Imagine ripping down a monument to replace it with a "oppressed minority" in modern attire, calling it Rumors of War, and not expecting people to come to the conclusion that you hate them and want them dead.
The Confederates weren't right either. Mostly because they were just as authoritarian as the Unionists were. They were mostly upset that the power of the plantation class was waning.
The southern states paid militias to go fight in Kansans against the locals who wanted to vote it into being a free state (as most pioneers did). As a result, they started the a civil war in Kansas years before anyone else. This was followed up by burning the entire city of Topeka to the fucking ground because the southern militants blamed the Kansans for starting the war.
Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott decision were wholly unconstitutional and utterly invalidated States Rights & Sovereignty.
Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott decision were wholly unconstitutional and utterly invalidated States Rights & Sovereignty.
Neither of these are true fwiw. Fugitive slave act was justifiable under:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Art. 4 section 2. Fugitive slave act literally was upholding the constitution.
And as for dredd scott?
Amendment 5:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fugitive Slave Law can't uphold the constitution when it federally deputizes slave patrols to cross states, draft the assistance and participation of a different state's citizens, in violation of state law, while also disregarding the citizenship status (whether federal or state) and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure). The decision (and it's additional consequences) are also false in a myriad of other ways. Read the dissent.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
Barren v. Baltimore is patently up there as one of the singularly most retarded rulings the supreme court has ever made, next.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure).
Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property. was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged To protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words--too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Confess a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.
Maybe stop being retarded against someone who actually reads supreme court rulings like an autistic magnet.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
And the constitution is the document by which we are governed, which is not an idealistic item.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
Slaves were legally property and not citizens, are you unable to read or are you just the average mouthbreather?
Point of order, it was Lawrence that was burned, not Topeka. It actually got attacked twice in fact. Once during Bleeding Kansas as it was the Free State capital, and the second time by William Quantrill and his raiders during the Civil War (like you said, because they blamed us for there even being a Civil War because we didnt just roll over and take it).
We need to build a statue of the people that did this to commemorate their crimes. We can bulldoze their houses and put the statues of them on the reclaimed property.
I was thinking something along the lines of a gathering of them looking gleefully up at another monument. Except this would be a monument of burning figures, mutilated bodies, bleeding children, hanging corpses, and burning books & buildings. Possibly with an eternal flame coming out from the building and reflecting on their gleeful one's crazed mirror eyes.
We could call it something like: "The Iconoclasts", "Liberation From Life", or "Civilizational School Shooters"
I'm sure they comprehend that just fine. They're not single-issue extremists like a certain person who uses this site, they're very likely angry about all the same things you are and for most of the same reasons, and they're white nationalists.
I mean it’s the history of Virginia like it or not. Also, Lee is far from the monster that woke historians make it out to be. I’d love to ask these activists to explain to me how their life has been improved
I truly hope these people get their comeuppance. If they think American history is “uncomfortable l” then they need to check out how ruthless some African or Asian leaders were
And he was never charged or tried for war crimes, because he won.
Pragmatic definitions are definitions derived from observing how the word is applied by people with power, authority, or influence. The only "War Crime" is "Losing the War."
Lee is an antichrist to wokies because he had principles. Principles are like kryptonite to them.
Once had a leftie saying Rand Paul was terrible because he hates 9/11 firefighters, told them he votes against all unfunded spending bills on principle that's why he voted against that money, and they said that was worse than hating firefighters.
Irrational hatred was better than voting consistently on principle. Absolute bonkers.
I didn't even realize Lee was a bad guy. He didn't even pick what side he fought on. He considered himself a citizen of his state first. The state made a political decision that he as a military man was only bound to defend.
And that's the devil with fighting your own, anyways.
Fact-check against sensationalist headlines, Trust But Verify note:
The small text beneath notes this picture was taken December 10th, 2019. It is not a statue made from the melted Lee statue, and it is located in a museum at the moment, and this random image, not news story, does not indicate any intent to move it at this time.
An archive of a news story stating this statue will be moved to that location, or a correction notice by the original authors noting this statue was not, in fact, made 4 years ago but instead last week, should be needed.
People are free to grumble and gripe, but I think that's pretty important context that is notably lacking from the post.
There was not. The Lee statue was still up in the public square, when this statue went up in the museum. There is no "before", as the two statues existed concurrently.
Added: it's not a literal turd, as OP's title suggests. Given the AIDS memorial that was seriously proposed a few months back, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch, but this specific one isn't.
