House votes to REMOVE all Confederate statues from Congress

[Hang on Sloopy]

It's symbolic, and that's OK. Symbols can be important. See 'American Flag'. The Star of David. The Cross.

These statutes are symbols that those states that put 'em there thought were important at the time. Whether any northern or 'Yankee' views objected to 'em going up at the time, I dunno.
But times change. Dynamics change. And the Lost Cause myth has been debunked. If any of these men actively sought to tear apart the United States....out they go. Good riddance. Put 'em in a park for such traitors. (visiting Budapest a couple of years ago, our friend informed us that all of the Communist symbols...and the two cities were rife with 'em.....but the big well known statues and stars were all removed and set up in a park just for them. I dunno if it is a private park or a state park. )

True this, from poster 'bendog':

"Jefferson Davis and James George have no business being remembered in the capital."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL:

• Interesting....... erase our country's history. Pretty sure that the Communists did similar.

• "Erasing history changes nothing but your feelings."

• "Maybe it is the fact that history is being cancelled"

RESPONSE:

• History can't be changed or cancelled; it is what it is. To think otherwise exposes the lack of education of the proponent.

• When I was taught history we used stuff called books. Statues not so much.

I find it interesting that every one of the statues in question are of democrats. I think we should go one step further and disband the entire racist democrat party.

Yes. Conservative Democrats. Your ideological forefathers.

No son. Their You.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's symbolic, and that's OK. Symbols can be important. See 'American Flag'. The Star of David. The Cross.

These statutes are symbols that those states that put 'em there thought were important at the time. Whether any northern or 'Yankee' views objected to 'em going up at the time, I dunno.
But times change. Dynamics change. And the Lost Cause myth has been debunked. If any of these men actively sought to tear apart the United States....out they go. Good riddance. Put 'em in a park for such traitors. (visiting Budapest a couple of years ago, our friend informed us that all of the Communist symbols...and the two cities were rife with 'em.....but the big well known statues and stars were all removed and set up in a park just for them. I dunno if it is a private park or a state park. )

True this, from poster 'bendog':

"Jefferson Davis and James George have no business being remembered in the capital."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL:

• Interesting....... erase our country's history. Pretty sure that the Communists did similar.

• "Erasing history changes nothing but your feelings."

• "Maybe it is the fact that history is being cancelled"

RESPONSE:

• History can't be changed or cancelled; it is what it is. To think otherwise exposes the lack of education of the proponent.

• When I was taught history we used stuff called books. Statues not so much.

I find it interesting that every one of the statues in question are of democrats. I think we should go one step further and disband the entire racist democrat party.

Yes. Conservative Democrats. Your ideological forefathers.

No son. Their You.

The south is and always has been conservative. The only thing that changed is their party affiliation.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

It's symbolic, and that's OK. Symbols can be important. See 'American Flag'. The Star of David. The Cross.

These statutes are symbols that those states that put 'em there thought were important at the time. Whether any northern or 'Yankee' views objected to 'em going up at the time, I dunno.
But times change. Dynamics change. And the Lost Cause myth has been debunked. If any of these men actively sought to tear apart the United States....out they go. Good riddance. Put 'em in a park for such traitors. (visiting Budapest a couple of years ago, our friend informed us that all of the Communist symbols...and the two cities were rife with 'em.....but the big well known statues and stars were all removed and set up in a park just for them. I dunno if it is a private park or a state park. )

True this, from poster 'bendog':

"Jefferson Davis and James George have no business being remembered in the capital."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL:

• Interesting....... erase our country's history. Pretty sure that the Communists did similar.

• "Erasing history changes nothing but your feelings."

• "Maybe it is the fact that history is being cancelled"

RESPONSE:

• History can't be changed or cancelled; it is what it is. To think otherwise exposes the lack of education of the proponent.

• When I was taught history we used stuff called books. Statues not so much.

I find it interesting that every one of the statues in question are of democrats. I think we should go one step further and disband the entire racist democrat party.

Yes. Conservative Democrats. Your ideological forefathers.

No son. Their You.

The south is and always has been conservative. The only thing that changed is their party affiliation.

The North was way more conservative than the South. So the south was more libturd than the North way back then

See how that works

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's symbolic, and that's OK. Symbols can be important. See 'American Flag'. The Star of David. The Cross.

