Charlottesville white nationalists riots

#2,151
#2,151
05_never_again said:
Wouldn't Lee have taken the same oath? The guy's patriotism would have been unquestioned right up until the point he joined the CSA. It's not like he was some rebel his whole life and as soon as he got his chance to join the CSA he went and did it. He hated that the conflict over slavery came to war, just as Washington and Jefferson would have.

But you really think it is far fetched to think that Founding Fathers who were wealthy southern slaveowners would have been sympathetic to the Confederate cause?

I'm not saying they would have been right - I'm just saying that's what probably would have happened.
Click to expand...

More than just 'far fetched'.... it's stupid. Above all else, they would have wanted the union preserved.
 
#2,153
#2,153
AirVol said:
You
Click to expand...

I didn't realize I was rooting for both the Nazi's and the Antifa's. Here I was thinking these were the two diametrically opposed factions waging open combat on one another.

Thanks for dropping that knowledge on me, I was unaware that I was rooting for anything other than a bad day for trump.

And here I thought I'd won.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,154
#2,154
BowlBrother85 said:
More than just 'far fetched'.... it's stupid. Above all else, they would have wanted the union preserved.
Click to expand...

You keep making a statement as if it were a fact and simply stating that my viewpoint is stupid. As I said, Lee took the same oath Washington and Jefferson did but broke it.

Why do you have so much faith that Washington and Jefferson would have upheld their oaths, unlike Lee, despite Washington and Jefferson having very similar backgrounds to Lee?

They all would have wanted the Union preserved - hell, Lee himself wanted the Union preserved. He didn't join the CSA the first chance he got. He actually remained loyal to it until Virginia, his home state, left. Washington and Jefferson, despite having helped found the country, would have likely had the same views about secession that were common at the time (i.e., that it was legal) and sympathized with the Confederate cause, especially considering they were wealthy southern slaveowners. In his later years, Jefferson commented on political developments at the time and was critical of what he perceived as "Northern meddling" in the practice of slavery in southern states. If Jefferson and Washington were from Boston, or didn't own slaves, I would agree with you.

Lay out some facts instead of just saying that it is stupid and far fetched. You've offered no counterargument other than stating "they would have upheld the oath" (as if you know that with certainty).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,155
#2,155
05_never_again said:
You keep making a statement as if it were a fact and simply stating that my viewpoint is stupid. As I said, Lee took the same oath Washington and Jefferson did but broke it.

Why do you have so much faith that Washington and Jefferson would have upheld their oaths, unlike Lee, despite Washington and Jefferson having very similar backgrounds to Lee?

They all would have wanted the Union preserved - hell, Lee himself wanted the Union preserved. He didn't join the CSA the first chance he got. He actually remained loyal to it until Virginia, his home state, left. Washington and Jefferson, despite having helped found the country, would have likely had the same views about secession that were common at the time (i.e., that it was legal) and sympathized with the Confederate cause, especially considering they were wealthy southern slaveowners. If Jefferson and Washington were from Boston, or didn't own slaves, I would agree with you.

Lay out some facts instead of just saying that it is stupid and far fetched. You've offered no counterargument other than stating "they would have upheld the oath" (as if you know that with certainty).
Click to expand...

I keep calling your statements dumb because quite honestly, you keep making dumb statements and here is another... Lee fought to divide the union. Washington and Jefferson would not have.

Fwiw, Pulitzer Prize winning Presidential historian and biographer Jon Meacham of Nashville, agrees with me. He said this very thing last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC.
 
#2,156
#2,156
BowlBrother85 said:
More than just 'far fetched'.... it's stupid. Above all else, they would have wanted the union preserved.
Click to expand...

You are confusing defending the constitution and preserving the union. Seceding has nothing to do with the viability of the constitution. It was ratified by states, and could be rejected by states. It's why many US army officers chose to join the CSA. Their loyalty did not lie with the federal government, but with their home state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,157
#2,157
DancingOutlaw said:
You are confusing defending the constitution and preserving the union. Seceding has nothing to do with the viability of the constitution. It was ratified by states, and could be rejected by states. It's why many US army officers chose to join the CSA. Their loyalty did not lie with the federal government, but with their home state.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. The oath says 'preserve, protect and defend'... To fight to divide the union is treason and Washington and Jefferson would not have done it. Fwiw, Lee was going to be tried for treason but U.S. Grant talked prosecutors out of it for fear that it would make Lee a southern martyr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,158
#2,158
golfballs said:
Of course they did. Theres no question about that. They brought bats and soda cans filled with cement, pepper spray. They were ready to go
Click to expand...

Thats impressive. I mean first the fact that a left wing libtard knew how to make cement is a feat, let alone conceal it in a soda can and have the muscle to hump it all the way to a protest is quite the achievement.
 
