Restricted Op-ed: Get rid of Stonewall monument

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
No. The US Government never considered Tecumseh a "US subject" either. The US Government has consistently recognized the sovereignty of the Indian nations.

Well, Andrew Jackson seemed to think not. Or did he? Somebody refresh me on Worcester v. Georgia and the outcome.

But yes, the government certainly did....while they were making war on them and taking their lands. Just sayin'. I'm one of the folks who benefited from that, so I have mixed feelings about it.
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
Well, you see, sir, you are looking at the Indian matter from the perspective of the United States government. That's understandable and perfectly fine but there is a very, very different perspective if you look at it from a Native viewpoint! If the US decides to consider the Slovenians (or anybody else) someone who should be in their power and subject to their laws, that, quite frankly, is the problem of the US. The Slovenians could care less what the US wants or decides. And, Cash makes a true point - the US treated with the Indian nations and recognized them as such in the Constitution. And....thereby hangs a great career if you want to be a specialist in Indian law! :frantic:

Beat me to it.
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Location
Old Northwest Territory
Guilty (of treason) without a trial or conviction? That's unAmerican.

Brown was tried and convicted.
Longsteet?
Forrest?
Lee?
Early?
Joe Wheeler - who later served as a general in the US Army?

Um, no.
So let's hear a well reasoned non-pejorative laced paragraph or two in favor of tearing them down.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Well, Andrew Jackson seemed to think not. Or did he? Somebody refresh me on Worcester v. Georgia and the outcome.

But yes, the government certainly did....while they were making war on them and taking their lands. Just sayin'. I'm one of the folks who benefited from that, so I have mixed feelings about it.

The US Government dealt with the Indian nations as though they were foreign nations. Jackson didn't think the Indians were subjects of the US. The trail of tears came about because the US annexed the Indian lands in Georgia, leading to the removal of the Indians to other lands provided by treaty. It's not like it's unknown for larger countries to annex land of smaller countries.

In Worcester v. Georgia the Court opposed the forced relocation of the Indians. Jackson famously said that Marshall had made his ruling, "now let him enforce it."
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
The US tends to do that when they decide something should be annexed or otherwise absorbed. There were a LOT of Californios relocated to Mexico when California became a state - and they'd never been there! (Think their descendants have come back, though... :wink:)
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Guilty (of treason) without a trial or conviction? That's unAmerican.

Brown was tried and convicted.
Longsteet?
Forrest?
Lee?
Early?
Joe Wheeler - who later served as a general in the US Army?

Um, no.
So let's hear a well reasoned non-pejorative laced paragraph or two in favor of tearing them down.

You first.

Who said "Guilty?" You're the only one saying that. That's your strawman, so I'll let you feed him. The actions of the confederates met the definition of treason, therefore every one of them was a traitor. I note that you cannot answer if you think John Wilkes Booth never shot Abraham Lincoln. Your hangup on convictions is illogical because we aren't going to punish them for treason. All we need to do is to compare their actions with the definition of treason and we have historical truth.
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Location
Old Northwest Territory
Well, you see, sir, you are looking at the Indian matter from the perspective of the United States government. That's understandable and perfectly fine but there is a very, very different perspective if you look at it from a Native viewpoint! If the US decides to consider the Slovenians (or anybody else) someone who should be in their power and subject to their laws, that, quite frankly, is the problem of the US. The Slovenians could care less what the US wants or decides. And, Cash makes a true point - the US treated with the Indian nations and recognized them as such in the Constitution. And....thereby hangs a great career if you want to be a specialist in Indian law! :frantic:

Understood. However, for the purpose of this example it is better to view the two men from the same point of view.
That neither considered himself a US citizen or subject at the time only reinforces the similarities.

Thanks for your perspective, though
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
The US tends to do that when they decide something should be annexed or otherwise absorbed. There were a LOT of Californios relocated to Mexico when California became a state - and they'd never been there! (Think their descendants have come back, though... :wink:)

Same here in Texas with the original Tejanos.

Good question--do those guys have statues?
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
Jackson actually didn't say that but he had good reason to ignore Marshall. He and John Overton had a stake in 65,000 acres in Tennessee which, once rid of Indians, was sold in parcels - one of which became Memphis. The land dealings after Removal make some incredible reading, by the way! Our friend Forrest came from a family of generational land speculators - buying chunks of land, parceling them, reselling. And, lawyers like Lincoln made a good living off all the fallout from this wheeling-dealing in new land. (The previous owners being pretty well forgotten and ignored, even if some of them were still around. They didn't get everybody, after all!)
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
No, I believe I have to differ with you there. A big difference between the two men is one considered himself a member of a nation then decided to leave that nation to help form another. The other was always with his nation, never another.
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Location
Old Northwest Territory
You first.

Who said "Guilty?" You're the only one saying that. That's your strawman, so I'll let you feed him. The actions of the confederates met the definition of treason, therefore every one of them was a traitor. I note that you cannot answer if you think John Wilkes Booth never shot Abraham Lincoln. Your hangup on convictions is illogical because we aren't going to punish them for treason. All we need to do is to compare their actions with the definition of treason and we have historical truth.
You say traitors, someone else says not. The courts never said traitor

That's two votes to one.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
How are you right?
You are wrong as the Union of the states was a voluntary union, federal in nature. The states had/have the right to reassume the powers that they delegated to the federal government. And Lincoln was advised to abandon Fort Sumter as a reprovisioning attempt would cause the South Carolinians to fire upon said fort-by Winfield Scott & others- and initiate civil war. Northern newspapers at the time also urged against it, and accused him of doing such to provoke war. He promised he would not reprovision the fort. Your Webster/ Lincolnian view may have won the day, but that doesn't make it right. Just as Dred Scott was bad, so is any decision that says that the states that formed the Union can't withdraw from said Union. American & western political & philosophical tradition say you are wrong," Man is a rational animal endowed by nature with rights,"" It is to secure our rights that we resort to governmnt at all." Jefferson. The ratification of Constitution was' federal in nature, not national in nature.' Madison, Federalist 39.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
If they had the power to do so.

Sincerey,
Unionblue
PS Nice to meet you.
At The Constitutional Convention, the power of forceful supression was actually considered to be given to the federal government, but was not. Therefore, technically, as it was considered and not given, it is a power that resides with the states, as sovereign, independent bodies that agreed to form a federal government to be an agent for them, not vice versa. Thank You, Sir...With Respect!
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
At The Constitutional Convention, the power of forceful supression was actually considered to be given to the federal government, but was not. Therefore, technically, as it was considered and not given, it is a power that resides with the states, as sovereign, independent bodies that agreed to form a federal government to be an agent for them, not vice versa. Thank You, Sir...With Respect!

Timothy Otte Jr,

With respect, Sir, I suggest we follow the directions of our current moderator, Nathanb1, and continue this discussion on a thread devoted to your incorrect views above.

It would be a pleasure, Sir, if you would begin a new thread with the topic you describe in your above, quoted, post.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Now back to the topic of this thread. Has the Stonewall Jackson monument in WV been moved yet? :smile:
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
The US Government dealt with the Indian nations as though they were foreign nations. Jackson didn't think the Indians were subjects of the US. The trail of tears came about because the US annexed the Indian lands in Georgia, leading to the removal of the Indians to other lands provided by treaty. It's not like it's unknown for larger countries to annex land of smaller countries.

In Worcester v. Georgia the Court opposed the forced relocation of the Indians. Jackson famously said that Marshall had made his ruling, "now let him enforce it."
In the western tradition, this is what Natural Rights advocates are always fighting against-Might makes right. I'll side with the rights, not the might!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top