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

[T'Chenka]

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".

[Fuzzy Bear]

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).

[jimrtex]

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?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

South Dakota Governor deliberately blurring the lines between the Founding Fathers and Confederate traitors.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1279374661877448705


In a way it makes sense, I suppose. There really are two nations in the United States. There's the one founded in 1776 and victorious in 1783, imperfect, but striving for over two centuries for human rights and democracy. And then there's the one founded in 1861 that lost a war in 1865, whose reason for existence is for oppression, racism, and rule by a tiny white elite.  The Confederacy was defeated but not destroyed, and is now with Benedict Donald and his Banana Republicans at the helm it is once again attacking the United States.

[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?

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

It was the rebel scum who didn't like paying taxes to pay for the French and Indian War that George Washington started and which the end result was so beneficial to the colonies that were the traitors, and would have been widely recognized as such had they lost.

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

[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.

[LBJer]

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.

Then the term "traitor" is utterly meaningless.  By any honest assessment, the patriots were the traitors in that war if we define "traitor" the way people use it regarding the Confederates--as rebelling against the already existing, established government.  Why did the loyalists owe allegiance to a self-proclaimed new country they had never accepted and never sworn loyalty to in the first place, and that was the creation of neighbors who were themselves traitors to the mother country?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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 Confederates were not attempting revolution. They were fleeing the United States out of fear that  law and democracy would not be utterly subordinate to their own desires. After they seceded they then attacked the United States. The whole thing was a despicable mass-murdering exercise in self-gratification by Southern elites. 

[sparkey]

It was the rebel scum who didn't like paying taxes to pay for the French and Indian War that George Washington started and which the end result was so beneficial to the colonies that were the traitors, and would have been widely recognized as such had they lost.

Very doubtful. Were the Forty-Eighters just traitors because they lost?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It was the rebel scum who didn't like paying taxes to pay for the French and Indian War that George Washington started and which the end result was so beneficial to the colonies that were the traitors, and would have been widely recognized as such had they lost.

Very doubtful. Were the Forty-Eighters just traitors because they lost?

According to John Harrington's epigram, they were.

[T'Chenka]

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?

It's complicated. They grew up British and then suddenly their area was claimed by America and suddenly they were "Americans". They had no say in that and had no obligation morally to swear allegiance in their hearts to America.

What if Trump takes a bunch of MAGA guys and SOMEHOW overthrows America and all of a sudden you are considered a Trumpian not an American? If you try it for a bit and hate it and go to Canada to seek and defend democracy, are you a traitor?

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For all their flaws, people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established the country. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were traitors to their country.

I'm not necessarily opposed to removing memorials to some Presidents. James Buchanan, for example, was not only absolutely at the bottom of any presidential list, he actually came close to treason himself during the secession crisis. Oh yes, and John Tyler was a literal traitor who defected to the rebels.

[Mr. Reactionary]

For all their flaws, people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established the country. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were traitors to their country.

I'm not necessarily opposed to removing memorials to some Presidents. James Buchanan, for example, was not only absolutely at the bottom of any presidential list, he actually came close to treason himself during the secession crisis. Oh yes, and John Tyler was a literal traitor who defected to the rebels.

So to clarify, if Poland secedes from the EU you're fighting with the EU?

[T'Chenka]

For all their flaws, people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established the country. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were traitors to their country.

I'm not necessarily opposed to removing memorials to some Presidents. James Buchanan, for example, was not only absolutely at the bottom of any presidential list, he actually came close to treason himself during the secession crisis. Oh yes, and John Tyler was a literal traitor who defected to the rebels.

So to clarify, if Poland secedes from the EU you're fighting with the EU?

I was about to "like" this post, but the EU is a deep alliance of nations, not a nation. It's not the same as you aren't expected as a citizen to be loyal to your country's diplomatic ties.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

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 heard many things in my life. I have never before heard someone say that John Tyler is the third best President of the United States.

[GeneralMacArthur]

We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

My views on Confederates and the issue of honoring them are extremely complex and nuanced, so much so that it would take a lengthy discussion to do justice to them.  But right now I'd like to address the last part of your post. 

The issue with Benedict Arnold isn't that the British/American loyalist cause was terrible--even today, I don't think you can argue it was, even if you sympathize with the Patriots.  It's that he was on the Patriot side and went over to the British.  It's not at all clear to me that Ho Chi Minh's cause was a bad one--clearly much of the Vietnamese population, North and South, supported him.  And while Rommel and Yamamoto served governments that did not have morally good causes, I don't think they should be condemned either --they were also serving their respective countries, and as someone once remarked, if you serve in your country's military you don't get to decide whether you're on the "right side."  And both men have, in fact, been widely respected even in the countries they fought. 

