Violence in Charlottesville

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem with Lee is that, really, he is morally equivalent with Thomas Jefferson - both personally, morally, objected to slavery and yet both wholeheartedly participated in it and refused to free their slaves. Jefferson didn't even free his coloured children.

So - if Lee must go, so must Jefferson, doubly so because as one of the Founding Fathers he literally institutionalised slavery.

[Montmorency]

The problem with Lee is that, really, he is morally equivalent with Thomas Jefferson - both personally, morally, objected to slavery and yet both wholeheartedly participated in it and refused to free their slaves. Jefferson didn't even free his coloured children.

So - if Lee must go, so must Jefferson, doubly so because as one of the Founding Fathers he literally institutionalised slavery.

Lee thought slavery necessary and good, the white man's burden. He believed the highest expression of Negro existence was under condition of bondage and servitude to white masters.

Jefferson did not believe this. Also, he did not wage war against the country.

What is it with this bizarre deontologism that if one slaveholder can't be represented on state ground, none can be?

Why is it so difficult for some to tell the difference between founders and traitors?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The problem with Lee is that, really, he is morally equivalent with Thomas Jefferson - both personally, morally, objected to slavery and yet both wholeheartedly participated in it and refused to free their slaves. Jefferson didn't even free his coloured children.

So - if Lee must go, so must Jefferson, doubly so because as one of the Founding Fathers he literally institutionalised slavery.

There are mixed records on Lee's opinion. Jefferson's is pretty well documented to be as you represent. There is no confirmation that Jefferson himself fathered children among the slaves, though the genetic evidence DOES confirm that one or more of a small set of Jeffersons (possibly including TJ) did.

However, there are already calls [by Al Sharpton] for the removal of public support for the Jefferson memorial Source, as well as Washington's name and statue from a park in Chicago source.

[Montmorency]

However, there are already calls [by Al Sharpton] for the removal of public support for the Jefferson memorial Source, as well as Washington's name and statue from a park in Chicago source.

That's nothing new from Sharpton, but the question is a worthy one. The question is, who, if anyone, should be venerated on public grounds. Jefferson and Washington? I'm okay with that. Again, despite their flaws, they still represent us well. Their hesitations with regard to slavery should be publicized, but these do not - in my opinion - disqualify them. I say this knowing full well that one day this opinion may change, or that I may be overruled by a different public feeling.

Confederate statues - with a few penitent exceptions - are not merely markers of events that have occurred or people who have lived. Given our mastery of language and writing, we would have little use for statues in that capacity. These are public symbols that mean something, and have represented only two ideals: first, as symbols of reverence for the Lost Cause and defiance to the "Yankee" national government; second, as a reminder to black people of who was still in charge.

These ideals have not served us in the past and do not serve us well today, and are not the history we should want to promote. We must memorialize (marmorealize) the Civil War without celebrating its villains or atrocities, and without promoting Southern (and recently white*) exceptionalism.

*It was always about whiteness of course, but with special regard to Southern (white) identity. The Confederacy and its trappings as beacon for white power only spread beyond the South during the Civil Rights era, and only internationalized over the past generation.

[Xiahou]

I think you can make an argument against Confederate monuments without having to slide down the slippery slope*. Just ask yourself, why is this person being memorialized?

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are not memorialized for being slave owners. They are memorialized for playing pivotal roles in the founding of our country and laying out our form of government.

Lee and other Confederate leaders are memorialized for leading a rebellion against the US government, one of it's primary reasons for which was to protect the institution of slavery. I think if local and state governments decide they no longer want memorials to these people, they're well within their rights. I do think, however, we need to be careful when doing this that we're not purging everything negative from our history. Maybe if localities decide to remove monuments, they could be taken to museums or Civil War battlefields?

*Sadly, those on the hard left who are hot on monument destruction don't seem capable of the same discernment.

[Husar]

If there are pictures on the internet, the history is already preserved.

https://www.google.de/search?q=Rober...=1189&dpr=1.65

[Strike For The South]

We will see.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9...mount-rushmore

In other news the ACLU will no longer defend those who bring firearms to assemblies/protests.http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-a...-with-firearms

This is good news. A firearm is implicit intimidation.

