If Lincoln didn't plan to abolish slavery why would the South want to secede?
How Long til Silent Sam is Removed (one way or the other)?
- Thread starter UNC71-00
- Start date
Yet, a war ensued over what? Slavery, or secession? Was the south's actions legal by that days standard? Why did it matter so much to him to declare war on the south. Why not let it play out and see if the industrial side of things took hold? Border states?
We broke away from England over controlling ideals. We took our slaves with us then.
The South seceded of the right to own slaves. As you well stated, Lincoln did think he could force them to quit owning slaves.
Southern plantation owners argued that they couldn't support their industry without them. The north replaced their slaves with machines. They expected the south to go from slaves to paid labor. This mindset lines up well with the minimal wage argument. $15 bucks an hour at McDonald's isn't sustainable.
As wrong as owning slave is, the south still had the right to own them. The country as a whole owned them at one time. If England demanded the colonies to abolish slavery, I am sure they would have fought for their right to own them as part of their reason for secession for England.
Lincoln had blood on his hands just as much as the south did for owning slaves. History just paints him in a different light
He gave multiple reasons, actually. You chose to interpret his statement narrowly so you could be angry about it.
Because they didn't trust him at his word. They were worried he'd abolish slavery.
War happened because Lincoln believed in the constitution and that the United States must remain whole. It was just that simple. He is as responsible for Merica being great as is Washington.
The South seceding was treason and Lincoln was going to bring them to heel. If not for his actions, we'd look a lot more like Europe and would never have become the super power we are today.
Abortion is morally wrong, but women still have the right to have an abortion. Is that a valid comparison?
It should have never been an issue. It's murder any way you look at it. If I can get drunk and kill a pregnant woman, and have 2 charges on me, why would aborting an innocent be any different?
And you won't see me going In to that woman's house and completely burning it to the ground while killing everything else in site, including that woman.
Show me where it was a treasonist act to part from the union. It was only a treasonist act after history recorded it. We went from states governing themselves to a federally instated army to march against them. Again, it was the state's decision with what to do about slaves, not the union. Honest Abe made it a federal issue. His idea of preservation the union resulted in millions of lives lost as well as a recovery period that lasted well into my childhood. That's what the great emancipator accomplished. Mostly Sherman's march to the sea was abominable.
I did some digging and found that the Governor doesn't have the power to remove it. It has to be approved by the NC Historical Commission and there are strict requirements as to the move. It prohibits moving monuments to museums unless they were originally located in one, and requires any monument that is moved to go to an "area of similar prominence." Not sure what area would be as prominent as the current location.
Secession and that document came about in the same year. Was this wrote to stop them? Was this wrote once they left. The process most likely was already in the works. Also, could this so called law be legal without the south agreeing with It? I know the south was already butthurt because they didn't feel they had proper representation in congress
That statement is from 6 days ago.
And he's still most concerned with "safety" because he was swayed by the pulling down of the statues in N.C.
So that's a yes?
In both cases, we're talking about the rights regarding a very specific issue, not a broad issue like women's reproductive rights or property ownership. Point being the right and the underlying issue are inextricably linked. The argument for the principle of states' rights demands acknowledgment that slavery was the underlying issue. I don't see any way to definitively say it was one or the other but not both.
Anyway, people much smarter and more knowledgeable than me have endlessly debated this topic. Just my 2ยข.
Bearing arms against the United States is treason. It's just that simple.
We committed treason against Britain and the crown. I'm glad we won.
Not following your point about it being 6 days old.
How do you know what he's most concerned about? Sounds like you're willfully assigning intent to fit your views again.
It's six days old, i.e. that's not the statement he put out last night when he decided to unilaterally give the OK to UNC to take Silent Sam down if they deem it necessary.
And I know what he's most concerned about because he plainly says in what you poasted, and again what he said last night, that his most important job as governor is to protect the safety of North Carolinians.
And BTW, in the statement from six days ago, he says statues should be moved to museums or historical sites where they can be studied in proper context. Uhh... Carolina's campus is one massive historical site lol. The soldiers that statue honors attended class in Old East, 150 yards from the site of the statue.
So again, you're going to willfully ignore the full context of his remarks that pre-dated yesterday's statement, just so you can declare that he's caving in to public pressure.
