• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama House Passes Confederate Monuments Bill

Alabama once again on the right side of history.
 
azgreg said:
I spent a summer in Alabama. Good food and good people.....for the most part.
Click to expand...

And a great football team too, whether you like the Tide or not.
 
nota bene said:
And a great football team too, whether you like the Tide or not.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for the players they will go to the NFL and have to take a pay cut.
 
I was in Alabama for about an hour, driving through on US10, I am fine with this decision.
 
Moot said:
If they want to glorify their treasonous, racist past they can do it on their own dime and their own property...not the taxpayers.
Click to expand...



so you live in Alabama?

by the way it was war of rebellion and not a insurrection..

so no treason was committed.
 
Last edited:
azgreg said:
I spent a summer in Alabama. Good food and good people.....for the most part.
Click to expand...

I found people in the South to be exactly as polite as you hear they would be. The only state that was consistently mean was Pennsylvania. Man, the people there are surly bastards.

Just, you know, too bad about Alabama's glorification of its slavery past n' all.
 
insurrection -an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence


rebellion - An act of armed resistance to an established government or leader


The official war records of the United States refer to this war as the War of the Rebellion. The records were compiled by the U.S. War Department in a 127-volume collection under the title The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, published from 1881 to 1901. Historians commonly refer to the collection as the Official Records

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_American_Civil_War

During the war, Northerners and Southerners sometimes used the uncapitalized phrase “civil war” as a declarative description of the mess in which they found themselves, but Civil War was not yet a proper noun. “Now we are engaged in a great civil war,” President Lincoln famously declared in the Gettysburg Address. Less famously, Lt. James Langhorne of the 4th Virginia Infantry lamented to his mother, “I think our country is doomed to a civil war of years duration.” Throughout the struggle Confederates likewise spoke of the “civil war,” or just “this war.”
But most often, Northerners referred to the war as a rebellion. They commonly used phrases like “this rebellion” and “the great rebellion.” Northerners followed the course of the war in Frank Moore’s popular Rebellion Record, which began to run in 1861, and Lincoln himself frequently used the word “rebellion” to describe the war in public and in private. Rebellion was simply what Union soldiers, and sometimes even Confederate ones, called the war. It seemed as natural as calling a tree “a tree.” The perpetually grouchy Massachusetts soldier Roland Bowen grumped that “we have not done much toward putting down this Rebellion yet,” for example, while the Floridian Roderick Gaspero Shaw worried that if Confederates did not kick the Yankees out of Georgia by the spring of 1864, the “Rebellion will tremble.” And of course, Northerners blasted Confederates as “rebels,” a label that many Confederates proudly adopted. But what did it mean to call the war a rebellion?
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/the-name-of-war/?_r=0

Master PO said:
The civil war..... a War of Rebellion

Browse | Cornell University Library Making of America Collection

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Records_of_the_War_of_the_Rebellion

https://www.amazon.com/Master-Rebellion-Compilation-Official-Confederate/dp/B004UBBEGE

The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion

http://www.wiu.edu/libraries/govpubs/war_ofthe_rebellion/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-war-of-the-rebellion-and-the-naming-of-the-american-civil-war/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Title 10, Section 331 was enacted in 1792 in response to challenges to the taxing power of the federal government. It allows the President, at the request of a governor or state legislature, to put down an insurrection by calling into federal service sufficient militia to “suppress the insurrection.”

Title 10, Section 332 was enacted in 1861 at the outset of the Civil War. It allows the President to use the armed forces to enforce the laws or suppress a rebellion whenever, in his opinion, unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impractical to enforce the laws using the course of judicial proceedings.

