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

[T'Chenka]

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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

My views on Confederates and the issue of honoring them are extremely complex and nuanced, so much so that it would take a lengthy discussion to do justice to them.  But right now I'd like to address the last part of your post.  

The issue with Benedict Arnold isn't that the British/American loyalist cause was terrible--even today, I don't think you can argue it was, even if you sympathize with the Patriots.  It's that he was on the Patriot side and went over to the British.  It's not at all clear to me that Ho Chi Minh's cause was a bad one--clearly much of the Vietnamese population, North and South, supported him.  And while Rommel and Yamamoto served governments that did not have morally good causes, I don't think they should be condemned either --they were also serving their respective countries, and as someone once remarked, if you serve in your country's military you don't get to decide whether you're on the "right side."  And both men have, in fact, been widely respected even in the countries they fought.  

Fair on Benedict Arnold.  I probably should have left out the "deplorable causes" part, and just said "fought against the United States" in general.

If Germans, Japanese and Vietnamese want to celebrate Rommel, Yamamoto and Ho Chi Minh, good for them.  The largest city in Vietnam is named after the guy after all.  Here in the United States, we aren't going to build statues to men who fought against our country and did their utmost to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  Even if, in the case of Rommel, there are a lot of folks who think he was low-key a good guy on the wrong side.  In the same way, we here in America should not celebrate men like Jackson, Lee, or Davis, who declared war on our country and led an army that killed hundreds of thousands of American men with the goal of permanently breaking the country in two and perpetuating chattel slavery forever.

I'd actually compare Rommel pretty closely with Lee.  Both are men who were loyal servants to the leaders of their regime, led their armies to a lot of decisive and brilliant victories, seemed remarkably incurious, at best, about the atrociously amoral regime they were defending, and had their reputations refurbished after the war.  In both cases, their former enemies had political reasons to acquiesce to the rehabilitiation -- the lionizing of Lee was a symbolic victory northerners were willing to give away as a bargaining chip during reconstruction, and "Rommel and his troops were alright blokes" was key to the allied justification for re-arming ex-Nazi West Germany during the Cold War.

George Washington fought against Great Britain and tried to kill as many British soldiers as possible.  Yet there's a statue of him in Trafalgar Square in London.  Just a thought.

As for Rommel, one might ask what would satisfy you as showing sufficient concern about the Nazi regime on his part.  After all, the Third Reich was a dictatorship.  It's not like even the July 20th plotters ran out into the streets shouting "Hitler is evil!" (and Rommel may have been involved in that plot to some extent).

If you want a German officer who did more than Rommel, look no further than Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, who regularly (and sometimes successfully) opposed Germany's awful treatment of prisoners, conspired to remove Hitler, and regularly passed information to Allied intelligence. He was also the head of German Military Intelligence from 1935 until the Gestapo and SS finally caught up with him in early 1944.

[Elgato1978]

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.

[Badger]

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.

That is very eloquently put. However, at the end of the day they took arms against the United States of America to protect slavery. Even if abolitionists weren't a majority of the population by 1860, the fact that slavery was barbaric and inhumane was novel. They made a knowing Choice to support the norms and standards of their communities, and given that abolitionism was very much A Thing at the time, that is nominal to non-existent justification for their choice.

More importantly, we today can make a knowing decision about whether or not to venerate a cause based on treason and slavery. It is frankly shameful how much we have coddled and idealized the Confederacy in our history given its ugly heritage. Enough is enough.

[LBJer]

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.

My views on Confederates and the issue of honoring them are extremely complex and nuanced, so much so that it would take a lengthy discussion to do justice to them.  But right now I'd like to address the last part of your post.  

The issue with Benedict Arnold isn't that the British/American loyalist cause was terrible--even today, I don't think you can argue it was, even if you sympathize with the Patriots.  It's that he was on the Patriot side and went over to the British.  It's not at all clear to me that Ho Chi Minh's cause was a bad one--clearly much of the Vietnamese population, North and South, supported him.  And while Rommel and Yamamoto served governments that did not have morally good causes, I don't think they should be condemned either --they were also serving their respective countries, and as someone once remarked, if you serve in your country's military you don't get to decide whether you're on the "right side."  And both men have, in fact, been widely respected even in the countries they fought.  

Fair on Benedict Arnold.  I probably should have left out the "deplorable causes" part, and just said "fought against the United States" in general.

