Violence in Charlottesville

[drone]

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.

College kids probably, not really locals. The true locals probably had more than enough in their arsenals. This is Virginia, where the slogan is "Buy one gun a month, it's the law!".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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: 

[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.

[Husar]

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

Yes, but I wouldn't erect statues for people just because their terrible ideas were sincerely held by them.

And if we're talking park beautification, I'd vote for more statues of women. If you can't find many of them among politicians, put up statues of scientists and other people who actually contribute great things to a country, mankind or society. The Greeks and Romans would probably have made the Hollywood walk of fame one where you walk by statues of the actors honored there.

[Montmorency]

The Greeks and Romans would probably have made the Hollywood walk of fame one where you walk by statues of the actors honored there.

Way ahead of you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Way ahead of you.

Tacky

[Husar]

I don't think the wax figurines would last long in the rain and wind outside.
And being in a museum doesn't count as being praised in public.

[Beskar]

[drone]

Never thought I would see one of my relatives on the Org. Their channel must be getting decent views, how did you find this?

[Agent Miles]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."

Just as President Obama pardoned men who are now no longer criminals, so all Confederates were pardoned "unconditionally and without reservation" and were no longer traitors. After the Civil War, the widows, orphans and survivors of Confederate soldiers were allowed to decorate the graves of the fallen and yes, build statues to them. The statues do not honor traitors, because the men were pardoned.

About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.

So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers, not to honor traitors. I hate slavery in all of its forms and we all most certainly should. However, blind hatred makes us "useful idiots" to groups that are trying to create one-issue voters. In science, the saying goes that we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. This should apply to our history as well. On Grant's tomb are the words, "Let us have Peace".

[Husar]

Just as President Obama pardoned men who are now no longer criminals, so all Confederates were pardoned "unconditionally and without reservation" and were no longer traitors. After the Civil War, the widows, orphans and survivors of Confederate soldiers were allowed to decorate the graves of the fallen and yes, build statues to them. The statues do not honor traitors, because the men were pardoned.

As usual one might ask though: And what about their victims?

Obama mostly pardoned people who got really long sentences for owning a few grams of Marihuana AFAIK, that's a bit different from being a slave owner and being willing to kill others to be able to stay a slave owner.
Besides, your last sentence there is not necessarily correct. Someone does not stop being a traitor the moment they are pardoned, the pardoning means they are no longer prosecuted for their treason. If they were no traitors, they couldn't have been pardoned for treason in the first place.

Their being pardoned also doesn't mean the victims of their crimes have to just shut up and take it when their minions or families want to praise them for their crimes.

About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.

Except that this type of chattel slavery was pretty new and a particularly nasty form of slavery compared to the forms that had been around before:

http://www.discoveringbristol.org.uk...frica-slavery/

Slavery existed in Africa, but it was not the same type of slavery that the Europeans introduced. The European form was called chattel slavery. A chattel slave is a piece of property, with no rights. Slavery within Africa was different. A slave might be enslaved in order to pay off a debt or pay for a crime. Slaves in Africa lost the protection of their family and their place in society through enslavement. But eventually they or their children might become part of their master’s family and become free. This was unlike chattel slavery, in which enslaved Africans were slaves for life, as were their children and grandchildren.

And the fact that others participated in it for profit does not make it better, it just adds to the depravity.

So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers

Cry me a river, by that logic we can also build statues for the men who hid children in their cellars as sex toys because their wives loved them, too.

[Montmorency]

That's not how a pardon works. To accept a pardon is to accept the charges associated with it. The pardon serves only to forgive or commute the penalties levied in connection with the offense.

If someone is pardoned for murder, it most definitely means they are still a murderer.

About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.

What do you think it serves to list all these irrelevancies? Do you imagine it vindicates the Confederacy somehow? It does not.

So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers, not to honor traitors. I hate slavery in all of its forms and we all most certainly should. However, blind hatred makes us "useful idiots" to groups that are trying to create one-issue voters. In science, the saying goes that we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. This should apply to our history as well. On Grant's tomb are the words, "Let us have Peace".

Again, you're throwing together several irrelevant points that do not support any coherent argument; this is the hostile rhetoric of muddying the water.

Be careful if you don't want to be taken in bad faith.

[Strike For The South]

Forgiveness does not equal absolution.

Beyond that your argument is demonstrably false considering the declarations of secession. The former confederates were more than willing to let there be peace as long as their power structure was not altered.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A pardon nullifies penalties exacted against a person, it does not nullify the occurrence of an event. If I murder someone, and Donald trump pardons me, I am no less a murderer. I will merely remain unpunished and legally untainted.

[Agent Miles]

"A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...dential+pardon

[Husar]

"A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime."

Legally, not morally.

[Montmorency]

"Unless the pardon expressly states that it is issued because of a determination that the recipient was innocent, a pardon does not imply innocence. It is merely a forgiveness of the offense. It is generally assumed that acceptance of a pardon is an implicit Acknowledgment of guilt, for one cannot be pardoned unless one has committed an offense."

[Agent Miles]

Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.

Nonetheless, the Confederate soldiers were no longer traitors. It's not a sign of moral superiority for someone to refer to the men Obama pardoned as criminal scum, because that would be slander. Of course, one can speak ill of the dead and not suffer judgement for slander.

This much is most certainly true. All of the voting age Confederates were Democrats. My Republican ancestors fought that war because the Democrats thought they owned African Americans, so they could lie to them, cheat them and tell them what to think. We're still working on that one.

[Husar]

Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.

Surely you want to be ignorant then because Montmorency quoted the part from your own link that proves you wrong?

[Agent Miles]

Which does not refer to an unconditional Presidential pardon explained above that. That part comes under the conditional pardon.

If you bang a closed box on your head and perceive a hollow sound, it doesn't always mean that the box is empty.