Yes! University of Texas Removes Confederate Monuments

[Slash]

Sorry all I learned about the life and times of Rocky Balboa I learned from this.

There is a film, or two, and a book, or two...

lol. Nah, that's all revisionist crap. If I can't learn it from looking at that bronze statue, I don't want to know it. So what was he getting arrested for when he had to put his hands up? He some sort of civil rights leader from the 60's?

It was from being white in a black neighborhood...

See. statues are all you need. Now I know Rocky Balboa is a real life historical civil rights leader

And in our representative democracy that doesn't matter. The majority of American's chose Hillary as president over Trump. The majority of americans oppose ending Obamacare without a replacement, yet that didn't stop nearly every Republican from voting for it.

The majority of Americans oppose dropping funding for planned parenthood, bathroom bills, Trumps Tax plan, Trumps infrastructure plan, Trumps travel ban, Trumps proposed increase in funding to the DOD, Trumps climate policies, Trumps transgender military ban.

Are you saying that we should rip up the constitution and go to a purely direct vote system?

I think when it comes to what is displayed in the PUBLIC SQUARE, the public should have a say, and it should not be dictated by a few violent mask wearing commies or regressives who want nothing but total control.


.

And that's the thing. It isn't the KKK deciding. It isn't their opponents deciding. It's the representatives that the public elect to make those decisions that are deciding.

I agree I don't want mob rule deciding either. I don't want to burn the Constitution so we can put up a Caitlyn Jenner statue on every corner.

If you read the link, the president of the school had a knee jerk reaction to Charlottesville, that is allowing the mobs to decide.

BTW, here's another little known fact about Gen Lee. He held school for blacks in his home to teach them to read and write, that was illegal, he also helped slaves that wanted to go back to Africa, get there.


.

No, the president made the decision.
He said he had "had considered the historical and cultural significance of four Confederate statues on campus "
He said he they were “Erected during the period of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the statues represent the subjugation of African Americans... That remains true today for white supremacists who use them to symbolize hatred and bigotry.”





I've read how he broke the tradition of allowing slave families to live together and would sell them off and break them up. How during the period of Reconstruction Lee's former slaves were finally allowed to go out and find their families.

I've read how he nearly had a revolt when slaves of his parents thought they would be free'd and were not.

I've read how his armies as the conquested across free blacks would enslave them.

I've also read how he rebelled against the USA with a group that was determined to fight to protect the institution of slavery.

I've read how he surrounded Washington DC and demanded the surrender of the President of the US

I've read how when a voluntary surrender didn't come, he ordered his armies to overthrow the government of the US by military force.

See all the shit Lincoln started. Like Grant targeting civilian populations and burning the homes of noncombatants. BTW, didn't Lincoln want to overthrow the government of the confederacy by military force? Isn't that why he started the war in the first place with NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so?


.

Actually what you said is not true. See this is what happens when you look to statues for history instead of written history.

When the rebellion occurred, they took over all Federal property immediately. Bases. Weapons Cache's. Federal banks and gold. Naval installations. Ships. All US Federal property just taken. Would be like Antifa taking control of a few nuclear subs, maybe an aircraft carrier, bunch of M1 Abrams and Fort Knox.

Then they bombed a US military installation that we were not willing to leave for a day straight. Think of how many times the Cuban Government has asked us to leave Guantanamo... Or North Korea has asked us to abandon our bases in Asia. And think of our reaction if they started bombing that base for nearly 24 straight hours (war would be the reaction).

Finally, the legality of the war was brought up in the case of Texas vs. White. The entire burden of proof was whether or not the secession of the states that preceded the Civil war was legal under the Constitution. The Court ruled it was a rebellion and not a secession. While we can disagree on the ruling being fair or not, as the law of the land, it was a rebellion and short of being someone who just shits on the Constitution when it doesn't say what they want it to, that's what it was. Since Lincoln had the power to defend the US (including US Federal property that the states had ceded to the USA in perpetuity), it was well within his rights to stop the rebellion.

 

[OKTexas]

There is a film, or two, and a book, or two...

lol. Nah, that's all revisionist crap. If I can't learn it from looking at that bronze statue, I don't want to know it. So what was he getting arrested for when he had to put his hands up? He some sort of civil rights leader from the 60's?

It was from being white in a black neighborhood...

See. statues are all you need. Now I know Rocky Balboa is a real life historical civil rights leader

I think when it comes to what is displayed in the PUBLIC SQUARE, the public should have a say, and it should not be dictated by a few violent mask wearing commies or regressives who want nothing but total control.


