Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 105 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    but believed that certain circumstances (a long train of abuses…utter despotism etc) justifies secession.

    Circumstances that are entirely subjective, and that will be based on the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end.

    As for the rest, I didn’t say that. You did.

    What was the reason the south seceded? Please list the long train of abuses.

    Whether the south was justified is not the point. The question was simple; whether secession was legal. Clearly, the Founders thought so.

    If there were a long train of abuses, which they listed in their declaration to King George. It was not a blanket endorsement of secession.

    See comment #85. And don’t bother responding again. I won’t.

    What were the abuses that justified the Southern Secession?

    • #91
  2. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    Because every single Southerner, in fact every member of the white race, were collectively holding the whip.

    You can’t possibly believe that’s what I suggested.

    The personal objections of some to slavery may be a source of historical consolation if one wants to say the details of the Peculiar Institution were nuanced and full of shades of grey, but when the institution is legal and has the force of law, the personal objections irrelevant – until the point when they gain sufficient traction to evolve the culture. If I was a black man in the 1870s living in a victorious South I might not have been content to wait.

    • #92
  3. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Local governments removing statues share blame, mayors who allow demonstrations about them share it, people who use the demonstrations to create media events and the media itself share most of the blame as do  police who stand by.    Now of all of these which are actual threats to our freedom and freedoms, or freedom of speech, or freedom of association?  These tiny deranged minorities or the organized forces backed by powerful wealthy interests, a major party and most of the media?   I don’t know what if anything the President should have done or said,  when he should have said it or what he knew when?   He’s not Reagan and he wasn’t speaking to the NAACP, he’d not be invited by the radicals who run that place now, and if he were he’d probably make an appropriate comment as well.   My view is that the President should focus on the big stuff, but obviously that doesn’t work either. The country is unhinged so he has to really game out everything he says and try to avoid off the cuff remarks.  That isn’t going to happen.

    • #93
  4. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Salvatore Padula (View Comment):

    profdlp (View Comment):

    Salvatore Padula (View Comment):

    profdlp (View Comment):
    Try this: If a statue of MLK became a rallying point for BLM and violence ensued, then SOL PDQ for the CRI. Need another TLA? Or is that AOK?

    Again, the original point wasn’t about violence. I understand the point you’re making. It’s not responsive to Yeti’s point, which was not dependent on violence.

    Is a “rallying point” sans violence worse than two groups of knuckleheads fighting? I think the point Blue Yeti was making was that the violence which was certain to ensue would necessitate the removal of the statues. If I am wrong about that I would like to hear it from him. Otherwise it is just the two of us debating what he meant, which we could do all night to no good end.

    Fair enough.

    This was indeed my point. If the monuments are going to be targets for violent protests, then they’ll either have to be secured or removed. Same goes for any other monuments, I suppose. Sad.

    I think Condi Rice’s view on this is very pertinent:

    I agree with Condi. The movement to remove Confederate monuments across the country is wrongheaded. It is why it is such a divisive issue. And the City Council’s around the South would not be taking this issue up on their own. It is forced upon them by racist agitators looking for a fight.

    The only thing that I would quibble with Condi about, would be her differentiation of history and heritage. She said it is our history, but not our heritage. Collectively I agree with that statement. However, for many Southerners, it is their heritage as well. And they don’t cotton too much to the neo Yankee carpetbaggers coming down into their birthplace wreaking havoc once again.

    • #94
  5. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Salvatore Padula (View Comment):

    profdlp (View Comment):

    Salvatore Padula (View Comment):

    profdlp (View Comment):
    Try this: If a statue of MLK became a rallying point for BLM and violence ensued, then SOL PDQ for the CRI. Need another TLA? Or is that AOK?

    Again, the original point wasn’t about violence. I understand the point you’re making. It’s not responsive to Yeti’s point, which was not dependent on violence.

    Is a “rallying point” sans violence worse than two groups of knuckleheads fighting? I think the point Blue Yeti was making was that the violence which was certain to ensue would necessitate the removal of the statues. If I am wrong about that I would like to hear it from him. Otherwise it is just the two of us debating what he meant, which we could do all night to no good end.

