Lee was a general. Jefferson Davis was the leader. I agree with your point though.

I know, that's why I said "a leader" instead of "the leader".

Thanks for the translation, Frownland!

^ I didn't know that the statue had always been controvertial. Anybody know when it was first put up?

^ I didn't realise that people felt like this either. I had a more "Gone with the Wind" perception, that a political dispute between erstwhile brothers, Americans all, somehow got out of hand. Perhaps I need to review my thinking on this topic....

It really isn't contentious anymore except for a select group of gun toting Southerners. I highly doubt anyone in this discussion has any emotional investment in the Yankee v. Rebel debate.


No, it was about slavery. The North wasn't so much pushing for abolition before the war as they were trying to prevent new states entering the Union from being slave states, as there was a power struggle between North and South and at the time 3/5 of the slaves in a state counted towards representation in the House of Representatives, and since the agrarian South had different political interests than the industrial North both sides were basically staring each other down over the issue.

I'm sure there was worry in the South over possible eventual abolition, but unless I'm misremembering my history it was really a political issue.

I don't think it's really that clear. I'm certainly not an apologist who thinks the war was about the South fighting for its rights, but at the time as far as I know the issue of a state's right to secede from the Union either hadn't been properly addressed or at least settled. I think it would be a reasonable assumption in 1860 that a state was ultimately a sovereign power that was voluntarily ceding some measure of authority to the central government for the sake of keeping a functional country, but still had the right to declare independence and claim their soil as their own.

Nah, by 1860, national supremacy was firmly established.

Hop down to the supreme court interpretations section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The monuments aren't being smashed up, they're being moved to museums or put in storage. And just for context, many of these monuments were erected decades after the war as statements of white supremacy. Here's the plaque that was originally on a monument recently removed from New Orleans:

http://daytonatimes.com/wp-content/u...t_nation02.jpg

The descendants of Confederates always cry about how moving these statues hurts their precious little feelings, but what about the descendants of the people the Confederates enslaved? Why should they have to endure monuments to the atrocities committed against their ancestors? I say take them down and put them in a museum, they should never have been erected in the first place.

Is there something specific there or is this just about the Clause itself? Cause I already know that state law is superseded by federal law, but as far as I know that doesn't specifically address a state's right to actually leave the Union. I highly doubt many or any of the states would have voted to ratify the Constitution if that was clear. As far as I can tell it seems one of those things left either unaddressed or vague at the time of ratification for the sake of not having to have a contentious discussion.

It wasn't established until 69 in Texas v White, so you might be right.

I'll post this quote I saw in my lazy wiki read

"The right of revolution expressed in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long-practised injustice is tolerated until sustained assaults on the rights of the entire people have accumulated enough force to oppress them; then they may defend themselves."

So unless the slaves were revolting I don't think they have a case.

Stone Mountain wasn't completed until like the 1960's or some ****. Now they're talking about putting an MLK thing on it. It's like the guy who gets out of prison but still has his Nazi Low Riders tattoo.

The Civil War really started with Nat Turner.