in order to amend or alter the Articles in any way, ratification by “the legislatures of every State” was required. The Constitution meanwhile says this:

“The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.”

Thus, the Constitution was illegally adopted according to the Articles of Confederation. What does this mean? If the Articles is still in effect, secession is illegal but the Federal Government is also illegally operating since 1787 and thus had no authority to wage the Civil War (or even govern, for that matter). The alternative, of course, is that the Constitution is completely legally but then the South had the right to secede.

[Vassenor]

Levying war against the United States is treason. Providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States is treason.

Says so in the Constitution.

From Texas v. White:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Now, indeed the Articles did say the Union was perpetual. However, the Articles of Confederation also says in Article XIII, in order to amend or alter the Articles in any way, ratification by “the legislatures of every State” was required. The Constitution meanwhile says this:

“The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.”

Thus, the Constitution was illegally adopted according to the Articles of Confederation. What does this mean? If the Articles is still in effect, secession is illegal but the Federal Government is also illegally operating since 1787 and thus had no authority to wage the Civil War (or even govern, for that matter). The alternative, of course, is that the Constitution is completely legally but then the South had the right to secede.

I am not sure I understand your logic. Unless you are trying to say that the entire United States has no right to exist because of a legal technicality.

[Torrocca]

From Texas v. White:



Now, indeed the Articles did say the Union was perpetual. However, the Articles of Confederation also says in Article XIII, in order to amend or alter the Articles in any way, ratification by “the legislatures of every State” was required. The Constitution meanwhile says this:



Thus, the Constitution was illegally adopted according to the Articles of Confederation. What does this mean? If the Articles is still in effect, secession is illegal but the Federal Government is also illegally operating since 1787 and thus had no authority to wage the Civil War (or even govern, for that matter). The alternative, of course, is that the Constitution is completely legally but then the South had the right to secede.

I am not sure I understand your logic. Unless you are trying to say that the entire United States has no right to exist because of a legal technicality.

He should take the government to court over this, obviously.

Oh wait...

[Sjovenia]

I don't get why the statue is being torn down. Especially when the statue says "In Memory of the boys who wore gray". Its a memorial...guess we just gunna destroy the Vietnam memorial too since we did Zippo Raids and murdered innocent people, I mean the US people already treated their vets like crap after the war. What other memorials we gunna tear down?

Why should the US memorialise treason?

Why should Germany memorialize German soldiers who fought for such an evil atrocity that was Adolf Hitler and his final solution? Same thing, they were soldiers who fought. They lost. Blood was shed. We aren't memorializing treason just like they aren't memorializing hitler. They are memorializing the people who fought the struggles of war. Hell even Berlin has Communist memorials and statues still standing and that was in a city that was divided for 20 years.

[Oil exporting People]

I am not sure I understand your logic. Unless you are trying to say that the entire United States has no right to exist because of a legal technicality.

If the Constitution is valid, then the South had every right to secede and thus Lee was not a traitor; if the Articles is still valid, then the Federal Government was invalid and thus had no legal authority.

[Sjovenia]

From Texas v. White:



Now, indeed the Articles did say the Union was perpetual. However, the Articles of Confederation also says in Article XIII, in order to amend or alter the Articles in any way, ratification by “the legislatures of every State” was required. The Constitution meanwhile says this:



Thus, the Constitution was illegally adopted according to the Articles of Confederation. What does this mean? If the Articles is still in effect, secession is illegal but the Federal Government is also illegally operating since 1787 and thus had no authority to wage the Civil War (or even govern, for that matter). The alternative, of course, is that the Constitution is completely legally but then the South had the right to secede.

I am not sure I understand your logic. Unless you are trying to say that the entire United States has no right to exist because of a legal technicality.

The US was made possible by terrorists and treason. Simple as that. As Battlefield once stated with a Character log "America was created by Terrorists for Terrorists" and that was said by a US soldier in the game. Its pretty accurate.

[Vassenor]

Why should the US memorialise treason?

Why should Germany memorialize German soldiers who fought for such an evil atrocity that was Adolf Hitler and his final solution? Same thing, they were soldiers who fought. They lost. Blood was shed. We aren't memorializing treason just like they aren't memorializing hitler. They are memorializing the people who fought the struggles of war. Hell even Berlin has Communist memorials and statues still standing and that was in a city that was divided for 20 years.

And yet removing all the Nazi iconography did not erase the Nazis from history. Nor did the massive purge of all things communist in the former Warsaw Pact in the 1990s erase the USSR from history.

[Oil exporting People]

Waging war against the United States is not treason. Neat.

The British in 1812, the Mexicans in 1846, and the Spanish in 1898 were guilty of treason?

[Seangoli]

Waging war against the United States is not treason. Neat.

The British in 1812, the Mexicans in 1846, and the Spanish in 1898 were guilty of treason?

Were they a part of the US?

No?

Then, no, they were were not guilty of Treason.

The South, on the other hand, started a fucking a war with the North because they got their underwear in a twist over the fact that they lost a damn election. That's treason.