These statutes are symbols that those states that put 'em there thought were important at the time. Whether any northern or 'Yankee' views objected to 'em going up at the time, I dunno.
But times change. Dynamics change. And the Lost Cause myth has been debunked. If any of these men actively sought to tear apart the United States....out they go. Good riddance. Put 'em in a park for such traitors. (visiting Budapest a couple of years ago, our friend informed us that all of the Communist symbols...and the two cities were rife with 'em.....but the big well known statues and stars were all removed and set up in a park just for them. I dunno if it is a private park or a state park. )

True this, from poster 'bendog':

"Jefferson Davis and James George have no business being remembered in the capital."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL:

• Interesting....... erase our country's history. Pretty sure that the Communists did similar.

• "Erasing history changes nothing but your feelings."

• "Maybe it is the fact that history is being cancelled"

RESPONSE:

• History can't be changed or cancelled; it is what it is. To think otherwise exposes the lack of education of the proponent.

• When I was taught history we used stuff called books. Statues not so much.

I find it interesting that every one of the statues in question are of democrats. I think we should go one step further and disband the entire racist democrat party.

Yes. Conservative Democrats. Your ideological forefathers.

No son. Their You.

The south is and always has been conservative. The only thing that changed is their party affiliation.

The North was way more conservative than the South. So the south was more libturd than the North way back then

See how that works

Umhm. The entirety of the south changed both ideology and party.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Hutch Starskey only communists would support mass Genocide, so why do you support such things?

Lincoln statues should be taken down and his face on our currency should be removed seeing he was a ruthless tyrant…

 

[Concerned American]

T

the creation of West Virginia violated the Constitution which expressly forbids carving a new state out of an existing state

There are avenues in the constitution for carving the states up. There is a movement in OR at this time to make eastern OR a part of ID. No. CA and S. OR have also had campaigns to create the state of Jefferson and eastern WA has recently attempted to become the state of Liberty.

 

[Concerned American]

It's symbolic, and that's OK. Symbols can be important. See 'American Flag'. The Star of David. The Cross.

These statutes are symbols that those states that put 'em there thought were important at the time. Whether any northern or 'Yankee' views objected to 'em going up at the time, I dunno.
But times change. Dynamics change. And the Lost Cause myth has been debunked. If any of these men actively sought to tear apart the United States....out they go. Good riddance. Put 'em in a park for such traitors. (visiting Budapest a couple of years ago, our friend informed us that all of the Communist symbols...and the two cities were rife with 'em.....but the big well known statues and stars were all removed and set up in a park just for them. I dunno if it is a private park or a state park. )

True this, from poster 'bendog':

"Jefferson Davis and James George have no business being remembered in the capital."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL:

• Interesting....... erase our country's history. Pretty sure that the Communists did similar.

• "Erasing history changes nothing but your feelings."

• "Maybe it is the fact that history is being cancelled"

RESPONSE:

• History can't be changed or cancelled; it is what it is. To think otherwise exposes the lack of education of the proponent.

• When I was taught history we used stuff called books. Statues not so much.

I find it interesting that every one of the statues in question are of democrats. I think we should go one step further and disband the entire racist democrat party.

Yes. Conservative Democrats. Your ideological forefathers.

No son. Their You.

The south is and always has been conservative. The only thing that changed is their party affiliation.

The North was way more conservative than the South. So the south was more libturd than the North way back then

See how that works

Umhm. The entirety of the south changed both ideology and party.

HaHaHa, says the democrat in denial.

 

[bripat9643]

T

the creation of West Virginia violated the Constitution which expressly forbids carving a new state out of an existing state

There are avenues in the constitution for carving the states up. There is a movement in OR at this time to make eastern OR a part of ID. No. CA and S. OR have also had campaigns to create the state of Jefferson and eastern WA has recently attempted to become the state of Liberty.

The states involved have to agree to it. When did Virginia ever agree to it?

 

[Concerned American]

T

the creation of West Virginia violated the Constitution which expressly forbids carving a new state out of an existing state

There are avenues in the constitution for carving the states up. There is a movement in OR at this time to make eastern OR a part of ID. No. CA and S. OR have also had campaigns to create the state of Jefferson and eastern WA has recently attempted to become the state of Liberty.

The states involved have to agree to it. When did Virginia ever agree to it?

