The Melted Lee Statue

[Superbadbrutha]

Yet we see statues and painting of George "Fentanyl" Floyd, don't we?

How many whites did Floyd enslave?

How many whites did he rape, murder and lynched again?

 

[Lord Long Rod]

How many whites did Floyd enslave?

How many whites did he rape, murder and lynched again?

Deflection: to change the topic; usually employed by cowardly cucks

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Deflection: to change the topic; usually employed by cowardly cucks

The thread is about Lee, dumbass.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

The thread is about Lee, dumbass.

Lee did not enslave any one, you stupid dink. He was career military.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Lee did not enslave any one, you stupid dink. He was career military.

You idiot, he grew up on a plantation and he and his wife inherited slaves.

 

[g5000]

Lee did not enslave any one, you stupid dink. He was career military.

There are many myths and misconceptions regarding Robert E. Lee’s relationship with the institution of slavery. It has been falsely claimed by some that Lee never owned enslaved people.

Robert E. Lee and Slavery - Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[OKTexas]

You mean prove what you are emotional bitch about? Sure.

Wrong. It was interested in only one particular State right and that was the right to slavery. It was so important to the Confederacy that they made the right to own slavery constitutionally protected and barred any State from having the right to end the practice. You can't honestly claim to be about States rights with regard to slavery and then make it impossible for your own States to end it.

If there is federal over reach or abuse the arbiter of that is the Supreme Court. Without their legal judgment this is nothing more than an expression of what you feel is over each and abuse, not what has been actually litigated as such. In fact the Supreme Court later ruled States have no right to session.

Their session wasn’t.

These are just emotional pejoratives. I'll judge people by my standards and you can judge people by yours. Time has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. It was interested in only one particular State right and that was the right to slavery. It was so important to the Confederacy that they made the right to own slavery constitutionally protected and barred any State from having the right to end the practice. You can't honestly claim to be about States rights with regard to slavery and then make it impossible for your own States to end it.

Yeah, you can pretend that's the case, but logic says slavery would have been ended by the advent of modern farm machinery. Also Lincoln stated publicly that he had no interest in abolishing the practice. But the Stamp act was the straw that broke the camels back when it came to federal overreach.

If there is federal over reach or abuse the arbiter of that is the Supreme Court. Without their legal judgment this is nothing more than an expression of what you feel is over each and abuse, not what has been actually litigated as such. In fact the Supreme Court later ruled States have no right to session.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibited secession. The fact is the SCOTUS decision is just another example of federal overreach. There was no constitutional justification for that decision. Of course there are many of their decisions where that would apply.

Their session wasn’t.

See the previous answer.

These are just emotional pejoratives. I'll judge people by my standards and you can judge people by yours. Time has nothing to do with it.

Actually time has everything to do with it, you may disagree with the practice now, but slavery was perfectly legal at the time. And was until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yeah, you can pretend that's the case, but logic says slavery would have been ended by the advent of modern farm machinery. Also Lincoln stated publicly that he had no interest in abolishing the practice. But the Stamp act was the straw that broke the camels back when it came to federal overreach.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibited secession. The fact is the SCOTUS decision is just another example of federal overreach. There was no constitutional justification for that decision. Of course there are many of their decisions where that would apply.

See the previous answer.

Yeah. I gather you seem to think overreach is whatever you say it is. No need for a Supreme Court I guess.

Actually time has everything to do with it, you may disagree with the practice now, but slavery was perfectly legal at the time. And was until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

.

I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morally. Morally I don't have any problem with a Slave State getting put down.

 

[Zincwarrior]

He was loyal to his state.

I am loyal to my state. I would still be a traitor if I attacked US troops. He is a traitor and got his ass kicked.

I know more about the Civil War than all you shitheads.

Sure bro.

I have bullets from it, too. .78 and 1 Oz balls.

Cool. I have one of my relative's Colt revolvers from then. Real blackpowder is awesome to shoot.

 

[Curried Goats]

I am loyal to my state. I would still be a traitor if I attacked US troops. He is a traitor and got his ass kicked.

Sure bro.

Cool. I have one of my relative's Colt revolvers from then. Real blackpowder is awesome to shoot.

They really do think they're special little snowflakes don't they?

 

[Zincwarrior]

They really do think they're special little snowflakes don't they?

But blackpowder really is cool. It makes a different sound.