The problem with your assessment is that his statement re: Silent Sam actually came in response to a letter he received from UNC System and UNC-Chapel Hill executives. The letter stated that "there are real safety and security risks associated with either taking the statue down or leaving it up." That's why Cooper said, "If our University leaders believe there is real risk to public safety, the law allows them to take immediate measures."
He's not the one making the call. He's merely granting them the authority to make the decision. And yes, his most important job is the safety of North Carolinians, so I don't understand why your panties have reached Threat Level 4 over the issue.
It seems like he doesn't have anything to grant them from what I understand. His power is equal to mine on this issue. I didn't see his most recent statement, but either he doesn't understand the law (or maybe I don't understand it) or he is making this into a political issue. Of course, that makes him no different than any other politician.
Yes, he's responding to to a letter from Folt and UNC PTBs. Did you read Folt's email from yesterday?
And my panties are in a wad because 1). the whole thing irritates me. I haven't tried to hide that. 2). they're going about all this, IMO, the wrong way. It needs to come up for some sort of vote or hearing or survey to the alumni. Here in Kennesaw, they're actually VOTING on it. A crazy American notion I know.
Of course it's being made into a political issue (by both sides) and that irritates me too. I want to preserve history for my children, leave the politics to actual political matters. As soon as a tragedy like Charlottesville goes down, politicians start scrambling, figuring out ways to profit politically from it.
Never said he did. I saw your earlier poast. Neither of us are qualified to make that determination.
Dude.
I'm going with maybe you don't understand it. He was the Attorney General for 16 years so he's probably pretty good at law stuff.
Dammit.
What would you like to do? Wait until someone is injured or God forbid, killed? Kennesaw has the luxury of putting it to a vote. With protesters prepared to descend on Chapel Hill today, the University and the Governor have to make an immediate assessment and take whatever actions they deem necessary. You're letting your prejudices inform your judgment on this. I'm done talking about it.
It's possible, but the law specifically states the NC Historical Commission has the power. No one else. So, unless he is the sole member of the commission then he has no power to remove it. Since he was the AG for 16 years I, like you, think he is probably pretty good at this law stuff. That leaves two reasons why he would come out and make a statement about this in my opinion. Either he believes it's morally wrong to keep the statue where it is or he is using it as a political issue. It's entirely possible that he believes it's morally wrong, but my cynicism towards politicians makes me think it's a political thing for him. I'm not trying to single him out, because I think all politicians who have recently made statements about this are doing it for political reasons.
Okay fair enough that you don't want to talk about it. I will cease poasting further questions to you.
You have to ask, at what point did the topic of abortion being wrong come up. When they were planning to do abortions? Or once the abortions began? Was it legal for a woman to seek means to destroy that child within, before doctors could do it legally? The flaw in your comparison is all the state's had already been guilty of slavery. Abortion popped up once a modern civilization decided it was ok to murder an innocent. And then defend it. It's some of that same group who are denouncing these monuments that are fine with a woman killing that child. As stated above, next week, they will have some other topic to carry this banner for
That's basically their purpose in life.
Absolutely. And that attitude got them Trump as President. You'd think they would have learned by now.
True, and that's disgusting. Same thing happens after school shootings that the anti-gun folks parade around with the dead kids faces in order to further their own agenda. Makes me sick.
Since Chapel Hill has more police officers than some major cities, maybe they could send a few officers over to campus today to keep the peace? I'm just spit balling here.
I like how you acknowledge his legal expertise while at the same time claiming there's no legal rationale for his decision. There is in fact a third option in which the very law you're citing provides an exception for relocation of the statue when required for the preservation of the statue itself. Please don't make me do any more of your homework for you.
Okay, now I'm done.
ยง 100โ2.1. Protection of monuments, memorials, and works of art.
(a) Approval Required. โ Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval of the North Carolina Historical Commission.
(b) Limitations on Removal. โ An object of remembrance located on public property may not be permanently removed and may only be relocated, whether temporarily or permanently, under the circumstances listed in this subsection and subject to the limitations in this subsection.... The circumstances under which an object of remembrance may be relocated are either of the following:
(1) When appropriate measures are required by the State or a political subdivision of the State to preserve the object....
http://ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2015/Bills/Senate/PDF/S22v5.pdf
tl;dr version of the following post is that I'm still pretty confident I'm correct based on the text of the law.