If Germans, Japanese and Vietnamese want to celebrate Rommel, Yamamoto and Ho Chi Minh, good for them.  The largest city in Vietnam is named after the guy after all.  Here in the United States, we aren't going to build statues to men who fought against our country and did their utmost to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  Even if, in the case of Rommel, there are a lot of folks who think he was low-key a good guy on the wrong side.  In the same way, we here in America should not celebrate men like Jackson, Lee, or Davis, who declared war on our country and led an army that killed hundreds of thousands of American men with the goal of permanently breaking the country in two and perpetuating chattel slavery forever.

I'd actually compare Rommel pretty closely with Lee.  Both are men who were loyal servants to the leaders of their regime, led their armies to a lot of decisive and brilliant victories, seemed remarkably incurious, at best, about the atrociously amoral regime they were defending, and had their reputations refurbished after the war.  In both cases, their former enemies had political reasons to acquiesce to the rehabilitiation -- the lionizing of Lee was a symbolic victory northerners were willing to give away as a bargaining chip during reconstruction, and "Rommel and his troops were alright blokes" was key to the allied justification for re-arming ex-Nazi West Germany during the Cold War.

George Washington fought against Great Britain and tried to kill as many British soldiers as possible.  Yet there's a statue of him in Trafalgar Square in London.  Just a thought.

As for Rommel, one might ask what would satisfy you as showing sufficient concern about the Nazi regime on his part.  After all, the Third Reich was a dictatorship.  It's not like even the July 20th plotters ran out into the streets shouting "Hitler is evil!" (and Rommel may have been involved in that plot to some extent).

If you want a German officer who did more than Rommel, look no further than Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, who regularly (and sometimes successfully) opposed Germany's awful treatment of prisoners, conspired to remove Hitler, and regularly passed information to Allied intelligence. He was also the head of German Military Intelligence from 1935 until the Gestapo and SS finally caught up with him in early 1944.

My point wasn't that Rommel did the most of anyone, it was that if you're going to be critical of him for supposedly not showing enough concern about the nature of Nazism, that raises the question of what would have been "satisfactory" for him to have done.  Moreover, it seems to me that someone in that situation could have realized that Hitler and his regime were horrible but still concluded that they had a duty to fight for their country. 

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I'm going to offer some casual thoughts:

- Of course the American founders were traitors (of Great Britain). Just as a lot of heroes of the Italian unification were, the people who fought for Irish independence were, and the founders of every nation that was born by seceding from another one were. That should not be controversial.

- 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.

- Of course adding to that there are the layers of morality, that is: "what did these people stand for and secede for?" And there's a big difference between "pay our taxes to a government that represents us and protects our liberties" and "practice slavery and expand it wherever we want".

- I would remind people that among the first twelve US presidents the Adams were the only who never owned slaves, although Martin Van Buren is a borderline case.

- By the way I am totally supportive of taking down statues of prominent Confederate figures, at least if it's clear that the association with the Confederacy is the reason of their prominence (like, I'm wishy washy on John Tyler). I think that they should have been taken down long ago. The idea that the Confederate bas relief on Stone Mountain was crafted in THE 1960'S sounds so absurd to me.

[Person Man]

Going to Charlotte to get my stuff this weekend, I was reminded that the army training base north of Columbia is named Fort Jackson and that a major parkway in Columbia, SC is named Strom Thurmond parkway. I definitely think Strom Thurmond's name should be taken off of things but I am unsure about Jackson's but am swinging towards thinking it should be renamed. On one hand Jackson destroyed whole nations people and disobeyed the Court in doing so. On the other, he was a war hero who also was a major proponent of popular sovereignty/Democracy and who also violently demanded national unity.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sigh. Of course they did.

Can we just admit that no one is perfect and while it's really good to have role models and people to look up to, hero-worship is stupid abd being obsessed with keeping statues up doesn't encourage discussion about a person's failings.

Like, seriously. Imagine being a member of the Lakota people and going to a college where there's a big ol' statue of Lincoln in front of the building you go to class in. You know from the outset that you're in a place where hero-worship is going to overshadow any discussion you might try to have about the discussion of American violence against indigenous people.

So even more, to be of a minority endangered or hurt by one of these past leaders, but we have to keep their statues in places of importance because people want to idolize them? Yep, that's totally a place where you're going to feel like your voice is just as valid and important as anyone else's and no one will paint over the parts of history that are uncomfortable to them and be open to discussing how important people screwed over minorites thus affecting your life still even though it was decades or centuries ago.

