View Full Version : Violence in Charlottesville
a completely inoffensive name
08-12-2017, 21:13
White Nationalism is now in vogue with Trump in office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Strike For The South
08-13-2017, 01:49
Awful but not surprising. White nationalism has been allowed to fester since 9/11.
Nazi punks go home.
I remember pre-11/9/01 where Islam and Muslims were virtually never discussed, it was basically a religion and a way of life for people in the Middle East. Sure, there were people who used to go "Pakis" "Ragheads" and typical xenophobic slurs but that was done to all ethnics except whites to the same degree.
When the twin tower attack happened, things changed. The government's wanted to go to war so in their interest to ram up anti-muslim sentiment to get people on side
War in Afghanistan went ahead with little protest, especially with Media campaigns leading the charge, and 'unfortunate incidents' like when BBC news showed a scene of sewer rats when talking about the Taliban. Anti-Muslim agenda was vogue and state sponsored.
I believe a lot of the current Anti-Muslim rhetoric comes from this period and it caused isolation and failure for integration in communities as people did not want to be associated with the enemy. It was a constant downhill process, and it took almost a decade later to realise the impact this caused hence a government sponsored effort to try to reintegrate the Muslim community which people turned against them 'see through' these efforts due to their fostered dislike.
a completely inoffensive name
08-13-2017, 17:21
Well if we take that metric we can say black nationalism was downright chic even before Obama took his.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155653/
As the popularization of communists bolsters fascists; black identitarianism has bolstered white.
To denounce one and ignore or excuse the other is to encourage both, the best course of action is to let both extremes feel the truncheon with equal enthusiasm.
But that is not what we are taking about. The first thing you say in response to a white nationalist terrorist attack that killed a woman is a classic What About ism to a random article about the black panthers.
No condemnation of the white nationalists, but a scummy appeal to denounce an organization that had nothing to do with the rally yesterday, as a false prelude of fairness.
:daisy: scummy. I don't think i want to acknowledge your posts anymore.
We need more love, love is the only answer, don't listen to the globalist Soros propaganda.
The poor (and also despicable) racists just walked right into an antifa-globalist Soros trap, see.
It all makes sense, asking for less racism breeds violence from the poor oppressed white males.
[insert crazy Alex Jones video here]
Also don't forget to buy some caveman juice...
Hooahguy
08-14-2017, 01:25
One instance of two Black Panthers engaging in voter intimidation is hardly much of an example of resurgent black nationalism. Now when the President has a couple of advisers with dubious ties to white nationalism, now that gets me paying closer attention.
Also, I don't want to see any far-right (or far-left for that matter) sites like WND linked to, so cut it out.
Greyblades
08-14-2017, 03:46
But that is not what we are taking about. The first thing you say in response to a white nationalist terrorist attack that killed a woman is a classic What About ism to a random article about the black panthers.
No condemnation of the white nationalists, but a scummy appeal to denounce an organization that had nothing to do with the rally yesterday, as a false prelude of fairness. My first response to the blood on the charlottesville street was quote: "the best course of action is to let both extremes feel the truncheon with equal enthusiasm."
No, serrah, it was my first response to a person on the internet making spurrious the claim that white nationalism is now acceptable in trump's america, that being to exhibit a case of a black nationalist intimidation being allowed to go unpunished by the actions of the President of the United States. This was motivated twofold: either to shake you of your most alarmist notion or bait you into exposing a belief in an absurd dichotomy of which you have so eagerly obliged.
Every pundit and publication of whom you rely on to substitute thought have used this womans death for political ends; that being to convince the easily swayed that white nationalism has only suddenly become a problem in america solely because of the ascendance of one man. That the discontent of the people on the street is entirely unwarrented and irrational. This while ignoring the years of pandering and enabling by the first and fourth estates that has allowed anti white racism to become the only racism acceptable, of which this backlash has been long fed by.
:daisy: scummy. I don't think i want to acknowledge your posts anymore.I have long thought nothing of value would be lost by losing the attention of such a blatantly moralistic granstander, yet I keep coming back.
If you're finally done you can run along now.
One instance of two Black Panthers engaging in voter intimidation is hardly much of an example of resurgent black nationalism. Now when the President has a couple of advisers with dubious ties to white nationalism, now that gets me paying closer attention. Should have been paying attention when your president was using dead delinquents to grand stand on. Maybe you will notice what was scrawled upon Lee's collumn.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCrSNsUQAAXwO-.jpg
Also, I don't want to see any far-right (or far-left for that matter) sites like WND linked to, so cut it out.
Excuse my ignorance on the orientation of some of america's news sites, but I must ask what rule did I break? There is nothing on the faq that warrants this action, if I am not mistaken you are acting out of bounds of a moderator.
It seems like the action either of someone worried his site will be flaged or someone who actually thinks truth can be changed by it's source. It could be because you worry about impressionable young minds who have no capacity to double check but frankly I do not see you viewing us in such an insultingly childish manner.
Whatever, will this do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
Trump is an ass. His incoherence is making Obama's smooth banality look incredibly classy.
Class was all he had and it was getting tired.
Hooahguy
08-14-2017, 07:44
Should have been paying attention when your president was using dead delinquents to grand stand on. Maybe you will notice what was scrawled upon Lee's collumn.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCrSNsUQAAXwO-.jpg
Not even close to being the same thing. Using a tragedy to bring light to an issue and press for police reform is not anywhere comparable to what is going on now with white nationalists marching down streets carrying tiki torches and giving the Nazi salute.
Excuse my ignorance on the orientation of some of america's news sites, but I must ask what rule did I break? There is nothing on the faq that warrants this action, if I am not mistaken you are acting out of bounds of a moderator.
It seems like the action either of someone worried his site will be flaged or someone who actually thinks truth can be changed by it's source. It could be because you worry about impressionable young minds who have no capacity to double check but frankly I do not see you viewing us in such an insultingly childish manner.
Whatever, will this do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
It falls under a rule within the FAQ:
"Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, etc, etc."
WND is well known to peddle conspiracy theories as well as other generally objectionable material that has no place on the Org and as admin I will enforce this. The same would be true for any similar website linked here, no matter the political alignment. If you have further issue with this, please take it up via PM and I would be happy to explain further. That being said, I do not appreciate your snarky tone.
No, serrah, it was my first response to a person on the internet making spurrious the claim that white nationalism is now acceptable in trump's america, that being to exhibit a case of a black nationalist intimidation being allowed to go unpunished by the actions of the President of the United States. This was motivated twofold: either to shake you of your most alarmist notion or bait you into exposing a belief in an absurd dichotomy of which you have so eagerly obliged.
Every pundit and publication of whom you rely on to substitute thought have used this womans death for political ends; that being to convince the easily swayed that white nationalism has only suddenly become a problem in america solely because of the ascendance of one man. That the discontent of the people on the street is entirely unwarrented and irrational. This while ignoring the years of pandering and enabling by the first and fourth estates that has allowed anti white racism to become the only racism acceptable, of which this backlash has been long fed by.
You accuse "the left" of having wrongfully excused black racism for too long because someone posted a picture of two black panthers supposedly intimidating voters somewhere and excuse white racism yourself by saying it's "only" a reaction of the victims of said black racism?
Not only is the white racism far worse, you admit yourself that it is not even a recent problem, so it might as well be the primary reason black racism exists. If white racism is the reason for black racism, then black racism cannot be a legitimate excuse for white racism. In the end you're just whining and victimizing "your group".
Trump finally comes out with "Racism is Evil" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40927089)
You accuse "the left" of having wrongfully excused black racism for too long because someone posted a picture of two black panthers supposedly intimidating voters somewhere and excuse white racism yourself by saying it's "only" a reaction of the victims of said black racism?
Not only is the white racism far worse, you admit yourself that it is not even a recent problem, so it might as well be the primary reason black racism exists. If white racism is the reason for black racism, then black racism cannot be a legitimate excuse for white racism. In the end you're just whining and victimizing "your group".
I think there's a strong tendency from many (most?) to excuse bad behavior when it's their team and harp on it when it's the opposing team. Greyblades isn't the first one to do this and won't be the last.
I think we're all better off though, when we can acknowledge bad behavior regardless of which "team" is doing it. Pointing out sketchy behavior of the other team isn't a good refutation of the same from one's own. I could maybe see it (as part of a hypocrisy argument), if Orgahs had been dismissive of the past charges while railing against the current- but I doubt there's much evidence of that. It's safer not to attribute all characteristics of the opposing "team" to the individual you are currently debating.
That's just my 2 cents anyway.
a completely inoffensive name
08-15-2017, 07:14
It's safer not to attribute all characteristics of the opposing "team" to the individual you are currently debating.
There is a certain point when the defense of the deplorable (trigger warning to any alt-right in here) is no longer noble and is indeed deplorable in itself.
The time to play devil's advocate is not when you have Nazi's marching in your streets.
Montmorency
08-15-2017, 09:04
There is a certain point when the defense of the deplorable (trigger warning to any alt-right in here) is no longer noble and is indeed deplorable in itself.
The time to play devil's advocate is not when you have Nazi's marching in your streets.
Nazis have marched in the past, and the ACLU (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism) has gone to bat for them, but let's be clear on the specific argument now:
Tolerance is not an absolute, but a social contract and a pact of peace. Once the aggressors make themselves known and break the peace, they forfeit their enjoyment of tolerance from society. Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and adjacent speech has been identified in our time as a clear and present public danger and may as such be restricted by the government. Apart from the government, citizens have a moral and civic obligation to tamp down and repudiate any such speech wherever they find it, both on-line and off. More or less the same applies to all stripes of terroristic Islamic jihadism.
One concern here is that this principle is not a very clear or robust one other than in privileging the status quo. A more refined principle might be prejudiced against any speech where propagators wish to dismantle the system in which they act, or hold an ideology that intrinsically calls other human life incompatible. But I'm not convinced; one moral value attached to tolerance and retribution is proportionality, and where someone believes and expounds that I and my family should die for the sake of their paradise, it would be proportionate for me to apply severe interpersonal and communal sanctions - but arguably disproportionate to adjudicate criminal liability.
