Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
But most of those statues were put up in the early 20th Century, in support of the Jim Crow laws, and to further oppress/intimidate the black population of the South - that was historical revisionism in itself.
We should teach history, but why should a country celebrate the leaders of a failed rebellion which was founded on owning people as property?
But back to Kelly’s statement - what compromise was there? The compromise the Secessionists wanted was to own people - is that an acceptable compromise?
|
That's the bit I don't agree with him on as any compromise would have probably led to a continuation of slavery to some degree, I seem to remember Lincoln's plan was to erode it over time rather than out right ban which would have been a compromise to obviously.
Can we stop all this rebellion and he's a traitor nonsense as well, Virginia had the right to succession in much the same way Scotland had the right to leave the UK if they wanted
Quote:
|
On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”
|
http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023...3bfab9c2e.html