Sons Of Confederate Veterans Sued Over Bogus DMCA Takedown
from the well,-that-should-be-interesting dept
As you’ll recall, earlier this month we wrote about this bizarre situation in North Carolina, in which the University of North Carolina agreed to give a bunch of racists $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit before the lawsuit had even been filed. The details of the story came out due to some inquisitive digging by North Carolina lawyer Greg Doucette. And, in response to him publishing the details, including a “victory” letter sent by the head of the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans (in which it is admitted that they obviously had no legal standing to sue), Doucette’s Dropbox account was blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA letter from the group. Doucette retained lawyer Marc Randazza, who sent the Sons a letter demanding they use the $2.5 million to fund scholarships for African American UNC students or face a lawsuit for the bogus takedown. That letter argued that the bogus DMCA notice violated Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which (in theory) is supposed to stop abusive takedowns by punishing “misrepresentations” in takedown notices.
As I noted at the time, Section 512(f) of the DMCA is effectively dead, as courts rarely enforce anything about it and, at best, have said that those issuing a DMCA notice simply only need to consider fair use and if they, in their minds, think it’s not, can still send the takedown. However, Randazza and Doucette have decided to move forward anyway and have sued the NC Sons of Confederate Veterans, along with its leader Kevin Stone, and Dropbox (who blocked Doucette’s account). As is fairly typical of a Randazza filing, it’s an entertaining read:
Some claim that memorials like these are there to celebrate ?southern heritage? rather than as memorials to the subjugation of African Americans.
When Silent Sam was unveiled in 1913, KKK supporter Julian Carr announced that the Confederate soldiers it honored had saved ?the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South,? and told the following story:
?One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shotgun under my head.?
With a metaphorical flamethrower taken to this myth of ?southern pride,? student protesters tore the statue down on Monday, August 20, 2018. The University of North Carolina did not restore the statue to its former ?glory.?
On November 27, 2019, the Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a lawsuit against UNC for its failure to return Silent Sam to his location, despite lacking standing (and knowing it) to bring such a suit. Despite the fact that the NCSCV lacked standing, seven minutes after the suit was filed, a state court judge approved a settlement between the parties.
The lawsuit has been filed not in North Carolina, but in Norther California (the other NC). The reasoning here is that because this lawsuit is over a DMCA takedown notice to Dropbox and Dropbox terms require users to consent to Northern California jurisdiction:
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because a) in using Dropbox, they consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in the state and Federal courts in San Francisco, California; and b) the sending of the takedown notice at issue constitutes sufficient minimum contacts under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and U.S. Const., Amdt. XIV, where Defendants purposefully directed their acts toward California, committing an intentional act, expressly aimed at California, causing Plaintiffs harm in California as they have been deprived of the full use of their California-based Dropbox account.
This also appears to be the sole reason that Dropbox is listed as a defendant in the case. The complaint notes that it is not asking for any money from Dropbox, just to have Doucette’s account restored:
Dropbox is named as a defendant herein only to achieve complete relief; Plaintiffs seek no damages against Dropbox.
Well, these are the stated reasons for filing in California. I am assuming that the actual reason for suing in Northern California is that probably the only two successful 512(f) lawsuits both came in the Northern District of California and the 9th Circuit has probably the most caselaw on such claims — but that includes an appellate ruling that the “good faith” requirement is subjective. That is, if the takedown notice filer believes in their minds that the DMCA notice was legit, that’s enough. Of course, one other possible reason for filing in Northern California rather than North Carolina? Folks in California might not be quite as sympathetic to the Confederacy as folks in North Carolina.
As much as I’d like to see better rulings on 512(f) (or for Congress to fix it so that it has some teeth), I find it unlikely that this case will get very far — and, frankly, the California filing feels a bit like jurisdiction shopping. It’s not totally egregious as such (Dropbox is here in northern California and there are legit arguments for why the recipient of the takedown may be the proper party for determining jurisdiction), but… it’s still a stretch. The declaratory judgment for non-infringement seem like much stronger claims, though they won’t generate monetary returns.
In the meantime, the situation with UNC and the statue itself is far from over. Outcry and protests over the sketchy deal has resulted in at least one UNC funder pulling a $1.5 million grant to the University. And it doesn’t sound like the outcry and protests are calming down. Separately, a group of UNC students have moved to intervene in the original case (the one that was filed and settled in mere minutes) trying to have the settlement tossed and then the case dismissed entirely.
Filed Under: 512f, copyright, dmca, greg doucette, kevin stone, marc randazza, takedowns
Companies: drop box, sons of confederate veterans, unc
Comments on “Sons Of Confederate Veterans Sued Over Bogus DMCA Takedown”
So, how's that decision working out for you?