Doxxing and ostracism ("no freedom from consequences") may be the appropriate recourse short of categorical repression. No, you never have to respect or debate Those People. You find the space between "respect" and "destroy", keeping in mind that in the end even Nazi/Confederate rights were baseline human rights (Then again, are human rights really worth it?) To concerned individuals who worry that
“At some point, someone will propose a concentration of power and winnowing of the public voice, and the public sphere will let it articulate the means by which the public sphere can itself be dissolved.”
notice that the bar of proportionate retaliation rises in turn. But we should consider that it isn't there yet, and pre-emptive maximum escalation is intrinsically something you can't mobilize the society for, in addition to being morally dubious. We aren't talking about individuals "standing their ground" against threats. This is always group-level and the mediation of your own actions in that context.
That's not to say we should coddle a certain person here on this forum. One strategy in these types of situations is to practice
debunking without direct engagement of the propagator.
http://www.drawninpowerpoint.com/2017/08/incitement.html?m=1
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DOCNAC7.htm
On 30 April 1928, Goebbels wrote in his paper "Der Angriff"; "We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. We become members of the Reichstag in order to paralyze the Weimar sentiment with its own assistance. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and per diem for the this "blockade" (Barendienst), that is its own affair." Later in the same article he continued: "We do not come as friend nor even as neutrals. we come [Page 202] as enemies: As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come." (2500-PS)
Also, in related recent news:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40842853
Two Chinese tourists were arrested in Berlin for making Hitler salutes outside the German parliament on Saturday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/13/an-american-tourist-gave-the-nazi-salute-in-germany-so-a-stranger-beat-him-up-police-say/
An American tourist in Germany was beaten up by a passer-by after he began giving the Nazi salute outside a cafe in Dresden, police said Sunday.
[...]
Police said the U.S. national is under investigation for violating German laws prohibiting Nazi symbols and that they are still seeking the passer-by for causing personal injury, according to the Associated Press.
Now the US pretends to be new to this when it let the Nazis breed in broad daylight for years and thought everything was going to be just fine. :stare:
Fascism is nothing but capitalist reaction; from the point of view of the proletariat the difference between the types of reaction is meaningless.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
Strike For The South
08-15-2017, 15:04
It has become clear that these white nationalists (I'm not going to call them NAZIs because I think it cheapens the seriousness of the discussion) were emboldened by Trump. At this point, that fact is wholly indisputable. Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller effectively planted these seeds and they are beginning to blossom. Combine that with Trumps total lack of empathy and communication skills (beyond his platitudes) and you end up with the totally tone deaf statement a couple of days ago.
These people have become very good at obfuscation and equivalency. The aim here is two fold. First, they want to discredit the various leftist groups that come out to protest them (The socialists, BLM, etc.). Second, they want to frame the debate. At the very least they want people to think that their movement is about preserving "white" culture.
Of course the white "culture" they want to preserve is largely a myth built at the turn of the 20th century. America was never that white. Its worth pointing put that the last 4 census have incrementally carved out a more unique identity for hispanics. It should be no surprise that the number would seemingly explode. Of course we can set aside the immigration debate for another time. These confederate statues are basically the end of the re-consolidation of white supremacy in the south (or wherever southerners settled) post reconstruction. They coincide with the building of a national myth to try and make America seem in line with the European powers of time.
These people are white power, plain and simple. There power is the direct result of a concerted effort that grew out of the holy trinity (Ruby Ridge, Waco, and OKC) and they were given cover by 9/11 to implement their plan. It also seems that what has been a loose cohort of people is coalescing into a true movement. That is the most scary thing.
Police Action has also come under fire from both sides. Both seem to think the other was given carte blanche by the police, trotting out various videos to the effect. I think the real answer is much simpler. The police were outgunned (or at least at parity) with the supremacists and mid size city cops are not about to get into a gun battle with military grade armaments. This is EXACTLY why the Feds were so obsessed in the 90s. These men are heavily armed, better trained, and take care of their supplies better than the cops. IF they wanted to, they could have taken the town and that is frightening.
The Leftist response has kind of confused me. There seems to be two main camps. The chapo contingent who seem to refuse the help of the police, ACAB, and seem to reject the levers of power which could very much help them in this scenario. This would be fine if they would arm themselves, but they seem to not have any desire to? Punch a Nazi is a great slogan until your insides become your outsides because you wanted to play radical. Bike locks don't work too well against ballistics helmets and mace can be countered. Tendies jokes won't matter when the lead starts flying around. These people are at their tipping point. I don't understand that twitterverse.
Then you have your centrist liberals who seem to have a broader base of support because, you know, the whole incrementalist no rebellion thing. I probably fall in this camp.
It's funny, the best way for white supremacists to succeed would be to have large families and accumulate capital. Money and demography are destiny. However they seem more concerned on inflicting hate and pain. Unfortunately with a lax federal response, I fear we will see more of this.
Also a Nazi flag is pretty much the highwater mark of identity politics you shallow minded idgets.
If you are some young impressionable kid Be careful. We had a confederate sympathizer on these very forums throw a bunch of words on a post and call it real history. They will try and sway you with walls of texts and mountains of numbers. It is all an illusion. Don't be swayed, they are merely peddling hate.
Strike For The South
08-15-2017, 18:15
19768
Montmorency
08-15-2017, 22:03
Police Action has also come under fire from both sides. Both seem to think the other was given carte blanche by the police, trotting out various videos to the effect. I think the real answer is much simpler. The police were outgunned (or at least at parity) with the supremacists and mid size city cops are not about to get into a gun battle with military grade armaments. This is EXACTLY why the Feds were so obsessed in the 90s. These men are heavily armed, better trained, and take care of their supplies better than the cops. IF they wanted to, they could have taken the town and that is frightening.
Taking down a lone motorist, or a pair, is a much simpler proposition than gunning it out in the open with dozens or hundreds. It was the same thing when police came to round up the murderous bikers after the 2015 Waco shootout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Waco_shootout), who were going peacefully anyway.
Without saying anything else about police, we can agree that antagonizing scores of armed individuals is something they will neither accept, or be permitted to do.
The ACLU posted a response (https://acluva.org/20108/aclu-of-virginia-response-to-governors-allegations-that-aclu-is-responsible-for-violence-in-charlottesville/) to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's claim that they were responsible for the violence. I largely agree with their response. :yes:
It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area.
Other than the bad actors on both sides themselves, I think local and state government deserves a good bit of the blame.
Taking down a lone motorist, or a pair, is a much simpler proposition than gunning it out in the open with dozens or hundreds. It was the same thing when police came to round up the murderous bikers after the 2015 Waco shootout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Waco_shootout), who were going peacefully anyway.
Without saying anything else about police, we can agree that antagonizing scores of armed individuals is something they will neither accept, or be permitted to do.
You have so many Abrams tanks standing around somewhere without being used....whatever happened to militarization of the police? ~;)
Montmorency
08-16-2017, 00:56
Given the "slippery slope" in shutting down demonstrations on the basis of individual acts, I think we should agree that no weapons of any sort may be permitted in public view during any political gathering, protest, or demonstration. To pair arms with speech and presence - what greater sin or provocation is there? In what era? In what culture?
Any person in the vicinity of such gatherings who brandishes a weapon must be summarily removed and detained. (Without further specification, concealed carry is not affected.)
If police are concerned about encountering danger to any significant degree, then the gathering should be shut down anyway as an imminent public danger. Other than such cases in which there should be no lawful gathering begun or continued, the State authority must be willing and ready to sacrifice of itself in order to maintain the standard, or else it is no authority. In that case pf borderline civil collapse, counter-marchers have no choice but to arm themselves in turn and provision for their own defense, and we might as well have mobs of partisans thrashing it out like in Cable Street.
Well, it's very simple. If the police allow large groups of armed people to gather, they run the risk of, as you said, losing their monopoly on power, at least locally and temporarily. This is not acceptable considering they need this monopoly to ensure the safety of everyone else.
It, ahem, is of course not an issue in civilized countries where Neo Nazis aren't allowed to run around with rifles... :sweatdrop:
Gilrandir
08-16-2017, 09:49
You have so many Abrams tanks standing around somewhere without being used..
Say rather that you don't know where they are used. Unlike you, the Donbas separatists do. They claim Abramses are used against them.
Greyblades
08-16-2017, 18:09
Not even close to being the same thing. Using a tragedy to bring light to an issue and press for police reform is not anywhere comparable to what is going on now with white nationalists marching down streets carrying tiki torches and giving the Nazi salute.
Did I say they were the same thing? Ever?
No, I said that you should have been paying attention when this was being fed. So eager to use death for political capital that he lamented the death of those killed in self defense or in the process of breaking the law, the "post race president" proclaimed thier demises as examples of police brutality and racism later to be proven false. This was one step in a long chain that served to sour race relations and brought upon the chaos you see before you.
If you had also been paying attention you'd also be taking account that the communist black bloc took the streets of america before the nazis reemerged. They marched down Berkeley and Austin's streets carrying the hammer and sickle and raising thier fists and only the politically blind couldnt see them for the neo red guard they are.
It falls under a rule within the FAQ:
"Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, etc, etc."
WND is well known to peddle conspiracy theories as well as other generally objectionable material that has no place on the Org and as admin I will enforce this. The same would be true for any similar website linked here, no matter the political alignment. If you have further issue with this, please take it up via PM and I would be happy to explain further. That being said, I do not appreciate your snarky tone.
If this is how you interpret "objectionable material" you had best get used to snark for you will be eliciting a lot of it.
It is absurd to ban an entire site for political conspiracy theories, I may as well petition for the banning of anyone linking to the rolling stone after they pushed the university of virgina false rape accusation. You could disqualify half the american mainstream media for peddling the "russia hacked the election" theory.
You accuse "the left" of having wrongfully excused black racism for too long because someone posted a picture of two black panthers supposedly intimidating voters somewhere and excuse white racism yourself by saying it's "only" a reaction of the victims of said black racism?
