R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Let me know when the Pope shuts down Georgetown.
When were confederate monuments erected and why?
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
I don’t seem much value in interacting with you. You are racists against southern Whites.
G
GKC
Guest
Yep. And the state of South Carolina was happy to do it. Cede land (well, a shoal that was built up, using Yankee granite) in the entrance to Charleston Harbor to the Federal government. It was a good deal. Gave added protection to the harbor, from intrusions of bad guys. And , as one notes, it was ceded, not taken or imminent-domained, or seized, or appropriated by the Feds. The sovereign state had to cede it. States liked to get forts and arsenals and stuff like that in their borders. Employment, money, and security.
But that assumed the state remained a part of the Union (remember, opinions varied as to whether that Union was a marriage forever). And given that the state (at least) thought it was now separate from the Union, the Union fort at the harbor mouth went from an asset to a liability. So, SC said give it back. Then took it. As Confederate states took all the Federal forts in the south. Except 3 in Florida. Those must have been interesting places to be posted.
G
GKC
Guest
Reductionism is a rife as kudzu used to be, in my area.
G
GKC
Guest
Not me personally. I got enough problems getting rid of poison ivy.
But a number of areas locally that were kudzu city, in my youth, are now kudzu free. The land increased in commercial value, and massive amounts of force and labor defeated the kudzu plague, replacing the green fiend with concrete, asphalt, buildings and other natural improvements in certain areas.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Roundup will kill it. Kills poison ivy too. First application might not kill either one because they have root structures underground. But keep after it, and you’ll get it.
If, however, you don’t want to kill other plants (like grass) around it, use a mixture of Remedy and Grazon-Next, half and half, with a surfactant to help it stick to the leaves.
Remedy and Grazon-Next won’t kill grass unless used wildly excessively, but they’ll kill any broadleafed plant, usually with the first application.
Good luck!
J
jtauke
Guest
Name calling? Really?
P
poche
Guest
I am referring to the thinking involved and also to the fact that there are cemetaries and battlefields where men died in large numbers.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Before or after he tears down the Vatican walls to allow infinite immigration as was already suggested on here?
And all so the American left and their excuse-makers can save face on criticizing the wall.
I think people need to realize how absurd some of this all is.
E
ebeano
Guest
They are not trying to remove all traces of slavery. Or else they would tear down Capitol building, Wall Street, Monticello, Georgetown U and many others.Well, I was thinking more along the lines that if they want to remove all traces of slavery, then they might want to start with themselves, i.e., the Democratic party.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Wow. Stubbornly persistent keeping it phony.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Instead of calling me a racists, you might deal with the content of your post:
.
How on earth can you say that, in the context of this thread, without realizing the absurdity of it as it pertains to enslaved, terrorized, segregated, disfranchised Southern blacks. How could you?
D
dvdjs
Guest
I don’t disagree with you for the most part. But what is the message conveyed in his memorization? Is it that he was a man of honor who with great inner conflict made a terrible decision in the Civil War, but who worked hard to redeem himself afterwards by working for the cause of justice? If that is the narrative, great.
But I don’t see that message. And in this thread, among Americans, the messag s more one of stubbornly sticking to a false narrative of those times, maintaining a blindness to the ongoing foundational narrative of white superiority, and expressing hostility to those who would work to change these narratives.
But I don’t see that message. And in this thread, among Americans, the messag s more one of stubbornly sticking to a false narrative of those times, maintaining a blindness to the ongoing foundational narrative of white superiority, and expressing hostility to those who would work to change these narratives.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Of course South Carolina ceded the land to the Federal Government as a member of that federation. That is how you get a federal fort to defend your harbor, and investment in your state. However, assuming the validity of secession as a course of action, which was widely believed as a legitimate political process in 1861, once South Carolina left that federation, there is no need for the Federal government to occupy a fort defending a harbor their government no longer owns. Unless, of course, you have no intention of honoring that state’s declaration of secession.
I used the example of British frontier forts after the American Revolution previously. The British refusing to relinquish those forts would have rightly been viewed as a hostile act; what need would the British have of forts in American territory if not to block westward expansion and/or aid the Indians against the new country? The British were in fact reluctant to leave several forts, and the issue had to be resolved in yet another treaty.
But back to South Carolina ceding land to the federal government. They offered to buy it back. Today, military posts are also ceded by the state in which they reside. When a post needs to expand, they buy more land from the state and this becomes federal property. If a post falls victim to base realignment, the land is sold back to the state. Just because something became federal property once does not mean it must be and will be federal property for perpetuity.
Lincoln’s administration (including his secretary of state prior to his inauguration) stalled for 6 months on giving any answer to South Carolina’s offer, making claims that they were willing to negotiate on the one hand, while publicly declaring that no state could leave the union on the other. Meanwhile, the government sent a “relief expedition” to the fort; 1 resupply ship and a fleet of armed ships to provoke South Carolina into firing on the fort before they could be “taken from two sides” between the fleet and the fort. On top of this, Lincoln actually signed the order to initiate a blockade against all Southern ports before South Carolina ever fired on Fort Sumter. The date of this order was, in fact, listed by the Supreme Court after the Confederacy’s surrender as the official start of the war. He wanted a war, and so he provoked one. He plainly stated this in his correspondence.
Here are Lincoln’s advisors on the situation:
Secretary of State William Seward:
Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles:
Major Anderson, garrisoning the fort:
After the fact:
April 17, 1861, The New York Evening Day-Book:
We can debate just how much slavery was a motivating factor in either the secession or the war, but let us not pretend that the firing on Fort Sumter was an unprovoked act of aggression in the middle of a full-court-press by the federal government to find a peaceful solution to the crisis.
E
exnihilo
Guest
When South Carolina left the Union the property was, in reality, the property of a foreign government. The state would have the right of eminent domain, recognized by the Union, by which they could claim ownership of that property. States do this all the time to property of citizens. A foreign state would certainly not be exempt.
An interesting question to me is can a state now seize federal property by eminent domain.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Mencken had his moments of brilliance in his criticism of most everything, but this insn’t one of them. Lincoln’s perspective was informed by the threat not only of the Southern secession, but by the evolution that would follow were this secession to be successful. Self-determination within successively smaller and smaller units breaking of over successively more and more parochial ideas would likely lead to a loss of liberty (juat as the South fought to do against slaves), or the inability to resists the aggression of powerfully organized despotic states.
Mencken was quite a character and had major blind spots. He was admirably behind racial equity in commerce and justice and used his pen to advocate for it. At the same time, he was a blatant white supremacist.
citypaper.com/news/features/bcp-was-mencken-a-racist-or-a-civil-rights-hero-professor-larry-gibson-offers-an-answeror-at-least-promi-20140909-story.html
Mencken, Henry Lewis. A Mencken Chrestomathy, Knopf (1949)
This is the foundational narrative that enables the horror, and arguably makes it possible to overlook the obvious and think that the South was on the side of self-determination.
One other gem from this writer truly worth the label “eltist”"
baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-mencken-trump-20161119-story.html
G
GKC
Guest
Doubtless the messages vary. Mine is reflected in the first para. Otherwise, my interest as usual, is history.
meltzerboy
New member
Call me an elitist, but I kind of agree with that last quotation, and I think we may practically have reached that point already.
D
dvdjs
Guest
He was talking about Harding. But the quote has been resurrected November 2016.
- Status