    Fair enough.

    This was indeed my point. If the monuments are going to be targets for violent protests, then they’ll either have to be secured or removed. Same goes for any other monuments, I suppose. Sad.

    I think Condi Rice’s view on this is very pertinent:

    You know, one could even suggest that the monument removers should just … stop being offended!

    • #95
  6. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):
    I don’t get all the back and forth over how Trump should have phrased his remarks as they were pretty standard, and everyone certainly knew who he was talking about. The story is not Trump, but who was behind the riots. Where did they come from; who financed them; who organized the event. How many more of them are out there? What is their purpose? Where did what started out as a peaceful protest go wrong. Finally, why are we tearing down statues relating to our past history?

    This is what happens when the President is not specific about who he is condemning:

    On the statues, if they are to become rallying points for neo-Nazis, then they probably have to go.

    It is physics. To each and every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. They only become rallying points for ‘neo-nazis’ after the Left’s gestapo forces bully and intimidate local city councils into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds to remove statuary that has been in place for almost 100 years.

    Compare and contrast this response … “they probably have to go” … (that Rich Lowry also posits at NRO today) with that of Neville Chamberlain. Or negotiating with a terrorist like Kim Jong Un.

    • #96
  7. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Local governments removing statues share blame, mayors who allow demonstrations about them share it, people who use the demonstrations to create media events and the media itself share most of the blame as do police who stand by. Now of all of these which are actual threats to our freedom and freedoms, or freedom of speech, or freedom of association? These tiny deranged minorities or the organized forces backed by powerful wealthy interests, a major party and most of the media? I don’t know what if anything the President should have done or said, when he should have said it or what he knew when? He’s not Reagan and he wasn’t speaking to the NAACP, he’d not be invited by the radicals who run that place now, and if he were he’d probably make an appropriate comment as well. My view is that the President should focus on the big stuff, but obviously that doesn’t work either. The country is unhinged so he has to really game out everything he says and try to avoid off the cuff remarks. That isn’t going to happen.

    Laura Ingraham made a chilling observation on mobs gathering and pulling down and destroying statues of Confederate generals – essentially how long before mobs show up to Monticello or Mount Vernon? I would add the Jefferson Memorial or the Washington Monument in D.C. How long before Leftists attempt to change the name of the nation’s capital or the State of Washington? What about Mark Twain’s home since he used that awful word in Huckleberry Finn? Where does this end?

    I don’t care where one is on the politics of whether statues or other memorials to certain historical figures need to stay or be removed, there has to be police presence to preserve this heritage before mobs gather to tear them down. What happened in North Carolina was lawless, despicable and does not bode well for other historical sites.

    • #97
  8. Steve Rosenbach Inactive
    Steve Rosenbach
    @SteveRosenbach

    Trumps’s initial remarks were appropriate in the context of violent leftist riots in the recent months as well as the behavior of the antifa elements in Charlottesville.

     

    • #98
  9. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Laura Ingraham made a chilling observation on mobs gathering and pulling down and destroying statues of Confederate generals – essentially how long before mobs show up to Monticello or Mount Vernon? I would add the Jefferson Memorial or the Washington Monument in D.C. How long before Leftists attempt to change the name of the nation’s capital or the State of Washington? What about Mark Twain’s home since he used that awful word in Huckleberry Finn? Where does this end?

    I don’t care where one is on the politics of whether statues or other memorials to certain historical figures need to stay or be removed, there has to be police presence to preserve this heritage before mobs gather to tear them down. What happened in North Carolina was lawless, despicable and does not bode well for other historical sites.

    I rest my case: (see this article in the Daily Wire):

    • #99
  10. Tricky Ricky Inactive
    Tricky Ricky
    @DrRick

    Peter, President Trump’s initial comments were much stronger than President Reagan’s and it simply was not enough.  I am not surprised that it was not enough for the left, but i was very discouraged when it was not enough for the journalists on the right.

    Further, when President Trump came out specifically called out the KKK and other far right groups, that was still not enough.  Some people will never accept this president.