In the meantime, the situation with UNC and the statue itself is far from over. Outcry and protests over the sketchy deal has resulted in at least one UNC funder pulling a $1.5 million grant to the University. And it doesn’t sound like the outcry and protests are calming down. Separately, a group of UNC students have moved to intervene in the original case (the one that was filed and settled in mere minutes) trying to have the settlement tossed and then the case dismissed entirely.
Well, if the cowardly and/or corrupt people at UNC who approved the ‘settlement’ did so with the hopes of keeping the whole thing quiet it seems to have quite nicely blown up right in their faces.
One source(so far) of funding pulls a $1.5 million grant, students are working to undue their (at best) cowardly capitulation to a pack of racist losers, their image has been dragged through the mud thanks to their actions and said actions have painted a huge target on their back should anyone else feel like shaking them on on similarly baseless grounds, given they’ve demonstrated that they’ll fold like a cardboard house the second any pressure is applied.
Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?
“One argument used by those wanting to remove Confederate statues is that contemporary blacks had little chance to oppose them when they were erected. Aside from anecdotal evidence that blacks joined white crowds to observe the dedication ceremonies, one example in Mississippi provides undeniable evidence of explicit high-level black support. In 1890 the Mississippi legislature voted on a bill to appropriate $10,000 for a Confederate monument. The vote in the lower chamber was 57-to-41 in favor. All six black representatives voted “yea.” One, John F. Harris, made a supporting speech excerpted below prior to the vote:
‘Mr. Speaker! I have risen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill…I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead.
And, sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days’ fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country’s honor, he would not have made that speech….When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments…But they died, and their virtues should be remembered.’
Sir, I went with them. I too wore the gray, We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet….I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.”
He knew about Devil’s Punchbowl, do you?
Re: Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?
"He knew about Devil’s Punchbowl, do you?"
One of the sordid informal death camps made by white americans to kill black americans right after the civil war? What does that have to do with the statues of the confederate generals who swore on their lives to preserve slavery?
Fact of the matter a statue of a confederate soldier has the same moral argument for staying up as a statue of Rommel or Goering.
Whether they were good soldiers doesn’t matter when the cause they marched for was slavery.
The american south always wants to whitewash its history but there’s just no getting around the fact that the confederate constitution to which their soldiers all swore themselves had the concept and defense of slavery as a core article, to the point of mandating that no laws could be made which abolished that abominable institution.
Re: Re: Re: So, how's that decision working out for you?
I daresay the Black representatives were afraid of reprisals if they voted against it. It’s unlikely that they were in favour of slavery — or the Jim Crow Laws that followed the end of the Civil War.
I’d be interested to see their other voting records.
Re: Re: Re:2 So, how's that decision working out for you?
"I daresay the Black representatives were afraid of reprisals if they voted against it."
Or, far more likely, they had been cherry-picked by the bigoted pricks still in power in the south for being good and obedient Uncle Tom’s.
I can imagine the room they made that legislation now. The speaker stands and bellows "What do the Nxxxxh’s have ta say?". Only to be met by quiet reluctant whispers of "aye" from the chosen black representatives pinning their eyes to the floor.
"Motion carried! Yee-HAW!"
I’m waiting for the RICO to make an appearance….
We’ve already got conspiracy and fraud.
Re: Re:
Nah, Randazza reads (and posts) on Popehat, so even if they didn’t teach that in law school, he already knows what is or isn’t RICO.
Now if the RICO charge came from the Sons Of Confederate Veterans, or UNC (we already know they didn’t consult their own law school, or competent lawyers) it could be understood, even if still wrong.
Re: Re: Re:
Forgot the /s
Since the AG is now looking into the deal criminal RICO may be in the realm of possibility.
But you’re right…I would fully expect the SCV to claim it in their counterclaims.
As a native North Carolinian, I have only one thing to say:
May the Sons of Confederate Veterans one day fly the only Confederate flag that matters. ????️
Re: Re:
Isn’t that cultural appropriation from France?
Re: Re: Re:
Without the French you would still be flying the British flag. As for the French surrendering in WW2, like you could have stood up to a full-scale Blitzkrieg either. You were too chicken to even enter the war(s) until attacked/declared war upon. And they were right about being skeptical of Iraq.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree (mostly), though you’re taking the joke a bit too seriously.
That said, regarding WWII, I do feel it worth mentioning that France relied on the same defense along the Maginot Line that failed in WWI without also building fortifications along the France-Belgium border.
And as for being “chicken”, we’re on a completely different continent. We just didn’t care.
Re: Minor correction:
‘… the only Confederate flag that ever mattered.’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Who cares what you say?
Not the SCV.
Re: Re: However shall he survive such devastating news...
Oh noes, a bunch of racist, cowardly and dishonest losers might not care what he says, I’m sure he’ll be absolutely devastated. /s
Re: Re:
Like I give a fuck what those slavery-celebrating racist swamp rats have to say.