Quite the strawman, I have said it's re-emergeance and popularity is a reaction of the rise of black racism not an excuse.
You know your own history do you not? How the nazis used legitimate fears of communism to gain support? How they capitalized upon the failures of the government to combat it?
Well you better start learning because it's the Weimar republic again only now your fear of the nazis is empowering the communists and you've forgotten that both are evil not just one.
As for your "it was just a picture" claim, read the freaking wikipedia page.
Not only is the white racism far worse, you admit yourself that it is not even a recent problem, so it might as well be the primary reason black racism exists. If white racism is the reason for black racism, then black racism cannot be a legitimate excuse for white racism. In the end you're just whining and victimizing "your group".
White racism isnt far worse, they are both the same evil that wants the other gone or dead with the same ferocity and they are codependant; each grows in reaction to the other. You are worrying about the one in the doorway while ignoring the one in your bed.
I think there's a strong tendency from many (most?) to excuse bad behavior when it's their team and harp on it when it's the opposing team. Greyblades isn't the first one to do this and won't be the last.
I think we're all better off though, when we can acknowledge bad behavior regardless of which "team" is doing it. Pointing out sketchy behavior of the other team isn't a good refutation of the same from one's own. I could maybe see it (as part of a hypocrisy argument), if Orgahs had been dismissive of the past charges while railing against the current- but I doubt there's much evidence of that. It's safer not to attribute all characteristics of the opposing "team" to the individual you are currently debating.
That's just my 2 cents anyway.
My two cents is that it's your allegiance to your team that's making you think I'm excusing them when I am pointing out it was the other team's actions that made them. They are to the right what antifa are to the left and both have been eager to beat the other's brains out.
Whether it was with bikelocks on the picket line or with a rifle in a baseball field it is only by chance that it was the nazis that produced the first fatality.
Greyblades
08-16-2017, 18:35
On a more, hm, lighter note: I have to admit confusion at the motivation of the people calling for the removal of lees statue. Robert E Lee like Rommel after him was a hero for his own people an highly respected by his enemies to the point of lionization of him after death.
With the oft touted distaste of slavery only being outweighed by his love of country it is highly odd for him to have been attacked as a symbol of the worst of the confederates. I thought Lee was supposed to be the reb you were "allowed" to like in democratic circles.
I cant imagine anyone would have thought removing him wouldnt get pushback, and the ideological justification doesnt make sense, so why was this ever proposed?
Quite the strawman, I have said it's re-emergeance and popularity is a reaction of the rise of black racism not an excuse.
So it was just victim-blaming?
You know your own history do you not? How the nazis used legitimate fears of communism to gain support? How they capitalized upon the failures of the government to combat it?
Well you better start learning because it's the Weimar republic again only now your fear of the nazis is empowering the communists and you've forgotten that both are evil not just one.
As for your "it was just a picture" claim, read the freaking wikipedia page.
It's not the Weimar Republic again, certainly not here. And in the US I don't see it either unless you finally came around and mean that Trump is like Hitler. The empowering of communists is a load of unfounded bollocks, you can hardly find any in the US and the communist party here is nowhere to be seen either.
White racism isnt far worse, they are both the same evil that wants the other gone or dead with the same ferocity and they are codependant; each grows in reaction to the other. You are worrying about the one in the doorway while ignoring the one in your bed.
That's wrong from top to bottom. The numbers of white racists and their being part of a majority group that denied the humanity (voting rights) of the other well into the 1960s alone makes them far worse. There may be some blacks who are racist, but they are nowhere near the level of danger that white racists have achieved. I'm also not in bed with one, I've made angry posts about antifa before. The point is that there is no reason to denounce the antifa or black racism when Neo Nazis and white supremacists show up to a rally looking like racist Total War reenactors, wearing Hitler quotes, toting guns and actually killing and injuring people with cars. Get a grip!
CrossLOPER
08-16-2017, 19:44
Say rather that you don't know where they are used. Unlike you, the Donbas separatists do. They claim Abramses are used against them.
You are the kind of person to wave a colon cancer flag at a breast cancer rally.
It is absurd to ban an entire site for political conspiracy theories
OK, let's ban its usage due to the large amount of click-bait ads that infest it instead. I find it difficult to take sites like that seriously. It looks even worse than Breitbart.
Montmorency
08-16-2017, 23:23
I thought Lee was supposed to be the reb you were "allowed" to like in democratic circles.
He wasn't. His benign legacy is a myth and he is up there with the most egregious traitors and supremacists. The pushback is most charitably identified with imbeciles and casual racists who just don't know any better and don't want to.
After seeing this type of disingenuous :daisy: pushed relentlessly by people who of course wouldn't dream of calling for a memorial to Osama bin Laden at Ground Zero as an expression of heritage or history, I'm through with the belief that some may be spared. Raze everything on public land to the earth. The pigs can lick up their blood and soil from the gravel of their impressions.
The only Confederate symbol that matters is the white flag of surrender.
Hooahguy
08-17-2017, 00:25
Did I say they were the same thing? Ever?
You pointed to it as a classic case of whataboutism which leads me to believe you think they are comparable.
No, I said that you should have been paying attention when this was being fed. So eager to use death for political capital that he lamented the death of those killed in self defense or in the process of breaking the law, the "post race president" proclaimed thier demises as examples of police brutality and racism later to be proven false. This was one step in a long chain that served to sour race relations and brought upon the chaos you see before you.
So I suppose according to you, using the case of Emmett Till to bring light to rampant and vile racism in the south was wrong as well.
If you had also been paying attention you'd also be taking account that the communist black bloc took the streets of america before the nazis reemerged. They marched down Berkeley and Austin's streets carrying the hammer and sickle and raising thier fists and only the politically blind couldnt see them for the neo red guard they are.
Were they marching and shouting for the extermination/expulsion of other races/religions? Calling for the burning of synagogues? Brandishing a large arsenal of weaponry? Besides, from the images and videos of the marches you mention, their numbers are a tiny fraction compared to the neo-Nazis who showed up last weekend.
If this is how you interpret "objectionable material" you had best get used to snark for you will be eliciting a lot of it.
It is absurd to ban an entire site for political conspiracy theories, I may as well petition for the banning of anyone linking to the rolling stone after they pushed the university of virgina false rape accusation. You could disqualify half the american mainstream media for peddling the "russia hacked the election" theory.
A false rape accusation is hardly on the same level as pushing the birther conspiracy theory. If you do not like how moderation is done on this forum, there is nothing forcing you to stay here.
Some surprisingly balanced reporting from NBC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73VkD5CeEv8
So yes, there were people on both sides that came looking for a fight. However, most counter-protesters were locals who were appalled to have white supremacists and neo-nazis marching thru their town.
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2017, 03:06
He wasn't. His benign legacy is a myth and he is up there with the most egregious traitors and supremacists. The pushback is most charitably identified with imbeciles and casual racists who just don't know any better and don't want to.
After seeing this type of disingenuous :daisy: pushed relentlessly by people who of course wouldn't dream of calling for a memorial to Osama bin Laden at Ground Zero as an expression of heritage or history, I'm through with the belief that some may be spared. Raze everything on public land to the earth. The pigs can lick up their blood and soil from the gravel of their impressions.
The only Confederate symbol that matters is the white flag of surrender.
You remember way back when i said we need to bring back radical reconstruction and i joked by saying you agreed wholeheartedly?
I'm glad we are finally on the same page.
Montmorency
08-17-2017, 03:15
You remember way back when i said we need to bring back radical reconstruction and i joked by saying you agreed wholeheartedly?
I'm glad we are finally on the same page.
Was that a specific exchange, or is there something else you're hinting at that I should be familiar with?
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2017, 05:06
Was that a specific exchange, or is there something else you're hinting at that I should be familiar with?
No, this was a specific exchange back in the thread about the dylann kid who shot up the black church. The one with the rhodesia patch on his shirt at the time of the shooting.
Montmorency
08-17-2017, 05:24
No, this was a specific exchange back in the thread about the dylann kid who shot up the black church. The one with the rhodesia patch on his shirt at the time of the shooting.
This one? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149230-Another-terrible-race-motivated-attack)
Looking back, I took a harder line than you did.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-17-2017, 05:55
He wasn't. His benign legacy is a myth and he is up there with the most egregious traitors and supremacists. The pushback is most charitably identified with imbeciles and casual racists who just don't know any better and don't want to.
After seeing this type of disingenuous :daisy: pushed relentlessly by people who of course wouldn't dream of calling for a memorial to Osama bin Laden at Ground Zero as an expression of heritage or history, I'm through with the belief that some may be spared. Raze everything on public land to the earth. The pigs can lick up their blood and soil from the gravel of their impressions.
The only Confederate symbol that matters is the white flag of surrender.
He was not the idol he became by any means. He seemed to be mildly anti-slavery, but more for how it coarsened white society. There is little evidence to suggest he was in any way an abolitionist. It is a clear fact that he left the US Army to fight for Virginia, knowing full well that the "peculiar institution" was one of the reasons for secession and that it underlay most of the OTHER reasons claimed for secession. He took up arms against the nation of his birth and lost.
He can be credited with keeping it a more or less conventional war and with rarely allowing his troops to indulge in rapine and murder. I shudder to think what our history would have been like with a South filled with Mosby and Quantrill units for decades. Ghastly thought that.
Lee was a man and a product of his times. He was neither unusually cruel or evil, nor was he saintly.
You would almost forget it exists
Montmorency
08-17-2017, 06:36
Lee was a man and a product of his times. He was neither unusually cruel or evil, nor was he saintly.
The proper context of people like Lee is in the shadow of our famous statesmen and generals like Lincoln and Grant, or (for those desperately reaching) "founding fathers" like Washington and Jefferson. Thus:
[American hero], despite his flaws, was a leading light in our history and institutions who under conditions of great adversity did right and good when it counted. Robert Lee, despite his virtues, was a committed slaver who threw his chips in with the treasonous project of vitalizing white-landlord supremacy when it counted.
a completely inoffensive name
08-17-2017, 08:20
This one? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?149230-Another-terrible-race-motivated-attack)
Looking back, I took a harder line than you did.
