Jeh Johnson: Removal of Confederate Statues a Matter of ‘Homeland Security’

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

The Civil War was not a war to end slavery.  It was a war deigned to stop the secession of the Southern states from the union, which was happening because of the lack of adherence to the 10th amendment - to wit, the states wanting to secede believed that the US government did not have the right to tell them how to run their states.  However, if states were allowed to leave the union anytime they disagreed with the government, then soon there wouldn't BE any union.  So a war ensued that got the desired outcome... no secession, and we still have a central form of government today.

 

The concept of slavery as the basis of the Civil War is a warped one.  The southern states saw their right to own slaves as something that should be controlled by the individual states, not the far-away US government.  Slavery was already winding down in the North due to it not being as profitable because typically large land owners profited the most, and that type of property ownership was more prominent in the South.  Then as tobacco prices started dropping in the South, so too did the profitability of owning slaves.  Enter the cotton gin, and suddenly slaves were a commodity again.  Although the vast majority of Souterners never owned slaves, it became inextricably tied to the South's practice of using slaves to pick cotton at the time.  (Note: Also at that time, Northeners viewed blacks as inferior beings, even though it wasn't as economically feasible to own and keep up with them in the North).

 

Also of interest is the fact that the first slaves in America were white bondsmen, people who basically sold themselves into labor as the price of passage to the new land. This practice took place between 1607 when Jamestown was established until 1619 when the first Africans arrived, unable to pay for their passage to America, and also became indentured servants.  So the first slaves were not black, and the practice was well-established prior to the arrival of the blacks.  Unfortunately, it continued (as we all know) far too long.

 

The Civil War was about civil liberties, and the concept that states had the right to govern themselves, not be forced to comply with the rules of a distant, often disconnected government.  Slavery did become a primary component of the war as time went on, especially when Lincoln created the USCT and blacks were considered part of the US military, and they helped turn the tide of the war to the conclusion we know today.

 

As to the concept of statues and flags... if they have been allowed to remain until today, why remove them now?  What does a statue of Lee, Grant, or anyone else hurt today?  They were erected in much different times, but serve as a reminder as to the history of our country.  A reminder of where we came from, what we did, and what (hopefully) we should never do again.  If we remove our history from sight (as many have done when they remove facts about the Holocaust from school books), then it will become an old folks tale, and may not serve as the reminder needed to prevent it from happening one day in the future.

 

Every time I see a statue or a picture of the generals and presidents who served back then, even though I may not know the details of what each one did, I am reminded that those were tumultuous times, and make me glad I didn't have to live back then.  Also make me glad that we have moved on and life is better for everyone today than it was back then.  Civil rights have come a long way since we first began as a nation, thankfully.  Here's hoping we don't try to take them too far.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

The Civil War was not a war to end slavery.  It was a war deigned to stop the secession of the Southern states from the union, which was happening because of the lack of adherence to the 10th amendment - to wit, the states wanting to secede believed that the US government did not have the right to tell them how to run their states.  However, if states were allowed to leave the union anytime they disagreed with the government, then soon there wouldn't BE any union.  So a war ensued that got the desired outcome... no secession, and we still have a central form of government today.

 

The concept of slavery as the basis of the Civil War is a warped one.  The southern states saw their right to own slaves as something that should be controlled by the individual states, not the far-away US government.  Slavery was already winding down in the North due to it not being as profitable because typically large land owners profited the most, and that type of property ownership was more prominent in the South.  Then as tobacco prices started dropping in the South, so too did the profitability of owning slaves.  Enter the cotton gin, and suddenly slaves were a commodity again.  Although the vast majority of Souterners never owned slaves, it became inextricably tied to the South's practice of using slaves to pick cotton at the time.  (Note: Also at that time, Northeners viewed blacks as inferior beings, even though it wasn't as economically feasible to own and keep up with them in the North).

 

Also of interest is the fact that the first slaves in America were white bondsmen, people who basically sold themselves into labor as the price of passage to the new land. This practice took place between 1607 when Jamestown was established until 1619 when the first Africans arrived, unable to pay for their passage to America, and also became indentured servants.  So the first slaves were not black, and the practice was well-established prior to the arrival of the blacks.  Unfortunately, it continued (as we all know) far too long.