Where's the department store completely looted and the overturned cop car on fire while several mostly peaceful protestors are twerking around it, holding their reclaimed items?
They get sold on modern sensibilities, or to acquiesce people pretending to be triggered. Also keep in mind how few people really care. Can't be honoring people who did bad_thing, after all.
Imagine ripping down a monument to replace it with a "oppressed minority" in modern attire, calling it Rumors of War, and not expecting people to come to the conclusion that you hate them and want them dead.
This statue is not located in the same place; it's at the Fine Arts Museum (ironic).
Monument Ave is still scarred with empty roundabouts, modern art monuments to book-burning liberals.
It's not in the same place today.
Give it a few years, and it'll be there with a banner overlooking it which says: "Kill yourself mayos".
They have no limiting principles, nor any concept of mercy.
"Mercy" is for a group that concedes that they may one day lose and so shows grace that they may themselves receive it in the future.
This group does not anticipate leaving any survivors from it's opponents to remember whether they had any grace or not in the first place.
The Confederates weren't right either. Mostly because they were just as authoritarian as the Unionists were. They were mostly upset that the power of the plantation class was waning.
The southern states paid militias to go fight in Kansans against the locals who wanted to vote it into being a free state (as most pioneers did). As a result, they started the a civil war in Kansas years before anyone else. This was followed up by burning the entire city of Topeka to the fucking ground because the southern militants blamed the Kansans for starting the war.
Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott decision were wholly unconstitutional and utterly invalidated States Rights & Sovereignty.
Neither of these are true fwiw. Fugitive slave act was justifiable under:
Art. 4 section 2. Fugitive slave act literally was upholding the constitution.
And as for dredd scott?
Amendment 5:
That last line is its justification.
The Fugitive Slave Law can't uphold the constitution when it federally deputizes slave patrols to cross states, draft the assistance and participation of a different state's citizens, in violation of state law, while also disregarding the citizenship status (whether federal or state) and law of the state that the escaped slave currently resides in.
That isn't the justification of the Dredd Scott decision. The justification of the Dredd Scott decision was to resolve the arguments around the existence of slaver (each of which was a failure). The decision (and it's additional consequences) are also false in a myriad of other ways. Read the dissent.
The United States is founded on Liberal Philosophy. The relevant point of which is that a man owns himself and endowed by God with inalienable rights. The very nature of a person being property of someone else is in contradiction to Liberalism. It does not fit even with public use, because a person is not public use. A person is not the private property of another, nor the public property of the state.
If we cared about Amendment 5, then the Fugitive Slave law would have to be revoked, since I don't see why a person's private property (food, shelter, or labor) can be deprived of him by deputized agents of the state, against his consent, and against the laws of the state he resides in. Again, patently unconstitutional.
Barren v. Baltimore is patently up there as one of the singularly most retarded rulings the supreme court has ever made, next.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford
Maybe stop being retarded against someone who actually reads supreme court rulings like an autistic magnet.
And the constitution is the document by which we are governed, which is not an idealistic item.
Slaves were legally property and not citizens, are you unable to read or are you just the average mouthbreather?
Point of order, it was Lawrence that was burned, not Topeka. It actually got attacked twice in fact. Once during Bleeding Kansas as it was the Free State capital, and the second time by William Quantrill and his raiders during the Civil War (like you said, because they blamed us for there even being a Civil War because we didnt just roll over and take it).
My bad. I forgot which capital.
Thanks,
Hundreds of thousands of Americans died, and all we got was free niggers.
Worst. Deal. Ever.
We need to build a statue of the people that did this to commemorate their crimes. We can bulldoze their houses and put the statues of them on the reclaimed property.
I was thinking something along the lines of a gathering of them looking gleefully up at another monument. Except this would be a monument of burning figures, mutilated bodies, bleeding children, hanging corpses, and burning books & buildings. Possibly with an eternal flame coming out from the building and reflecting on their gleeful one's crazed mirror eyes.
We could call it something like: "The Iconoclasts", "Liberation From Life", or "Civilizational School Shooters"
Just ship over that weird deer statue they erected in Portland. Only demons would craft something that revolting to human eyes.
What history?
The US was founded in 1964 by the Democrat party, right?
That's the argument.
I'm sure they comprehend that just fine. They're not single-issue extremists like a certain person who uses this site, they're very likely angry about all the same things you are and for most of the same reasons, and they're white nationalists.