I think maybe "preserving" history is the wrong way to frame it. What is more distressing is the unilateral mob action. Like if you can't be bothered to go to your councilman, no one else will either and it will devolve quickly.

I guess I'm one of those centrist liberals twitter is always talking about.

[Montmorency]

The best possible public memorial for Robert Lee is Arlington National Cemetery, a landscape of American war dead on land formerly of the Lee family's estate. (IMO better if it had been expropriated rather than purchased.)

We will see.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9...mount-rushmore

In other news the ACLU will no longer defend those who bring firearms to assemblies/protests.http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-a...-with-firearms

This is good news. A firearm is implicit intimidation.

Unfortunately, that is exactly how those troublesome truths are treated when you face the awesome grandeur of Rushmore, a monument so incredible it obscures the multifaceted nature of these old dudes, transmogrifying them from individuals with a capacity both for greatness and evil into pure American deities..

What I am suspicious of are monuments produced by the state, which tend to flatten out nuances and turn flawed individuals into tools of propaganda that bolster a kind of religious patriotism.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they manifestations of power. They don't tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who's in control. This is even true with the Confederate statues, even though the South lost the war. The reality is that the enshrinement of those generals in statues across the nation mostly did not happen right after the war as a tribute to lost struggle. Instead, they were built in the early 1900s and the 1960s, when it was crucial for those in power to signal that white supremacy would endure in the face of Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and the civil rights movement. Erecting these statues amounted to power moves by white people who felt threatened. And now that they are being toppled, and neo-Nazis fight against their removal, their true meaning has become clearer than ever.

Good points. It probably has more artistic merit than most Confederate monuments, despite being a failed federal project on Indian land designed as a tourist trap; I don't have many defenses against its removal other than budgetary ones. Is the grandeur accidental, or just superficial after all?

Maybe heads carved out of a mountain would be more fitting for Soviet premiers than American presidents.

[Montmorency]

Mount Rushmore is an unstable piece of rock. Don't blow it up: abandon it. Pull out the facilities and maintenance crews, and let it transform into an Ozymandian spectacle of folly.

[Strike For The South]

The best possible public memorial for Robert Lee is Arlington National Cemetery, a landscape of American war dead on land formerly of the Lee family's estate. (IMO better if it had been expropriated rather than purchased.)

I agree. A forced sale of land is a rather light punishment for treason. The leniency of the Union government is partially the reason we are in this mess. Meigs was very much playing the long game.

Good points. It probably has more artistic merit than most Confedertae monuments, despite being a failed federal project on Indian land designed as a tourist trap; I don't have many defenses against its removal other than budgetary ones. Is the grandeur accidental, or just superficial after all?

The entirety of the Americas is a project on native land. Do we simply excise all European influence? If so which one of the 000s of Native polities takes supremacy? Who gets what? How much native blood does one need to be part of this?

Are we arguing against monuments in general or are we arguing over the national myth? Or maybe historical pedagogy? America only works because of civic nationalism, if we don't have a common well to draw upon, we cease being a useful society. That well needs to be more inclusive and has for a long time. Removing these Confederate statues is a first step toward that.

I'm not sure when the end game is.

Maybe heads carved out of a mountain would be more fitting for Soviet premiers than American presidents.

I mean maybe, we all have our on tastes in aesthetics.

What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?

That would qualify for me. I am unsure how the ACLU feels. The majority of the "left" people at the protest were locals. The people on the right were out of staters with firearms. It was not an equal situation.

[Xiahou]

In other news the ACLU will no longer defend those who bring firearms to assemblies/protests.http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-a...-with-firearms

This is good news. A firearm is implicit intimidation.

What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?

[Montmorency]

What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?

Should concealed carry of self-defense implements be restricted in this context? The point against the open display of arms is that it inherently perverts expression, intimidates participants, and incites to violence. This notion is so fundamental that it was recognized in ancient times. Weapons that are not displayed or made known at any time (other than in legally justified self-defense) do not appear to be germane. I would support harsh scrutiny of incidents of pistol discharge within crowds, as that's also a clear public danger. At any rate, it's impracticable to search the persons of each participant.