Ah yeah, so you did.
Also @Strike For The South (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=13127) do you still need a copy of HW Brands: "A restless colossus"? I think you actually meant "American Colossus"
Gilrandir
08-17-2017, 11:32
Why am I not surprised?
http://world.24-my.info/journalists-found-a-russian-trace-in-the-neo-nazi-riots-in-american-charlottesville/
https://i.imgur.com/LzNmJXj.png
Some surprisingly balanced reporting from NBC:
So yes, there were people on both sides that came looking for a fight. However, most counter-protesters were locals who were appalled to have white supremacists and neo-nazis marching thru their town.
I'm not saying you said so (and this isn't a criticism of your post, just related of sorts!), but what really gets me is not that people criticize the antifa and black block or whatever they call Stalinist and other leftist extremists, is that they do it in an attempt to equate both sides and shof the discussion away from the white supremacist rally.
In almost every left counter-demonstration in Germany you can find the antifa and it's not surprising that they exist in the US, too. The difference is they usually make up a relatively small percentage of the counter-demonstration whereas the tiki torch racist thugs are usually the (vast) majority of the racist demonstration.
It's actually the typical right-wing reaction to try and de-legitimize and entire group of people based on the actions of a very small percentage of the group in order to deflect from the fact that their pet group is entirely rotten to the core...
Or to say it in the words of Jesus, whom the right often claim to represent (even the racists):
http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Strike For The South
08-17-2017, 20:41
Ah yeah, so you did.
Also @Strike For The South (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=13127) do you still need a copy of HW Brands: "A restless colossus"? I think you actually meant "American Colossus"
I have that book, but I have yet to read it. And you are correct on the title. I have something like 50 books on the war and have only read like 25. That goes for my whole library though. I have a nasty habit of being both compulsive and scatter brained.
Looking back on that thread I was too forgiving. When your biggest supporters are neo nazis and carpet baggers you lose The cultural memory of the war argument. the majority of the monuments have always been about race and were meant to consolidate white power. I still think about the slippery slope argument sometimes. There is a hardcore group of committed leftists who would see the whole antebellum portion of American history stricken. This is a battle over the National Myth not history. I suppose I should have been more clear in that thread. It should also be noted that most of the counter protesters were locals who hated nazis (big suprise lol)
I still believe that class is not the major reason for the crime rates (Or should I say crime statistics) in this country. And simply leveling the economic field won't even things out. American culture and policing have to change. A conviction is the result of so much more than a crime. One only needs to look at exoneration rates to draw that conclusion. I have some great books on that too. Michelle Alexanders "The New Jim Crow" being required reading for anyone serious about police reform.
I have seen a lot of people saying they refuse to wait for the local legislatures to take care of this problem. I will point out that direct action is strongest when backed by legislation. Merely tearing things down does no good because the other side will simply follow that mob mentality. Roving mobs tearing things down they don't like will simply entrench the majority of people who simply want order. Call your councilman, picket the sign, and you will enjoy much longer lasting and concrete effects.
I like Montys idea about no guns at rallies but that would live in the court system, probably for the rest of our lives.
Robert E Lee was not really a man of his times. He was part of the elite Southern Planter class. He was, quite literally a feudal style overlord. Like many southern planters of his time, he was allowed to pursue a career in politics or the officer core because of the labor of his slaves. Had the union not been so forgiving, he would have been hung. He was also not a "states" rights man either. Him and Davis quite literally bowled over the states for the needs of the CSA. I think Arlington is a fair trade for his transgressions.
Edit: Also entertaining the slippery slope argument does not mean you can't outright condemn Neo-Nazis and does not mean you can engage in false equivocation, Mr.President.
Montmorency
08-17-2017, 23:09
Looking back on that thread I was too forgiving. When your biggest supporters are neo nazis and carpet baggers you lose The cultural memory of the war argument. the majority of the monuments have always been about race and were meant to consolidate white power. I still think about the slippery slope argument sometimes. There is a hardcore group of committed leftists who would see the whole antebellum portion of American history stricken. This is a battle over the National Myth not history. I suppose I should have been more clear in that thread. It should also be noted that most of the counter protesters were locals who hated nazis (big suprise lol)
Edit: Also entertaining the slippery slope argument does not mean you can't outright condemn Neo-Nazis and does not mean you can engage in false equivocation, Mr.President.
The thing is, what slope is it exactly? Of course there could be any number of items that need to be revised, these aren't the only statues in the country. It usually isn't even like the politics of neo-Confederatism, but a desire to replace or update items that are no longer meaningful to the community. For a banal example, imagine a small town replacing a statue of some native sports star with a statue of another, more recent, native sports star.
If the slope is that there are other statues to look at, then that isn't a slope - we're already there, and always have been since it is latent and not something arrived at to assess and reassess public iconography. Once you realize that, you return to acknowledging the content of public debate and not merely its existence.
I have seen a lot of people saying they refuse to wait for the local legislatures to take care of this problem. I will point out that direct action is strongest when backed by legislation. Merely tearing things down does no good because the other side will simply follow that mob mentality. Roving mobs tearing things down they don't like will simply entrench the majority of people who simply want order. Call your councilman, picket the sign, and you will enjoy much longer lasting and concrete effects.
Abstractly speaking since that statue you had taken down a few days ago seems to have involved general activists rather than Antifa, my biggest problem with Antifa is indeed that they are anarchists, so they want to :daisy: with state government as much as they do with fascists. In practical terms, this article (https://www.thenation.com/article/not-rights-but-justice-its-time-to-make-nazis-afraid-again/) comment by Curtis Carpenter also reflects some of my misgivings:
With genuine respect, I think antifa is tragically unsophisticated in its approach and its actions are conducted absent any carefully thought-out strategic objectives that could give their tactical operations meaning. In the absence of such objectives, "bombarding and besieging far right events" is at best pointless at anything but an emotional level, and is at worst counter-productive at a long-term political level.
Where, for example, is the psychological understanding of the neo-fascist elements antifa seeks to "make afraid?" Does the antifa movement not understand that many on the fringe right actually draw strength from being vilified and attacked? That they WANT confrontation as an affirmation that they matter?
Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are situations that demand confrontation. But for those confrontations to be meaningful, they need to be conducted in the context of a overarching purpose. Being against is not sufficient, and that is an aspect omitted from the brief observations here about historical anti-fascist struggles. The International Brigades in the Spanish civil war were about more than smashing fascist heads.
The thought of confronting a professional anti-fascist one on one gives the fascist a hard-on; it's what they live for. Confronting a dozen mobilized citizens giving forth denunciations scares the shit out of the fascist. Bodies are more important than specific training.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2017, 23:21
The problem with Lee is that, really, he is morally equivalent with Thomas Jefferson - both personally, morally, objected to slavery and yet both wholeheartedly participated in it and refused to free their slaves. Jefferson didn't even free his coloured children.
So - if Lee must go, so must Jefferson, doubly so because as one of the Founding Fathers he literally institutionalised slavery.
Pannonian
08-17-2017, 23:39
I have that book, but I have yet to read it. And you are correct on the title. I have something like 50 books on the war and have only read like 25. That goes for my whole library though. I have a nasty habit of being both compulsive and scatter brained.
Looking back on that thread I was too forgiving. When your biggest supporters are neo nazis and carpet baggers you lose The cultural memory of the war argument. the majority of the monuments have always been about race and were meant to consolidate white power. I still think about the slippery slope argument sometimes. There is a hardcore group of committed leftists who would see the whole antebellum portion of American history stricken. This is a battle over the National Myth not history. I suppose I should have been more clear in that thread. It should also be noted that most of the counter protesters were locals who hated nazis (big suprise lol)
I still believe that class is not the major reason for the crime rates (Or should I say crime statistics) in this country. And simply leveling the economic field won't even things out. American culture and policing have to change. A conviction is the result of so much more than a crime. One only needs to look at exoneration rates to draw that conclusion. I have some great books on that too. Michelle Alexanders "The New Jim Crow" being required reading for anyone serious about police reform.
I have seen a lot of people saying they refuse to wait for the local legislatures to take care of this problem. I will point out that direct action is strongest when backed by legislation. Merely tearing things down does no good because the other side will simply follow that mob mentality. Roving mobs tearing things down they don't like will simply entrench the majority of people who simply want order. Call your councilman, picket the sign, and you will enjoy much longer lasting and concrete effects.
I like Montys idea about no guns at rallies but that would live in the court system, probably for the rest of our lives.
Robert E Lee was not really a man of his times. He was part of the elite Southern Planter class. He was, quite literally a feudal style overlord. Like many southern planters of his time, he was allowed to pursue a career in politics or the officer core because of the labor of his slaves. Had the union not been so forgiving, he would have been hung. He was also not a "states" rights man either. Him and Davis quite literally bowled over the states for the needs of the CSA. I think Arlington is a fair trade for his transgressions.
Edit: Also entertaining the slippery slope argument does not mean you can't outright condemn Neo-Nazis and does not mean you can engage in false equivocation, Mr.President.
There's something of a compromise out of this, if the states wish to take it. Jackson's great grandchildren have called for his statues to be taken down, citing the morally objectionable state which he served. If the families of the biggest names similarly call for their statues to be removed, and defence of the Union can always be cited if they wish to skirt the issue of slavery, then it'll leave only the statues of no-marks, and nobody will care to make a fuss over their removal. If people don't want to provoke a civil split, they can always respect families' wishes as per, with the same results.
Montmorency
08-17-2017, 23:40
The problem with Lee is that, really, he is morally equivalent with Thomas Jefferson - both personally, morally, objected to slavery and yet both wholeheartedly participated in it and refused to free their slaves. Jefferson didn't even free his coloured children.
So - if Lee must go, so must Jefferson, doubly so because as one of the Founding Fathers he literally institutionalised slavery.
