Pelosi, Biden say there is a difference between removing Confederate leaders, past presidents

[jimrtex]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

[jimrtex]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

LOL! Ok Guliani.

This isn't a court case Jim, it's about right and wrong. You might win the semantics argument on a technicity, but that's doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

The question is what was right and wrong at the time the decision was made. By that standard, Robert E Lee was not treacherous. He was loyal to Virginia.

[jimrtex]

When people celebrate confederates, it is different.  The legacy of Robert E. Lee is explicitly tied to his support of treason and slavery.  His battlefield accomplishments were in the name of a treasonous cause that existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery.  The same goes for other confederate leaders and generals.  We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

Was George McClellan treasonous? Was Clement Vallandigham treasonous?

[jimrtex]

I think Badger tried to quote JimRTex but quoted Mr. Reactionary instead. Robert E Lee was a traitor, Jim. You arguing the validity of that is... sad. Let's go with "sad".

Do you think the so-called "loyalists" who moved to Ontario after 1783 were traitors?

[jimrtex]

I think Badger tried to quote JimRTex but quoted Mr. Reactionary instead. Robert E Lee was a traitor, Jim. You arguing the validity of that is... sad. Let's go with "sad".

Do you think the so-called "loyalists" who moved to Ontario after 1783 were traitors?

It's complicated. They grew up British and then suddenly their area was claimed by America and suddenly they were "Americans". They had no say in that and had no obligation morally to swear allegiance in their hearts to America.

Were the allegiances of the Patriots to their States or the United States?

You seem to not be aware that United States of America (in Congress assembled) is a plural noun.

Were the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves treasonous? Were the authors traitors?

[jimrtex]

I think Badger tried to quote JimRTex but quoted Mr. Reactionary instead. Robert E Lee was a traitor, Jim. You arguing the validity of that is... sad. Let's go with "sad".

While Badger sometimes (or more frequently) says stupid things, I am sure he intended to respond to Mr. Reactionary about President John Tyler. Rather than embarrassing Badger that he doesn't know how to Reply, perhaps you could personal message him.

[jimrtex]

I think Badger tried to quote JimRTex but quoted Mr. Reactionary instead. Robert E Lee was a traitor, Jim. You arguing the validity of that is... sad. Let's go with "sad".

While Badger sometimes (or more frequently) says stupid things, I am sure he intended to respond to Mr. Reactionary about President John Tyler. Rather than embarrassing Badger that he doesn't know how to Reply, perhaps you could personal message him.

If anything, I embarassed myself on my lack of knowledge of John Tyler. Badger and I (and I'm presuming most other posters) know that assuming any given poster might make 1 innocent mistake once every 1000 posts or so isn't automatically a vicious embarassing attack on said poster.

At least I learned about John Tyler.

Have you learned about William Henry Harrison too?

[jimrtex]

I find this canceling of historical figures to be irresponsible to be permitted by the public at large. While it is a valid point to examine the place of reverence that confederate statues held in the communities they were erected in. It is of course important to recognize that these confederate men were traitors to the United States and these people took arms against the union to fight for slavery and what they held to be the rights of their state, which is entirely different from judging the founders based on modern day norms and beliefs. TWITTER should not be the basis of whom we allow to recognize in history or who we decide to study. The only fact that we really need to recognize is that, US history and world history should progress with a more inclusive in telling the historical arc of our collective story. Knowing this, we can understand each other.

The United States was and is a voluntary association of individual sovereign states.

If one's State has withdrawn from that association, why should it be presumed that one who retains allegiance to their State is disloyal to the association.

[jimrtex]

What would America be like if Clay was able to force a new election?  How would the Electors have been selected?  What would have been the timeframes?  What would have been the results of legal challenges to such a new election, both immediately and longstanding?  What would have happened after the Lincoln assassination, or the Garfield assassination, both of which resulted in lowly regarded VPs ascending to the Presidency?  (To say noting as to what would have happened when Truman succeeded FDR.)  What if FDR's VP in 1945 had been Henry Wallace?  Or segregationist James F. Byrnes?  

Tyler's example saved our nation from a lot of turmoil and uncertainty.  He BECAME the President; he outlasted the "His Accidentcy" moniker.  A lesser man may not have.  Tyler was not a great President, he was a below average President, but he was not the utter failure that Pierce and Buchanan were, and his role in establishing the Vice President as President upon the death of a sitting President outweighs whatever he may have done in the last two (2) years of his life.  

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Congress had in 1792 by statute provided that in the event of a vacancy in both the presidency and vice-presidency that there be a special election for president and vice president. In 1804, this was amended to implement the 12th Amendment, but retained the provision for a special election (i.e. the special election would be conducted in the manner provided for by the 12th Amendment with the electors voting separately for the two offices).

The statute provided that the electors for the special election would meet in December, with appointment occurring in the 34 days previous. The newly elected President and Vice President would take office in the March. Moreover the newly elected president would serve a full four-year term.

So Harrison and Tyler were elected in December 1840, with the votes counted by Congress in January 1841, and taking of office in March 1841.

Had a special election taken place in December 1841, with the votes counted by Congress in January 1842, and taking of office in March 1842. The next regular election would be in 1845.

See also.

Can Congress Call A Special Election if Trump and Pence Are Impeached?

Note that this does not directly address the case of Tyler. But I am sure an impeachment of John Tyler could have been arranged.

[jimrtex]

- Of course the United States of America will look at this from a US standpoint and glorify the people who seceded from Great Britain, and denounce the people who seceded from the Union. That should not be controversial too.

I don't think independence of the colonies was a "secession" like the southern states in 1860-61. The colonies in the 1770s were governed by the British crown, but they weren't really a part of Britain in the sense the South was part the United States. Asserting the American colonies and the South had similar political status has always been one of the key features of the Lost Cause.

The united States of America in Congress assembled does not have parts.

The Declaration of Independence was a collective declaration of independence from Great Britain. Many of the States had declared independence prior to July 4, 1776. Texas declared its independence on April 2, 1836 9 years before acceding to the Union.

The Declaration of Independence said nothing about the sovereignty of the States being subsumed into that of the collective sovereignty.