Brass knuckles have a pretty mixed bag of laws around them in the US; does anyone actually carry them outside of organized crime?

The entirety of the Americas is a project on native land. Do we simply excise all European influence? If so which one of the 000s of Native polities takes supremacy? Who gets what? How much native blood does one need to be part of this?

I don't support transfers of land or sovereignty to native tribes.

Are we arguing against monuments in general or are we arguing over the national myth? Or maybe historical pedagogy? America only works because of civic nationalism, if we don't have a common well to draw upon, we cease being a useful society. That well needs to be more inclusive and has for a long time. Removing these Confederate statues is a first step toward that.

I liked the author's argument in that it criticized the mode of the representation (state-sponsored mega-works) rather than the subjects.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lee thought slavery necessary and good, the white man's burden. He believed the highest expression of Negro existence was under condition of bondage and servitude to white masters.

Jefferson did not believe this. Also, he did not wage war against the country.

What is it with this bizarre deontologism that if one slaveholder can't be represented on state ground, none can be?

Why is it so difficult for some to tell the difference between founders and traitors?

Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.

Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.

There are mixed records on Lee's opinion. Jefferson's is pretty well documented to be as you represent. There is no confirmation that Jefferson himself fathered children among the slaves, though the genetic evidence DOES confirm that one or more of a small set of Jeffersons (possibly including TJ) did.

However, there are already calls [by Al Sharpton] for the removal of public support for the Jefferson memorial Source, as well as Washington's name and statue from a park in Chicago source.

Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.

Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.

There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.

The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.

Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.

Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.

Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.

[Husar]

From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.

What? How would one arrive at such a conclusion? Do you mean that in the sense that he only heard crazy racist stories about how terrible they had it in Africa or something like that? Was he unable to ask them whether they preferred picking cotton over their lives in Africa?
It sounds incredibly naive even or especially for the time. You usually don't chain, supervise and threaten with death (for fleeing) people whose lives you just improved...then again slaves in the US weren't seen as people but property...

[Montmorency]

Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al.

No, it would not. That's fundamentally wrong deontology.

In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.

Also wrong. Secession is naturally extralegal or a-legal. It constitutes a repudiation of the existing legal and judicial apparatus. Secession cannot be either legal or illegal, regardless of what is or isn't in the books. It is entirely, in terms you understand, a matter of either coercion by the secessionist state(s) or acknowledgment by the parent state. Why should the Confederacy have been acknowledged?

There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.

As you have so commonly pointed out in threads on the Middle East, force of arms is sometimes the only recourse to resolve wrongs.

The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.

So, their failure to use force on the South after the war? Your legal argument would have to be that the Union violated the legal rights of the South in fighing them - but as there is no such thing as a right to secession, what rights would have been violated? The actions of the Confederacy brought the two sides into a state of war, which the Union then prosecuted to its conclusion.

Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics.

Keeping them up is, and always has been, an act of divisive modern politics. If Germany had erected statues to Hitler following WW2, you would oppose their removal on the grounds that to do so now would be divisive? Hell yes it had better be divisive, to draw out those who do not deserve a seat at the table. Their continued presence is a constant source of tension that must be resolved one way or another, and to not do so is neither reconciliatory or justifiable.

Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.

He supported the validity of the institution and its necessity with respect to black people existing in America. That he was not an avowed expansionist looking for Lebensraum does not do him very great credit here. EDIT: And after the war, Lee held as a tacit precondition for "reconciliation" that emancipated blacks not be given equal standing in society, which would poison their relationship with the White race. No more false reconciliation off the blacks thrown under the bus.

Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time.

That's would be the position of the Left. Their solution is to dismantle white supremacy and accord full citizenship to minorities. It does not mean that 'everyone was the same then'.

Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.

