Pelosi, Biden say there is a difference between removing Confederate leaders, past presidents

[Badger]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have a bust of John Tyler in my famous Virginians display in my apartment. Underrated President by far.

He was a LITERAL traitor.

[Badger]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have a bust of John Tyler in my famous Virginians display in my apartment. Underrated President by far.

He was a LITERAL traitor.

Just like Raz Simone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9AQEHOZYB4

That's a traitor we can arrest and put on trial today (if we choose to).

How many statues of this dude are there around the country? Schools, streets and colleges are named after him?

What a weirdo whataboutism post. Very on brand for you, fuzzy.

LOL! Is RAZ going to be your new grand Mufti of Jerusalem?

[Badger]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have a bust of John Tyler in my famous Virginians display in my apartment. Underrated President by far.

He was a LITERAL traitor.

So was George Washington. After the month long idiotic misuse of that term bandying it about does nothing for me. This ahistorical garbage where people insist they'd have 21st century opinions no matter when in history they are is stupid. No one on here would be demanding transgender bathroom protections in the 1776 Declaration. No one here would be lecturing Thomas Jefferson on his "white privilege". And this notion that in a world where there is no form of real time long distance communication, where most people had never traveled more than 50 miles from their home, and where your entire extended family and literally everyone you know personally is within that 50 miles, that it is expected for you to abandon everything you own and walk hundreds of miles across hostile territory to take up arms against your home, your family, and everyone you know because of some vague calls for patriotism and 21st century values is ridiculous. Sorry not sorry family loyalty controls for me and they'd have been traitors for abandoning their families so either way they are "traitors" no matter which side they went with. You can keep lying to yourself all you want though.

Immutable rule of history that people who win revolutions are traitors. Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis would not be considered such have they won their slave owners revolt , but they didn't.

The rest was some indecipherable screed that ended with me somehow lying to myself?

[Badger]

I think Badger tried to quote JimRTex but quoted Mr. Reactionary instead. Robert E Lee was a traitor, Jim. You arguing the validity of that is... sad. Let's go with "sad".

Do you think the so-called "loyalists" who moved to Ontario after 1783 were traitors?

Post July 4th 1776 oh, yes. The fact that they fought to re-establish the Crown's control over the USA makes it no less so. I'm sure from their point they were merely loyalists fighting traitors, but, history and all that.

If you have sympathy for them, pack your bags and join them.

[Badger]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have a bust of John Tyler in my famous Virginians display in my apartment. Underrated President by far.

He was a LITERAL traitor.

So was George Washington. After the month long idiotic misuse of that term bandying it about does nothing for me. This ahistorical garbage where people insist they'd have 21st century opinions no matter when in history they are is stupid. No one on here would be demanding transgender bathroom protections in the 1776 Declaration. No one here would be lecturing Thomas Jefferson on his "white privilege". And this notion that in a world where there is no form of real time long distance communication, where most people had never traveled more than 50 miles from their home, and where your entire extended family and literally everyone you know personally is within that 50 miles, that it is expected for you to abandon everything you own and walk hundreds of miles across hostile territory to take up arms against your home, your family, and everyone you know because of some vague calls for patriotism and 21st century values is ridiculous. Sorry not sorry family loyalty controls for me and they'd have been traitors for abandoning their families so either way they are "traitors" no matter which side they went with. You can keep lying to yourself all you want though.

George Washington was on the American side while Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis were on the side against America and yes that makes all the difference in the world

Agreed. At some point the whole debate about perspective is skewed. I probably celebrated my countries 244th anniversary is a nation yesterday, and all that it has achieved in that time. Yes, like every country Under the Sun America has fallen short at times, just like every person Under the Sun. But by and large the positives we have contributed to history, notwithstanding our treatment of African and Native Americans, has been by far on the positive side of The Ledger. It doesn't mean I'm one of those cretan counter-protesters who start screeching USA USA at a black lives matter protest - - you got to take the good with the bad if you're going to be real - - but I am proudly American none the less.

By that standpoint, Washington was correct because he helped to create the US of a, rather than dissolve it like the Confederates.

And there's more to it. The grounds for a war matter. While I get that one can make and historical argument by tonight and even if I disagree with it - - that the taxes imposed on the colonists were illegitimate repayment for the cost of the French Indian War, and England's back and forth shell game of offering a parliamentary voice to a nest at least someone addressed their taxation without representation issues. Even if one buys that, which again I don't, that would worst make the revolution of our founding fathers inspired by a combination of tax disputes and fundamental growing political and social separation from the motherland, two months ship Voyage away.

Meanwhile, the Confederacy based its Rebellion on the right to hold African Americans in slavery, and continue the literal Mass rape and genocide that Institution engendered. So even leaving aside the Patriotic argument that America as a whole, the south is region, and even the world is better for America remaining United, when your Rebellion is based on maintaining white supremacy, I don't give a flying f*** what your perspective is. Your side was wrong , and thank God you lost. It's only because of some f*****-up internal politics and pernicious racism that the Confederacy, all four years of it, has maintained a valued and respected Institution for so long.

[Badger]

I think Badger tried to quote JimRTex but quoted Mr. Reactionary instead. Robert E Lee was a traitor, Jim. You arguing the validity of that is... sad. Let's go with "sad".

While Badger sometimes (or more frequently) says stupid things, I am sure he intended to respond to Mr. Reactionary about President John Tyler. Rather than embarrassing Badger that he doesn't know how to Reply, perhaps you could personal message him.

That is truly some deep irony ore thread material from someone whose posting history shows up not once but twice under definitions in the dictionary. Once for pedantic, and another for obtuse.

[Badger]

I find this canceling of historical figures to be irresponsible to be permitted by the public at large. While it is a valid point to examine the place of reverence that confederate statues held in the communities they were erected in. It is of course important to recognize that these confederate men were traitors to the United States and these people took arms against the union to fight for slavery and what they held to be the rights of their state, which is entirely different from judging the founders based on modern day norms and beliefs. TWITTER should not be the basis of whom we allow to recognize in history or who we decide to study. The only fact that we really need to recognize is that, US history and world history should progress with a more inclusive in telling the historical arc of our collective story. Knowing this, we can understand each other.

That is very eloquently put. However, at the end of the day they took arms against the United States of America to protect slavery. Even if abolitionists weren't a majority of the population by 1860, the fact that slavery was barbaric and inhumane was novel. They made a knowing Choice to support the norms and standards of their communities, and given that abolitionism was very much A Thing at the time, that is nominal to non-existent justification for their choice.

More importantly, we today can make a knowing decision about whether or not to venerate a cause based on treason and slavery. It is frankly shameful how much we have coddled and idealized the Confederacy in our history given its ugly heritage. Enough is enough.