I have no idea what transpired in the creation of WV. I only stated that there are avenues for changing states within the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

T

the creation of West Virginia violated the Constitution which expressly forbids carving a new state out of an existing state

There are avenues in the constitution for carving the states up. There is a movement in OR at this time to make eastern OR a part of ID. No. CA and S. OR have also had campaigns to create the state of Jefferson and eastern WA has recently attempted to become the state of Liberty.

The states involved have to agree to it. When did Virginia ever agree to it?

I have no idea what transpired in the creation of WV. I only stated that there are avenues for changing states within the constitution.

I do know what transpired. Lincoln and the Congress violated the Constitution to create the state of West Virginia, without the permission of Virginia. That is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Section 3 ​

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.​

 

[bripat9643]

If Lincoln considered the 11 states of the Confederacy to be part of the United States, as he (and posters in this thread) claimed, and he was defending that United States, then that means he was (or should have been) defending those 11 states just as much as any other states.

He did. As the duly-elected President of all the states, he defended all loyal Americans from the regional faction that rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to divide them from the United States.

What was he defending them from? The South didn't invade any union states, dumbass.

Americans who were loyal to the United States deserved to be defended by the United States no matter where in the United States they lived.

"The Southern ideals of honor, family, and duty were as important to Unionists as to their pro-secession neighbors. They believed, however, that rebelling against the United States, which many of their ancestors had fought for in 1776 and 1812, was the unmanly and dishonorable act".\​

Horseshit:

​

https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/05/11/on-the-eve-of-south-carolinas-decision-to-leave-the-union-northern-editor-horace-greeley-articulates-and-supports-the-states-right-of-secession/​

Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune, was the embodiment of the North. In an editorial for the paper on December 17, 1860 (three days before South Carolina voted in Convention to secede, and amidst rumors that the state would likely secede), Greeley articulated the view of secession that most in government and in the North held. In that brilliant editorial, entitled “The Right of Secession,” he wrote:​

​

We have repeatedly asked those who dissent from our view of this matter to tell us frankly whether they do or do not assent to Mr. Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government,” etc. etc. We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of three million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the federal union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not someone attempt to show wherein and why we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation. We do not think such would be just. We hold the right of self-government to be sacred, even when invoked on behalf of those who deny it to others. If ever ‘seven or eight States’ send agents to Washington to say “We want to get out of the Union,” we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say: ‘Let Them Go!” We do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those Rights of Man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous.​

​

 

[schmidlap]

If Lincoln considered the 11 states of the Confederacy to be part of the United States, as he (and posters in this thread) claimed, and he was defending that United States, then that means he was (or should have been) defending those 11 states just as much as any other states.

He did. As the duly-elected President of all the states, he defended all loyal Americans from the regional faction that rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to divide them from the United States.

What was he defending them from? The South didn't invade any union states, dumbass.

Americans who were loyal to the United States deserved to be defended by the United States no matter where in the United States they lived.

"The Southern ideals of honor, family, and duty were as important to Unionists as to their pro-secession neighbors. They believed, however, that rebelling against the United States, which many of their ancestors had fought for in 1776 and 1812, was the unmanly and dishonorable act".\​

Horseshit:

​

https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/05/11/on-the-eve-of-south-carolinas-decision-to-leave-the-union-northern-editor-horace-greeley-articulates-and-supports-the-states-right-of-secession/​

Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune, was the embodiment of the North. In an editorial for the paper on December 17, 1860 (three days before South Carolina voted in Convention to secede, and amidst rumors that the state would likely secede), Greeley articulated the view of secession that most in government and in the North held. In that brilliant editorial, entitled “The Right of Secession,” he wrote:​

​

We have repeatedly asked those who dissent from our view of this matter to tell us frankly whether they do or do not assent to Mr. Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government,” etc. etc. We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of three million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the federal union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not someone attempt to show wherein and why we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation. We do not think such would be just. We hold the right of self-government to be sacred, even when invoked on behalf of those who deny it to others. If ever ‘seven or eight States’ send agents to Washington to say “We want to get out of the Union,” we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say: ‘Let Them Go!” We do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those Rights of Man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous.​

​

To summarize what we have learned,

1) Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, the nation then comprised of all the states identified below:

2) President Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States the United States on March 4, 1861, when he took the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,​

and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​

​

3) Throughout his tenure as President of the United States, he followed his oath when a regional faction that had rejected the Constitution of the United States attempting to deprive loyal Americans of their citizenship.