I hate what this gay ass state has become.
I mean it’s the history of Virginia like it or not. Also, Lee is far from the monster that woke historians make it out to be. I’d love to ask these activists to explain to me how their life has been improved
"It makes me feel better when I piss in your mouth and tell you to kill yourself"
I truly hope these people get their comeuppance. If they think American history is “uncomfortable l” then they need to check out how ruthless some African or Asian leaders were
Eh, the worst ones of those were communists, and they are never going to criticise them.
True
And Sherman was one of the worst. Yet because he fought for the "right" side nobody complains about his place in history.
Only the losers get charged with war crimes. Lesson? Don't lose wars.
Yeah, there are plenty of definitions of war crime based on cruelty, harming civilians, etc. But pragmatically speaking, the only war crime is losing.
True. Absolutely horrible person.
And he was never charged or tried for war crimes, because he won.
Pragmatic definitions are definitions derived from observing how the word is applied by people with power, authority, or influence. The only "War Crime" is "Losing the War."
Agreed
Lee is an antichrist to wokies because he had principles. Principles are like kryptonite to them.
Once had a leftie saying Rand Paul was terrible because he hates 9/11 firefighters, told them he votes against all unfunded spending bills on principle that's why he voted against that money, and they said that was worse than hating firefighters.
Irrational hatred was better than voting consistently on principle. Absolute bonkers.
Similar to his father. Ron Paul was called Dr No because he voted against bills like that as well.
I didn't even realize Lee was a bad guy. He didn't even pick what side he fought on. He considered himself a citizen of his state first. The state made a political decision that he as a military man was only bound to defend.
And that's the devil with fighting your own, anyways.
Literal turd which should be melted down
there's precedent
Disgustingly cucked. I'm so sick of liberals' fetishization of black people.
Fact-check against sensationalist headlines, Trust But Verify note:
The small text beneath notes this picture was taken December 10th, 2019. It is not a statue made from the melted Lee statue, and it is located in a museum at the moment, and this random image, not news story, does not indicate any intent to move it at this time.
An archive of a news story stating this statue will be moved to that location, or a correction notice by the original authors noting this statue was not, in fact, made 4 years ago but instead last week, should be needed.
People are free to grumble and gripe, but I think that's pretty important context that is notably lacking from the post.
This should be stickied.
You don't sticky internet comments. You just don't get your facts from the titles of internet shitposts. Sheesh.
Was or was not there a Lee statue here before? "Replace"
There was not. The Lee statue was still up in the public square, when this statue went up in the museum. There is no "before", as the two statues existed concurrently.
Ok thank you; the headline is inaccurate then.
Added: it's not a literal turd, as OP's title suggests. Given the AIDS memorial that was seriously proposed a few months back, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch, but this specific one isn't.
why aren't ypipo signing up for the army
My guess is they are trying to provoke a response they can use as election ammo against 'the far right'.
Where's the department store completely looted and the overturned cop car on fire while several mostly peaceful protestors are twerking around it, holding their reclaimed items?
Arlington, VA.
They're rubbing everyone's faces in it.
Frankly I want everyone involved in this to be stripped of their citizenship and exiled from the country. This is nothing less than desecration.
I don't know how we course correct from here.
Motherfucker got that Pesci haircut.
Just a few years behind South Africa at this point.
Will soon start genociding Whites.
Gone beyond burning books:
“where they burn book, they will eventually burn people”
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heinrich_Heine
Reminds me of that black idiot who nearly rode his horse to death during the 2020 summer of love. Must be a total coincidence. They called him the 'dreadhead cowboy'.
That statue (ridiculous hair) just captures stupidity in all its stupendous glory.
Complete with shitlocks on its head.
It would look much better under about 10 tons of cow dung.
So is it guarded? How are they not expecting someone with balls and a truck with a chain to pull it down?
They want to create the myth of Treyvon the Liberator
Blatant replacement.
Conquest.
They'll tear your statues down, and put up their own mocking you.
Then they'll claim that you were left in the dustbin of history.
Then they'll claim that they represent the long tradition of this land, and you are the bizarre foreigner.
It is a symbol of conquest.
Aka mentally stunted and constantly distracted with shinies.
Because noticing anything contrary to the regime narrative is a one way ticket to ruin.
They get sold on modern sensibilities, or to acquiesce people pretending to be triggered. Also keep in mind how few people really care. Can't be honoring people who did bad_thing, after all.