.

And that's the thing. It isn't the KKK deciding. It isn't their opponents deciding. It's the representatives that the public elect to make those decisions that are deciding.

I agree I don't want mob rule deciding either. I don't want to burn the Constitution so we can put up a Caitlyn Jenner statue on every corner.

If you read the link, the president of the school had a knee jerk reaction to Charlottesville, that is allowing the mobs to decide.

BTW, here's another little known fact about Gen Lee. He held school for blacks in his home to teach them to read and write, that was illegal, he also helped slaves that wanted to go back to Africa, get there.


.

No, the president made the decision.
He said he had "had considered the historical and cultural significance of four Confederate statues on campus "
He said he they were “Erected during the period of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the statues represent the subjugation of African Americans... That remains true today for white supremacists who use them to symbolize hatred and bigotry.”





I've read how he broke the tradition of allowing slave families to live together and would sell them off and break them up. How during the period of Reconstruction Lee's former slaves were finally allowed to go out and find their families.

I've read how he nearly had a revolt when slaves of his parents thought they would be free'd and were not.

I've read how his armies as the conquested across free blacks would enslave them.

I've also read how he rebelled against the USA with a group that was determined to fight to protect the institution of slavery.

I've read how he surrounded Washington DC and demanded the surrender of the President of the US

I've read how when a voluntary surrender didn't come, he ordered his armies to overthrow the government of the US by military force.

See all the shit Lincoln started. Like Grant targeting civilian populations and burning the homes of noncombatants. BTW, didn't Lincoln want to overthrow the government of the confederacy by military force? Isn't that why he started the war in the first place with NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so?


.

Actually what you said is not true. See this is what happens when you look to statues for history instead of written history.

When the rebellion occurred, they took over all Federal property immediately. Bases. Weapons Cache's. Federal banks and gold. Naval installations. Ships. All US Federal property just taken. Would be like Antifa taking control of a few nuclear subs, maybe an aircraft carrier, bunch of M1 Abrams and Fort Knox.

Then they bombed a US military installation that we were not willing to leave for a day straight. Think of how many times the Cuban Government has asked us to leave Guantanamo... Or North Korea has asked us to abandon our bases in Asia. And think of our reaction if they started bombing that base for nearly 24 straight hours (war would be the reaction).

Finally, the legality of the war was brought up in the case of Texas vs. White. The entire burden of proof was whether or not the secession of the states that preceded the Civil war was legal under the Constitution. The Court ruled it was a rebellion and not a secession. While we can disagree on the ruling being fair or not, as the law of the land, it was a rebellion and short of being someone who just shits on the Constitution when it doesn't say what they want it to, that's what it was. Since Lincoln had the power to defend the US (including US Federal property that the states had ceded to the USA in perpetuity), it was well within his rights to stop the rebellion.

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.
.

Yeah slavery is tenable...<rolls eyes>

 

[Moonglow]

[
Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.
.

Yeah slavery is tenable...<rolls eyes>

Depends which end of the whip you are on...

 

[Slash]

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

 

[koshergrl]

None of that matters.

The removal of statues, the mobs showing up to end freedom of speech by violent means...we're going to war.

 

[OKTexas]

[
Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.
.

Yeah slavery is tenable...<rolls eyes>

It was perfectly legal, only idiots and freaks try to judge people from those times by modern standards. Throughout history slaves have been held by every race yet it's only whites that get the brunt of the blame. As I said before, 47% of slave owners in SC at the time of the civil war were black. If we should decide to pay reparations, who pays their part?


.

 

[Mac1958]

Very good move by the University of Texas, which removed a bunch of racist Confederate monuments. Very good news for liberals, very bad news for conservatives, who want these monuments to stay. University of Texas Removes Confederate Monuments

Do you think this changes any hearts & minds?

Or is this just a victory over your opponent?
.

 

[koshergrl]

"Where, remnants of the old order remain, they are to be removed, the state using all the force necessary for this purpose."

DIALECTICAL MARXISM: The Writings of Bertell Ollman

It's the same ideology behind the forest service destruction of functional buildings and man made landmarks on the lands they steal from the public. They don't want any record or collective memory of what life was like before people were commiefied.

 

[koshergrl]

Right Wing Activists Fight Back, Demand Seattle Remove Lenin Statue - Big League Politics

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

 

[Correll]

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

Taking silence on that matter as a iron bound no leave clause, is not legitimate.