4) In his capacity as President of the United States - of all the United States - he deployed United States troops within the United States
to preserve United States territory and safeguard the citizenship of Americans in those states where it was threatened.

 

[bripat9643]

If Lincoln considered the 11 states of the Confederacy to be part of the United States, as he (and posters in this thread) claimed, and he was defending that United States, then that means he was (or should have been) defending those 11 states just as much as any other states.

He did. As the duly-elected President of all the states, he defended all loyal Americans from the regional faction that rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to divide them from the United States.

What was he defending them from? The South didn't invade any union states, dumbass.

Americans who were loyal to the United States deserved to be defended by the United States no matter where in the United States they lived.

"The Southern ideals of honor, family, and duty were as important to Unionists as to their pro-secession neighbors. They believed, however, that rebelling against the United States, which many of their ancestors had fought for in 1776 and 1812, was the unmanly and dishonorable act".\​

Horseshit:

​

https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/05/11/on-the-eve-of-south-carolinas-decision-to-leave-the-union-northern-editor-horace-greeley-articulates-and-supports-the-states-right-of-secession/​

Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune, was the embodiment of the North. In an editorial for the paper on December 17, 1860 (three days before South Carolina voted in Convention to secede, and amidst rumors that the state would likely secede), Greeley articulated the view of secession that most in government and in the North held. In that brilliant editorial, entitled “The Right of Secession,” he wrote:​

​

We have repeatedly asked those who dissent from our view of this matter to tell us frankly whether they do or do not assent to Mr. Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government,” etc. etc. We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of three million colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the federal union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not someone attempt to show wherein and why we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation. We do not think such would be just. We hold the right of self-government to be sacred, even when invoked on behalf of those who deny it to others. If ever ‘seven or eight States’ send agents to Washington to say “We want to get out of the Union,” we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say: ‘Let Them Go!” We do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those Rights of Man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous.​

​

To summarize what we have learned,

1) Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, the nation then comprised of all the states identified below:

View attachment 508362​

2) President Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States the United States on March 4, 1861, when he took the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,​

and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​

​

3) Throughout his tenure as President of the United States, he followed his oath when a regional faction that had rejected the Constitution of the United States attempting to deprive loyal Americans of their citizenship.

4) In his capacity as President of the United States - of all the United States - he deployed United States troops within the United States
to preserve United States territory and safeguard the citizenship of Americans in those states where it was threatened.

Nope. The president has no authority to invade soverign states, kill their inhabitants and destroy their property.

 

[Concerned American]

What was he defending them from? The South didn't invade any union states, dumbass.

Gettysburg, PA?

 

[Unkotare]

... The president has no authority to invade soverign [sic]states,....

All states involved were part of the sovereign UNITED States of America. That will not change no matter how much you want it to or how many times you repeat idiotic lies.

 

[bripat9643]

What was he defending them from? The South didn't invade any union states, dumbass.

Gettysburg, PA?

2 years after Union Armies started ravaging the South, asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

... The president has no authority to invade soverign [sic]states,....

All states involved were part of the sovereign UNITED States of America. That will not change no matter how much you want it to or how many times you repeat idiotic lies.

Nope. The minute they seceded they were no long part of the US. If you join a club and then terminate your membership, are you still a member?

 

[protectionist]

All states involved were part of the sovereign UNITED States of America. That will not change no matter how much you want it to or how many times you repeat idiotic lies.

SO if by that being the case, the 11 Confederate states were part of the sovereign UNITED States of America, which means it was Lincoln's duty to protect them ("All states involved"), as much as any other state, and not go picking favorites.
Right Unkotare ? Right ? Right ?

 

[protectionist]

There are avenues in the constitution for carving the states up. There is a movement in OR at this time to make eastern OR a part of ID. No. CA and S. OR have also had campaigns to create the state of Jefferson and eastern WA has recently attempted to become the state of Liberty.

What's keeping them from doing it ?

 

[Unkotare]

... .... The minute the seceded they were no long part of the US. ....

You have been corrected on this point of FACT many times. You're just a mewling little child who thinks he can stop his feet and insist that reality conform to his own traitorous wishes. Too ******* bad, kid. You don't like it, get the **** out of my country.