 

The Civil War was about civil liberties, and the concept that states had the right to govern themselves, not be forced to comply with the rules of a distant, often disconnected government.  Slavery did become a primary component of the war as time went on, especially when Lincoln created the USCT and blacks were considered part of the US military, and they helped turn the tide of the war to the conclusion we know today.

 

As to the concept of statues and flags... if they have been allowed to remain until today, why remove them now?  What does a statue of Lee, Grant, or anyone else hurt today?  They were erected in much different times, but serve as a reminder as to the history of our country.  A reminder of where we came from, what we did, and what (hopefully) we should never do again.  If we remove our history from sight (as many have done when they remove facts about the Holocaust from school books), then it will become an old folks tale, and may not serve as the reminder needed to prevent it from happening one day in the future.

 

Every time I see a statue or a picture of the generals and presidents who served back then, even though I may not know the details of what each one did, I am reminded that those were tumultuous times, and make me glad I didn't have to live back then.  Also make me glad that we have moved on and life is better for everyone today than it was back then.  Civil rights have come a long way since we first began as a nation, thankfully.  Here's hoping we don't try to take them too far.

Responding to bolded parts in order:

 

I'm sorry but we hear this a lot. Bottom line is they wanted the right for the individual states to choose because their individual states wanted to keep it. If the federal government agreed to keep slavery, they wouldn't care if it was their "right to choose" or not. They only made a fuss about their right to choose because they wanted to choose to keep slavery. Unfortunately for them slavery is wrong no matter who gets to choose to keep it or not.

 

The Civil War was about the South wanting the liberty to continue a practice that is evil and wrong. The "liberty" spin is to avoid the crux of the issue. If the south were allowed to continue on their merry way with slaves, they would not have fought over "liberty". What other major issues were the South states wanting the right to decide on?

 

That is my general opinion, which is why I've said I don't really care about that. They are just statues. If the local people want them gone, then I'm fine with that, but if they want them to stay I'm fine as well. It should be up to local people though. Neither side should be busing in people in protest.

 

I agree we should remind ourselves of all of those things, but I would say using a heroic statue to remind us of something we should "never do again" is probably not the best way to memorialize it. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

While I see the similarity they are painting with Nelson, I do think there is a distinction between those who opposed the abolition of slavery or were slave owners themselves and those who actively ceceded and fought a civil war over the matter. Nelson was opposed, but when he didn't get his way he didn't take a faction in England and go to war.

 

I see the issue with the Confederates as two-fold. It's a combination of their support of slavery and their willingness to go to war and kill their fellow Americans in defense of that support. I can see going to war and killing to destroy slavery, but not to defend it. I realize there are other "reasons" that many people list for the Civil War (States rights) but to me it still ultimately comes down to the fact that they were willing to go to war for their State's rights to keep slaves. They put that above killing other Americans.

 

All that being said, I also really don't care about the statues. I'm never going to travel anywhere just to see a statue of a Confederate general/leader. They were the losing team. I'll just walk past them.

 

1 hour ago, bcking said:

The southern states ceceded the union over their right to continue slavery. I've studied American History enough I know that.

 

General Lee may have been a patriot and whatever else, but ultimately he chose to side with and fight for those who wouldn't remain in the Union over the issue of slavery. He could have personally hated slavery, I don't care. He still fought for those who wanted to see it continue.

The Civil war was NOT started over slavery. In fact only 2% of southerners owned slaves. Do you really think the other 98% were willing to fight and die so 2% could keep their slaves? Do you think the free African Americans who fought for the Confederate army were fighting so that 2% could keep their slaves. The war was started over states rights more than anything else. Slavery was introduced as an issue in the middle of the war by Lincoln (who actually wrote about how he didn't want to free the slaves but had no choice) to keep the Union from falling apart. 