We don't need statues to remember history. We do need to talk about how all humans are human and we all make mistakes. You can do great things and still be a bigoted buttmunch. It's going to be way easier to talk about your accomplishments and achievements and failings and prejudices on a level playing field if there isn't propaganda sitting around giving credence to your awesomeness.

Humans like to see the past through rose-tinted glasses and statues are rose-tinted themselves. We don't need them and acting like their removal is going to somehow hurt or offend history just goes to show how very dedicated people are to maintaining their idols, literally and figuratively.

I respect George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. They were unbelievably important and amazing presidents and politicians. But as long as we have statues in places of power promoting this hero narrative, the country can never truly have discussions about the reality of the past. Amazing people also do messed up things. Statues say "I don't respect your history" to those who were hurt by these people. They show our dedication to maintaining our preferred narrative instead of discussing reality. And as long as people in power care more about statues than allowing all Americans to feel respected and welcome at the table, we'll never be able to have true equality.

So yeah. Statues are cool. Keeping them up is totally worth telling minorities that they aren't as respected or valued because we'd rather keep this rock that reminds of us our whitewashed version of history than face the reality that no one is perfect. Rocks are more important than showing respect to those harmed by the narrative they promote, yep, totally.

Taking down statues isn't "unpeopling" or "cancelling" someone. It's saying, hey, let's actually talk about what happened and you need to look with open eyes. Right now this hunk of metal is keeping you from really looking at the whole truth. If you truly respect a historical figure, be willing to discuss the realities of what they were like. Statues do not encourage or benefit that kind of discussion and usually make it more difficult.

At what point does the majority rule on this issue?

Really, when I read the above, what you're really saying is:  "When are you going to cave to my viewpoint?"  The kind of introspection and review of history you want folks like me to come around to is a quality that the Marxists (BLM and Antifa) and their friends are totally incapable of.

The majority of people in America approve of statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, and other non-Confederate American historical figures remaining in place.  The majority of people in America do not approve of the willful and unlawful destruction of public or private property.  And, yes, the principle of private property and the rule of law are more important than anyone's "feelings" about having to see those statues.  

Should we pull down statues of Malcolm X?  Read The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley.  What about the hurt feelings of Jewish folks toward a monument to a person who held Jews in contempt in life have to walk by a statue of a man who would certainly not view them as his equal if he were alive today?  (People like you are teaching me well how some people's "feelings" matter more than others, to the point where feelings become facts.)  Malcolm X is "different"?  How so; he was anti-Jewish in his lifetime.  

https://genius.com/Malcolm-x-chapter-19-1965-annotated

Almost from the first I had been guessing about something; and I took a chance -- and I really shook up that "super-sleuth." From the consistent subjectivity in just about everything he asked and said, I had deduced something, and I told him, "You know, I think you're a Jew with an Anglicized name." His involuntary expression told me I'd hit the button.

Just imagine if Trump had said this.  This is, admittedly, a snippet.  By the standards of anti-Semitism, the rest of the paragraph doesn't bail Malcolm X out.

Comes the response:  "Yes, Malcolm X certainly had resentments toward Jews in his lifetime.  Statues of his likeness are not there to honor that aspect of his life; it's there to honor his redemption and his role in the struggle for racial equality."  That's fine and good.  Why is that argument not applicable to Washington, Jefferson, or even Jackson (who extended self-governace to the common man more than any President before him, something which people of ALL races benefit from these days)?  Why is the good that THOSE men did (at least Washington and Jefferson) not worthy of honor, despite their flaws?

Malcolm X's statues are where they are at because of one reason; the residents of those communities want them there.  And that's fine and good to a point.  I'm all for communities deciding, collectively, who they wish to honor and who they don't wish to honor.  And I certainly don't believe that a state (like Alabama) ought to be able to force a community (like Selma) to not be able to remove statues the residents of that community don't want there.  But I don't give a crap about "people's feelings" when placed up against the rule of law.  The rule of the mob produces more "hurt feelings" than any statue, as well as hurt bodies and the destruction of the financial well-being of individual business owners whose businesses were trashed by the Marxist Mobs. And they ARE Marxist; please don't insult me by saying they're not.  

But if that's the case; that the residents of Oakland, CA (where there is a Malcolm X statue erected), why is it wrong for a community to honor with a statue whomever it wants, however questionable?  And when is it EVER right to pull down a statue, however offensive, that is on PRIVATE property, paid for by PRIVATE funds?  There are arguments you can make toward the first one, and I do believe that statues erected by municipalities ought to have some historical purpose as to the founding of the community, and that it be a consensus choice (as much as it can be) and not just a "tyranny of the majority" choice.  

