Charlottesville - My Take (FWIW)

[Wry Catcher]

The libtards are engaged in ethnic cleansing against southern heritage. Some protesters come to protest that, a libtard mob assaults them, police stand down, and the media blames the legal protesters.

That's not just my take, that's the stone-cold truth.

Having walked several civil war battle sites, read the history of the battle and its cost in blood, and read the small ground level markers where the body of the fallen - blue or gray - had died, is a sobering experience. As sobering to me as walking national cemeteries where the name, age, place and date of death is recorded, and reading the names of guys on the Vietnam War Memorial I went to school with and served with.

War is the failure of diplomacy, and mob riots are the failure of democracy, a system which allows in theory the respect of all points of view, and is something we have all but forgotten.

 

[FJO]

The libtards are engaged in ethnic cleansing against southern heritage. Some protesters come to protest that, a libtard mob assaults them, police stand down, and the media blames the legal protesters.

That's not just my take, that's the stone-cold truth.

Having walked several civil war battle sites, read the history of the battle and its cost in blood, and read the small ground level markers where the body of the fallen - blue or gray - had died, is a sobering experience. As sobering to me as walking national cemeteries where the name, age, place and date of death is recorded, and reading the names of guys on the Vietnam War Memorial I went to school with and served with.

War is the failure of diplomacy, and mob riots are the failure of democracy, a system which allows in theory the respect of all points of view, and is something we have all but forgotten.

For once I fully agree with you, Wry Catcher,

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL The narrative is falling apart, it seems one of the organizers of Unite The Right was a Jason Kessler, a former Occupy movement member.

Damn leftists are fucking stupid, they had to know this would come out

 

[RealDave]

(A) First, there are a number of legitimate reasons why right-minded citizens might want to protest the movement and/or destruction of Civil War monuments, honoring Confederate icons. One should never forget that none of the Confederates - including Jefferson Davis - was ever charged with treason, and for a good reason: the question of whether states had the RIGHT to secede from the Union was never finally adjudicated in court, and it is a toss-up which viewpoint would prevail. Lincoln was petrified of a USSC decision concluding that the rebels were exercising their Constitutional rights. Which is why he quickly granted amnesty to all.

(B) Demonstrations do not "turn violent." This expression promotes a Narrative and not the truth. The counter-protesters provoked the violence; they could have peacefully protested, or staged their own demonstration (after obtain permits, etc) at the time of their choosing. THEY chose to make this a "violent" incident, not the original demonstrators.

(C) One whack-job in a Challenger is not representative of anything but that person's motives and action. He did not speak or act for anyone but himself. To believe or suppose or say that he was representative of the original demonstrators is nonsense.

(D) We cannot have a society where any public edifice is subject to removal or destruction if ANYONE is offended by it, no matter how pure or heartfelt the sentiment may be. We DO live in a society where taking offense is the new national sport, after all. For example, here in my hometown of Pittsburgh we have a "Rachel Carson" bridge. She of the "Silent Spring" narrative, which ultimately resulted in millions of people in the third world being ravaged and killed by malaria. Tear down the bridge? No. Live with it and communicate your unhappiness in productive ways.

(E) Calling for a temporary halt to immigration, or to immigration from hotbeds of Islamic violence does not make one a "racist" or a "bigot," or a "hater." Same for immigration from Central and/or South America.

(F) No matter what the President's response was, the Left was going to use it to attack the President for SOMETHING. In this case, they have attacked him for what he DIDN'T say. If you can't see this idiocy for what it is, they you are the idiot.

A) They went to war against the United States of America. They fought for slavery. Two strikes. The statues, etc should be limited to historic sites & not placed on public land elsewhere as if they were heroes.

Many people consider those statues as representing a desire of some to return to those days. They have no place on public land outside of historical sites.

B) Really, the fights were all started by every one else? They can dressed for a battle.