 

As far as Robert E Lee goes he was a graduate of West Point and was the top general in the US at the time. In fact Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army and after thinking about it long and hard he decided he wanted to remain loyal to his state. After the war was over Lee actually stated he did not want statues made of him because he knew it might act to divide the country. Just a little history that the leftist revisionists have no idea about.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

 

The Civil war was NOT started over slavery. In fact only 2% of southerners owned slaves. Do you really think the other 98% were willing to fight and die so 2% could keep their slaves? Do you think the free African Americans who fought for the Confederate army were fighting so that 2% could keep their slaves. The war was started over states rights more than anything else. Slavery was introduced as an issue in the middle of the war by Lincoln (who actually wrote about how he didn't want to free the slaves but had no choice) to keep the Union from falling apart. 

 

As far as Robert E Lee goes he was a graduate of West Point and was the top general in the US at the time. In fact Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army and after thinking about it long and hard he decided he wanted to remain loyal to his state. After the war was over Lee actually stated he did not want statues made of him because he knew it might act to divide the country. Just a little history that the leftist revisionists have no idea about.

What state right was the war started over? What specific issue, if not slavery? What did the southern states want to do with their new found "states rights"? Oh yah...they wanted to continue slavery.

 

Unfortunately the argument that "Would 98% really be willing to fight etc etc" is flawed because even now it is incredibly easy to influence people and back then it would have been even easier. Poor southerners likely did not have any real picture of what the war was being fought over. It was controlled by the wealthy who were in power and were wealthy because they owned human property. They feared economic collapse if they were made to free their "property", so they tried to argue that they should have the right to keep the practice in their states. They made it about states rights so that they could control their states and keep slavery.

 

Bottom line was though that the practice was and still is wrong. Federal/States rights aren't an issue when you are talking about something that is morally wrong. You can't allow a state to continue something that is unequivocally evil, I don't care what "rights" the state thinks it has.

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Well, at least we both agree that the statues aren't that big of a deal, and that the civil war remains today one of the most controversial times in our history.  

 

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

[jg121783 3,915]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

What state right was the war started over? What specific issue, if not slavery? What did the southern states want to do with their new found "states rights"? Oh yah...they wanted to continue slavery.

 

Unfortunately the argument that "Would 98% really be willing to fight etc etc" is flawed because even now it is incredibly easy to influence people and back then it would have been even easier. Poor southerners likely did not have any real picture of what the war was being fought over. It was controlled by the wealthy who were in power and were wealthy because they owned human property. They feared economic collapse if they were made to free their "property", so they tried to argue that they should have the right to keep the practice in their states. They made it about states rights so that they could control their states and keep slavery.

 

Bottom line was though that the practice was and still is wrong. Federal/States rights aren't an issue when you are talking about something that is morally wrong. You can't allow a state to continue something that is unequivocally evil, I don't care what "rights" the state thinks it has.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. No matter what your view of the cause of the Civil War is it is difficult to argue that a statue of Robert E Lee for example is a representation of racism and as Jeh Johnson ridiculously stated a threat to homeland security.

 

Anyways back to the topic of the thread. Civil war statues are not a threat to homeland security. The degenerates in antifa are. Agree? Disagree?

[bcking 3,157]

19 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Well, at least we both agree that the statues aren't that big of a deal, and that the civil war remains today one of the most controversial times in our history.  

 

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

I see this a lot:

 

In 2011, at the outset of the sesquicentennial, a Pew Research Center poll found that Americans were significantly divided on the issue, with 48% saying the war was "mainly about states' rights," 38% saying the war was "mainly about slavery," with the remainder answering "both equally" or "neither/don't know."  (Taken from your link)

 

A poll like that is VERY poorly written, in my opinion. The options are not mutually exclusive. "Mainly about states' rights" technically would include slavery as an issue since I would argue it was mainly about states' rights to keep slaves. People try to seperate the two when you can't. The south fought for their rights because they wanted to exercise the right to keep slaves.

 

In that same article under "States Rights" they list these two examples:

 

1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.

2) The states argue that the North's reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.

 

Both of those are closely linked to slavery. The southern states would end up "not satisfied" because of how they are forced to end slavery. The second point is obvious.

 

Under Other Grievances they list the following:

 

1) All of the states negatively mention Abraham Lincoln's election and his suspected abolitionist leanings.