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, but (most likely) the words of Beatrice Evelyn Hall, are the guts of the First Amendment.  It was the spirit of the Abolitionist Movement, which faced the extinguishing of Free Speech in the Southern states during the antebellum years.  It was the spirit of our college campuses in the 1960s, prior to the utter madness that would later engulf them; the Free Speech movement was the National Tonic for the McCarthyism of the previous decade.  Erecting a statue is a form of speech.  Having that statue stand, especially when it is privately funded and located on private land, a form of free speech.  And allowing ad hoc committees of Marxists to destroy any property, be it public or private, is taking a blowtorch to the individual freedoms which give so many of you here the right to post what you post here about Trump.  I doubt people post about Putin on Russia's Talk Elections Equivilent without extreme concern for their well-being the way people here post about Trump.  Free Speech (for others), like the police, is something many here won't miss until it's gone.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

First the Grand Mufti, now John Tyler!

You've certainly made your time on Talk Elections count!   

[Hindsight was 2020]

I feel an important element lacking from this debate is the tibiit that unlike statues of the founding fathers, statues of confederate leaders were not built to honor there achievements or there connection to the local community but rather they were built (normally with funding and assistance from the KKK) when the civil rights movement was starting as an unsubtle way of saying “f you darkie and remember your place”

[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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have heard many things in my life. I have never before heard someone say that John Tyler is the third best President of the United States.

Well, no, he's not.  Tyler was a below-average President, although a bit underrated.

Tyler's experience and example did establish and entrench the idea that the Vice President is the legitimate successor to the President upon the death of a sitting President.

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

Clause 6: Vacancy and disability
Further information: United States presidential line of succession
An illustration: Tyler stands on his porch in Virginia, approached by a man with an envelope. Caption reads "Tyler receiving the news of Harrison's death."
1888 illustration of new President John Tyler receiving the news of President William H. Harrison's death from Chief Clerk of the State Department Fletcher Webster
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.
(Note: This clause was partially superseded by the 25th Amendment in 1967.)

The wording of this clause caused much controversy at the time it was first used. When William Henry Harrison died in office, a debate arose over whether the vice president would become president, or if he would just inherit the powers, thus becoming an acting president. Harrison's vice president, John Tyler, believed that he had the right to become president. However, many senators argued that he only had the right to assume the powers of the presidency long enough to call for a new election. Because the wording of the clause is so vague, it was impossible for either side to prove its point. Tyler took the Oath of Office as president, setting a precedent that made it possible for later vice presidents to ascend to the presidency unchallenged following the president's death. The "Tyler Precedent" established that if the president dies, resigns or is removed from office, the vice president becomes president.

Had Tyler been a weaker President, he may have been bullied into a special election, one he certainly would have lost.  It wouldn't have been pretty.  Tyler was a rather nominal Whig, and the driving force for a new election would have been the ever-conniving Henry Clay, who is remembered for his 1850 Compromise which put off the Civil War, but was really a scumbag who pitted man against man and group against group to bring about deadlocks which he would then seek to solve and be the hero of.  Clay would have LOVED a new election; he was a candidate for President three (3) times, sharing the three (3) time loser record with William Jennings Bryan.  He was the Dick Gephardt of his day; a guy with ability and promise, but with no fixed principles who adapted his stances to his constituency.  Gephardt, though not the conniver Clay was, went from a moderate pro-life Democrat to a left-liberal who was lampooned in a cartoon where a butler laid out various suits for Gephardt, saying "And what will we be today, sir?"  Clay, was far worse than that, and his bitterness over losing was the stuff of legends.

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.  

[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.

[woodley park]

I think Pelosi and Biden are right. Do we want folks ripping down statues of Obama and canceling him out from history books 150 years from now, because of his drone policy? I think it is more important to continue to acknowledge the various contributions and flaws of past presidents, rather than just tearing down the statues and never speaking of these presidents again. Doesn't cancel culture just deprive future generations the opportunity to reckon with the past, so that they can then make their own contributions to forming a more perfect union? In its own way, ripping down statues and canceling out historical figures reminds me of countries that try and wash out all the bad stuff from their history books, pretending such things never happened.

Now for the traitorous Confederate generals, on the other hand, good riddance.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The way I see it Biden and Pelosi are trying to steer and moderate the debate... while Trump is always trying to pour a hefty dose of gasoline into it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The way I see it Biden and Pelosi are trying to steer and moderate the debate... while Trump is always trying to pour a hefty dose of gasoline into it.

