Top military officer labels Confederacy as treasonous as Pentagon takes ‘hard look’ at rebel ties

[Hoodat]

My argument is that many of these statues are wrong and anachronistic...they belong in museums as relics of histories, not as monuments on street corners to honor in our civic arena as icons of who we are as a nation. When we fight to keep a statue in the public square of Nathan Forrest, we are associating ourselves with his racism and with the cause he for which he fought...our doing this HELPS groups like BLM to seem like they are morally in the right (which they are not).

Shouldn't that decision be left up to the people of those communities?  No one seemed to mind Nathan Forrest when Al Gore was running for President.  Tennessee even had a State holiday honoring him back then.  But less than 20 years later, the very dirt of Memphis can no longer tolerate Forrest's remains from being buried there.  So what changed between 2000 and 2017?

I am not a fan of Forrest either, but I should have no say on what Davidson County or Shelby County decide to do.  I just think it reeks of hypocrisy for Democrats to express outrage now after having bestowed him with honor for 150 years.

But Forrest is the bad guy because of the KKK.  Not so for Robert Byrd or Hugo Black.  Only for Forrest, even though he personally denounced the Klan, something that Byrd and Black never did.

But back to the statues.  Whether they stay or go should be put up to a vote.  Because it is inherently wrong for a mob to take that decision away from the members of a society.

[roamer_1]

Evil causes rise BECAUSE they are championing against genuine moral wrong in a society...

The genuine moral wrong was done by the North upon the South.

[truth_seeker]

Another example of applying today's sensitivities to yesterday's issues. Federalism, opposed to nationalism, was taken much more seriously in 1860 than it is now.

By way of history and reconciliation, I favor leaving ALL of our history in tact. Union Generals, Confederate generals.

And don't forget to teach about abolition, which was religious, in much of the world but perhaps earliest and strongest in North America and Britain.

Blacks today seldom voice much knowledge about those people, who pushed to be rid of their chains.

Abolition movement gave birth to the Republican Party, aka GOP.

[sneakypete]

Between esper and milley it appears that our military colleges no longer teach history...

@EdinVA

Doesn't matter anymore. The bankers choose who sits on the JCS boards,and those monkeys WILL do what their masters want when the strings are pulled.

It began when Kissinger wanted a big black guy to carry his luggage,and look at how far Colon went.

[sneakypete]

Yes, dear!  Trump chose from what was available after the Obama destruction of the General Staff Corp.

@Bigun

It began under Boy Jorge,not Obomber.

Maybe even on Poppy's watch.

Not that it matters. Either way it was Babs giving the orders.

[sneakypete]

To be fair, anyone in the Confederacy WAS a traitor and a rebel. So what the South did WAS treason...and that applies to all who served in the southern military forces. That's a simple historical fact. 

@Mescalone

No,it is simple HorseHillary. The union was a VOLUNTARY union formed by the original 13 colonies,and each had the RIGHT to withdraw from the union at any time if they determined the rights of their individual states were being violated.

What LINCOLN did was un-Constitutional.

[sneakypete]

Soooo glad I can see the retirement light at the end of the tunnel.

@txradioguy

I am sure glad it's not me facing more time before separation. I am seriously on my last bleeping nerve with all these Black Lives Matter racists and their punk-ass followers. I have never in my entire GD life considered myself to be a racist.......,but that is changing rapidly.

[sneakypete]

The 1862 Act to Suppress Insurrection; to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other purposes...says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Lincoln and successors eventually pardoned southern leaders, but they were pardoned FOR their acts of treason.

I'm aware that the South THOUGHT they had a right to secede...the North disagreed. We fought a war over that definition...you lost. As such, the North's moral, military and judicial definition of secession prevails...even up to the current day and hour. As Lincoln made clear throughout, it is treason to secede in such a manner. So you're incorrect in every legal, moral and sheer power definition of secession being treason. So, as I said, there's everything traitorous in "that".

@Mescalone

I hope you wear your chains happily once the NWO takes over,and that your black masters only flog you every other day.