Generals that would have wailed on Lee:
*Grant (duh)
*Thomas without Halleck interference
*Sherman without Halleck interference

I'd proffer Halleck might have actually extended the war by a year he was so terrible.

 

[Curried Goats]

But blackpowder really is cool. It makes a different sound.

Generals that would have wailed on Lee:
*Grant (duh)
*Thomas without Halleck interference
*Sherman without Halleck interference

I'd proffer Halleck might have actually extended the war by a year he was so terrible.

We used to make little firecrackers with gunpowder back in the day but I've never used blackpowder.

 

[Zincwarrior]

We used to make little firecrackers with gunpowder back in the day but I've never used blackpowder.

we made nitro glycerin in science class and soaked toothpicks in a diluted solution of it. We would flip them at each other. Pop! Pop!

 

[Curried Goats]

we made nitro glycerin in science class and soaked toothpicks in a diluted solution of it. We would flip them at each other. Pop! Pop!

That's cool. No one would of trusted anyone at my school with nitro glycerin. It was just me and my brothers fucking around with gunpowder.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah. I gather you seem to think overreach is whatever you say it is. No need for a Supreme Court I guess.

I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morally. Morally I don't have any problem with a Slave State getting put down.

Yeah. I gather you seem to think overreach is whatever you say it is. No need for a Supreme Court I guess.

I'm completely capable of reading the powers granted to the federal government by the States, you don't have to be a lawyer to know when the feds start coloring outside the lines established by the Constitution. You commies seem to forget, the State are the ultimate sovereign in our system of government. Of course the feds have forgotten that as well. If the feds want more power, they have to go to the States to get it, they can't just take it.

I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morally. Morally I don't have any problem with a Slave State getting put down.

We decide morality for our time, but we have no right to judge the morals of people that preceded us by centuries.

.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm completely capable of reading the powers granted to the federal government by the States, you don't have to be a lawyer to know when the feds start coloring outside the lines established by the Constitution.

You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on the law but you do have to be a Supreme Court Justice to sit in legal judgement of what is or isn't constitutional.

You commies seem to forget, the State are the ultimate sovereign in our system of government. Of course the feds have forgotten that as well. If the feds want more power, they have to go to the States to get it, they can't just take it.

There is no Ultimate Sovereign in our system. Ours is a system of checks and balances.

We decide morality for our time, but we have no right to judge the morals of people that preceded us by centuries.

.

That's stupid. We don't decide morality for our time. There are many competing morals in this time including in this country. Is abortion moral or immoral for instance. The legality of abortion doesn't make people stop thinking it's immoral. We decide what we believe morally. Not Time. Not laws. I decide for me and you decide for you. If I want to judge the slaver Confederates that's my right.

 

[OKTexas]

You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion on the law but you do have to be a Supreme Court Justice to sit in legal judgement of what is or isn't constitutional.

There is no Ultimate Sovereign in our system. Ours is a system of checks and balances.

That's stupid. We don't decide morality for our time. There are many competing morals in this time including in this country. Is abortion moral or immoral for instance. The legality of abortion doesn't make people stop thinking it's immoral. We decide what we believe morally. Not Time. Not laws. I decide for me and you decide for you. If I want to judge the slaver Confederates that's my right.

There is no Ultimate Sovereign in our system. Ours is a system of checks and balances.

Wrong again, if 3/4ths of the States decide they want to abolish the federal government and establish a completely new system they have the constitutional power to do it. The current federal government would have absolutely no say in the matter, including SCOTUS.

.

 

[lennypartiv]

Yeah. I gather you seem to think overreach is whatever you say it is. No need for a Supreme Court I guess.

We do need a Supreme Court. But it needs to agree with the sensible people of America. That's why Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett are now on it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong again, if 3/4ths of the States decide they want to abolish the federal government and establish a completely new system they have the constitutional power to do it. The current federal government would have absolutely no say in the matter, including SCOTUS.

.

You have the power to do what you can force on others. It requires 3/4 of the States to amend the Constitution not to destroy or piss on it. That only requires that you have the balls to do so and the capability to handle the repercussions. The Confederacy didn't.

 

[OldFlame]

"Charlottesville prevailed in a protracted legal battle with the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other groups, and donated the Lee statue to a coalition that proposed to melt it down and create a more inclusive public art installation"

Want to see what happened to the General Lee statue?
Some good pics, story and audio about the end of that statue and how it was cut up and melted down.

Is this an example of leftist tolerance, or an example of leftists erasing history to suit their cultish beliefs?