2) Georgia accuses Northern manufacturing interests of exploiting the South and dominating the federal government.

3) Texas expresses dissatisfaction with federal military protection.

 

The first one, again, is directly linked to abolition. They were unhappy with a President who was pro-"the right thing to do". Manufacturing interests could be interpreted to be fear regarding what they saw as their economic doom if slavery was abolished. I'll give you point 3, that doesn't have anything to do with slavery.

 

So of the 9 reasons listed in the article you cited, 7 of them are directly linked to slavery. 1 questionably. 1 is unrelated to slavery.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. No matter what your view of the cause of the Civil War is it is difficult to argue that a statue of Robert E Lee for example is a representation of racism and as Jeh Johnson ridiculously stated a threat to homeland security.

 

Anyways back to the topic of the thread. Civil war statues are not a threat to homeland security. The degenerates in antifa are. Agree? Disagree?

Please answer my direct question to you, if you want to carry on a conversation with me and ask me a question.

 

I'll answer your question once you answer mine. 

 

What specific issue, if not slavery, did the southern states want the "right" to choose for themselves over?

 

"States Rights" on its own is rather meaningless. Why did they want to fight for "States rights"? What issue were they fighting over specifically, other than slavery?

[jg121783 3,915]

The cause of the Civil war is an interesting topic that I would love to debate. But let's start another thread about that. I started this thread specifically to discuss what is more of a threat to homeland security. A Civil war statue or the antifa thugs.

Edited August 22, 2017 by jg121783

[Boiler 45,482]

Wow, so much Holiday History, the real stuff is much more interesting, lots of good stuff out there.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Wow, so much Holiday History, the real stuff is much more interesting, lots of good stuff out there.

Please feel free to enlighten me. In particular regarding the reasons for the civil war as spelled out in the article linked previously (https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession). It wasn't my reference, it was a reference used to support other reasons (other than slavery) for the civil war.

 

In reality, of the 9 reasons that article lists, 7 of them were directly linked to slavery. 1 more you could argue was related. 1 was completely seperate (Texas had issue with federal military protection...not surprising). I'm pretty sure the entire South didn't go to war because Texas was unhappy with protection by the Federal government.

 

I understand people's desire to create a narrative with "many reasons" for the Civil War. After the war our country needed to heal and come back together. It is easier to do that when people talk about how it was "complex" and "multifaceted" instead of the reality.

 

The reality was wealthy Southerners in power were unhappy that they were going to be forced to give up their slaves so they came together and tried to argue that their States had the "right" to keep slaves because each state has the "right" to decide for themselves, and when that failed they left the union so that they could maintain their practice of slavery. "State's Rights" is a wonderfully PC way to put it, to avoid the real "Right" that they were fighting over (the right to own slaves). Unfortunately while States should have certain rights, they do not have the right to choose to do something that is clearly wrong. Owning humans are property is wrong. The Southern States did NOT have the "right" to decide to end that practice for themselves. It had to end.

[Boiler 45,482]

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/

 

I like this a simple but quality cover of the war, inevitably the details in the build up are complicated and much more complicated than I could summarise, the one thing I do know is there is no shortage of research/opinions/books/ articles on the subject, I have read many certainly not all. Even close to all.

 

My opinion is that with or without slavery it was going to happen, slavery was certainly not the main issue, if it was the main/only issue the war would not have happened.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Would you support local votes of population to decide the fate of monuments? I've asked this several times now. If the people who live in Charlottesville voted and the majority wanted it gone, would you support it?

 

Unfortunately I disagree with you about these people having "positive historical meaning". While it is possible that General Lee performed good morally just feats in his life that outweighs his involvement in the Civil War, to me the bar is pretty darn high. Fighting to defend slavery is a pretty big negative that you would have to counterbalance with a whole lot of good. Did he save boat loads of babies? Did he cure the sick?

 

What amazing morally just feat did he perform that outweighs his choice to fight for those who went to war in order to keep slaves?

