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

[T'Chenka]

If you were a slaveowner you should be unpersoned from society.

You aren't interested in what year they were slaveownere in, how many they owmed, hpw they treated them, or how vocal they were politically about defending and expanding slavery? If they went to war specifically defending slavery? No context necessary, just black and white?

[T'Chenka]

What should my city do with the WW1 WW2 soldier memorial statues if it turns out one of the soldiers was in favour of slavery? Take the statue down? Because he isn't known for that, he's known for being a patriotic soldier. What do people think?

EDIT - Let's say for example WW1 was fought 75 years prior in the 1840s, and not when it was actually fought.

[T'Chenka]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

LOL! Ok Guliani.

This isn't a court case Jim, it's about right and wrong. You might win the semantics argument on a technicity, but that's doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

[T'Chenka]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

LOL! Ok Guliani.

This isn't a court case Jim, it's about right and wrong. You might win the semantics argument on a technicity, but that's doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

The question is what was right and wrong at the time the decision was made. By that standard, Robert E Lee was not treacherous. He was loyal to Virginia.

That's extremely debatable.

[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".

[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?

[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.

[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".

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.

If anything, I embarassed myself on my lack of knowledge of John Tyler. Badger and I (and I'm presuming most other posters) know that assuming any given poster might make 1 innocent mistake once every 1000 posts or so isn't automatically a vicious embarassing attack on said poster.

At least I learned about John Tyler.

[T'Chenka]

destruction of property, be it public or private, is unacceptable.  A municipality has the right to erect a statue, and people who don't like it don't have the right to yank them down.  A private group, even a heinous one, that lawfully buys property and erects a statue has the right to that statue.  People don't have the right to yank it down for one simple reason:  It's not theirs to rip down.

Legally you are correct Fuzzy, but morally it gets more complicated than that. I want to use a rather extreme and inappropriate hypothetical to make my point here - and I apologize if anybody is offended - because I think it makes my point well.

HYPOTHETICALLY, a Trump-supporting mayor puts up a statue of a black or SJW woman on her knees, hands handcuffed behind her back, with Trump / McConnell / Robert E Lee with his panys down, holding her head and forcing her to perform oral sex. The statue is dobe in such a way where no buttocks or genetalia is visible. The inscription reads "That's a good _____ (African American / liberal)."

Now, based on your outlining of the rights if citizens, they do nor have "a right" (legal? moral?) to tear the statue down. Legally you would be correct. Morally, you would be wrong I think. Please let me kmow if you disagree.

I'm just trying to demonstrate what I perceive to be a flaw in your argument. I'm not advocating for any such statue.

[T'Chenka]

The most offensive Confederate statues are the ones erected in the post-WWII era.  They were erected as a statement of Massive Resistance to SCOTUS-ordered Integration and the Civil Rights Movement.  I certainly believe that we ought to dismantle much of this.  I wouldn't be happy about a statue in my community of someone that thought I was somewhat sub-human either, and didn't care that my family was enslaved.

That DOES have to be balanced against the Rule of Law.

So you are conceding that in some cases, when balanced against the Rule of Law, toppling certain statues illegally is not immoral? Good. I'm glad that you're being reasonable about this.