Re: Re: Who cares what you say?
"Not the SCV."
Hardly surprising that an organization glorifying racial hate and slavery would disagree with what any sensible and moral person had to say.
Here in europe I think you could make a case that Rommel and Goering were good soldiers and yet no one is daft enough to demand statues in their honor.
Yet in the american south too few realize that what the people they want to celebrate fought and died for was the preservation of the institution of slavery enshrined in the confederate constitution those soldiers all swore themselves to.
That is deserving of a place in a museum as warning to future generations but NOT as a publicly placed statue glorifying the enslavement of black people.
I wish the stupid villains would give up… I’m starting to not enjoy popcorn.
Re: Re:
Never going to happen…villains can’t just give up because then Hollyweird wouldn’t be able ro make their sequels.
Re: Re:
Best.
Comment.
Ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Folks in California might not be quite as sympathetic to the Confederacy as folks in North Carolina.
They are, however, sympathetic to copyright, and California is way more racist than NC. In the south they mouth off, in the north and west they just cross the street when they see a minority and toss their resumes in the trash while saying the right things.
Re: Re:
Or this is complete bullshit.
Source: I’m from the South and live on the west coast. The South is a helluva lot more racist, both systemically and verbally, than the west coast.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Dr King wrote in his Autobiography that Illinois was more Racist than Alabama. Your Virtue Signaling is obscene. This Iconoclastic Mania is a temper tantrum over Hillary’s Loss. The North invaded for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors. One million Freedmen starved under Union Contraband policy before Confederates were allowed to vote because the North wanted to be free of Blacks not free for Blacks.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suppose there is some sort of documentation from which you pulled this from, right?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Obviously, he’s citing that well-known German professor Otto Maiaß.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The North invaded a slaver regime for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors."
Fixed That for you.
No doubt that the north had opportunism as a side goal but at the end of the day the real issue of contention was that the confederate constitution had slavery enshrined and defended as a primary amendment.
But go ahead and keep trying to defend the confederacy slaver nation with whataboutism. That argument would similarly exculpate ISIS completely though, so I’m not too sure you WANT to go down that road.
Or maybe you do. What one non-caucasian does to another doesn’t seem high on your list of priorities.
Re: Re:
You know how I know you are a racist bro?
Good to see that Randazza finally realized that abusing DMCA to censor stuff isn’t a good thing.
Re: Re:
Still not above forum shopping though. At least the suit will bring more public exposure before it fails.
Norther California: when North California isn’t north enough, but Northest California is too far north.
UPDATE:
https://www.wral.com/silent-sam-deal-included-extra-75-000-to-keep-confederate-group-s-flags-off-unc-campuses/18837378/
It just keeps getting worse.
Re: Re:
Especially when you consider that the 74,999 was one dollar below the amount that would have required the Attorney General’s approval. Sure seems like they didn’t want anyone else to know about it.
Re: Re:
Ain’t no “seems” about it, not with a move that deliberate. UNC paid off a bunch of racist pricks and hoped nobody would find out until after the checks cleared.
Re: Re: Re:
I seem to recall a few articles a good while back that covered lawsuits over bank transactions that were claimed to be just under the point where they’d need to be reported, and if they tried to buy off the racist losers with an amount literally a dollar short of the point where they’d need approval that strikes me as a pretty obvious attempt to dodge those requirements, and something that should be looked into as well.
They are a part of history so I can see why the statues need to be housed somewhere.
I don’t know what the right solution for confederate monuments is.
There is a good chance they are not all racists but I don’t personally know any of them.
Offensive art is still a protected thing.
Some of them did things of great artistic value even if their other history is deeply immoral.
We have a better Parthenon than Greece.
Re: Re:
That Venn diagram is a perfect circle.
Re:
The overwhelming majority of Confederate statues went up after the War to Preserve Slavery. They existed, and those still in place arguably still exist, for the sole purpose of spreading a message of White supremacy to Black people: “You’re free, but we’re still in charge.” States that weren’t even in the Confederacy — or the Union, for that matter! — have Confederate statues, too.
If I had my way, we’d melt down every last one of those monuments to White supremacist traitors and recycle the metal into whatever, then plant trees where the statues once stood. But if we’re going to pretend the statues are about “heritage” and all the other smokescreen bullshit, we should move them into museums and replace them with statues of the leaders of slave rebellions, Black leaders of the civil rights movement, or…well, pretty much anyone who doesn’t represent the Confederacy.
Re: Re: Re:
‘Here’s a statue of one of the traitorous racists, and right beside it is a statue of one of the people who kicked their ass in the war to preserve slavery(great name by the way, much more accurate and descriptive). Now over here we have a wing highlighting the people who had to fight for equal rights and treatment, as unfortunately just because the racists got trounced didn’t mean that racism went away…’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn’t advocating piracy?