Lee thought slavery necessary and good, the white man's burden. He believed the highest expression of Negro existence was under condition of bondage and servitude to white masters.
Jefferson did not believe this. Also, he did not wage war against the country.
What is it with this bizarre deontologism that if one slaveholder can't be represented on state ground, none can be?
Why is it so difficult for some to tell the difference between founders and traitors?
Strike For The South
08-18-2017, 00:45
The thing is, what slope is it exactly? Of course there could be any number of items that need to be revised, these aren't the only statues in the country. It usually isn't even like the politics of neo-Confederatism, but a desire to replace or update items that are no longer meaningful to the community. For a banal example, imagine a small town replacing a statue of some native sports star with a statue of another, more recent, native sports star.
If the slope is that there are other statues to look at, then that isn't a slope - we're already there, and always have been since it is latent and not something arrived at to assess and reassess public iconography. Once you realize that, you return to acknowledging the content of public debate and not merely its existence.
So perhaps we are simply seeing a passing of the torch? A fundamental change in the myth? I suppose that is simply the march of time, the republic is not a static thing.
Abstractly speaking since that statue you had taken down a few days ago seems to have involved general activists rather than Antifa, my biggest problem with Antifa is indeed that they are anarchists, so they want to :daisy: with state government as much as they do with fascists. In practical terms, this article (https://www.thenation.com/article/not-rights-but-justice-its-time-to-make-nazis-afraid-again/) comment by Curtis Carpenter also reflects some of my misgivings:
We seem to have the same general misgivings.
The thought of confronting a professional anti-fascist one on one gives the fascist a hard-on; it's what they live for. Confronting a dozen mobilized citizens giving forth denunciations scares the shit out of the fascist. Bodies are more important than specific training.
Right now people are encountering the soft outer shell of the WN movement. Mostly NEETs with no general direction. The hard center will not cry when you try to attack them. They will kill you. Full stop. That is the danger with these "punch a nazi" movements. These people do not understand how committed the other side is. The danger of the far right has been under played.
We have the potential for full on violence and as we have discussed local PDs are not equipped to deal with cable st style brawls.
My while end game is to ensure the levers of the republic. I think it goes without saying both of us are on the "left" side of this. Too far left however, and we lose it all.
Well, here's a feelgood story for a change:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a7489596.html
This video is making its rounds. An old war-era American clip about fascism which i many ways still relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6-cEAJZlE
Seamus Fermanagh
08-18-2017, 03:23
The problem with Lee is that, really, he is morally equivalent with Thomas Jefferson - both personally, morally, objected to slavery and yet both wholeheartedly participated in it and refused to free their slaves. Jefferson didn't even free his coloured children.
So - if Lee must go, so must Jefferson, doubly so because as one of the Founding Fathers he literally institutionalised slavery.
There are mixed records on Lee's opinion. Jefferson's is pretty well documented to be as you represent. There is no confirmation that Jefferson himself fathered children among the slaves, though the genetic evidence DOES confirm that one or more of a small set of Jeffersons (possibly including TJ) did.
However, there are already calls [by Al Sharpton] for the removal of public support for the Jefferson memorial Source (http://freebeacon.com/politics/sharpton-jefferson-memorial-should-not-be-supported-by-public-funds/), as well as Washington's name and statue from a park in Chicago source (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/).
Montmorency
08-18-2017, 03:51
However, there are already calls [by Al Sharpton] for the removal of public support for the Jefferson memorial Source, as well as Washington's name and statue from a park in Chicago source.
That's nothing new from Sharpton, but the question is a worthy one. The question is, who, if anyone, should be venerated on public grounds. Jefferson and Washington? I'm okay with that. Again, despite their flaws, they still represent us well. Their hesitations with regard to slavery should be publicized, but these do not - in my opinion - disqualify them. I say this knowing full well that one day this opinion may change, or that I may be overruled by a different public feeling.
Confederate statues - with a few penitent exceptions - are not merely markers of events that have occurred or people who have lived. Given our mastery of language and writing, we would have little use for statues in that capacity. These are public symbols that mean something, and have represented only two ideals: first, as symbols of reverence for the Lost Cause and defiance to the "Yankee" national government; second, as a reminder to black people of who was still in charge.
These ideals have not served us in the past and do not serve us well today, and are not the history we should want to promote. We must memorialize (marmorealize) the Civil War without celebrating its villains or atrocities, and without promoting Southern (and recently white*) exceptionalism.
*It was always about whiteness of course, but with special regard to Southern (white) identity. The Confederacy and its trappings as beacon for white power only spread beyond the South during the Civil Rights era, and only internationalized over the past generation.
I think you can make an argument against Confederate monuments without having to slide down the slippery slope*. Just ask yourself, why is this person being memorialized?
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are not memorialized for being slave owners. They are memorialized for playing pivotal roles in the founding of our country and laying out our form of government.
Lee and other Confederate leaders are memorialized for leading a rebellion against the US government, one of it's primary reasons for which was to protect the institution of slavery. I think if local and state governments decide they no longer want memorials to these people, they're well within their rights. I do think, however, we need to be careful when doing this that we're not purging everything negative from our history. Maybe if localities decide to remove monuments, they could be taken to museums or Civil War battlefields?
*Sadly, those on the hard left who are hot on monument destruction don't seem capable of the same discernment.
If there are pictures on the internet, the history is already preserved. :sweatdrop:
https://www.google.de/search?q=Robert+Lee+statue+Charlottesville&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKu9rzieHVAhXL1hQKHY3lCawQ_AUICygC&biw=2296&bih=1189&dpr=1.65
Strike For The South
08-18-2017, 16:20
We will see.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kkkby/lets-get-rid-of-mount-rushmore
In other news the ACLU will no longer defend those who bring firearms to assemblies/protests.http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms
This is good news. A firearm is implicit intimidation.
I think maybe "preserving" history is the wrong way to frame it. What is more distressing is the unilateral mob action. Like if you can't be bothered to go to your councilman, no one else will either and it will devolve quickly.
I guess I'm one of those centrist liberals twitter is always talking about.
Montmorency
08-18-2017, 17:11
The best possible public memorial for Robert Lee is Arlington National Cemetery, a landscape of American war dead on land formerly of the Lee family's estate. (IMO better if it had been expropriated rather than purchased.)
We will see.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kkkby/lets-get-rid-of-mount-rushmore
In other news the ACLU will no longer defend those who bring firearms to assemblies/protests.http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms
This is good news. A firearm is implicit intimidation.
Unfortunately, that is exactly how those troublesome truths are treated when you face the awesome grandeur of Rushmore, a monument so incredible it obscures the multifaceted nature of these old dudes, transmogrifying them from individuals with a capacity both for greatness and evil into pure American deities..
What I am suspicious of are monuments produced by the state, which tend to flatten out nuances and turn flawed individuals into tools of propaganda that bolster a kind of religious patriotism.
Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they manifestations of power. They don't tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who's in control. This is even true with the Confederate statues, even though the South lost the war. The reality is that the enshrinement of those generals in statues across the nation mostly did not happen right after the war as a tribute to lost struggle. Instead, they were built in the early 1900s and the 1960s, when it was crucial for those in power to signal that white supremacy would endure in the face of Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, and the civil rights movement. Erecting these statues amounted to power moves by white people who felt threatened. And now that they are being toppled, and neo-Nazis fight against their removal, their true meaning has become clearer than ever.
Good points. It probably has more artistic merit than most Confederate monuments, despite being a failed federal project on Indian land designed as a tourist trap; I don't have many defenses against its removal other than budgetary ones. Is the grandeur accidental, or just superficial after all?
Maybe heads carved out of a mountain would be more fitting for Soviet premiers than American presidents.
Montmorency
08-18-2017, 17:20
Mount Rushmore is an unstable piece of rock. Don't blow it up: abandon it. Pull out the facilities and maintenance crews, and let it transform into an Ozymandian spectacle of folly.
Mount Rushmore is an unstable piece of rock. Don't blow it up: abandon it. Pull out the facilities and maintenance crews, and let it transform into an Ozymandian spectacle of folly.
I thought they were adding a 5th head to it?
In other news the ACLU will no longer defend those who bring firearms to assemblies/protests.http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms
This is good news. A firearm is implicit intimidation.What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?
Strike For The South
08-18-2017, 17:54
The best possible public memorial for Robert Lee is Arlington National Cemetery, a landscape of American war dead on land formerly of the Lee family's estate. (IMO better if it had been expropriated rather than purchased.)
I agree. A forced sale of land is a rather light punishment for treason. The leniency of the Union government is partially the reason we are in this mess. Meigs was very much playing the long game.
Good points. It probably has more artistic merit than most Confedertae monuments, despite being a failed federal project on Indian land designed as a tourist trap; I don't have many defenses against its removal other than budgetary ones. Is the grandeur accidental, or just superficial after all?
The entirety of the Americas is a project on native land. Do we simply excise all European influence? If so which one of the 000s of Native polities takes supremacy? Who gets what? How much native blood does one need to be part of this?
Are we arguing against monuments in general or are we arguing over the national myth? Or maybe historical pedagogy? America only works because of civic nationalism, if we don't have a common well to draw upon, we cease being a useful society. That well needs to be more inclusive and has for a long time. Removing these Confederate statues is a first step toward that.
I'm not sure when the end game is.
Maybe heads carved out of a mountain would be more fitting for Soviet premiers than American presidents.
I mean maybe, we all have our on tastes in aesthetics.
What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?
That would qualify for me. I am unsure how the ACLU feels. The majority of the "left" people at the protest were locals. The people on the right were out of staters with firearms. It was not an equal situation.
Montmorency
08-18-2017, 18:09
What about those that are carrying clubs, batons, rocks, brass knuckles or pepper spray?
Should concealed carry of self-defense implements be restricted in this context? The point against the open display of arms is that it inherently perverts expression, intimidates participants, and incites to violence. This notion is so fundamental that it was recognized in ancient times. Weapons that are not displayed or made known at any time (other than in legally justified self-defense) do not appear to be germane. I would support harsh scrutiny of incidents of pistol discharge within crowds, as that's also a clear public danger. At any rate, it's impracticable to search the persons of each participant.