Title 10, Section 333 was enacted in 1869 during the Reconstruction Era. It allows the President to use the armed forces or militia to respond to insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracies that prevent a state government from enforcing the laws.[/SIZE]


Before the civil war, if the president wished to callout the militia of states he had to get permission from its state legislature or governor, he could not call them out using his own authority, this stemmed from the militia acts of 1792 and 1795

in 1807 congress creates the insurrection act, and this allows the president to call out regular troops to quell insurrection, but not militias , again unless he got permission from the state legislature

in 1861 congress makes a change to title 10, section 332 which allows the president to use an armed forces [troops or militia] to quell rebellions.

Lincoln calls out militias in Apr 1861 against the south because of the title 10 change allowing him to quell rebellions without getting state permission.

in 1869 congress enacts section 333 which allows the president to use militias to quell insurrections without state permission.


Lincoln called out militas to quell a rebellion of the southern states, because Lincoln had no authority to call out militias to quell an insurrection.

the library of congress states that the civil war is a war of rebellion, the south were not traitors

https://exposingmodernmugwumps.com/tag/insurrection-act/
 
Master PO said:
so you live in Alabama?

by the way it was war of rebellion and not a insurrection..

so no treason was committed.
Click to expand...

Calling the war a rebellion was just a legal technicality because Lincoln didn't have the authority to declare war. I don't think Lincoln ever publicly called it a war...even though everyone knew that's what it was. Calling it a rebellion and not recognizing the sovereignty of the defecting States meant they never left the union and Lincoln could legally treat it as an insurrection or rebellion. Lincoln took an oath to keep the union together through hell and high water and by golly, he meant to keep it.
 
danarhea said:
A lot of people are pretty upset about this, but I have to ask why? Sure, the South represented slavery, but as much as you might want to parade the Stone Mountain speech, and the various article of secession into this thread, that is not the issue. The issue is the state of Alabama wanting to preserve part of it's own history. Having statues of Confederate generals and statesmen is not the same as embracing the Confederate flag. Although slavery is an important aspect of the Civil War, what Alabama is preserving is not slavery, but the memory of a people who fought hard, many of them gallantly, during the war. It doesn't matter if they were on the wrong side. It matters that they sacrificed, bled, and died just as much as Union troops did. There are statues of Grant in the North, so why not statues of Lee in the South. I don't agree with what Stonewall Jackson believed in, but I can respect the fact that he fought and died, like so many others on both sides did. So yea, I have no problem with statues of Stonewall Jackson either. Don't begrudge Alabama keeping their monuments. That is not the same as supporting the KKK. If you can't wrap your mind around that, then you have no understanding of what these monuments mean to them, and I will call this anger for what it is - Political correctness run amok.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...a-house-to-vote-on-confederate-monuments-bill
Click to expand...

Damn it Dana, I clicked on this prepared to lambast you... not give you a thumbs up. Damn it... foiled by a great post.
 
Moot said:
If they want to glorify their treasonous, racist past they can do it on their own dime and their own property...not the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Those whom forget history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Seems to me that's happening here anyway.
Click to expand...

When people say the South fought FOR Slavery, they are forgetting history. hell, one could even argue that even if they WERE, if that were the case... America, 1865 and Slavery is a very real institution that had been around for a very long time, longer than anyone had been alive. The people of the South were fighting to preserve the America they were raised in against what they saw was the over reaching hand of Federal power being abused and used against them. I'd go so far as to say, anyone posting in this thread were raised in the American South would have supported that fight. The lens of 150+ plus years and a massive paradigm shift or two later and the thought of fighting for such a cause is unthinkable. However, in the context of the Time, the Place, the Culture it was not only rational it was the only recourse available.

To remove monuments of Civil War heroes, is to forget our history, the good and the bad of the time. The cause of that war was much more than just slavery, and we'd do well to remember that just as we cannot forget the horror that was southern slavery as an institution.
 
Cardinal said:
I found people in the South to be exactly as polite as you hear they would be. The only state that was consistently mean was Pennsylvania. Man, the people there are surly bastards.

Just, you know, too bad about Alabama's glorification of its slavery past n' all.
Click to expand...

