Confederate Statue Toppled in North Carolina

[Trotskylvania]

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.

No it does not.

Congress is specifically empowered to guarantee all states a republican form of government, as well as to suppress insurrection. The Southern states blatantly violated their own laws as well as federal laws when they launched an open insurrection, jailed Southern unionists, and seized federal property.

There is no right to unilateral secession. The Articles of Confederation formed the United States as a perpetual union. The 1789 Constitution specifically formed "a more perfect union." To imagine any right of unilateral secession hiding in the margins of the Constitution is insanity. Congress would not have been empowered to preserve republican government in the states, nor would it be given the power to suppress insurrections.

The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White is the final law on the matter. No state, having entered into the union with the consent of the several states, may leave the union without the consent of the several states.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Your argument is immaterial, because all states ratified the Constitution. Nor were the states afforded any right of secession under the Articles.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I gotta deface the Statue of Liberty before anybody else gets the chance! To New York!

[Neutraligon]

I gotta deface the Statue of Liberty before anybody else gets the chance! To New York!

Good luck with that, enjoy standing in line for a really long time.

[Genivaria]

You talk as if a bunch of guys just decided to get together in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 - because summer in 18th century Philly was so delightful - and between games of euchre and whist rewrote the Articles of Confederation. In February of that year, Congress - the ones actually running the country in 1787 - passed the following resolution:



They had complete powers to revise the articles with spot-fixes or to revise them so much that they became a new document and a new plan of government. They chose that latter. If you recall, the Articles declared that the United States were a "perpetual union." As Chief Justice Chase wrote in your least favorite but still valid SCOTUS decision, "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?"

I doubt this will convince you and perhaps it's time to move on from the subject here. Create a new thread on whether the Constitution allows secession or not.

The Articles of Confederation Congress could pass all the legislation it wanted to, but the Amendment process is quite clear in Article XIII:

"Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united States, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviol-ably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every State."

As for Texas v. White, I addressed it a long time ago in this thread:

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'd be happy to debate this further, if you would so wish to create such a thread for that purpose.

It seems pretty much settled.

[Herador]

I gotta deface the Statue of Liberty before anybody else gets the chance! To New York!

How would you get to a height that your vandalism could be properly admired? What materials would you use? What exactly would you write?

There are logistical questions here I feel need to be answered.

[Neutraligon]

I gotta deface the Statue of Liberty before anybody else gets the chance! To New York!

How would you get to a height that your vandalism could be properly admired? What materials would you use? What exactly would you write?

There are logistical questions here I feel need to be answered.

Including how you well get said materials through security.

[Herador]

How would you get to a height that your vandalism could be properly admired? What materials would you use? What exactly would you write?

There are logistical questions here I feel need to be answered.

Including how you well get said materials through security.

More good questions and I stand here bereft of answers.

The suspense is literally killing me.

[Vassenor]

Mic on why these statues are so easy to pull down and what that tells us about their greater meaning.

[Elwher]

How would you get to a height that your vandalism could be properly admired? What materials would you use? What exactly would you write?

There are logistical questions here I feel need to be answered.

Including how you well get said materials through security.

I would suggest spray paint from a helicopter. As to the message, "The answer is 42" comes to mind.

[Skylus]

Indi might be getting their's taken down as well....

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crim ... 578392001/

[Farnhamia]

Indi might be getting their's taken down as well....

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crim ... 578392001/

That one is - or at least was - essentially a grave marker, for the 1,600+ Confederate prisoners of war who died at the Camp Morton prison camp between 1862 and 1865. I would have no problem leaving it in place, or maybe moving it to the cemetary where the remains are currently interred.

[Neutraligon]

Indi might be getting their's taken down as well....

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crim ... 578392001/

That one is - or at least was - essentially a grave marker, for the 1,600+ Confederate prisoners of war who died at the Camp Morton prison camp between 1862 and 1865. I would have no problem leaving it in place, or maybe moving it to the cemetary where the remains are currently interred.

Yeah that should be moved to the cemetery.

[Seangoli]

That one is - or at least was - essentially a grave marker, for the 1,600+ Confederate prisoners of war who died at the Camp Morton prison camp between 1862 and 1865. I would have no problem leaving it in place, or maybe moving it to the cemetary where the remains are currently interred.

Yeah that should be moved to the cemetery.

Particularly given that it is does not seek to glorify the Confederacy, and does not proudly portray Confederate iconography as an explicit middle finger. It's an actual honest-to-god memorial to the dead that was built with all earnestness. Hell, I don't even want this one necessarily moved given that it marks a prison camp at the location, and can easily help understand the Civil War and provide a greater context to the conflict in the region.

[Genivaria]

Indi might be getting their's taken down as well....

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crim ... 578392001/

That one is - or at least was - essentially a grave marker, for the 1,600+ Confederate prisoners of war who died at the Camp Morton prison camp between 1862 and 1865. I would have no problem leaving it in place, or maybe moving it to the cemetary where the remains are currently interred.

Why ISN'T it in a cemetery?

[Seangoli]

That one is - or at least was - essentially a grave marker, for the 1,600+ Confederate prisoners of war who died at the Camp Morton prison camp between 1862 and 1865. I would have no problem leaving it in place, or maybe moving it to the cemetary where the remains are currently interred.

Why ISN'T it in a cemetery?

You know, looking into it the only reason its in its current location is because when the original cemetery was closed and the bodies moved, a Southerner's club petitioned to put it in a public space so that it was more readily visible. Honestly, it should go where it belongs, and that's in the cemetery with the dead POWs as headstone and marker.

[Farnhamia]

Why ISN'T it in a cemetery?

You know, looking into it the only reason its in its current location is because when the original cemetery was closed and the bodies moved, a Southerner's club petitioned to put it in a public space so that it was more readily visible. Honestly, it should go where it belongs, and that's in the cemetery with the dead POWs as headstone and marker.

Yes, the dead men were moved twice, once to what is now Garfield Park, where the monument is, and then again to a cemetary. The monument was left behind.