We return to the wrong deontology, and it's a really defective one. Lee should not be repudiated merely because he was a slaver, but because he was a traitor and fought to maintain slavery in America. That the Founding Fathers were themselves traitors does not place them on a level with Lee, as though all treason were equal. It is not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What? How would one arrive at such a conclusion? Do you mean that in the sense that he only heard crazy racist stories about how terrible they had it in Africa or something like that? Was he unable to ask them whether they preferred picking cotton over their lives in Africa?
It sounds incredibly naive even or especially for the time. You usually don't chain, supervise and threaten with death (for fleeing) people whose lives you just improved...then again slaves in the US weren't seen as people but property...

For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.

Matter of perspective.

[Husar]

For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.

Matter of perspective.

Well, if you think that they have souls that can be saved, how do you justify treating them like animals? Matter of cognitive dissonance?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, if you think that they have souls that can be saved, how do you justify treating them like animals? Matter of cognitive dissonance?

Absolutely, profound Cognitive Dissonance.

I'm not in any way defending the argument, merely noting is could be made sincerely.

[drone]

For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.

Matter of perspective.

You are thinking three dimensionally. Maybe Lee just foresaw what was to happen in Africa over the next 40 years.

[Montmorency]

For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.

Matter of perspective.

BTW, one thing to point out is exactly that black people were not subject to rule of law, to the extent that the country as a whole or the general population were.

It would have been a matter of luck to receive even an acknowledgement of the theory of rule of law.

Finally, Trump supporter vs. detractor, or two brothers going in for the kiss? (Boston, this Saturday)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.

Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.



Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.

Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.

There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.

The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.

Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.

Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.

Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.

You are quite correct that our 'founders' were traitors. Removing the taint of treason can be accomplished in one of two ways (pardons do not removed the taint, only the penalty): victory or death. Say what you will of them, they all knew the stakes for which they were playing.

Nor do I decry Robert E. Lee and other confederates simply for their treason against the USA. I simply note that they were traitors. Some of them died trying to win their independence from the USA....the remainder failed in their attempt. Such a fate could have befallen our 'founders' as well -- it was a near run thing until Saratoga, and not certain even after that for some time.

While I find slavery abhorrent, it has been part of the human condition since at least the development of societies larger than a village. According to some of the more ardent feminists, it has been de facto condition of women for virtually all of human history. I don't think Lee's view on slavery was either atypical or motivated by any sense of harshness. He did not view blacks as his cultural equals -- and there were many among the abolitionists of the time who did NOT believe in equality. Lincoln himself was inclined toward resettling blacks back in Africa: free but far away.

Starting with the infamous 'Triangle Trade' and moving forward from there, it is impossible to separate the use of plantation slavery from the success of the US economy prior to the ACW. Nevertheless, England's abolition and the movement away from plantation slavery throughout the world during the 19th put increasing moral pressure on the use of slavery in the USA. There were some, like N.B. Forrest, who were very clearly ardent proponents and believed in its rightness. Yet, for all of that, the moral pressure at the time was such that many referred to "states rights" rather than squarely naming the precipitate cause.

Nevertheless, persiflage aside, the Articles of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession make it clear that THE state right which was prompting secession was slavery. To claim slavery immaterial is to deny a surprising volume of evidence.

That said, I think the Unionists were not on solid ground either. The effective position they took was that, once having joined the union, a state was irrevocably bound to the United States and could not under any circumstances [save violent rebellion] withdraw from that association. The Constitution then extant was, effectively, mute on the issue. However, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution suggest to me that Lincoln's interpretation was incorrect. He was, however, able to enforce it by push of bayonet.

I like your comment on the lionization and demonization of Lee at different points in our history. You touch on the key point -- BOTH attitudes are political theatre and not fully connected with fact as was.

[Montmorency]

You are quite correct that our 'founders' were traitors. Removing the taint of treason can be accomplished in one of two ways (pardons do not removed the taint, only the penalty): victory or death. Say what you will of them, they all knew the stakes for which they were playing.

Nor do I decry Robert E. Lee and other confederates simply for their treason against the USA. I simply note that they were traitors. Some of them died trying to win their independence from the USA....the remainder failed in their attempt. Such a fate could have befallen our 'founders' as well -- it was a near run thing until Saratoga, and not certain even after that for some time.