    • #100
  11. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    On the statues, if they are to become rallying points for neo-Nazis, then they probably have to go.

    No. I absolutely refuse to ever again allow either the Leftists or a crassly opportunistic anti-Southern contingent of the Republican party to use the neo-Nazis as an excuse to destroy or stigmatize Southern heritage sites and/or cultural landmarks and icons. We were caught by surprise by the betrayals after the Charleston massacre, that will not happen again. It is also not in any conservative’s interest in any event, as it will only bring the Leftists closer to Washington, Jefferson, and most of the other Founding Fathers (whom the white supremacists may also choose to rally around for the wrong reasons).

    This. I give no quarter to anti-Southern types of any political stripe.

    To be pro-southern one must be pro-confederacy?

    Not necessarily. But the two are virtually inseparable these days, especially if you had ancestors who fought on the Confederate side.

    That’s rather unfortunate as I think there are lots of admirable parts of southern culture not associated with the confederacy. That most of our founding documents stem from the minds of Virginians or the defeat of the British at Yorktown. The Alamo and Texas Independence. Some of the most admirable men in our countries history hail from the south.

    I mean, you might as well tear down anything with Washington on it.  He was a slave owner, and ran a plantation in the south, after all.

    • #101
  12. profdlp Inactive
    profdlp
    @profdlp

    Spin (View Comment):
    I mean, you might as well tear down anything with Washington on it. He was a slave owner, and ran a plantation in the south, after all

    That is the overall grand plan.

    • #102
  13. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Viruscop (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    The effort to remove and demolish Confederate monuments has but one purpose: to demean white Southerners and their culture.

    ALL my people, on both sides, came to this country from Britain in the 17th century, with the exception of my great great grandmother, a Cherokee Indian. They settled in the South, and I have been proud of my heritage for my whole life. Some of our greatest writers have come from the South and some of our greatest politicians. They’ll never, ever make me ashamed of my heritage.

    Amen. And my Confederate ancestors were Tejanos – that is, Spanish Texans who were descended from Spaniards who came to settle the area when it was still a part of the Spanish empire. They fought for the home they had built over several generations.

    What do you mean ‘They fought for the home they had built for generations”? Did they think that the Union was just going to destroy their property for the hell of it?

    Uh….this point is rather undercut by Sherman.

    That’s kind of like saying Japan had to attack Pearl Harbor to prevent getting Nuked.

    • #103
  14. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    profdlp (View Comment):

    Salvatore Padula (View Comment):

    profdlp (View Comment):
    Try this: If a statue of MLK became a rallying point for BLM and violence ensued, then SOL PDQ for the CRI. Need another TLA? Or is that AOK?

    Again, the original point wasn’t about violence. I understand the point you’re making. It’s not responsive to Yeti’s point, which was not dependent on violence.

    Is a “rallying point” sans violence worse than two groups of knuckleheads fighting? I think the point Blue Yeti was making was that the violence which was certain to ensue would necessitate the removal of the statues. If I am wrong about that I would like to hear it from him. Otherwise it is just the two of us debating what he meant, which we could do all night to no good end.

    I think you have Yeti’s gist. And, of course, if banks incite bank robbery, we must abolish them as well. I’m more of a “put them in jail for a long, long time” kind of guy.  A dozen or so from each belligerent faction. How many antifa and blm have managed to spend real time locked up?

    • #104
  15. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    but believed that certain circumstances (a long train of abuses…utter despotism etc) justifies secession.

    Circumstances that are entirely subjective, and that will be based on the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end.

    As for the rest, I didn’t say that. You did.

    What was the reason the south seceded? Please list the long train of abuses.

    Whether the south was justified is not the point. The question was simple; whether secession was legal. Clearly, the Founders thought so.

    This is an oversimplification, to say the least. Our founders put together a document specfically designed to tell the world the reason for the separation. The sucessionishs did not do this. Furthermore, Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery in our Declaration. He had to give that up because of the South. And it was those Southern States, wanting to hang on to slavery, that brought on the Civil War.

    • #105
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.