C) That one person is influenced by many including the Alt Right Groups, The Nazi loving people who were given a voice by Donald Trump. Don't even try to claim he was not possibly instigated by the hate mongering Trump, & Bannon.

d) You are uninformed about DDT & malaria. In the banning of DDT there was an exception for use to control malaria.

e) When you accuse an entire religion of being terrorists then it is bigotry. How many terrorists that attacked within our borders came from those countries . I see you were duped by Trumps "temporary" aspect. This is bigotry through & through along with Trumps new immigration proposal.

f) Trump claimed both sides were bigots. Funny how most everyone else could say White Supremacists, neo-nazi, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

Why didn't the Union states free their slaves first before they invaded the South? Define hypocrisy. And secession was legal.

Uh, no, since we came down there and stomped your inbred racist asses for doing it, it wasn't.

 

[Scamp]

The Union left over 300,000 dead soldiers laying in Southern dust. They had to resort to Terrorism to win.

Why the childish insult?

 

[rightwinger]

The Confederacy only existed for 4 years.

The USA had slavery for 89 years.

When the Civil War was over the USA still had slavery.

America had slavery for 250 years. When the country was formed we unfortunately maintained that practice

Slavery ended immediately after the Civil War

If not for the Civil War the practice would have continued for decades or mor

 

[rightwinger]

The Union left over 300,000 dead soldiers laying in Southern dust.
Why the childish insult?

It is a national shame that 600,000 had to die before we could end the despicable practice of slavery

 

[Scamp]

The Union left over 300,000 dead soldiers laying in Southern dust.
Why the childish insult?

It is a national shame that 600,000 had to die before we could end the despicable practice of slavery

What an erroneous statement. The USA still had slavery after the war was over and all Confederate slaves were free.

History fail.

 

[Scamp]

So like what finally ended slavery? Do you even know the truth?

 

[Scamp]

How many Union States had slavery when they invaded the South?

 

[rightwinger]

The Union left over 300,000 dead soldiers laying in Southern dust.
Why the childish insult?

It is a national shame that 600,000 had to die before we could end the despicable practice of slavery

What an erroneous statement. The USA still had slavery after the war was over and all Confederate slaves were free.

History fail.

What nonsense

We passed the 13th Amendment immediately after the war and gave Negroes the right to vote shortly afterward

Kinda shows what we thought about slavery doesn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

How many Union States had slavery when they invaded the South?

A few border states. But slavery concentrations were very low (<10 percent) compared to the 60% slave populations of some of the confederate states like Mississippi and South Carolina

Can you imagine creating a country where 40 percent of your population was in bondage and had no more legal rights than a cow or a horse?

 

[Czernobog]

(A) First, there are a number of legitimate reasons why right-minded citizens might want to protest the movement and/or destruction of Civil War monuments, honoring Confederate icons. One should never forget that none of the Confederates - including Jefferson Davis - was ever charged with treason, and for a good reason: the question of whether states had the RIGHT to secede from the Union was never finally adjudicated in court, and it is a toss-up which viewpoint would prevail. Lincoln was petrified of a USSC decision concluding that the rebels were exercising their Constitutional rights. Which is why he quickly granted amnesty to all.

Actually your claim is not entirely true. Texas v White absolutely adjudicated the right, or lack thereof, of the states to secede:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.​

I would say that pretty definitively determines the States' lack of legitimacy to secede, and that ruling has never been challenged, overturned, or revised. The actual reason none of the Confederates were put on trial for Treason was as a compromise for the reconstruction. President Lincoln himself in 1863 identified a list of top Confederate generals that included such iconic figures as Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston who deserved to be imprisoned for treason. However, in order to allow the nation to heal, it was agreed to forgo such charges, and trials. It wasn't because they were not viewed to be guilty, but because Lincoln wanted to put the Civil War to rest, and get on with the job of reconstruction, and healing.

(B) Demonstrations do not "turn violent." This expression promotes a Narrative and not the truth. The counter-protesters provoked the violence; they could have peacefully protested, or staged their own demonstration (after obtain permits, etc) at the time of their choosing. THEY chose to make this a "violent" incident, not the original demonstrators.

