Professors Rally Around a Student Who Pushed Over Statue

[Kellhound]

Rape is a crime in the US, so of course it's still legal.

Betraying the British is a crime in BRITIAN, but because we won we aren't BRITISH anymore.

How are you this dense?

- - - Updated - - -



First of all he didn't betray the US rofl, second of all even if he did his cause was just.

Was the confederates cause just?

- - - Updated - - -



The only one that Martin Luther King is a villain to are racists. Bill Clinton could be a villain to many people.

So you fully agree the only difference between George Washington and Jefferson Davis is Washington won and Davis lost.

[Kellhound]

Yeah no. Not at all the same.

I don't actually care one way or another, I am being completely honest with that, but the argument against having statues of traitors to the united states on united states property is completely sound.

- - - Updated - - -



Well also the fact that George Washington wasn't fighting for the right to keep slaves, he was fighting for independence from the British Empire.

No, because slavery was accepted by the British Empire, so it would have been hard to fight for it.

[Azadina]

So you fully agree the only difference between George Washington and Jefferson Davis is Washington won and Davis lost.

Doesn't pay well to be a traitor that also loses. Yes, there's the difference.

[Kellhound]

Doesn't pay well to be a traitor that also loses. Yes, there's the difference.

Its all perspective then.

[Dreknar20]

Rape is a crime in the US, so of course it's still legal.

Betraying the British is a crime in BRITIAN, but because we won we aren't BRITISH anymore.

Confederate independence was not illegal during the start of the Civil war.

Believe it was during or after that courts finally clarified the issue.

[Cooper]

Legal side of secession is kinda irrelevant.

No country is just going to willing give ip part of its population/land/power

Legality of secession is absolutely relevant when the question at hand is the historical actors' viewpoints on the legality of secession.

[Kellhound]

Yup that's true, plus George Washington was also probably fine with slavery.

Most Brits were at the time.

[Cooper]

I don't actually care one way or another, I am being completely honest with that, but the argument against having statues of traitors to the united states on united states property is completely sound.

There is a difference between state and federal property.

[SupBrah]

Yeah no. Not at all the same.

I don't actually care one way or another, I am being completely honest with that, but the argument against having statues of traitors to the united states on united states property is completely sound.

Whether you consider them traitors or not, it's not your place to decide whether or not a state funded and approved property is allowed to exist on state property. If you think it should be removed then go through the legal channels like a civilized human being. Don't tie a rope to a car and forcibly remove property that isn't yours just because you don't like it. That's what a fanatic extremist would do.

[Azadina]

didn't the USA become traitors to England?

a war was fought over it and many people died right? because the USA were traitors to England?

And they didn't lose it. What's your point? Britain can still be upset with it if they want, but I doubt they feel a need for it, especially considering WW2 events.

[Dreknar20]

If they won the war they would still be wrong

Seccesion was not a clear cut rule in the 1860s. Was not specifically declared illegal by then.

So, technically they wouldn't be traitors

[Egomaniac]

didn't the USA become traitors to England?

a war was fought over it and many people died right? because the USA were traitors to England?

That's probably why you don't see many statues to George Washington in England.

[Azadina]

so if the south won their independence they would not be in the wrong at all?

its only because they lost that puts them in the wrong?

your moral compass is a little messed up

there is more than 1 side to everything open your eyes up?

You should take care of your own first, before talking of mine.

[Kellhound]

Because slavery is wrong?

It wasnt then though.

[Deleted]

you think if the south won their independence they would still have slaves today? lol im sorry but lol


it had very little to do with slavery and if the South won they would of ended up abolishing slavery at some point in the future

That's actually a good point, I imagine a victorious South would be quite quick to Abolish Slavery because the War had already terminated any chance of a competitive cotton industry and sentiments towards slavery was always a means to an end at best.

[Egomaniac]

you think if the south won their independence they would still have slaves today? lol im sorry but lol

it had very little to do with slavery and if the South won they would of ended up abolishing slavery at some point in the future

Gotta love dat Revisionism.

[Deleted]

Gotta love dat Revisionism.

It's not Revisionist, that was Literally E.Lee's Stance.

[Azadina]

so if hitler won everything he did and said would be acceptable by your standards

you may want to think about that

bye for now

I was wondering what it was, the reason I remember your forum name among some others, in very negative way. Thanks for reminding why.

[Cooper]

That's actually a good point, I imagine a victorious South would be quite quick to Abolish Slavery because the War had already terminated any chance of a competitive cotton industry and sentiments towards slavery was always a means to an end at best.

Eh, "quite quick"? Probably not. Since Great Britain and France largely had no use for Southern cotton anymore, thanks to Egypt and India, it would probably largely depend on the Union's policy towards the Confederacy: would they have been lenient in order to ensure cotton exports to Northern textile mills, or would they have been punitive and shifted away from textiles to some other industry?

Either way, even if slavery were abolished, or just kind of faded away, in the Confederacy, racism still would have been rampant and something similar to the Slave Codes still probably would have been enacted to check black civil rights and ensure cheap labor; see Confederate plans of emancipation towards the end of the war.

[Egomaniac]

It's not Revisionist, that was Literally E.Lee's Stance.

Read The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...eceding-states

Count how many times the word "slavery" is used and then tell me again that slavery had very little to do with the Civil War.

I'll gt you started"

Mississippi


A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.