While I find slavery abhorrent, it has been part of the human condition since at least the development of societies larger than a village. According to some of the more ardent feminists, it has been de facto condition of women for virtually all of human history. I don't think Lee's view on slavery was either atypical or motivated by any sense of harshness. He did not view blacks as his cultural equals -- and there were many among the abolitionists of the time who did NOT believe in equality. Lincoln himself was inclined toward resettling blacks back in Africa: free but far away.

Starting with the infamous 'Triangle Trade' and moving forward from there, it is impossible to separate the use of plantation slavery from the success of the US economy prior to the ACW. Nevertheless, England's abolition and the movement away from plantation slavery throughout the world during the 19th put increasing moral pressure on the use of slavery in the USA. There were some, like N.B. Forrest, who were very clearly ardent proponents and believed in its rightness. Yet, for all of that, the moral pressure at the time was such that many referred to "states rights" rather than squarely naming the precipitate cause.

Nevertheless, persiflage aside, the Articles of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession make it clear that THE state right which was prompting secession was slavery. To claim slavery immaterial is to deny a surprising volume of evidence.

That said, I think the Unionists were not on solid ground either. The effective position they took was that, once having joined the union, a state was irrevocably bound to the United States and could not under any circumstances [save violent rebellion] withdraw from that association. The Constitution then extant was, effectively, mute on the issue. However, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution suggest to me that Lincoln's interpretation was incorrect. He was, however, able to enforce it by push of bayonet.

I like your comment on the lionization and demonization of Lee at different points in our history. You touch on the key point -- BOTH attitudes are political theatre and not fully connected with fact as was.

One thing that I will grant about Union legalism is that the formalization of West Virginia statehood prior to the conclusion of hostilities and re-establishment of authority was probably procedurally improper without the entire (territorially whole) state of Virginia being represented.

But the Constitution was deliberately broader and more resilient than the Articles of Confederation, so consider that there is something of a normative chasm between the two documents.

[Montmorency]

To close off the thread, from the Boston "Free Speech" rally and counter-rally yesterday, we learn that "weapons of any kind" were banned, and backpacks were discouraged and subjected to on-the-spot searches.

This suggests that legislating blanket restrictions on weapons at public assemblies is no big issue legally or practically. For a serious look into the matter, the next step would be to investigate what the status of weapons has been in past assemblies over time.

[Strike For The South]

Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.

Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.

He never needed to get to the necessary or good part. The Social structure simply was, as ordained by the creator. He was part of the upper crust of a Southern society that dominated antebellum American politics.

Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.

And no doubt he would have been hung for his transgressions. The Union government was much more lenient than the British government would have ever been

Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.

At the very least article 4 section 3 of the constitution requires congressional consent for a state to leave. It can not be a unilateral decision. Along with the vicious Federal reaction to Shays, Whiskey, and nullification crisis, it becomes quite clear that the "secession" was legal argument is a flimsy pretext.

There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.

Theres really not. The entire antebellum period is replete with the use of federal troops to enforce the sovereignty and hierarchy of both the federal and state governments. The lack of an explicit law was really the only thing missing.

The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.

We disagree on the legality of secession so I would never get to this point. However, even if secession was legal, the choice to not allow the resupply of a federal installation is provocative. Firing upon that installation is certainly an at of war. There is nothing illegal about the Unions declaration.

Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.

Lee was not allowed to be lionized. Lee was lionzed to reassert dominance over a large portion of the Souths population. The rest of the country simply didn't care enough to step in. The deep south has only ever given an inch on civil rights at the point of federal firearms. Lee very much supported slavery, it was how his class was allowed to exist. He married into the Custis family for their land and "property"

Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.

It certainly is quite the quagmire but as we have touched upon here, the difference is obviously the rebellion. These statues are wholly tied with white domination. It has become quite clear the the love of "heritage" only comes at the expense of others. The majority of people who defend these things are only interested in hate. They want these reminders to stay up as a tacit reminder of who is in charge.

Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.

If taking down these monuments is the price to pay to move together as one people, it is a very small price to pay. If taking down these statues preserves our classically liberal republic, it is a very small price to pay. Digging ones heels in now could mean the loss of everything. Digging in now continues to neglect a large portion of the American citizenry, which is unacceptable.