[roamer_1]

@Mescalone

No,it is simple HorseHillary. The union was a VOLUNTARY union formed by the original 13 colonies,and each had the RIGHT to withdraw from the union at any time if they determined the rights of their individual states were being violated.

What LINCOLN did was un-Constitutional.

Simple contract law... The right to withdraw is inherent.

[Hoodat]

As Lincoln made clear throughout, it is treason to secede in such a manner. So you're incorrect in every legal, moral and sheer power definition of secession being treason.

@Mesaclone

Can you please show me the legal statute that not only prohibits secession, but also defines it as treason?  I would also like to see your basis for your statements on Lincoln considering that he was a full supporter of secession when it came to West Virginia seceding from Virginia, the Constitution be damned.

[Hoodat]

US Constitution
Article IV, Sec 3

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


The Virginia legislature did not give its consent to the formation of West Virginia.  Lincoln violated the US Constitution.

[Bigun]

@Mesaclone

Can you please show me the legal statute that not only prohibits secession but also defines it as treason?  I would also like to see your basis for your statements on Lincoln considering that he was a full supporter of secession when it came to West Virginia seceding from Virginia, the Constitution be damned.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

[Mesaclone]

It's a waste of time confusing people with facts when their minds are made up.

Wrong. The act was put into effect by 1864....all that remained in a state of rebellion at that time were subject to the structures of the law...not to let the facts “confuse” you too much.

[Mesaclone]

Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

The Articles of Confederation explicitly bound the states together... the Constitution did not relegate that but built upon it creating “a more perfect Union”. Further, the states joined in committing to the Union within the bounds of the Constitution and there is no exit clause...and thus no “constitutional” mechanism for seceding. There are volumes of legal material both pro and con on this topic, but in the end, the war itself ended the debate and settled it once and for all in favor of Union.

[LegalAmerican]

Shouldn't that decision be left up to the people of those communities?  No one seemed to mind Nathan Forrest when Al Gore was running for President.  Tennessee even had a State holiday honoring him back then.  But less than 20 years later, the very dirt of Memphis can no longer tolerate Forrest's remains from being buried there.  So what changed between 2000 and 2017?

I am not a fan of Forrest either, but I should have no say on what Davidson County or Shelby County decide to do.  I just think it reeks of hypocrisy for Democrats to express outrage now after having bestowed him with honor for 150 years.

But Forrest is the bad guy because of the KKK.  Not so for Robert Byrd or Hugo Black.  Only for Forrest, even though he personally denounced the Klan, something that Byrd and Black never did.

But back to the statues.  Whether they stay or go should be put up to a vote.  Because it is inherently wrong for a mob to take that decision away from the members of a society.

   And why even bother......now.  It is what it is. BUSY WORK AND WASTE OF MONEY. 

[roamer_1]

The Articles of Confederation explicitly bound the states together... the Constitution did not relegate that but built upon it creating “a more perfect Union”. Further, the states joined in committing to the Union within the bounds of the Constitution and there is no exit clause...and thus no “constitutional” mechanism for seceding. There are volumes of legal material both pro and con on this topic, but in the end, the war itself ended the debate and settled it once and for all in favor of Union.

Nonsense. As @Bigun already demonstrates, the federal government is a creature of the various states. The signators creating that creature by the very nature of what a contract is, have a perfect right to quit any obligation the moment that contract is broken. A broken contract is rendered null.

[Smokin Joe]

The 1862 Act to Suppress Insurrection; to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other purposes...says otherwise, and it is the law of the land. Lincoln and successors eventually pardoned southern leaders, but they were pardoned FOR their acts of treason.

I'm aware that the South THOUGHT they had a right to secede...the North disagreed. We fought a war over that definition...you lost. As such, the North's moral, military and judicial definition of secession prevails...even up to the current day and hour. As Lincoln made clear throughout, it is treason to secede in such a manner. So you're incorrect in every legal, moral and sheer power definition of secession being treason. So, as I said, there's everything traitorous in "that".