 

I'll gladly continue to argue whether or not General Lee deserves to be celebrated, but bottom line for me is still that the statues dont' matter much. If the local people voted and wanted to keep it (Not all Southerners, but just the local people who live in Charlottesville) then I don't really care. I don't think it should be kept, but I won't fight to knock it down.

tbh I'd be all for removing it if a handful of caring citizens/ verified residents went down to city council and motioned to have it removed with no comparable opposition. So I'd say, yes, for the vote, but even looser standards.

 

I don't doubt there is and would/will be some of those, but that is not where my ire is directed at. I have no opposition to people governing themselves via their local government so long as it fits the jurisdiction.

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/

 

I like this a simple but quality cover of the war, inevitably the details in the build up are complicated and much more complicated than I could summarise, the one thing I do know is there is no shortage of research/opinions/books/ articles on the subject, I have read many certainly not all. Even close to all.

 

My opinion is that with or without slavery it was going to happen, slavery was certainly not the main issue, if it was the main/only issue the war would not have happened.

 

 

That is a very good documentary to watch if you don't understand the complexities of the Civil war but rather take the simple minded view that it was all about slavery. The fact of the matter is slavery was already on its way out around the world before the Civil war and it would have ended even without the Civil war. With the rise of industrialized farming it would have been only a matter of time before the need for slaves would have been greatly reduced or eliminated.

 

The Civil war happened for many of the reasons the Revolutionary war happened. Whether true or not the South felt like they were over taxed without adequate representation. They also felt, whether true or not, that the federal government was over reaching their authority on many issues. Most people don't know that we almost had a civil war when Andrew Jackson was president and he took measures to stop it (even though he was from the south). There were issues of contention in the South long before the Civil war started and long before the north even proposed ending slavery.

 

Anyways I was hoping we could discuss whether the Civil war statues are a threat to homeland security or whether antifa is but I guess no one wants to discuss that.

 

[8bit_Theatre 64]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

Please feel free to enlighten me. In particular regarding the reasons for the civil war as spelled out in the article linked previously (https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession). It wasn't my reference, it was a reference used to support other reasons (other than slavery) for the civil war.

 

In reality, of the 9 reasons that article lists, 7 of them were directly linked to slavery. 1 more you could argue was related. 1 was completely seperate (Texas had issue with federal military protection...not surprising). I'm pretty sure the entire South didn't go to war because Texas was unhappy with protection by the Federal government.

 

I understand people's desire to create a narrative with "many reasons" for the Civil War. After the war our country needed to heal and come back together. It is easier to do that when people talk about how it was "complex" and "multifaceted" instead of the reality.

 

The reality was wealthy Southerners in power were unhappy that they were going to be forced to give up their slaves so they came together and tried to argue that their States had the "right" to keep slaves because each state has the "right" to decide for themselves, and when that failed they left the union so that they could maintain their practice of slavery. "State's Rights" is a wonderfully PC way to put it, to avoid the real "Right" that they were fighting over (the right to own slaves). Unfortunately while States should have certain rights, they do not have the right to choose to do something that is clearly wrong. Owning humans are property is wrong. The Southern States did NOT have the "right" to decide to end that practice for themselves. It had to end.

 

When looking at history you have to use the context of the time. There are alot of statements about Union this, South that. If you asked people of the mid 19th century who they were, they would say things like "I'm an Virginian, or I'm Ohioan". In many ways the Civil War is responsible for our current national identity of America first, State second.

 

I agree that slavery was THE wedge issue but we can in someways understand the broader concepts of the fear that most southerners had if we look at government representation. The north's population was growing faster than the souths, the industrial revolution was beginning to drive the north's economy. There was a fear that the south would not have a voice in the federal government as its percentage of that government began to slip in to a minority. You can see similar elements at the state levels today. In California the counties around San Francisco and Las Angeles drown the voices of the rest of the state because of the population divide.

 

Also, just an interesting note. War was never declared. Lincoln never declared war because it would give a degree of validity to the Confederate Government.

 

In many ways too the Civil War mirrored the American revolution. Confederate forces were never fighting to win. Their goal was to outlast the will of Union forces to fight and hopefully attract UK or French intervention....which almost occurred.

Edited August 22, 2017 by 8bit_Theatre