Probably because the debate is stupid and these terrorists shouldn't be granted any unilateral concessions.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I feel an important element lacking from this debate is the tibiit that unlike statues of the founding fathers, statues of confederate leaders were not built to honor there achievements or there connection to the local community but rather they were built (normally with funding and assistance from the KKK) when the civil rights movement was starting as an unsubtle way of saying “f you darkie and remember your place”

Exactly.  By repeatedly comparing them with the Founding Fathers and other actual major historical figures, the right is just trying sow confusion about what the these statues truly are: a bunch of overpriced racist lawn gnomes.

[Sumner 1868]

- 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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I feel an important element lacking from this debate is the tibiit that unlike statues of the founding fathers, statues of confederate leaders were not built to honor there achievements or there connection to the local community but rather they were built (normally with funding and assistance from the KKK) when the civil rights movement was starting as an unsubtle way of saying “f you darkie and remember your place”

Agreeing with all of that, destruction of property, be it public or private, is unacceptable.  A municipality has the right to erect a statue, and people who don't like it don't have the right to yank them down.  A private group, even a heinous one, that lawfully buys property and erects a statue has the right to that statue.  People don't have the right to yank it down for one simple reason:  It's not theirs to rip down.

How dangerous is it to allow the principle of protection of public and private property to be violated by a Mob.  Irresponsible local leaders are working it out so we'll be able to gauge something of an answer.  What happens, however, when people who are offended by Arthur Ashe's statue on Monument Ave. in Richmond, VA get a group and pull THAT statue down and destroy it?  Throw them in jail?  Try them on the appropriate charges?  Well, yes, of course, but what do you say about the people who did the same to Stonewall Jackson's statue?  That's a fair question, is it not?  If It's OK to tear down Robert E. Lee's statue in Richmond because he's a "racist", is it OK to tear down Malcolm X's statue in Oakland because he was an "anti-Semite"?  (And he was, just read his autobiography.) 

I suggest neither are OK.  The law should be enforced in both instances.  The ends do not, by themselves, justify the means.  We will already regret our standing down to the mob as far as we've done.

[T'Chenka]

destruction of property, be it public or private, is unacceptable.  A municipality has the right to erect a statue, and people who don't like it don't have the right to yank them down.  A private group, even a heinous one, that lawfully buys property and erects a statue has the right to that statue.  People don't have the right to yank it down for one simple reason:  It's not theirs to rip down.

Legally you are correct Fuzzy, but morally it gets more complicated than that. I want to use a rather extreme and inappropriate hypothetical to make my point here - and I apologize if anybody is offended - because I think it makes my point well.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a Trump-supporting mayor puts up a statue of a black or SJW woman on her knees, hands handcuffed behind her back, with Trump / McConnell / Robert E Lee with his panys down, holding her head and forcing her to perform oral sex. The statue is dobe in such a way where no buttocks or genetalia is visible. The inscription reads "That's a good _____ (African American / liberal)."

Now, based on your outlining of the rights if citizens, they do nor have "a right" (legal? moral?) to tear the statue down. Legally you would be correct. Morally, you would be wrong I think. Please let me kmow if you disagree.

I'm just trying to demonstrate what I perceive to be a flaw in your argument. I'm not advocating for any such statue.

[Fuzzy Bear]

destruction of property, be it public or private, is unacceptable.  A municipality has the right to erect a statue, and people who don't like it don't have the right to yank them down.  A private group, even a heinous one, that lawfully buys property and erects a statue has the right to that statue.  People don't have the right to yank it down for one simple reason:  It's not theirs to rip down.

Legally you are correct Fuzzy, but morally it gets more complicated than that. I want to use a rather extreme and inappropriate hypothetical to make my point here - and I apologize if anybody is offended - because I think it makes my point well.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a Trump-supporting mayor puts up a statue of a black or SJW woman on her knees, hands handcuffed behind her back, with Trump / McConnell / Robert E Lee with his panys down, holding her head and forcing her to perform oral sex. The statue is dobe in such a way where no buttocks or genetalia is visible. The inscription reads "That's a good _____ (African American / liberal)."

Now, based on your outlining of the rights if citizens, they do nor have "a right" (legal? moral?) to tear the statue down. Legally you would be correct. Morally, you would be wrong I think. Please let me kmow if you disagree.