 

[Freewill]

Very good move by the University of Texas, which removed a bunch of racist Confederate monuments.
Very good news for liberals, very bad news for conservatives, who want these monuments to stay. University of Texas Removes Confederate Monuments

What effect were these statues having on your personal life?

Funny how the left pretends that the statues are some sort of insult, yet abortion, that is just a choice. The left wing has completely lost their collective minds.

 

[koshergrl]

Very good move by the University of Texas, which removed a bunch of racist Confederate monuments.
Very good news for liberals, very bad news for conservatives, who want these monuments to stay. University of Texas Removes Confederate Monuments

What effect were these statues having on your personal life?

Funny how the left pretends that the statues are some sort of insult, yet abortion, that is just a choice. The left wing has completely lost their collective minds.

Useful idiots. This is a communist regime attempting to overthrow our government.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

Taking silence on that matter as a iron bound no leave clause, is not legitimate.

Have you ever read the 9th & 10th Amendments? All powers of the Feds are listed in the Constitution, everything else is left to the people and the States, that would include secession. No amount of lawyering or judicial decisions alters that FACT.


.

 

[Correll]

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

Taking silence on that matter as a iron bound no leave clause, is not legitimate.

Have you ever read the 9th & 10th Amendments? All powers of the Feds are listed in the Constitution, everything else is left to the people and the States, that would include secession. No amount of lawyering or judicial decisions alters that FACT.


.

Yeah, that is a pretty strong argument.

 

[Slash]

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

Actually the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution declared secession invalid. Your disagreement with that judgement is irrelevant, it was still a rebellion.

And the Federal Court all the time rules against the government. We've seen it go against the Travel Ban of Trump and the recess appointments of Obama just for 2 simple examples. You can find plenty of them.

And again, you can't "nationalize assets" that are not yours. What you are saying they did is grounds for the US President to defend federal property.

What you are saying is you disagree with the Constitution. That's fine. That is your opinion if you disagree with the powers it gives. What that doesn't mean is that you get to say the Constitution is not the law of the land in the USA.

 

[Slash]

Have you ever read the 9th & 10th Amendments? All powers of the Feds are listed in the Constitution, everything else is left to the people and the States, that would include secession. No amount of lawyering or judicial decisions alters that FACT.


.

Yup, that was deemed irrelevant since the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the US. Once that determination was made, the 9th and 10th amendments did not pertain to the case.

Again, you may not like their ruling. But barring burning the Constitution of the US, that is what it is. No matter how much you disagree with that, can't alter that FACT.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, the confederate courts disagreed, of course the supremes ruled after the fact and what would you expect form a US court. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a State from withdrawing from the union and nationalizing assets within it's control. Lincoln decided to rebuke the very foundation of American thinking, that a free people should be allowed to govern themselves and sever untenable alliances.


.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

Taking silence on that matter as a iron bound no leave clause, is not legitimate.

Have you ever read the 9th & 10th Amendments? All powers of the Feds are listed in the Constitution, everything else is left to the people and the States, that would include secession. No amount of lawyering or judicial decisions alters that FACT.


.

Yeah, that is a pretty strong argument.

Nice to see you finally engaged your brain.


.

 

[Correll]

Actually according to the Supreme Court, which the US Constitution says has jurisdiction as to law and fact, the secession was not valid under the US Constitution.

So unless you wish to say the US Constitution is only the law of the land WHEN you like what it says, but we can ignore the Constitution when you disagree with it, then you don't have a point there.



And again, those assets were NOT within it's control. You can find the property deeds where they were ceded to the US Government meaning it was no longer state property. Again, just because you want a US military installation, or a US warship, or a US weapon, doesn't mean you can rebel and take it.

The Constitution has a method for new States to enter the union, it is silent on a States withdrawal. A federal court deciding in favor of the federal government, go figure. And the confederates didn't rebel and take it, they withdrew from the union and nationalized the assets with their territory. Much like the US did to indian lands.


.

Taking silence on that matter as a iron bound no leave clause, is not legitimate.

Have you ever read the 9th & 10th Amendments? All powers of the Feds are listed in the Constitution, everything else is left to the people and the States, that would include secession. No amount of lawyering or judicial decisions alters that FACT.


.

Yeah, that is a pretty strong argument.

Nice to see you finally engaged your brain.


.

I agree with you in both posts. Ease up on the coffee.