Brass knuckles have a pretty mixed bag of laws around them in the US; does anyone actually carry them outside of organized crime?
The entirety of the Americas is a project on native land. Do we simply excise all European influence? If so which one of the 000s of Native polities takes supremacy? Who gets what? How much native blood does one need to be part of this?
I don't support transfers of land or sovereignty to native tribes.
Are we arguing against monuments in general or are we arguing over the national myth? Or maybe historical pedagogy? America only works because of civic nationalism, if we don't have a common well to draw upon, we cease being a useful society. That well needs to be more inclusive and has for a long time. Removing these Confederate statues is a first step toward that.
I liked the author's argument in that it criticized the mode of the representation (state-sponsored mega-works) rather than the subjects.
Strike For The South
08-18-2017, 18:16
Brass knuckles have a pretty mixed bag of laws around them in the US; does anyone actually carry them outside of organized crime?
No
I don't support transfers of land or sovereignty to native tribes.
Fair enough
I liked the author's argument in that it criticized the mode of the representation (state-sponsored mega-works) rather than the subjects.
I have sympathy for the argument. As we have pointed out ad nueaseum, this monuments are a consolidation of white power. They have meaning in the sense they are meant to show who is in charge, who controls the narrative. If Congress decides to get rid of Rushmore, so be it. I simply wont sign the petition. I will sign all the confederate ones though.
However, My expectation is that the sponsorship of the state won't diminish but rather transition.
I think we agree, My hand wringing is over the circumvention of processes and institutions. No doubt the counter arguement to that is my privilege affords me the luxury of respecting these institutions.
The majority of the "left" people at the protest were locals. The people on the right were out of staters with firearms. It was not an equal situation.
College kids probably, not really locals. The true locals probably had more than enough in their arsenals. This is Virginia, where the slogan is "Buy one gun a month, it's the law!".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-19-2017, 02:17
Lee thought slavery necessary and good, the white man's burden. He believed the highest expression of Negro existence was under condition of bondage and servitude to white masters.
Jefferson did not believe this. Also, he did not wage war against the country.
What is it with this bizarre deontologism that if one slaveholder can't be represented on state ground, none can be?
Why is it so difficult for some to tell the difference between founders and traitors?
Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.
Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.
There are mixed records on Lee's opinion. Jefferson's is pretty well documented to be as you represent. There is no confirmation that Jefferson himself fathered children among the slaves, though the genetic evidence DOES confirm that one or more of a small set of Jeffersons (possibly including TJ) did.
However, there are already calls [by Al Sharpton] for the removal of public support for the Jefferson memorial Source (http://freebeacon.com/politics/sharpton-jefferson-memorial-should-not-be-supported-by-public-funds/), as well as Washington's name and statue from a park in Chicago source (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/).
Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.
Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.
There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.
The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.
Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.
Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.
Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.
From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.
What? How would one arrive at such a conclusion? Do you mean that in the sense that he only heard crazy racist stories about how terrible they had it in Africa or something like that? Was he unable to ask them whether they preferred picking cotton over their lives in Africa?
It sounds incredibly naive even or especially for the time. You usually don't chain, supervise and threaten with death (for fleeing) people whose lives you just improved...then again slaves in the US weren't seen as people but property...
Montmorency
08-19-2017, 04:55
Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al.
No, it would not. That's fundamentally wrong deontology.
In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.
Also wrong. Secession is naturally extralegal or a-legal. It constitutes a repudiation of the existing legal and judicial apparatus. Secession cannot be either legal or illegal, regardless of what is or isn't in the books. It is entirely, in terms you understand, a matter of either coercion by the secessionist state(s) or acknowledgment by the parent state. Why should the Confederacy have been acknowledged?
There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.
As you have so commonly pointed out in threads on the Middle East, force of arms is sometimes the only recourse to resolve wrongs.
The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.
So, their failure to use force on the South after the war? Your legal argument would have to be that the Union violated the legal rights of the South in fighing them - but as there is no such thing as a right to secession, what rights would have been violated? The actions of the Confederacy brought the two sides into a state of war, which the Union then prosecuted to its conclusion.
Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics.
Keeping them up is, and always has been, an act of divisive modern politics. If Germany had erected statues to Hitler following WW2, you would oppose their removal on the grounds that to do so now would be divisive? Hell yes it had better be divisive, to draw out those who do not deserve a seat at the table. Their continued presence is a constant source of tension that must be resolved one way or another, and to not do so is neither reconciliatory or justifiable.
Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.
He supported the validity of the institution and its necessity with respect to black people existing in America. That he was not an avowed expansionist looking for Lebensraum does not do him very great credit here. EDIT: And after the war, Lee held as a tacit precondition for "reconciliation" that emancipated blacks not be given equal standing in society, which would poison their relationship with the White race. No more false reconciliation off the blacks thrown under the bus.
Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time.
That's would be the position of the Left. Their solution is to dismantle white supremacy and accord full citizenship to minorities. It does not mean that 'everyone was the same then'.
Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.
We return to the wrong deontology, and it's a really defective one. Lee should not be repudiated merely because he was a slaver, but because he was a traitor and fought to maintain slavery in America. That the Founding Fathers were themselves traitors does not place them on a level with Lee, as though all treason were equal. It is not.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-19-2017, 17:09
Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.
Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.
Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.
Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.
There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.
The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.
Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.
Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.
Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.
You are quite correct that our 'founders' were traitors. Removing the taint of treason can be accomplished in one of two ways (pardons do not removed the taint, only the penalty): victory or death. Say what you will of them, they all knew the stakes for which they were playing.
Nor do I decry Robert E. Lee and other confederates simply for their treason against the USA. I simply note that they were traitors. Some of them died trying to win their independence from the USA....the remainder failed in their attempt. Such a fate could have befallen our 'founders' as well -- it was a near run thing until Saratoga, and not certain even after that for some time.
While I find slavery abhorrent, it has been part of the human condition since at least the development of societies larger than a village. According to some of the more ardent feminists, it has been de facto condition of women for virtually all of human history. I don't think Lee's view on slavery was either atypical or motivated by any sense of harshness. He did not view blacks as his cultural equals -- and there were many among the abolitionists of the time who did NOT believe in equality. Lincoln himself was inclined toward resettling blacks back in Africa: free but far away.
Starting with the infamous 'Triangle Trade' and moving forward from there, it is impossible to separate the use of plantation slavery from the success of the US economy prior to the ACW. Nevertheless, England's abolition and the movement away from plantation slavery throughout the world during the 19th put increasing moral pressure on the use of slavery in the USA. There were some, like N.B. Forrest, who were very clearly ardent proponents and believed in its rightness. Yet, for all of that, the moral pressure at the time was such that many referred to "states rights" rather than squarely naming the precipitate cause.
Nevertheless, persiflage aside, the Articles of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession make it clear that THE state right which was prompting secession was slavery. To claim slavery immaterial is to deny a surprising volume of evidence.
That said, I think the Unionists were not on solid ground either. The effective position they took was that, once having joined the union, a state was irrevocably bound to the United States and could not under any circumstances [save violent rebellion] withdraw from that association. The Constitution then extant was, effectively, mute on the issue. However, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution suggest to me that Lincoln's interpretation was incorrect. He was, however, able to enforce it by push of bayonet.
I like your comment on the lionization and demonization of Lee at different points in our history. You touch on the key point -- BOTH attitudes are political theatre and not fully connected with fact as was.
Strike For The South
08-19-2017, 17:28
Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.
Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.
He never needed to get to the necessary or good part. The Social structure simply was, as ordained by the creator. He was part of the upper crust of a Southern society that dominated antebellum American politics.
Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.
And no doubt he would have been hung for his transgressions. The Union government was much more lenient than the British government would have ever been
Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.
At the very least article 4 section 3 of the constitution requires congressional consent for a state to leave. It can not be a unilateral decision. Along with the vicious Federal reaction to Shays, Whiskey, and nullification crisis, it becomes quite clear that the "secession" was legal argument is a flimsy pretext.
There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.
Theres really not. The entire antebellum period is replete with the use of federal troops to enforce the sovereignty and hierarchy of both the federal and state governments. The lack of an explicit law was really the only thing missing.
The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.
We disagree on the legality of secession so I would never get to this point. However, even if secession was legal, the choice to not allow the resupply of a federal installation is provocative. Firing upon that installation is certainly an at of war. There is nothing illegal about the Unions declaration.
Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.
Lee was not allowed to be lionized. Lee was lionzed to reassert dominance over a large portion of the Souths population. The rest of the country simply didn't care enough to step in. The deep south has only ever given an inch on civil rights at the point of federal firearms. Lee very much supported slavery, it was how his class was allowed to exist. He married into the Custis family for their land and "property"
Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.
It certainly is quite the quagmire but as we have touched upon here, the difference is obviously the rebellion. These statues are wholly tied with white domination. It has become quite clear the the love of "heritage" only comes at the expense of others. The majority of people who defend these things are only interested in hate. They want these reminders to stay up as a tacit reminder of who is in charge.
Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.
If taking down these monuments is the price to pay to move together as one people, it is a very small price to pay. If taking down these statues preserves our classically liberal republic, it is a very small price to pay. Digging ones heels in now could mean the loss of everything. Digging in now continues to neglect a large portion of the American citizenry, which is unacceptable.
Montmorency
08-19-2017, 17:50
You are quite correct that our 'founders' were traitors. Removing the taint of treason can be accomplished in one of two ways (pardons do not removed the taint, only the penalty): victory or death. Say what you will of them, they all knew the stakes for which they were playing.
Nor do I decry Robert E. Lee and other confederates simply for their treason against the USA. I simply note that they were traitors. Some of them died trying to win their independence from the USA....the remainder failed in their attempt. Such a fate could have befallen our 'founders' as well -- it was a near run thing until Saratoga, and not certain even after that for some time.