I'm just trying to demonstrate what I perceive to be a flaw in your argument. I'm not advocating for any such statue.

The most offensive Confederate statues are the ones erected in the post-WWII era.  They were erected as a statement of Massive Resistance to SCOTUS-ordered Integration and the Civil Rights Movement.  I certainly believe that we ought to dismantle much of this.  I wouldn't be happy about a statue in my community of someone that thought I was somewhat sub-human either, and didn't care that my family was enslaved.

That DOES have to be balanced against the Rule of Law.  The offensive statues do not block anyone from exercising their rights.  And, in many cases, a majority of the inhabitants of the municipality wish those statues to remain.  The principle of both the rule of law and majority rule ought to count for something.  Indeed, they ought to be given great weight, even against a practice that a minority find offensive.

I've chosen my words carefully here.  I do think that the biggest flaw in the reunification of the North and South was that when it was finalized, neither side thought much of the plight of blacks.  The Northern Republicans sold them out for Rutherford Hayes's election, and the Democrats left them at the mercy of Wade Hampton and Company (the "Redeemers").  This part WAS terrible; it's what made Jim Crow possible.  Blacks were sold out by the GOP in 1877, and while the Northern Republicans didn't mean to cause Jim Crow to occur, it did occur, and they probably should have known it would.  Reconstruction should not have ended until the black man was equal to the White Man in the Southern states.  I suppose we're still fixing that mistake.

[Saint Milei]

destruction of property, be it public or private, is unacceptable.  A municipality has the right to erect a statue, and people who don't like it don't have the right to yank them down.  A private group, even a heinous one, that lawfully buys property and erects a statue has the right to that statue.  People don't have the right to yank it down for one simple reason:  It's not theirs to rip down.

Legally you are correct Fuzzy, but morally it gets more complicated than that. I want to use a rather extreme and inappropriate hypothetical to make my point here - and I apologize if anybody is offended - because I think it makes my point well.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a Trump-supporting mayor puts up a statue of a black or SJW woman on her knees, hands handcuffed behind her back, with Trump / McConnell / Robert E Lee with his panys down, holding her head and forcing her to perform oral sex. The statue is dobe in such a way where no buttocks or genetalia is visible. The inscription reads "That's a good _____ (African American / liberal)."

Now, based on your outlining of the rights if citizens, they do nor have "a right" (legal? moral?) to tear the statue down. Legally you would be correct. Morally, you would be wrong I think. Please let me kmow if you disagree.

I'm just trying to demonstrate what I perceive to be a flaw in your argument. I'm not advocating for any such statue.

The most offensive Confederate statues are the ones erected in the post-WWII era.  They were erected as a statement of Massive Resistance to SCOTUS-ordered Integration and the Civil Rights Movement.  I certainly believe that we ought to dismantle much of this.  I wouldn't be happy about a statue in my community of someone that thought I was somewhat sub-human either, and didn't care that my family was enslaved.

That DOES have to be balanced against the Rule of Law.  The offensive statues do not block anyone from exercising their rights.  And, in many cases, a majority of the inhabitants of the municipality wish those statues to remain.  The principle of both the rule of law and majority rule ought to count for something.  Indeed, they ought to be given great weight, even against a practice that a minority find offensive.

I've chosen my words carefully here.  I do think that the biggest flaw in the reunification of the North and South was that when it was finalized, neither side thought much of the plight of blacks.  The Northern Republicans sold them out for Rutherford Hayes's election, and the Democrats left them at the mercy of Wade Hampton and Company (the "Redeemers").  This part WAS terrible; it's what made Jim Crow possible.  Blacks were sold out by the GOP in 1877, and while the Northern Republicans didn't mean to cause Jim Crow to occur, it did occur, and they probably should have known it would.  Reconstruction should not have ended until the black man was equal to the White Man in the Southern states.  I suppose we're still fixing that mistake.

Welcome back brother

[T'Chenka]

The most offensive Confederate statues are the ones erected in the post-WWII era.  They were erected as a statement of Massive Resistance to SCOTUS-ordered Integration and the Civil Rights Movement.  I certainly believe that we ought to dismantle much of this.  I wouldn't be happy about a statue in my community of someone that thought I was somewhat sub-human either, and didn't care that my family was enslaved.

That DOES have to be balanced against the Rule of Law.

So you are conceding that in some cases, when balanced against the Rule of Law, toppling certain statues illegally is not immoral? Good. I'm glad that you're being reasonable about this.

[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.