Fair on Benedict Arnold.  I probably should have left out the "deplorable causes" part, and just said "fought against the United States" in general.

If Germans, Japanese and Vietnamese want to celebrate Rommel, Yamamoto and Ho Chi Minh, good for them.  The largest city in Vietnam is named after the guy after all.  Here in the United States, we aren't going to build statues to men who fought against our country and did their utmost to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  Even if, in the case of Rommel, there are a lot of folks who think he was low-key a good guy on the wrong side.  In the same way, we here in America should not celebrate men like Jackson, Lee, or Davis, who declared war on our country and led an army that killed hundreds of thousands of American men with the goal of permanently breaking the country in two and perpetuating chattel slavery forever.

I'd actually compare Rommel pretty closely with Lee.  Both are men who were loyal servants to the leaders of their regime, led their armies to a lot of decisive and brilliant victories, seemed remarkably incurious, at best, about the atrociously amoral regime they were defending, and had their reputations refurbished after the war.  In both cases, their former enemies had political reasons to acquiesce to the rehabilitiation -- the lionizing of Lee was a symbolic victory northerners were willing to give away as a bargaining chip during reconstruction, and "Rommel and his troops were alright blokes" was key to the allied justification for re-arming ex-Nazi West Germany during the Cold War.

[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.

[LBJer]

We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

My views on Confederates and the issue of honoring them are extremely complex and nuanced, so much so that it would take a lengthy discussion to do justice to them.  But right now I'd like to address the last part of your post.  

The issue with Benedict Arnold isn't that the British/American loyalist cause was terrible--even today, I don't think you can argue it was, even if you sympathize with the Patriots.  It's that he was on the Patriot side and went over to the British.  It's not at all clear to me that Ho Chi Minh's cause was a bad one--clearly much of the Vietnamese population, North and South, supported him.  And while Rommel and Yamamoto served governments that did not have morally good causes, I don't think they should be condemned either --they were also serving their respective countries, and as someone once remarked, if you serve in your country's military you don't get to decide whether you're on the "right side."  And both men have, in fact, been widely respected even in the countries they fought.  

Fair on Benedict Arnold.  I probably should have left out the "deplorable causes" part, and just said "fought against the United States" in general.

If Germans, Japanese and Vietnamese want to celebrate Rommel, Yamamoto and Ho Chi Minh, good for them.  The largest city in Vietnam is named after the guy after all.  Here in the United States, we aren't going to build statues to men who fought against our country and did their utmost to kill as many American soldiers as possible.  Even if, in the case of Rommel, there are a lot of folks who think he was low-key a good guy on the wrong side.  In the same way, we here in America should not celebrate men like Jackson, Lee, or Davis, who declared war on our country and led an army that killed hundreds of thousands of American men with the goal of permanently breaking the country in two and perpetuating chattel slavery forever.

I'd actually compare Rommel pretty closely with Lee.  Both are men who were loyal servants to the leaders of their regime, led their armies to a lot of decisive and brilliant victories, seemed remarkably incurious, at best, about the atrociously amoral regime they were defending, and had their reputations refurbished after the war.  In both cases, their former enemies had political reasons to acquiesce to the rehabilitiation -- the lionizing of Lee was a symbolic victory northerners were willing to give away as a bargaining chip during reconstruction, and "Rommel and his troops were alright blokes" was key to the allied justification for re-arming ex-Nazi West Germany during the Cold War.

George Washington fought against Great Britain and tried to kill as many British soldiers as possible.  Yet there's a statue of him in Trafalgar Square in London.  Just a thought.

As for Rommel, one might ask what would satisfy you as showing sufficient concern about the Nazi regime on his part.  After all, the Third Reich was a dictatorship.  It's not like even the July 20th plotters ran out into the streets shouting "Hitler is evil!" (and Rommel may have been involved in that plot to some extent).

[jimrtex]

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?

It's complicated. They grew up British and then suddenly their area was claimed by America and suddenly they were "Americans". They had no say in that and had no obligation morally to swear allegiance in their hearts to America.

Were the allegiances of the Patriots to their States or the United States?

You seem to not be aware that United States of America (in Congress assembled) is a plural noun.

Were the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves treasonous? Were the authors traitors?

[jimrtex]

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.

[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.