Terrorist sympathizers protest tribute to great President.

[Tmy]

Statute of Lincoln errected in Richmond Va. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/5562935.htm)


Members of conferderate groups protest a statue of Lincoln being placed in Richmond. The Confederate terrorists orgranzination was responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousand american lives during the Civil War uprising. The racist capitol city of Richmond boasts a number of statues and monuments to treasonist Confederate terrorists. The Lincoln statute is the first Richmond memorial to one of the greatest US presidents.

(Note: This post was inspired by the writings of Jedi Knight)

[DanishDynamite]

LOL!

(Good try, but you only have 2 instances of "terrorist" in 4 sentences. Not quite up to JK's standards.)

[DrBenway]

from your linked article:
"Until Richmond has a statue of Lincoln, for many people the war will never be over," said Smith, who is black. "The North has already accepted Robert E. Lee. As the seat of the South, this is the first place there ought to be a statue of Lincoln."

It's astonishing to me that a statue of Lincoln is evoking so much controversy. Of course, I'm a yankee and not in touch with the feelings of people in the southern states. My sense has been that the die-hard confederates are a fringe group.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Members of conferderate groups protest a statue of Lincoln being placed in Richmond. The Confederate terrorists orgranzination was responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousand american lives during the Civil War uprising. The racist capitol city of Richmond boasts a number of statues and monuments to treasonist Confederate terrorists. The Lincoln statute is the first Richmond memorial to one of the greatest US presidents.

(Note: This post was inspired by the writings of Jedi Knight)

Hilarious! Great point. Yeah, Lincoln was such a great President that he declared martial law and shut down any newspaper that dared to post articles critical of the war.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


shut down any newspaper that dared to post articles critical of the war.

Yes, our government has come so far. Now noone in the media is critical of war..

[corplinx]

Lincoln is the touchiest subject. On one hand he is "the great emancipator". On the other hand he launched a war against his neighboring country that cost lives of many an american and confederate.

He was a tyrant of the south in the literal definition.

[Tmy]

Well if they weren't terrorists Lincoln wouldnve been forced to bulldoze their houses...(ooops this aint a Palistine/Israel thread)


Anyway, isnt tyrant a little harsh. The south was rebuilt, and most of those confederate traitors got off scott free. They shouldve been shot for treason.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well if they weren't terrorists Lincoln wouldnve been forced to bulldoze their houses...

And as it is, he just burned them. (Well, Sherman did.)

[Gem]

What I'm really curious about is whether the South was actually right.
Did they have the constitutional right to secede?
That's what the war was about, secesion.
Lincoln, for good or bad, didn't want that to happen.
The good reason was that the US of A should remain ONE country.
But the bad is he was raising an army even before the South declared Independence, and the South may have had the right to secede.

Anyone know if it was constitutional?

Gem

P.S.: I saw Gods and Generals, the Southern army refers to the war as a war of independence, a revolution. (Like Jackson StoneWall)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
What I'm really curious about is whether the South was actually right.
Did they have the constitutional right to secede?

Yes. In 1812, the New England states debated secession and no one at all said that they didn't have the right to secede. They didn't do it, obviously, but no one said they couldn't.

And then there's this:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise
up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better.
This is a most valuable and sacred right—a right we hope and believe to liberate
the world.

—Abraham Lincoln, 1848

Unless, of course, he's the president of that existing government....

Anyone know if it was constitutional?

No, it wasn't. That's why they forced the southern states under duress to modify their Constitutions to waive their right to secede.

[Michael Redman]

It isn't clear to me that states had a right to secede anyway, just because they had it in their constitutions. I guess you could go back to the 10th Amendment, as the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other, but it might have been a good idea for the Founders to codify their wished in this matter. I've read Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, and I don't remember it ever coming up.

People may have a right to overthrow oppressive government, but that doesn't mean that, within the scope of that government, it is legal to do so. I've read and thought a bit about the legality of Southern Secession, and I can't come up with a clear opinion. I tend to go with illegal, but admittedly that's simply out of bias.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

After seeing the direction of this topic Im going to post a phrase that deserves a GREAT deal of research .


WHITE SLAVERY

[Mike B.]

HMMM...

Interesting that Jubal Early burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania down, months before Sherman started his march to the sea. Plus the Confederate Secret Service made an attempt to burn New York City down in 1864. Sherman did not burn buildings with people in them.

As awful as Lincoln supposedly was, he never countenced biological warfare like Jefferson Davis did by giving the green light to shipping infected Yellow Fever clothes to Union occupied areas. Luckily the disease could not be spread that way.(See "Blood on the Moon" by Ed Steers)

But don't worry facts will not get in the way of Neo-Confederates like Thomas DiLorenzo and their lost cause myth. Remember "heritage" is the most important thing.

It is a testment to the sucess of the lost cause myth that people don't know about these things.

But alas this argument will get nowhere. People have too much emotionally involved here to admit they might be wrong.