While I find slavery abhorrent, it has been part of the human condition since at least the development of societies larger than a village. According to some of the more ardent feminists, it has been de facto condition of women for virtually all of human history. I don't think Lee's view on slavery was either atypical or motivated by any sense of harshness. He did not view blacks as his cultural equals -- and there were many among the abolitionists of the time who did NOT believe in equality. Lincoln himself was inclined toward resettling blacks back in Africa: free but far away.
Starting with the infamous 'Triangle Trade' and moving forward from there, it is impossible to separate the use of plantation slavery from the success of the US economy prior to the ACW. Nevertheless, England's abolition and the movement away from plantation slavery throughout the world during the 19th put increasing moral pressure on the use of slavery in the USA. There were some, like N.B. Forrest, who were very clearly ardent proponents and believed in its rightness. Yet, for all of that, the moral pressure at the time was such that many referred to "states rights" rather than squarely naming the precipitate cause.
Nevertheless, persiflage aside, the Articles of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession make it clear that THE state right which was prompting secession was slavery. To claim slavery immaterial is to deny a surprising volume of evidence.
That said, I think the Unionists were not on solid ground either. The effective position they took was that, once having joined the union, a state was irrevocably bound to the United States and could not under any circumstances [save violent rebellion] withdraw from that association. The Constitution then extant was, effectively, mute on the issue. However, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution suggest to me that Lincoln's interpretation was incorrect. He was, however, able to enforce it by push of bayonet.
I like your comment on the lionization and demonization of Lee at different points in our history. You touch on the key point -- BOTH attitudes are political theatre and not fully connected with fact as was.
One thing that I will grant about Union legalism is that the formalization of West Virginia statehood prior to the conclusion of hostilities and re-establishment of authority was probably procedurally improper without the entire (territorially whole) state of Virginia being represented.
But the Constitution was deliberately broader and more resilient than the Articles of Confederation, so consider that there is something of a normative chasm between the two documents.
Montmorency
08-20-2017, 18:28
To close off the thread, from the Boston "Free Speech" rally and counter-rally yesterday, we learn that "weapons of any kind" (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/19/far-outnumbered-boston-free-speech-rally-ends-early.html) were banned, and backpacks (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/us/boston-free-speech-rally/index.html) were discouraged and subjected to on-the-spot searches.
This suggests that legislating blanket restrictions on weapons at public assemblies is no big issue legally or practically. For a serious look into the matter, the next step would be to investigate what the status of weapons has been in past assemblies over time.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-20-2017, 22:09
What? How would one arrive at such a conclusion? Do you mean that in the sense that he only heard crazy racist stories about how terrible they had it in Africa or something like that? Was he unable to ask them whether they preferred picking cotton over their lives in Africa?
It sounds incredibly naive even or especially for the time. You usually don't chain, supervise and threaten with death (for fleeing) people whose lives you just improved...then again slaves in the US weren't seen as people but property...
For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.
Matter of perspective.
For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.
Matter of perspective.
Well, if you think that they have souls that can be saved, how do you justify treating them like animals? Matter of cognitive dissonance?
For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.
Matter of perspective.
You are thinking three dimensionally. Maybe Lee just foresaw what was to happen in Africa over the next 40 years. ~;)
Montmorency
08-21-2017, 18:03
For one thing, those in the US were Christianised, and they were under Rule of Law and not subject to Africa's tribal warfare.
Matter of perspective.
BTW, one thing to point out is exactly that black people were not subject to rule of law, to the extent that the country as a whole or the general population were.
It would have been a matter of luck to receive even an acknowledgement of the theory of rule of law.
Finally, Trump supporter vs. detractor, or two brothers going in for the kiss? (Boston, this Saturday)
https://i.imgur.com/r1lSzQy.jpg
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-24-2017, 16:39
Well, if you think that they have souls that can be saved, how do you justify treating them like animals? Matter of cognitive dissonance?
Absolutely, profound Cognitive Dissonance.
I'm not in any way defending the argument, merely noting is could be made sincerely.
I'm not in any way defending the argument, merely noting is could be made sincerely.
Yes, but I wouldn't erect statues for people just because their terrible ideas were sincerely held by them. :dizzy2:
And if we're talking park beautification, I'd vote for more statues of women. ~;) If you can't find many of them among politicians, put up statues of scientists and other people who actually contribute great things to a country, mankind or society. The Greeks and Romans would probably have made the Hollywood walk of fame one where you walk by statues of the actors honored there.
Montmorency
08-24-2017, 23:22
The Greeks and Romans would probably have made the Hollywood walk of fame one where you walk by statues of the actors honored there.
Way ahead of you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Tussauds)
a completely inoffensive name
08-25-2017, 03:13
Way ahead of you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Tussauds)
Tacky
I don't think the wax figurines would last long in the rain and wind outside.
And being in a museum doesn't count as being praised in public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fEMygEiSdc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fEMygEiSdc
Never thought I would see one of my relatives on the Org. Their channel must be getting decent views, how did you find this?
Agent Miles
08-28-2017, 17:21
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360
"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."
Just as President Obama pardoned men who are now no longer criminals, so all Confederates were pardoned "unconditionally and without reservation" and were no longer traitors. After the Civil War, the widows, orphans and survivors of Confederate soldiers were allowed to decorate the graves of the fallen and yes, build statues to them. The statues do not honor traitors, because the men were pardoned.
About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.
So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers, not to honor traitors. I hate slavery in all of its forms and we all most certainly should. However, blind hatred makes us "useful idiots" to groups that are trying to create one-issue voters. In science, the saying goes that we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. This should apply to our history as well. On Grant's tomb are the words, "Let us have Peace".
Just as President Obama pardoned men who are now no longer criminals, so all Confederates were pardoned "unconditionally and without reservation" and were no longer traitors. After the Civil War, the widows, orphans and survivors of Confederate soldiers were allowed to decorate the graves of the fallen and yes, build statues to them. The statues do not honor traitors, because the men were pardoned.
As usual one might ask though: And what about their victims?
Obama mostly pardoned people who got really long sentences for owning a few grams of Marihuana AFAIK, that's a bit different from being a slave owner and being willing to kill others to be able to stay a slave owner.
Besides, your last sentence there is not necessarily correct. Someone does not stop being a traitor the moment they are pardoned, the pardoning means they are no longer prosecuted for their treason. If they were no traitors, they couldn't have been pardoned for treason in the first place.
Their being pardoned also doesn't mean the victims of their crimes have to just shut up and take it when their minions or families want to praise them for their crimes.
About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.
Except that this type of chattel slavery was pretty new and a particularly nasty form of slavery compared to the forms that had been around before:
http://www.discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people-involved/enslaved-people/enslaved-africans/africa-slavery/
Slavery existed in Africa, but it was not the same type of slavery that the Europeans introduced. The European form was called chattel slavery. A chattel slave is a piece of property, with no rights. Slavery within Africa was different. A slave might be enslaved in order to pay off a debt or pay for a crime. Slaves in Africa lost the protection of their family and their place in society through enslavement. But eventually they or their children might become part of their master’s family and become free. This was unlike chattel slavery, in which enslaved Africans were slaves for life, as were their children and grandchildren.
And the fact that others participated in it for profit does not make it better, it just adds to the depravity.
So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers
Cry me a river, by that logic we can also build statues for the men who hid children in their cellars as sex toys because their wives loved them, too. :dizzy2:
Montmorency
08-28-2017, 18:08
That's not how a pardon works. To accept a pardon is to accept the charges associated with it. The pardon serves only to forgive or commute the penalties levied in connection with the offense.
If someone is pardoned for murder, it most definitely means they are still a murderer.
About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.
What do you think it serves to list all these irrelevancies? Do you imagine it vindicates the Confederacy somehow? It does not.
So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers, not to honor traitors. I hate slavery in all of its forms and we all most certainly should. However, blind hatred makes us "useful idiots" to groups that are trying to create one-issue voters. In science, the saying goes that we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. This should apply to our history as well. On Grant's tomb are the words, "Let us have Peace".
Again, you're throwing together several irrelevant points that do not support any coherent argument; this is the hostile rhetoric of muddying the water.
Be careful if you don't want to be taken in bad faith.
Strike For The South
08-28-2017, 18:29
Forgiveness does not equal absolution.
Beyond that your argument is demonstrably false considering the declarations of secession. The former confederates were more than willing to let there be peace as long as their power structure was not altered.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-28-2017, 19:20
A pardon nullifies penalties exacted against a person, it does not nullify the occurrence of an event. If I murder someone, and Donald trump pardons me, I am no less a murderer. I will merely remain unpunished and legally untainted.
Agent Miles
08-28-2017, 19:58
"A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+pardon
"A president or governor may grant a full (unconditional) pardon or a conditional pardon. The granting of an unconditional pardon fully restores an individual's civil rights forfeited upon conviction of a crime and restores the person's innocence as though he or she had never committed a crime."
Legally, not morally.
Montmorency
08-28-2017, 20:20
"Unless the pardon expressly states that it is issued because of a determination that the recipient was innocent, a pardon does not imply innocence. It is merely a forgiveness of the offense. It is generally assumed that acceptance of a pardon is an implicit Acknowledgment of guilt, for one cannot be pardoned unless one has committed an offense."
Agent Miles
08-28-2017, 21:40
Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.
Nonetheless, the Confederate soldiers were no longer traitors. It's not a sign of moral superiority for someone to refer to the men Obama pardoned as criminal scum, because that would be slander. Of course, one can speak ill of the dead and not suffer judgement for slander.
This much is most certainly true. All of the voting age Confederates were Democrats. My Republican ancestors fought that war because the Democrats thought they owned African Americans, so they could lie to them, cheat them and tell them what to think. We're still working on that one.
Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.
Surely you want to be ignorant then because Montmorency quoted the part from your own link that proves you wrong? :dizzy2:
Agent Miles
08-28-2017, 22:05
Which does not refer to an unconditional Presidential pardon explained above that. That part comes under the conditional pardon.
If you bang a closed box on your head and perceive a hollow sound, it doesn't always mean that the box is empty.
Montmorency
08-28-2017, 22:05
Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.