"Copying is not theft." Well, a confederate statute is historical, not racist.
Don’t you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?
Re: Re: Re:
That’s right, copying in and of itself isn’t theft.
Then how come California, a “free state” that wasn’t part of the Confederate States of America, has several monuments to the Confederacy? Also, per Wiki:
I’m sure there are people who see monuments to the Confederacy as part of a heritage. But that heritage is hate — a heritage of the idea of racial supremacy through force, a heritage of enslaving people based on the color of their skin, a heritage of splitting from the United States and fighting an entire goddamn war to keep alive the institution of slavery.
We should acknowledge the history of the Confederacy and the War to Preserve Slavery. But we don’t need public monuments for the Confederacy to do that. Put the statues in museums, rename buildings and streets that were named for Confederates, and let anything that can’t be easily moved or renamed stand.
A little, sure, but I never have to worry about that with you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn’t advocating piracy?"
The same way that rejecting the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" means we abolish good law enforcement, you mean?
""Copying is not theft." Well, a confederate statute is historical, not racist."
A statue of a man who swore an oath to preserve the institution of slavery is, indeed, racist.
"Don’t you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?"
Only you, Bobmail, could deliver several abject and obvious failures in a row and call it "success".
No, Jhon, as usual all you managed to do is package and deliver five suck and fails for the price of none.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Don’t you hate it when others are better at your own game than you?”
Someday that might actually be the case bro.
Someday
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like the bullshit about eliminating copyright enforcement isn’t advocating piracy
Mate, the reason why people want to "eliminate" copyright enforcement is because your approach to it catches more children and grandmothers and corpses than actual pirates.
If the police were allowed to flamethrower babies at traffic stops and people complained you’d bitch about people wanting to advocate murder.
Go cry about your mailing lists, Herrick.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, it isn’t, nor is that what we’re doing. We’re against overenforcement of and misuse of the enforcement tools available for copyright, as well as using it against nonprofit, noncommercial fanworks, not copyright enforcement in general. Specifically, abuse of the DMCA to remove content for reasons other than copyright, removing fanworks and emulators, the fact that DMCA requires takedowns before and without a legal finding that the content actually infringes on copyright and with essentially no evidence, and ignoring fair use entirely. That’s not completely eliminating copyright enforcement. It’s a lot more nuanced than that.
But at any rate, that doesn’t really have anything to do with anything in this article or thread.
This is true.
I assume you meant “statue”. If so, there are a number of problems with that.
Now, if you did, in fact, mean Confederate statutes, that’d be even dumber. Many of those were very clearly racist and were supposed to be. Also, I don’t think anyone is demanding that Confederate statutes should be publicly displayed on public property. But I highly doubt that’s what you meant.
I find it enjoyable, actually. I enjoy a good challenge, particularly in a debate. That said, you’re not one of them, and that isn’t “our game” that you’re using.
Re: Re: Re:
Small semantic point, calling the Confederates traitors is extremely revisionist, since by the social conventions of the time they would have owed no loyalty to the Union. Before the Civil War everyone was expected to be loyal to their State, their County, their family, their militia, etc. Loyalty to the United States only mattered in regard to its relations with other countries.
There were massive government propaganda campaigns to unify the country under a single national identity after the war had ended. We still see the legacy of those campaigns today, and Americans continue to have an unusually strong sense of national pride.
Re: Re: Re:
Would you prefer I be more accurate by calling them a bunch of White supremacist assholes who literally bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’d prefer you remember that there were human beings fighting on both sides, and they were no more singularly motivated by a desire to do evil than you are. Rebellion is not treason by any reasonable definition. It’s as accurate to say that George Washington was a traitor as it is to call the Confederates traitors. In the context of their struggles the fact that they technically committed treason is meaningless.
Your alternate description is no more accurate than your first. To claim that Confederate soldiers all "bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people" is bullshit, because you’re implying that was their intent. You’re saying hundreds of thousands of poor southern boys all marched off to die specifically so that rich plantation owners could keep their slaves, rather than because their homes were being invaded by a marauding, pillaging army sent by a distant and seemingly uncaring government.
Lots of people on both sides didn’t even have a choice. Did you forget that the Union invaded the Confederate states? Did you forget that the Civil War was the first time conscription was introduced in the US, and every eligible man and boy had to register regardless of their beliefs about slavery?
History is never so clearly Good vs. Evil as you desperately want to believe. Slavery and racism were considered normal at the time of the Civil War, and would remain common throughout the world until after the first World War.
Re: Re: Re:3
The Confederate States of America was formed specifically to protect the institution of slavery. The men who created and led the Confederacy intended for its army to fight and die for everything the Confederacy stood for — including slavery. Whether the soldiers themselves intended to fight and die for the protection of slavery is largely irrelevant.
Why, it’s almost as if the rich sold the poor a bill of goods~. Imagine that~.
Especially the enslaved Black people.
Tell me something new.
So what? That doesn’t make racism or slavery right or good. “We’ve always done it this way” doesn’t justify those things, either. The Confederacy was formed primarily to protect the institution of slavery; everything else sprung from that one specific goal. Fuck the Confederacy, fuck Confederate monuments, and fuck the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yeah, fuck all of them. And fuck you too. Even knowing, as you do, that most soldiers are duped into fighting for whatever side, you still try to vilify them for it and claim they did it to "preserve slavery".
Blaming victims is fine if you don’t like them, according to Stephen T. Stone. What an undeserving, self-righteous, hypocritical turd of a person you’ve turned into.
Re: Re: Re:5
The Confederate army as a whole was formed to protect the Confederacy. The Confederacy in general was formed primarily to protect the institution of slavery. Ergo, Confederate soldiers ultimately fought to preserve slavery regardless of whether that was any individual soldier’s intent.
“Fuck the Confederacy” isn’t an condemnation of every individual Confederate soldier, especially not the enslaved Black people who were forced to fight. It is a condemnation of the Confederacy as both a “country” and a concept, and of the men who formed it. If’n you can’t deal with that, I suggest praying in front of Silent Sam abou—oh wait
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"Even knowing, as you do, that most soldiers are duped into fighting for whatever side, you still try to vilify them for it and claim they did it to "preserve slavery"."
So…what you are saying is that the german Wehrmacht in 1936 consisted of good people who shouldn’t be vilified just because they were the obedient servants of the nazi regime?
You’re not winning this argument, this battle, or this war. The confederacy can not be defended from ANY moral viewpoint and the only thing you’ve done so far is delivering one argument after another which would similarly have given moral high ground to erecting statues of Hess and Heydrich, had those arguments been accepted.
The confederacy was dedicated and formed to protect the institution of slavery. The army was marching in defense of slavery. The soldiers don’t get exculpated for simply "obeying orders" since, you know, they could have done what the US soldiers dodging the vietnam draft did én másse. Desert.
Instead they failed to say "not in my name". They picked up their guns and used them in defense of the confederacy.
That makes them – at absolutely best dupes and victims. It doesn’t make them good soldiers. It doesn’t make them good people. In fact it makes them pretty shitty people who were willing to support an inhumane and barbarous junta out of fear.
At best.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"I’d prefer you remember that there were human beings fighting on both sides, and they were no more singularly motivated by a desire to do evil than you are."
Well, the same way it’s been shown that most nazi camp guards were very decent people to anyone who wasn’t jewish, and made for good spouses, fathers and neighbors.
That isn’t an excuse for putting up statues of them, the same way no good argument exists for preserving statues of confederate generals in public spaces.
"To claim that Confederate soldiers all "bled and died to protect the institution of enslaving Black people" is bullshit, because you’re implying that was their intent."
At the end of the day every last one of the confederate soldiers swore themselves and their lives to defend and protect the confederate constitution – which was nearly identical to the union constitution save that it held slavery as a sacred institution which no laws were to be made to abolish.
So yes. The confederate soldiers died to defend slavery in exactly the same way the wehrmacht soldiers in 1936 died defending nazism.
The difference is that most europeans and especially germans know better than to try to defend those forefathers.
"Did you forget that the Civil War was the first time conscription was introduced in the US, and every eligible man and boy had to register regardless of their beliefs about slavery?"
Still not one single reason to glorify or acknowledge, in any positive light, the confederate soldiers.
Because sure as hell the SCV aren’t upholding their ancestors as "pitiful victims being forced at gunpoint to march in the defense of slavery".
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except they were US citizens and absolutely owed loyalty to the Union – they were secessionist traitors right from the get-go by definition. Not surprising though, in a nation born from secessionist treachery 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was only with regards to some southern states, at best. The so-called “border states”, the western states, and the northern states had a very different view on things. That’s why states like Maryland and Missouri stuck with the Union: loyalty to the country superseded loyalty to local issues.
Also, they really only did the “states’ rights” thing when it was convenient for them. Fugitive slaves? The federal government must step in and force northern states to help recapture them.
Re: Re:
https://alwaysbuyingscrap.com/
Cheesy decontextualized ripoffs of ancient buildings are not of "great artistic value".
Re: Re:
"There is a good chance they are not all racists but I don’t personally know any of them."
Every confederate officer swore to their flag and, more importantly, their constitution.
Which means they did swear themselves to this: "the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress…"
If the oath of office you take demands that you give your life to preserve the institution of slavery practiced upon the black man then hell yes, you’re a racist. I don’t even think the nazis were that clear-cut and outspoken about it.
Re: Re: Re:
While I mostly disagree with them, I would like to point out that a substantial portion of the Confederate Army consisted of drafted soldiers, i.e. people who didn’t volunteer at all. So saying that they all swore to their flag and constitution is a bit misleading.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I would like to point out that a substantial portion of the Confederate Army consisted of drafted soldiers, i.e. people who didn’t volunteer at all. So saying that they all swore to their flag and constitution is a bit misleading."
Less than 10% of the confederate army was drafted – some 82000 out of 8-900000. And only after they’d found themselves significantly outnumbered by the union.
James McPherson also wrote about the moral stance of the soldiers, and i quote;
"“Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern ‘rights’ and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it. Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view.”"
We’ve got ample historical evidence that draft or not, it was VERY rare to find a single confederate soldier who didn’t perceive slavery as something less than a god-given "right".
I think I’m on pretty safe grounds to say that the confederate soldiers all swore to defend slavery, and the overwhelming majority did so very willingly.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Fair enough. I still think your original post was insufficient on its own, but this one adequately addresses my concerns.
Re: Re:
For the record, we’re not arguing that these statues should be illegal. They absolutely are protected by the First Amendment. I’m also not opposed to them being in a museum, though I would prefer portraits. They do have some historical value, after all, and some, like General Lee, played important roles prior to the Civil War that I’m okay with.
That said, I don’t think that prominently displaying them out in public the way they are or on publicly owned property that is not a museum is a good idea, and it’s pretty offensive, especially considering the fact that, whether or not the individuals themselves were racists or pro-slavery, not only are they being venerated for fighting in a war in support of a country that was founded for the sole purpose of protecting the institution of slavery, but the vast majority of these statues were erected not for artistic or historical reasons but for racist reasons well after the end of the Civil War. That’s not just art or history; that’s veneration.
Again, I’m not opposed to depicting Confederate figures in museums or on private property. The First Amendment protects that right, even if they are offensive. I just have a problem with publicly-owned monuments to the Confederacy being publicly displayed on publicly-owned property.
For most monuments, I think moving them to a museum or selling them to private individuals would work. If not, I think either juxtaposing them with Union soldiers, prominent African-American figures, or Civil Rights leaders would help. And while I’m not opposed to preserving these monuments, I’m not against destroying them either (at least if it’s done legally). But if they must be kept, they should either be given to private citizens or be presented with the proper context, which a museum or opposing monument would provide.
Re: Re:
Having lived with members of the SCV most of my life. I can safely say they’re not all racist.
The only good confederate is a dead confederate. This is why they lost and died in the war like the racist traitors they were. Goons like the ones in the article are losers, they aren’t sons of veterans they are sons of traitors. Historical revisionism doesn’t work for filthy people who believe their race is better than the rest. They are bound for history’s forgotten pages wether they want to or not.
Re: Re:
Some of those monuments are actually pretty big and will probably be around for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well
There may have been a people somewhere on the planet with the moral authority to make war on the Confederacy but it wasn’t the United States. What’s worse? Slavery or genocide of American Indians carried out by the U.S. Army (including black buffalo soldiers)?
Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy. Compare that to the lives of native Americans imprisoned in concentration camps artfully called reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery.
Whatever charges you want to lay at the feet of Confederates, the same and worse can be said of the barbarians wearing military uniforms who came down here to make war on them.
Most people today cannot conceptualize the union army’s savagery and barbarism perpetrated against the South.
Nothing — not secession, not preserving the union, not ending slavery — NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality of the union’s war on the Southern people.
Re: Re:
Neither is worse than the other. They are both atrocities and should be treated as such.
So what? Enslavers keeping their property in good shape doesn’t make them morally righteous when you know what property means in this context.
…which is why anyone with a goddamn lick of sense sees the War to Preserve Slavery as a low point in American history for numerous reasons.
Most people today can’t conceptualize the average enslaver’s savagery and barbarism perpetrated against enslaved people. I don’t see you shittalking the South — which fought a war to preserve that savagery and barbarism as a legal right — for it, though.
Nothing — not tradition, not preserving the economy, not dying for the right to enslave people — NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality visited upon enslaved people in (and by) the South/the Confederacy.
Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well
Found the racist.
Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well
"What’s worse? Slavery or genocide of American Indians carried out by the U.S. Army (including black buffalo soldiers)?"
And the statues of monsters within the rest of the US Army should similarly not be on display other than in a museum as warning to future generations.
"Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy. Compare that to the lives of native Americans imprisoned in concentration camps artfully called reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery. "
OK, full stop there. You are seriously justifying slavery because it’s not as bad as actual genocide? Goebbels wants a word with you, you’re cribbing his material.
"NOTHING justified the uncivilized brutality of the union’s war on the Southern people."
Actually, yes. Slavery was every moral authority required for the war. In an ideal world of course the monsters on the union side should have been similarly brutalized.
Your entire wordwall seems to be that if law enforcement fails to catch one bad guy the rest should be let off with a warning.
The confederate constitution was primarily about defending slavery which is where the irreconcilable difference from the union one lay. The confederate soldiers all swore to and marched in the defense of slavery as an institution. At best that makes them similar victims of the confederacy.
But the ones having statues made of them? They were all too willing and in no few cases prime motivators of slaveholding. The only place fit to hold their statues is a museum on crimes against humanity.
Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well
"There may have been a people somewhere on the planet with the moral authority to make war"
"Slaves had shelter, food, clothing, medical care, religions instruction and about 25% of slave occupations required literacy."
Re: Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as we
"wow, are you for real?"
Going by his arguments, s/he’s all too real. And probably writing this carrying a Tiki torch while wearing white sheets.
I mean, here in europe we’ve seen neo-nazis using those arguments in the defense of the third reich, but never quite that clumsily. Guess the nazi rhetoric is still more polished than that of the KKK.
Re: Re: Re:2 Racists infested the north and the union army, a
Addendum to the above, if it’s the genuine "Connie Chastain" writing this then we’re looking at a proliferous writer and blogger who has made it her life’s calling to come up with apologetics for southern racism because of twisted whataboutism about how the north was "also bad".
Her running argument seems to be that any one bringing up slavery and racism in the US south is out to demonize southerners for no reason.
And she completely fails to see the irony in that she’s personally on record trying to push the paradigm of the superiority of one race visavi another.
Essentially she’s trying to go to any lengths to prove neither she nor the slave owners in the south were really racist, and appears to think that as long as anyone buys her reasoning the south will come out as the guy in the white hat of the civil war.
Re: Re: Re:3 Racists infested the north and the union arm
Making it your life’s work to defend a bunch of inhuman racist losers… that is just beyond sad.
Her running argument seems to be that any one bringing up slavery and racism in the US south is out to demonize southerners for no reason.
… other than the racism and the slavery? Because I’d think for any even remotely moral person those two would be more than enough.
And she completely fails to see the irony in that she’s personally on record trying to push the paradigm of the superiority of one race visavi another.
I’m not sure that’s irony so much as telling and a possible explanation for her actions, as if she really has pushed the idea that some races are better than others defending historical racism would double as defending her racism.
No, for irony I’d probably go with a woman arguing that some groups are inherently superior to others, given how that mindset has typically worked out for women in the past.
Essentially she’s trying to go to any lengths to prove neither she nor the slave owners in the south were really racist, and appears to think that as long as anyone buys her reasoning the south will come out as the guy in the white hat of the civil war.
I mean, swap ‘hat’ with ‘hood’ and that would be accurate I suppose…
Re: Re: Re:4 Racists infested the north and the union
"Making it your life’s work to defend a bunch of inhuman racist losers… that is just beyond sad."
Yup. At least when you know the other person is KKK or a neo-nazi they are NOT going to try to weasel their way out of atrocities by whining "But…look at the OTHER side, they were bad as well!!"
"… other than the racism and the slavery? Because I’d think for any even remotely moral person those two would be more than enough."
Yep again. Apparently according to Chastain there is a large conspiracy to "evilize" the civil war era south who were really just "defending themselves from an atrocious aggressor".
Hell, you can see the gist of her "arguments" right here on this thread. I don’t normally like to toss the word "Evil" around, but that poster will, without a single second, exculpate slavery and similar atrocity.
"…if she really has pushed the idea that some races are better than others defending historical racism would double as defending her racism."
True enough. I guess if you have a hateboner for people of another skin color than your own at least you’d feel more comfortable if you could tell yourself that you aren’t actually a horrible person because that hateboner is just natural.
"No, for irony I’d probably go with a woman arguing that some groups are inherently superior to others, given how that mindset has typically worked out for women in the past."
True enough – you could replace the word "woman" with "black" in many 18th century scholarly debates and end up with the verbatim southern justification for slavery.
"I mean, swap ‘hat’ with ‘hood’ and that would be accurate I suppose…"
What makes it truly ridiculous is the way she keeps trying to remove the confederacy from racism in general, i think. It’s as if the only card she has to play is "South Good, North Baaad!".
Re: Re: Racists infested the north and the union army, as well
I’d like to point out a couple of issues that others have yet to mention because of the fractal wrongness of this post. (In fact, the only right part is that the North committed atrocities, too.)
First, the South fired first. They attacked Fort Sumter. Now, you may think that they were justified in doing so. However, that is immaterial because it still shows that the North was purely motivated by aggression. Again, the South started the war.