#2,159
#2,159
DancingOutlaw said:
You are confusing defending the constitution and preserving the union. Seceding has nothing to do with the viability of the constitution. It was ratified by states, and could be rejected by states. It's why many US army officers chose to join the CSA. Their loyalty did not lie with the federal government, but with their home state.
Click to expand...

But....but....racists and traitors! Why would you be loyal to your local community regardless of ideology?
 
#2,160
#2,160
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I'm not. The oath says 'preserve, protect and defend'... To fight to divide the union is treason and Washington and Jefferson would not have done it. Fwiw, Lee was going to be tried for treason but U.S. Grant talked prosecutors out of it for fear that it would make Lee a southern martyr.
Click to expand...

Explain how secession threatens the constitution. I do not understand how choosing to leave something you chose to join is treason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,161
#2,161
BowlBrother85 said:
I keep calling your statements dumb because quite honestly, you keep making dumb statements and here is another... Lee fought to divide the union. Washington and Jefferson would not have.

Fwiw, Pulitzer Prize winning Presidential historian and biographer Jon Meacham of Nashville, agrees with me. He said this very thing last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's show on MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Again - you simply state your opinion as a fact, and then appeal to authority. What exactly is your argument?

Why are you so convinced that Jefferson and Washington would have upheld the oath given their personal background/vested interests, their own political views, and the general political views of the day? Give me a fact that supports your viewpoint.

I'm sure that in 1855 or 1860, a lot of people thought that Robert E. Lee would have never fought to divide the Union given his years of service in the Army. They would have been wrong.

Jon Meacham is a smart guy but I'm sure, given his own political views, he has a difficult time wrapping his head around Jefferson having Confederate sympathies.
 
Last edited:
#2,162
#2,162
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I'm not. The oath says 'preserve, protect and defend'... To fight to divide the union is treason and Washington and Jefferson would not have done it. Fwiw, Lee was going to be tried for treason but U.S. Grant talked prosecutors out of it for fear that it would make Lee a southern martyr.
Click to expand...

So I take it that you don't support CALEXIT? Or however it's spelled.
 
#2,163
#2,163
MT LeConte said:
The collapse of the Administrations business Councils was a stunning rebuke of Trump personally. To save face he acts like it was his idea. Vintage Trump
Click to expand...

And some of those CEOs are making it a point to get the message out that they resigned before Trump disbanded.
 
#2,164
#2,164
DancingOutlaw said:
Explain how secession threatens the constitution. I do not understand how choosing to leave something you chose to join is treason.
Click to expand...

I can't provide a link from where I am but Google "The 14th Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession".

Basically, Lincoln and other Republicans believed that national citizenship was primary, while southerners viewed state citizenship as the primary basis for allegiance. The first line of the 14th Amendment confirms that national citizenship is primary and state citizenship is derivative; the privileges or immunities clause forbids state interference with the relationship between citizens and the federal government; and section 5 confirms Congressional power to suppress any such state interference. In short, whatever might have been argued before the Civil War, the 14th Amendment definitely resolved the secession issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Washington and Jefferson would follow the constitution... and I'm not arguing this anymore. It's easy to understand, if you choose not to... well, believe what you wish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,166
#2,166
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Washington and Jefferson would follow the constitution... and I'm not arguing this anymore. It's easy to understand, if you choose not to... well, believe what you wish.
Click to expand...

So it's easy to understand, if I just accept your opinion as fact. Got it.

You hurt your own argument by making this statement, which is correct:

Basically, Lincoln and other Republicans believed that national citizenship was primary, while southerners viewed state citizenship as the primary basis for allegiance.
Click to expand...

You are also correct that the 14th Amendment cleared this up...after the Civil War. Before the Civil War it was generally thought, even among Northerners, that a state could secede from the Union.

Lee, and probably along with Washington and Jefferson, believed that a state had a right to secede. Given his personal background and interests, it is totally reasonable to believe that Jefferson would have, at the very least, had Confederate sympathies if he were around at the time. Read what Jefferson said about the statehood of Missouri and the Missouri Compromise. It's probably the closest we can get to figuring out what his views on the Civil War would have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,167
#2,167
BowlBrother85 said:
I can't provide a link from where I am but Google "The 14th Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession".

Basically, Lincoln and other Republicans believed that national citizenship was primary, while southerners viewed state citizenship as the primary basis for allegiance. The first line of the 14th Amendment confirms that national citizenship is primary and state citizenship is derivative; the privileges or immunities clause forbids state interference with the relationship between citizens and the federal government; and section 5 confirms Congressional power to suppress any such state interference. In short, whatever might have been argued before the Civil War, the 14th Amendment definitely resolved the secession issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Washington and Jefferson would follow the constitution... and I'm not arguing this anymore. It's easy to understand, if you choose not to... well, believe what you wish.
Click to expand...