All right, so I found the text of the NC law regarding removal of "objects of remembrance." There are two exceptions that can be made. From the law:
Permanent Removal Prohibited. โ The State or a political subdivision of the State is prohibited from permanently removing an object of remembrance located on public property. There are two main exceptions: (1) when the object poses a threat to public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, and (2) if an object is privately owned and is the subject of a private legal agreement governing its removal or relocation.
Obviously the relevant langue for this is the safety language. The "state or a political subdivision" is given this exception power. Given the rest of the language in the law that would mean the legislature or the historical committee, not the Governor in my opinion. All of this is complicated by the language governing where it can be placed when removed. From the law:
If the relocation is permanent, it must be relocated to a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access that are within the boundaries of the jurisdiction from which it was relocated.
An object of remembrance may not be relocated to a museum, cemetery, or mausoleum unless it was originally placed at such a location.
That language makes it all but impossible to move in my opinion. Where would you find a site that would be of "similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability and access" within the jurisdiction? The only way I could possibly see the Governer doing this unilaterally would be to get rid of every member of the Historical Committee and replace them with people who agree with him. That is almost certainly political suicide. Full text of the law can be found here.
ETA: I just realized that my link is for a summary of the law and not the complete text of the law. @Raising Heel posted a link to the full law.
All right, so I found the text of the NC law regarding removal of "objects of remembrance." There are two exceptions that can be made. From the law:
Permanent Removal Prohibited. โ The State or a political subdivision of the State is prohibited from permanently removing an object of remembrance located on public property. There are two main exceptions: (1) when the object poses a threat to public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, and (2) if an object is privately owned and is the subject of a private legal agreement governing its removal or relocation.
Obviously the relevant langue for this is the safety language. The "state or a political subdivision" is given this exception power. Given the rest of the language in the law that would mean the legislature or the historical committee, not the Governor in my opinion. All of this is complicated by the language governing where it can be placed when removed. From the law:
If the relocation is permanent, it must be relocated to a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access that are within the boundaries of the jurisdiction from which it was relocated.
An object of remembrance may not be relocated to a museum, cemetery, or mausoleum unless it was originally placed at such a location.
That language makes it all but impossible to move in my opinion. Where would you find a site that would be of "similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability and access" within the jurisdiction? The only way I could possibly see the Governer doing this unilaterally would be to get rid of every member of the Historical Committee and replace them with people who agree with him. That is almost certainly political suicide. Full text of the law can be found here.
ETA: I just realized that my link is for a summary of the law and not the complete text of the law. @Raising Heel posted a link to the full law.
Last edited:
I said all of that was in my opinion.
True, but there are limitations and conditions to relocating it. See my post above.
This is exactly the point I made to Folt in my email and with my earlier poast today which I'll re-quote below:
Interesting that he said museums. That seems contrary to the plain language of the law. Apparently the guy is never wrong though and he should never be questioned. Especially on a forum made to express opinions.
Yep, he definitely said museum. I went back and double checked to make sure I wouldn't get fact checked lol. Direct quote below in italics, emphasis mine:
Second, Iโve asked the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to determine the cost and logistics of removing Confederate monuments from state property as well as alternatives for their placement at museums or historical sites where they can be studied in context.
______________________________________________________________________
I mean... what better place to study a statue in context when it is mere yards from where the men the statue honors attended class and lived, on the state's flagship university's campus which is a living, breathing historical textbook.
Let me also add that my thoughts in this thread are limited to Silent Sam. I'm honestly torn when it comes to a statue that honors a specific person.
I respect that position. I personally don't think any should come down, and not just Civil War monuments. I don't think any statues should come down because they're part of history. To me, it would be no different than bulldozing a historic battlefield or national park. Please note that's my opinion, since we seem to have to state when we're going into opinion mode these days on OOTB.
But that being said, I can see why it would make sense to take down ones that don't really fit contextually. For instance, unless I'm wrong, Robert E. Lee has no tie to Durham or Duke, so while I don't think any statue should come down, it makes sense the Lee one was removed from Duke since there's no direct tie. Obviously, there's a direct tie between Silent Sam and UNC
I think I lean towards @gunslingerdick's idea of letting voters decide. If they do come down I think they should go in a museum instead of being destroyed. I saw a comment the other day that I thought was interesting. Someone noted that concentration camps in Germany are still up even though they are part of one of the worst atrocities in human history. I realize that it's not entirely the same since the statues represent, to some people, the oppressors and not the victims like the concentration camps, but I thought it was sort of an interesting thought.
Similar threads
