Tarps must come down from Confederate statues, judge says

The Daily Progress ^ | Feb 27, 2018 | The Daily Progress staff reports

[think4yrsf]

The City of Charlottesville will soon be ordered to remove the black tarps currently covering two Confederate statues downtown.

Reading from an official court letter Tuesday afternoon, Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore said he thinks the shrouds on the statues of Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson are a violation of a state code protecting the removal or disturbance of war memorials.

Moore said the city will have 15 days to remove the tarps after an official order has been signed.

[dsc]

That sort of malice has always been a mystery to me. Luckily, since it’s the Internet, I can just ignore you as you continue to show yourself for what you are.

[rockrr]

Interesting link.. Beyond the fact that it buttresses my point and not yours, I’m curious why you chose it? It deals with slavery in Virginia a full generation prior to the insurrection.

[BroJoeK]

from dsc's link: "January 25, 1832 - The House of Delegates votes not to legislate on emancipation, deeming 'that a further action for the removal of the slaves should await a more definite development of public opinion.' "

I saw nothing in dsc's link which contradicts my understandings of history, indeed, I've read similar reports in the past.
Iirc, 1832 marks the last time a Southern slave-state seriously debated abolition.
It's why I have sometimes posted on this (for example, here):

"2. By 1860 no Southern state was even seriously considering voluntary abolition."

[Svartalfiar]

When a state legally secedes, it's no longer part of the Union.

FIFY

'FIFY' to you too?

When a state legally secedes? What is that supposed to mean? The FedGov can decide if a state issuing article of secession is legal or not? What do they do, take a vote on it? 51% wins? Did the 13 colonies ask Britain's permission to not be a part of their empire? All a 'legal secession' requires is a determination on the part of the people to secede. And that they did, enough to have their reps draft, vote on, and issue official, legal, articles of secession.

[rockrr]

Unilateral secession is unconstitutional, so says the Supreme Court in Texas v. White. There’s only one legal way to secede and that is through mutual decision of all the affected states.

[Svartalfiar]

Unilateral secession is unconstitutional, so says the Supreme Court in Texas v. White. There’s only one legal way to secede and that is through mutual decision of all the affected states.

Actually, that poorly put together court decision, only brought about because the carpetbagger government wanted to steal bond money from some of the citizens, stated that the only way to secede was through revolution or consent of the states. Well guess what? All of the states consented to leaving - Texas at least even had a public vote of the populace for it. The ones that didn't consent, just stayed in the Union. That decision also specified that membership in the Union was indissoluble and permanent. So if that's true, how could they say that there is a way to secede? Both of those can't be true at the same time...

[rockrr]

Actually, that poorly put together court decision, blah blah blah

And yet it has stood the test of time for 149 years.

Both of those can't be true at the same time...

Actually they both can be true, but you have to think about it really hard.

[DoodleDawg]

That decision also specified that membership in the Union was indissoluble and permanent.

Not really. Chief Justice Chase identified the two ways out: "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

All the states, those leaving and those staying.

[Svartalfiar]

Actually they both can be true, but you have to think about it really hard.

I'm afraid I'm too ungood at that doublespeak stuff.

[Svartalfiar]

The thing with legalese, is that words have very specific meanings, and they matter. The term “except” immediately nullifies the terms “indissoluble” and “permanent”. If there is a way, any way, to get out, then there is no permanent, there IS dissolubility. If something is absolute, there can be no exceptions. If there are exceptions, then it is obviously not absolute.

[rockrr]

That’s OK. Fortunately the Founding Fathers were so good at it they didn’t even call it doublespeak.

[Svartalfiar]

That’s OK. Fortunately the Founding Fathers were so good at it they didn’t even call it doublespeak.

Nope. They had royal charters that required them to be loyal to the King of England and obey the laws of the British Parliament. No room for secession in those! Yet, somehow, the Founding Fathers managed to secede from the crown and create these United States.

How is that any different than the Confederate states seceding in the 1800s? If anything, the fact that secession is not explicitly prevented in the Constitution (it's embraced in the Declaration of Independence!), it would fall under the tenth Amendment - rights/powers reserved to the people/states. Secession is also NOT a power reserved to the states as a whole - Try reading Article II, Section 8.

[rockrr]

The colonialists didn’t secede - they openly rebelled.

[Svartalfiar]

The colonialists didn’t secede - they openly rebelled.

Seceding is one form of rebelling - rebellion is a catch-all term for any acts against the ruling authority, from protests to revolt/secession. What do you think the Declaration of Independence was? A notice to the British government that that were no longer accepting their legal rule, they were establishing their own exclusive sovereignty. Also known as secession.

[rockrr]

Secession implies mutuality - which was missing in both the American Revolution and the American Civil War. As a matter of fact, it was the only element in common between the two events.

Secession is an orderly withdrawal or separation. There was not a hint of mutual accord, or of peaceful separation with the Revolution, and the Slaver’s Secession was a joke.