When was the 14th Amendment passed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,168
#2,168
lawgator1 said:
One side prompted the appearance of the other. One side wanted to antagonize to the point of causing violence.

The neo-nazis and the white supremacists were THE cause of this. They set it in motion.
Click to expand...
What caused them to be there? Did they just like Charlottesville in August?
 
#2,170
#2,170
Apparently antifa doesn't want black conservatives to attend vigils anymore:

About an hour into the rally a participant noticed my hat and proceeded to stick up his middle finger at me and then direct the other Antifa supporters of my very presence. One of the girls from Antifa, dressed in all black, began to shout me down and ask, “Are you with right wing media? Why do you have the f***ing hat on? You’re with Young America’s Foundation?” I simply responded by informing them that I meant no harm and was peacefully assembling. She then proceeded to yell loudly, “We don’t want you here.” At this point I turned on my camera, because I did not know what they planned on doing to me. She got more aggressive and Antifa supporters surrounded me, like a pack of wolves. One member tried to grab my camera, to which I latched hard to, so that they would not damage my personal property.

Another member of Antifa took the hat off my head, screamed more expletives and tossed my YAF hat away. It was at this moment the camera stopped rolling, as someone pressed the record button on my camera and then proceeded to yank on the strap of my camera, choking me. Three or four of them then proceeded to continue to scream, “We don’t want you here!” while grabbing me by my button-up shirt and dragging me off Clinton Square and into the street. This was NOT a blocked off road and cars were present. I could have gotten run over and they did not care.

More people began to chime in and yell, “No Trump, No KKK, Nazi go away” over and over again. I replied by shouting that I am in fact not a neo-Nazi, but a first generation born half Dominican, half African American whose grandfather was a civil rights activist. I came to this event in peace, I came to this event to stand beside my fellow Americans to disavow bigotry and instead, I became the victim of bigotry, an intellectual bigotry. I was not attacked for my words, nor my actions. I was attacked for being a conservative, Antifa targeted me, shortly after seeing a Young America’s Foundation hat. My crime was wearing a hat on public property and I was assaulted for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,173
#2,173
Boston Vol said:
Apparently antifa doesn't want black conservatives to attend vigils anymore:

About an hour into the rally a participant noticed my hat and proceeded to stick up his middle finger at me and then direct the other Antifa supporters of my very presence. One of the girls from Antifa, dressed in all black, began to shout me down and ask, “Are you with right wing media? Why do you have the f***ing hat on? You’re with Young America’s Foundation?” I simply responded by informing them that I meant no harm and was peacefully assembling. She then proceeded to yell loudly, “We don’t want you here.” At this point I turned on my camera, because I did not know what they planned on doing to me. She got more aggressive and Antifa supporters surrounded me, like a pack of wolves. One member tried to grab my camera, to which I latched hard to, so that they would not damage my personal property.

Another member of Antifa took the hat off my head, screamed more expletives and tossed my YAF hat away. It was at this moment the camera stopped rolling, as someone pressed the record button on my camera and then proceeded to yank on the strap of my camera, choking me. Three or four of them then proceeded to continue to scream, “We don’t want you here!” while grabbing me by my button-up shirt and dragging me off Clinton Square and into the street. This was NOT a blocked off road and cars were present. I could have gotten run over and they did not care.

More people began to chime in and yell, “No Trump, No KKK, Nazi go away” over and over again. I replied by shouting that I am in fact not a neo-Nazi, but a first generation born half Dominican, half African American whose grandfather was a civil rights activist. I came to this event in peace, I came to this event to stand beside my fellow Americans to disavow bigotry and instead, I became the victim of bigotry, an intellectual bigotry. I was not attacked for my words, nor my actions. I was attacked for being a conservative, Antifa targeted me, shortly after seeing a Young America’s Foundation hat. My crime was wearing a hat on public property and I was assaulted for it.
Click to expand...

a short video from the author of that - of course this is the fault of WS groups because they made the antifa people show up and get nutty

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shDBeow25iQ[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,175
#2,175
There's obviously something bigger out there than monuments and symbols. We cannot rely on a consistent application the law from one locale to another, which will eventually erode confidence in the rule of law in general. It seems like we're moving in a dangerous direction. I know there's a lot of young people, maybe some old ones, who are infatuated with the idea of anarchy and opportunity borne of chaos but I don't think those people understand the extent to which the system is protecting them. If the walls come tumbling down, it's not going to be "the man" who suffers. The man never suffers. The man is ruthless and will do whatever it takes to keep what's his and to make what's yours his if he wants it. Like the Good Book says: sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top