THen the 1862 Act is an ex post facto law. Secession was a fait accomplit by the time it was passed. The horses were gone, and then the barn door was locked.

Or did we so quickly forget?

 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Lincoln was wrong, and the imposition by force doesn't change that.

[Hoodat]

The Articles of Confederation explicitly bound the states together...

Yet all 13 States were allowed to exit that explicit binding without a shot being fired.  Including Virginia.  Go figure.

[Hoodat]

but in the end, the war itself ended the debate and settled it once and for all in favor of Union.

So what the law and the Constitution was unable to do, the gun proved to be the only successful means.  Sounds like tyranny to me.  But at least you've abandoned the non-existent legal argument for Lincoln's action.

[Hoodat]

From the South Carolina Articles of Secession:

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolinas-declaration-of-the-causes-of-secession/

At the time that the US Constitution went into effect, Virginia was still an independent State.  Here is their secession declaration:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression

The deal back in 1788 was that the people of Virginia reserved the right to leave the Union at any future point since the powers of said Constitution were derived from the people.

[Mesaclone]

THen the 1862 Act is an ex post facto law. Secession was a fait accomplit by the time it was passed. The horses were gone, and then the barn door was locked.

Or did we so quickly forget?

 
Lincoln was wrong, and the imposition by force doesn't change that.

No, its not ex post facto. If states were in rebellion in 1864, those folks fighting for them were covered by the act...and as secession was not recognized as a right they were still part of the United States. Period.

[Mesaclone]

As per its assigned judicial role under the Constitution, (Article III Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.") the Supreme Court ruled against the legality of secession. This ruling, by definition, makes secession an impermissible and illegal act under the United States Constitution as defined by the very court that this same Constitution grants authority on which to rule in the matter.

This was reinforced in 1868 in a ruling written by Chief Justice Chase. Texas vs White settled the issue of the legality of secession once and for all.

Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states". In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.[58]

The Constitution is NOT a "simple" contract and contract law does not apply in any way. It is a ceding of power, not a quid pro quo and is by its own definition via the Articles of Confederation, to remain in existence in "perpetuity". It is in fact a charter built upon the Articles of Confederation which clearly assert that the Union of the states is "perpetual". The Constitution, "a more perfect Union", is therefore even more binding.

In the end, the issue could not be settled peacefully. War was waged and won. And thus the issue settled...that secession is not allowed nor legal. So there IS no longer a legal question under U.S. law regarding the legality of secession...the courts and a war have settled the issue...states may not secede and are bound in "perpetuity" to the Union. This does not mean states do not have many other rights...they most certainly do...but secession is not one of them.

[Mesaclone]

Yet all 13 States were allowed to exit that explicit binding without a shot being fired.  Including Virginia.  Go figure.

They jointly agreed to BUILD upon the Articles to effect a more functional and secure binding of their fates. That is quite different than a secession.

[Mesaclone]

I find it best to cite one of the greatest conservative jurists of the last century...Antonin Scalia.

"If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

As Scalia said, the constitutional question of secession is now resolved. Settled. Over. Secession, without the consent of the broader Union, is not allowed.

Scalia argued that the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”


Let me guess....Antonin Scalia is just another squishy liberal.

Now ask yourself, who is the more qualified of these legal scholars....Hoodat....roamer1....or Antonin Scalia? Hint: It ain't Hoodat or roamer1.

[Mesaclone]

Reinforcing Scalia's view on the invalidity of secession, are the opinions of Supreme Court Justice Chase.

 â€œThe union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

The interpretation of the applied meaning of the Constitution, and of the law, is tasked to the Supreme Court (Courts) via the Constitution. That Constitutionally tasked body has ruled...repeatedly...that secession is illegal and therefore treasonous. That, quite literally, makes this interpretation the law of the land. Individuals may agree or disagree with the correctness of the ruling, but it is the opinion of the United States of America that secession is an act of treason. Period.