You must of been in Philadelphia.
 
apdst said:
You must of been in Philadelphia.
Click to expand...

...and Pittsburgh and a really good chunk of the rural areas in between. They're all surly bastards.

One town underground is always on fire. Something is wrong with that state.
 
Cardinal said:
...and Pittsburgh and a really good chunk of the rural areas in between. They're all surly bastards.

One town underground is always on fire. Something is wrong with that state.
Click to expand...

I was in Pittsburgh yesterday and the place was full of jackasses. I never had any issues with the small town folks.
 
Renae said:
When people say the South fought FOR Slavery, they are forgetting history. hell, one could even argue that even if they WERE, if that were the case... America, 1865 and Slavery is a very real institution that had been around for a very long time, longer than anyone had been alive. The people of the South were fighting to preserve the America they were raised in against what they saw was the over reaching hand of Federal power being abused and used against them. I'd go so far as to say, anyone posting in this thread were raised in the American South would have supported that fight. The lens of 150+ plus years and a massive paradigm shift or two later and the thought of fighting for such a cause is unthinkable. However, in the context of the Time, the Place, the Culture it was not only rational it was the only recourse available.

To remove monuments of Civil War heroes, is to forget our history, the good and the bad of the time. The cause of that war was much more than just slavery, and we'd do well to remember that just as we cannot forget the horror that was southern slavery as an institution.
Click to expand...

Here is where I disagree with you. Slavery was the main issue. Read the Articles of Secession for the states of Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, and Georgia, which specifically give slavery as the reason for seceding. Read the Stone Mountain Speech, which specifically gives slavery as the reason for seceding. Yes, there were other issues, but slavery was foremost. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who came out against slavery, was the final straw. But, again, that is no reason to take down monuments of people who fought during the war. That is not slavery. That is history.
 
danarhea said:
A lot of people are pretty upset about this, but I have to ask why? Sure, the South represented slavery, but as much as you might want to parade the Stone Mountain speech, and the various article of secession into this thread, that is not the issue. The issue is the state of Alabama wanting to preserve part of it's own history. Having statues of Confederate generals and statesmen is not the same as embracing the Confederate flag. Although slavery is an important aspect of the Civil War, what Alabama is preserving is not slavery, but the memory of a people who fought hard, many of them gallantly, during the war. It doesn't matter if they were on the wrong side. It matters that they sacrificed, bled, and died just as much as Union troops did. There are statues of Grant in the North, so why not statues of Lee in the South. I don't agree with what Stonewall Jackson believed in, but I can respect the fact that he fought and died, like so many others on both sides did. So yea, I have no problem with statues of Stonewall Jackson either. Don't begrudge Alabama keeping their monuments. That is not the same as supporting the KKK. If you can't wrap your mind around that, then you have no understanding of what these monuments mean to them, and I will call this anger for what it is - Political correctness run amok.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...a-house-to-vote-on-confederate-monuments-bill
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

"what Alabama is preserving is not slavery, but the memory of a people who fought hard, many of them gallantly, during the war"

Indeed.

:bravo:
 
eohrnberger said:
Quoted for truth.

"what Alabama is preserving is not slavery, but the memory of a people who fought hard, many of them gallantly, during the war"

Indeed.


:bravo:
Click to expand...


I'd like to see a monument to all the Conscripts that fought under the threat of death. What brave souls not wanting to die.
 
Moot said:
Calling the war a rebellion was just a legal technicality because Lincoln didn't have the authority to declare war. I don't think Lincoln ever publicly called it a war...even though everyone knew that's what it was. Calling it a rebellion and not recognizing the sovereignty of the defecting States meant they never left the union and Lincoln could legally treat it as an insurrection or rebellion. Lincoln took an oath to keep the union together through hell and high water and by golly, he meant to keep it.
Click to expand...

and insurrection and rebellion are two different things

insurrection -an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence


rebellion - An act of armed resistance to an established government or leader

2 different actions
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom