Welcome to History!
A community dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.
Rules:
Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Discussion is encouraged.
No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.
No porn.
We like facts and reliable sources here. While sources like Quora/Reddit/Wikipedia can be great tools for quick searches, we do not allow such user-generated content as primary source. What’s wrong with Wikipedia?
NOTE: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban.
Appeasement was a mistake, and we should have imprisoned all of the south.
There's no way they'd spend the next 150+ years trying to dismantle the government who beat them, from the inside right? Right...?
Congress passed section 1983 of the Federal Code in 1871. In 1874 an unnamed secretary of Congress "copied" section 1983 from The Congressional Record into The Federal Register. The unnamed secretary illegally revised the law by removing a 16 word clause that outlawed all immunity from prosecution previously given by the states to government officials. This error wasn't caught and reported on until May 15 of this year (2023). In 1982 Harlow V Fitzgerald went in front of The SCOTUS. The 1982 SCOTUS in their closing remarks found it strange that the 1871 Congress would explicitly outlaw all other forms of immunity, but remained "strangely silent" on immunities granted previously at the state level. This decision is what started Qualified Immunity.
Qualified Immunity is explicitly outlawed. Congress never changed the law. The entire government are all complicit, once they are informed that the law was never changed.
This is the first I've heard of this!
can I get a source on this? sounds interesting
Thanks!
Here are some other links for those of us with no access to NYT:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2023/september-october/police-accountability-qualified-immunity-revisited/
https://www.cato.org/blog/judge-willett-concurrence-highlights-qualified-immunitys-flawed-foundation
(I believe CATO is a political group, libertarian?)
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/is-qualified-immunity-doctrine-based-on-a-scriveners-error-law-review-article-makes-the-case/
(Discussion about the transcription specifically)
We tore down several confederate statues in New Orleans and it was very satisfying. It was “controversial” in the sense that not one actual resident of the city was upset but people in the suburbs were deeply offended. That made it even more fun.
There shouldn't be any statues of American traitors.
Fun fact: for the traitors in question many of them explicitly wrote that they should never be immortalized with statues. Then Woodrow "Southern Revisionist" Wilson needed something to support his "historical research." He not only commissioned many of these statues, he fostered the second founding of the KKK, and segregated the federal government, among many other despicable things to help support Southern Revisionism, which he wrote. IIRC he was also involved in the film "Birth of a Nation." I highly recommend reading a synopsis of that film, unlike Schindler's List, no one should watch Birth of a Nation.
So there is Woodrow Wilson before Trump when it comes to regressive policies.
And the first person to salute their efforts would be Lee. Dude loathed the idea of there being statues of the confederacy.
"Divisive"
Agree with them or not there are people who are upset about these statues of traitors coming down.