This is fundamentally inaccurate. You have the absolute constitutional right to spout any bullshit you want. However, you do not have the "right' to do so unchallenged. I also have the right to stand right in front of you, telling you that you're full of shit. When you punch me in the face for challenging you, you don't get to insist that I "incited violence". That's not how that works.

(C) One whack-job in a Challenger is not representative of anything but that person's motives and action. He did not speak or act for anyone but himself. To believe or suppose or say that he was representative of the original demonstrators is nonsense.

And, yet, that "one whack-job" who shot up a club in Miami was "representative" of ISIS. How is this "different"? If the whack jobs who do violence in the name of Islam are representative of the organisation in whose name they are acting, then so was this guy.

...

(F) No matter what the President's response was, the Left was going to use it to attack the President for SOMETHING. In this case, they have attacked him for what he DIDN'T say. If you can't see this idiocy for what it is, they you are the idiot.

So you want the President praised for saying, after 48 hours, what he should have said immediately? Okay. Trump condemned racism, finally. Yay, Trump. Now, tell us Mr. President, why were you unable to do that immediately? Why did you need 48 hours to figure out how to condemn racism, and bigotry? Why did you only condemn racism and bigotry after the public backlash over your failure to do so - from your own party, and supporters? Why, when directly asked if you condemn the White Nationalists who promoted hate, and responded violently to challenge, did you simply walk away in silence?

 

[Scamp]

Texas v White was 1869. The Civil War was long over. Secession was legal at the time it happened.

 

[Scamp]

The Union left over 300,000 dead soldiers laying in Southern dust.
Why the childish insult?

It is a national shame that 600,000 had to die before we could end the despicable practice of slavery

What an erroneous statement. The USA still had slavery after the war was over and all Confederate slaves were free.

History fail.

What nonsense

We passed the 13th Amendment immediately after the war and gave Negroes the right to vote shortly afterward

Kinda shows what we thought about slavery doesn't it?

It was like 6 months after the war was over when the 13th Amemdment was ratified.

 

[Scamp]

When the Civil War started, the Union States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey still had slavery. Lincoln said they could keep slavery as long as they did not secede from the Union. Later during the war, Lincoln illegally made West Virginia a new state and they could also keep slavery.

So it was OK for the Union States to have slavery, but not the Confederate states. Define hypocrisy.

 

[rightwinger]

The Union left over 300,000 dead soldiers laying in Southern dust.
Why the childish insult?

It is a national shame that 600,000 had to die before we could end the despicable practice of slavery

What an erroneous statement. The USA still had slavery after the war was over and all Confederate slaves were free.

History fail.

What nonsense

We passed the 13th Amendment immediately after the war and gave Negroes the right to vote shortly afterward

Kinda shows what we thought about slavery doesn't it?

It was like 6 months after the war was over when the 13th Amemdment was ratified.

Amendments don't grow on trees
Six months is fast tracked

The ironic part is that by seceding and forming a slave nation in order to preserve slavery...the south actually accelerated its demise

Slavery was gone for good in four short years. Blacks received the vote in five

If only the South had not panicked when Lincoln was elected, they may have kept their slaves for twenty more years

 

[rightwinger]

When the Civil War started, the Union States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey still had slavery. Lincoln said they could keep slavery as long as they did not secede from the Union. Later during the war, Lincoln illegally made West Virginia a new state and they could also keep slavery.

So it was OK for the Union States to have slavery, but not the Confederate states. Define hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, when we formed this great country, the slave rapers insisted on keeping their "peculiar institution"
It was a pact with the devil that eventually cost us 600,000 lives to fix

The south gave Lincoln a shit sandwich even before he took office. Lincoln has to make the best of it. His initial goal was to preserve the Union. Once that happened, slavery could be handled through political channels

In order to preserve the Union, Lincoln had to deal with those border states which still had slaves but had remained loyal to the US

Desperate times call for desperate measures...and Lincoln had to make certain political concessions

 

[Czernobog]

Texas v White was 1869. The Civil War was long over. Secession was legal at the time it happened.

You get that's not how that works, right? The secession was already illegal. Texas was challenging the illegality, and they lost.