House Republicans urge Pentagon to block removal of a Confederate memorial from Arlington National Cemetery
House Republicans urge Pentagon to block removal of a Confederate memorial from Arlington National Cemetery
More than 40 Republican lawmakers want to stop the Pentagon from removing a controversial Confederate statue from Arlington National Cemetery.
House Republicans want to prevent the Pentagon from removing a Confederate memorial from "America's most sacred shrine," Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.
Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia led a group of more than 40 GOP colleagues in calling for the Department of Defense to halt the planned removal of the Reconciliation Monument, also known as the Confederate Memorial, "until Congress completes the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 appropriations process."
In a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the GOP lawmakers said the monument's removal "does not align with the original intent of Congress."
You're viewing a single thread.
The Civil War Unknowns memorial is presumed to hold a number of confederate remains, and is quite close to Arlington House (Robert E Lee being the former owner). That should be enough of a monument to those who tried to overthrow the United States.
FWIW they didn't try to overthrow the United States. They tried to leave the United States because they hated America for failing to enforce slavery. Confederate states already controlled Congress, but they could not abuse their majority power to subjugate the rest of the country, so they decided they wanted to leave.
FWIW, At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolina's Charleston Harbor. Less than 34 hours later, Union forces surrendered. Traditionally, this event has been used to mark the beginning of the Civil War.
Read the very next sentence, and then the rest of the article.
In the Senate, however, the fall of Sumter was the latest in a series of events that culminated in war.
On November 6, 1860, in an election that brought the new Republican Party to national power, Abraham Lincoln was elected president by a strictly northern vote. Four days later, on November 10, Senator James Chesnut resigned his Senate seat and returned home to South Carolina to draft an ordinance of secession. One day later, South Carolina’s James Hammond also pledged to support the Confederacy “with all the strength I have.”
Word for word, it supports what I wrote. The pro-slavery contingent already had a majority in government, and the secessionist resignations caused a crisis in government. They weren't trying to take over, they were trying to leave because they had no faith in the power of the federal government to enforce slavery, which was the law of the land.
So the claim that it was about State's Rights is also a sham?
To expand on ripcord's answer, which is entirely accurate, there's nothing inherently conservative or progressive about states' rights. Politicians support or oppose states' rights based on whether they support the policies of the state or the federal government.
Slavery was federal law. Secessionists opposed a state's right to declare escaped slaves as free.
New territories were split on the issue of slavery, but it was Lincoln's promise to make abolition the law for all new territories that upset secessionists. The Nebraska territories were anti-slavery, while the New Mexico territories were mixed. In either case, neither wanted to leave it to new states to determine the law for themselves.
Then you have the question of secession itself. South Carolina, and the subsequent Confederate states, claimed that a state's right to secede was implied in thr Constitution. Lincoln, the Republicans, and really everyone in the Union disagreed. It's a weird, tautological argument to say that seceding states were seceding because they were in favor of a state's right to secede from the Union. But on this issue, there were clear opinions on either side, with the Union opposing the legal "right" to secede and the Confederacy supporting it. One might argue that the Civil War was technically fought over a state's right to seced, but that's a big circular freeway with no exits.
There were many more factors that led up to secession and the Civil War, but the common thread of slavery ran through the entire conflict. On that one issue, slavery, it is not correct to say that the Confederate States seceded to defend the state's right of self-determination, because they were specifically and vehemently opposed to a state's right to self-determine whether slavery was legal. The abolitionists were not in a position before the war to free the slaves in the South, and the federal government was not trying to exert its power over the states that attempted to secede. The federal government was refusing to enforce slavery legislation in all states, and it intended to make slavery illegal in all new territories, but in both of those questions, the Confederacy was not taking the side of state's rights.
TlDr, Confederates were even bigger shitheels than you probably think.
Yes, but no. But mostly yes.
It's a shame you're just being bombarded with down votes for a completely legitimate read of historical events. You're not even saying the South were in the right, just that their succession wasn't the same as a hostile takeover. And because this needs to be said again and again, fuck the confederates, fuck any slave owners, and fuck anyone in the modern age who moderately supports anything related to Confederate "culture" or ideology.
I don't mind the downvotes. I'm too long winded, and I'll be the first to admit that if I think somebody is writing a diatribe about how misunderstood the Confederacy was, I would just downvote the bigot and move on, too. And while it's a pet peeve of mine, really there's no functional difference when it comes to understanding the Civil War.
Really, it's alarming that we must say fuck the Confederates, fuck the slave owners, fuck the bigots and racists and Nazis and fascists. We allowed ourselves to think those ideologies were defeated, and we let our guard down.
But that's also why I think it's important to get the details right. The Civil War wasn't a war of Northern Aggression, or a federal government overreach, or the mighty Union beating down our poor country bretheren into submission. The Confederacy were the fascists who wanted to exert their will on the citizens. They represented a political majority representing an extremist minority, and when they were rebuffed by the democratic process, they tried to use violence and phony legal arguments.
There are a shit ton of parallels between our current government and the pre-Civil War era. A hostile legislatire overrun with extreme bigoted fascists pushing imaginary legal arguments and horrifying morality has just a soupcon of Confederacy.
failing to enforce slavery.
I thought it was more due to not permitting slavery in the newer territories? Enforce makes it sound like slavery was mandatory.
Lincoln wasn't threatening to free the slaves prior to seceesion, and the Escaped Slaves Act was federal law. Southern states had the majority in Congress, but individual states like Wisconsin and Vermont were freeing slaves that reached their borders, and Lincoln was not going to use force to override states rights. The articles of secession were written because the southern states didn't think the Union was doing enough to enforce slavery, which was, at least on paper, mandatory.
New territories were just a part of the equation, but I'll quote the articles of secession from South Carolina:
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
Seems like you're trying to bring in accuracy, but a bunch of people arent really reading it and somehow walking away with "oh, this guy is defending the South! He supports slavery!". Etc
Yeah, I try to bring this up anytime state's rights are brought up by Confederate supporters, because I think we concede too quickly on that point. But I understand the confusion, because online, there's a lot of "well, aktshually slaves learned trades" bullshit, especially right now. I could probably help myself by whittling down the argument to a shorter, clearer purpose statement. Something like "Confederates were even bigger shitheels than you think!" It's a nuanced issue that doesn't make a practical difference for most people, though.
If they wanted to just leave they probably shouldn't have bombarded Fort Sumter - would've still been a war but the narrative may have played to their dumb Lost Cause bullshit better.
Also they turned traitor because new states joining wouldn't be slave states, and thus they would become a minority and slavery would disappear.
If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.
The Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter because they knew they could take it and they wanted it. The narrative was always going to be tied to slavery, and even if they had won the war and become independent nations, they would still be racist shitbags.
The joining of new states was also part of it, and one could argue that the writing was on the wall for the abolitionist movement. But the fact remains that the Confederate states opposed states' rights on the subject of slavery, and wanted to enforce slavery in all states. When Lincoln won, it became clear that wouldn't happen despite the fact that they already were in control of the legislature. So they tried to leave, and take half of America with them.
So your point is that they didn't want to "overthrow", but instead they wanted to fracture and capture?