Second, it’s worth noting that the South committed just as many atrocities against Union soldiers and American Indians as the North did against Confederate soldiers and American Indians. It’s just that the South also committed atrocities against African-Americans, and those atrocities also included slavery. So yeah, while the Union wasn’t exactly smelling like roses, the Confederacy was objectively worse.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Speakers at Monument Dedication
Carr wasn’t the only speaker. The Gov. of North Carolina spoke also, and his remarks included this:
“Ours is the task to build a State worthy of all patriotism and heroic deeds, a State that demands justice for herself and all her people, a State sounding with the music of victorious industry, a State whose awakened conscience shall lead the State to evolve from the forces of progress a new social order, with finer development for all conditions and classes of our people.”
The source for the quote is the June 3, 1913 edition of the Charlotte Observer. The dedication of the monument is covered on pages 1, 2 and 3. It quotes several of the speakers- the Governor, President of UNC and representatives from the UDC. It mentions Carr, but does not quote any of his speech.
How come this is ignored? Oh, I know. Because truth doesn’t matter in the hate campaign against white Southerners.
Re:
And putting up a monument to the Confederacy, which was formed and fought a war specifically to preserve the enslavement of Black people as a legal right, does that…how, exactly? ????
Re: Re: Re:
Imagine signing up for an account on Techdirt just to defend slavery. Christ on a bicycle.
Re: Re: Re:
It is a seriously self-damning unintentional admission, yes. ‘Someone’s ragging on slavery and those that fought and died to support it? Well hell, only one thing to do, defend that practice and those people.’
As the saying (roughly) goes, ‘It is better to be suspected of being a racist, slavery-defending scumbag than to comment and remove all doubt.’
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Imagine signing up for an account on Techdirt just to defend slavery. Christ on a bicycle."
Not too surprised. Revolting as his/her arguments are it amply fulfills the argument for Free Speech. If the poster didn’t bring these repugnant arguments into the open, no one would know that there are still people who actually think like that out there.
Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication
What was said, even at the time, hardly matters. What was intended is far more important and actual history even moreso.
Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication
Well at least you had the balls to create a profile. Your folks usually operate under a white hood so I guess that’s some progress.
Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication
That’s because the Governor and the Charlotte Observer had the good sense to realize that the truth wouldn’t sound good for those who wanted the monument.
Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication
If you want to celebrate the poor buggers who fought and died, put up a memorial to an unknown soldier, or one with a confederate and union soldier. Celebrating the generals who fought for slavery and treason – not very justifiable or admirable.
Re: Re: Speakers at Monument Dedication
I agree. If you had Confederate statues together with Union statues, that’d be one thing, but Confederate statues on their own are problematic, to say the least, and don’t quite match the justifications given.
The big question is, how much are the judge and whoever agreed the original multi-million dollar settlement profiting PERSONALLY from this.
Because it’s painfully obvious this racist group offered the judge a massive bribe and someone from the university is effectively stealing money from the uni and taking personal kickbacks too.
Re: Re:
The judge could very well be innocent, as while the timing is suspicious as all hell they could have just brushed it aside as ‘no longer my problem’ and just been glad it wasn’t on the docket any more.
When it comes to university staff on the other hand that’s a lot more questionable, as they are either incredibly stupid, monumentally spineless, or corrupt and were just looking for an excuse to kick some money to the racist losers.
Barring some evidence coming forth regarding the judge I’d say it’s probably safe to dismiss them as not being part of the scam, but even the best case scenario leaves the university looking all sorts of bad.
Update?
Quick update: This may settle. Or not. IANAL; I just read patterns.
NOTE:
ECF/PACER is now showing this case number as 4:19-cv-08148-HSG (changes previous from 3:19… to 4:19…).
HOW TO FIND ON ECF/PACER:
This obsolete (and $0.10/page overpriced system) does not allow deep links… but if you have a PACER account go to:
The case docket shows: (and I read the filings to get details)
Feb 28 – Randazza et al file oppo to defs mtd for lack of pj.
March 3 – Stip to extend deadlines for defs to respond
"the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations and anticipate that this dispute may be9 resolved without further need for judicial intervention. The parties agree that Defendants will submit their Reply by March 20, 2020 if settlement efforts are unsuccessful."
[Ehud: Well, March 20 is a couple of weeks ago…]
March 24 – Case management notice.
March 26 – The Court has issued an order… but it’s not on ECF/PACER, so if I had to guess the Court said "Yeah sure, keep on not bothering us until you work it out or can’t work it out."
As always, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m definitely not the Lock-Picking Lawyer on YouTube. Also I have no dog in this particular hunt and don’t know anyone involved personally nor professionally.
Ehud
P.S. The next time you get a call from a smooth-talking guy who insists you answer HIS questions like "Is it ok this call is recorded" and tries to control the conversation… perform a Turing test. The one working for me right now is "What is two plus two?" I generally am asked to repeat that… and the second time "That is an interesting question." Robocalls are evolving. And they are learning.