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.
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.
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.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans died, and all we got was free niggers.
Worst. Deal. Ever.
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.
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,
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.