Again, this is false.
See the source you linked and the DOJ website (https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions).
10. Effect of a pardon
While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction.
This much is most certainly true. All of the voting age Confederates were Democrats. My Republican ancestors fought that war because the Democrats thought they owned African Americans, so they could lie to them, cheat them and tell them what to think. We're still working on that one.
Perhaps we should erect statues in honor of the over 100,000 Southern patriots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist) who took up arms in resistance to the Treason of their State governments.
Agent Miles
08-28-2017, 22:13
Check Unconditional Presidential pardon. Your link is not about Johnson's proclamation. Also, the southerners who fought against the South were not Confederate soldiers, right? You can get that part without a second reading.
Montmorency
08-28-2017, 22:15
Check Unconditional Presidential pardon. Your link is not about Johnson's proclamation.
It is the very same. You have not understood what the presidential pardon actually is.
Agent Miles
08-28-2017, 22:26
One more time:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360
"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."
"unconditionally and without reservation"
"with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution"
That means without conditions. "All rights and privileges" would not mean that you're mostly still a traitor.
Montmorency
08-28-2017, 22:53
Conditions means on the part of the pardoner or the pardonee. It has nothing to do with the offense.
The President is empowered to pardon unconditionally.
The beneficiary may receive the benefits of the pardon unconditionally.
The beneficiary is still on record for the offense. There is no exoneration unless specified.
Here's an example you should be able to understand: Obama pardons someone for drug possession. This individual is still a felon on counts of drug possession.
While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction.
You have a wrong understanding of the English here.
Never thought I would see one of my relatives on the Org. Their channel must be getting decent views, how did you find this?
Initially via twitter. Seems to have gone very viral. drone
Agent Miles
08-29-2017, 01:33
Montmorency, you're posting from the regular presidential pardon discussion, like the one Obama issued. Read the proclamation from Johnson. There is no muddy water here.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-29-2017, 01:53
Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.
Nonetheless, the Confederate soldiers were no longer traitors. It's not a sign of moral superiority for someone to refer to the men Obama pardoned as criminal scum, because that would be slander. Of course, one can speak ill of the dead and not suffer judgement for slander.
This much is most certainly true. All of the voting age Confederates were Democrats. My Republican ancestors fought that war because the Democrats thought they owned African Americans, so they could lie to them, cheat them and tell them what to think. We're still working on that one.
Don't be snarky. That is EXACTLY what I meant when I said unpunished and free of legal taint. In all matters of law, etc. the pardoned is given a tablula rasa. That does NOT mean the event did not occur or that they were not responsible for it. Nixon was pardoned for his participation in an obstruction of justice (actually the pardon was even more broadly framed) and could not be brought before any court for any cause relating to that. He is still thought of and labeled a criminal by most.
Agent Miles
08-29-2017, 02:10
The Confederate soldiers were pardoned. You agree to that. Nothing else in your post matters. Some of the pardoned served in their state and local governments or actually became Congressmen. Not the usual treatment for traitors, or double secret traitors. History will not be rewritten to serve a political goal. Also, slandering the dead is about as snarky as it gets.
Confederate Statues were mass produced and crumple very easily. They are used as reactionary devices, nothing about honouring the dead in the slightest. They are propaganda pieces, not time honoured pieces. The fact they were quickly constructed 60 years or so after the end of the civil war puts the idea as honouring family members in the dust, as there have been at least couple of generations since that time. Spikes were during the Jim Crow laws period, foundation of the Klan (and 2nd Klan) and the 100 year anniversary (1960s Civil Rights Movement)... all periods of racial conflict.
The Confederate soldiers were pardoned. You agree to that. Nothing else in your post matters. Some of the pardoned served in their state and local governments or actually became Congressmen. Not the usual treatment for traitors, or double secret traitors. History will not be rewritten to serve a political goal. Also, slandering the dead is about as snarky as it gets.
You're apparently unable to differentiate between being legally guilty and being morally guilty in the eyes of your fellow humans.
A presidential pardon removes any guilt you may have had for which the legal system could prosecute you, it does not however say that you didn't commit a crime and it certainly does not force anyone to forget that you committed a crime. In fact it can only be given as your first link said, when you've committed a crime in the first place. If there was no crime then there cannot be a pardon. The very existence of a pardon depends on the existence of a crime that can be pardoned. To deny that is just silly. Surely the legal system and some of its extensions will pretend there was no crime after a pardon but that's about it.
See your quoted part: "with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution"
Notice the reference to the Constitution, which is a legal document? Exactly, it refers to a restoration of legal rights, it does not refer to an annullment of moral guilt. It does not say the crime never happened, it says the crime shall have no further legal consequences.
Montmorency
08-29-2017, 02:58
Montmorency, you're posting from the regular presidential pardon discussion, like the one Obama issued. Read the proclamation from Johnson. There is no muddy water here.
It's the same kind of pardon. The pardon you seem to be thinking of does not exist.
Pannonian
08-29-2017, 10:25
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360
"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."
Just as President Obama pardoned men who are now no longer criminals, so all Confederates were pardoned "unconditionally and without reservation" and were no longer traitors. After the Civil War, the widows, orphans and survivors of Confederate soldiers were allowed to decorate the graves of the fallen and yes, build statues to them. The statues do not honor traitors, because the men were pardoned.
About 20% of the Confederate Army owned slaves. However, some of the men who fought for the Union owned slaves, too. Over the previous centuries, African rulers sold prisoners of war, criminals and undesirables into slavery. Arab slavers sold them to Europeans who brought them to the Americas. The economy of much of the world was based on the slave trade.
So, statues were built for pardoned men out of love and respect from family and admirers, not to honor traitors. I hate slavery in all of its forms and we all most certainly should. However, blind hatred makes us "useful idiots" to groups that are trying to create one-issue voters. In science, the saying goes that we can see farther because we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. This should apply to our history as well. On Grant's tomb are the words, "Let us have Peace".
Shouldn't Stonewall Jackson's statues be taken down?
Agent Miles
08-29-2017, 12:59
Read the Proclamation. Unconditional pardon is not ambiguous. You are being intentionally misleading in some ridiculous effort to create an alternate fact. The men were pardoned. Some served as mayors and governors or even judges who understood what a pardon is. They were not mostly pardoned or only 99.9% pardoned. Read it.
The irrefutable moral argument, "You're still a traitor, because my mommy says you are!" will always be popular with pre-schoolers. I'll call the 90's so that you and Church Lady can do the superiority dance. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.
Who can say what people were thinking when they built a statue to a person that had been returned to innocense by a lawful Constitutional process? I don't believe that those who hated and despised the men built the statues, which leaves those who loved and admired them. I don't know why the Almighty did not smite the men down immediately after the armistice, but instead some of them actually lived for decades after, only to die in the last century...when the statues were then built.
Of course, Confederate soldiers owned slaves. Well at least there's an 80% chance that the statues were built for the non-slave owners. As I've already posted, some Union statues might be of slave owners. And even though it's an irrelevancy, statues all over the world may be to men who were involved in the slave trade. Good luck cleansing the world's history. That's the real shame. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. For centuries, learned people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the fact we now know that the opposite is true. For centuries, people thought that one race was superior to another. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the truth we now know. Our mitochondrial DNA proves that the ancestors of every human alive today came out of Africa. There's only one human race and we are all Africans. People a century ago could not actually know this. We know it because people in the last century proved it. That doesn't make someone guilty for being born in an age of ignorance. I'm not the least bit interested in the smug version of historical facts.
However, someone who still thinks the Earth is the center of the universe should be the focus of debate to reveal their stupid claim as ridiculous. That goes doubly for racial supremacists. Learn the actual truth and speak with absolute facts to those who use pompous lies to impress their friends.
Pannonian
08-29-2017, 16:14
Read the Proclamation. Unconditional pardon is not ambiguous. You are being intentionally misleading in some ridiculous effort to create an alternate fact. The men were pardoned. Some served as mayors and governors or even judges who understood what a pardon is. They were not mostly pardoned or only 99.9% pardoned. Read it.
The irrefutable moral argument, "You're still a traitor, because my mommy says you are!" will always be popular with pre-schoolers. I'll call the 90's so that you and Church Lady can do the superiority dance. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.
Who can say what people were thinking when they built a statue to a person that had been returned to innocense by a lawful Constitutional process? I don't believe that those who hated and despised the men built the statues, which leaves those who loved and admired them. I don't know why the Almighty did not smite the men down immediately after the armistice, but instead some of them actually lived for decades after, only to die in the last century...when the statues were then built.
Of course, Confederate soldiers owned slaves. Well at least there's an 80% chance that the statues were built for the non-slave owners. As I've already posted, some Union statues might be of slave owners. And even though it's an irrelevancy, statues all over the world may be to men who were involved in the slave trade. Good luck cleansing the world's history. That's the real shame. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. For centuries, learned people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the fact we now know that the opposite is true. For centuries, people thought that one race was superior to another. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the truth we now know. Our mitochondrial DNA proves that the ancestors of every human alive today came out of Africa. There's only one human race and we are all Africans. People a century ago could not actually know this. We know it because people in the last century proved it. That doesn't make someone guilty for being born in an age of ignorance. I'm not the least bit interested in the smug version of historical facts.
However, someone who still thinks the Earth is the center of the universe should be the focus of debate to reveal their stupid claim as ridiculous. That goes doubly for racial supremacists. Learn the actual truth and speak with absolute facts to those who use pompous lies to impress their friends.
Should Stonewall Jackson's statues be taken down?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-29-2017, 16:21
Read the Proclamation. Unconditional pardon is not ambiguous. You are being intentionally misleading in some ridiculous effort to create an alternate fact. The men were pardoned. Some served as mayors and governors or even judges who understood what a pardon is. They were not mostly pardoned or only 99.9% pardoned. Read it.
The irrefutable moral argument, "You're still a traitor, because my mommy says you are!" will always be popular with pre-schoolers. I'll call the 90's so that you and Church Lady can do the superiority dance. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.
Who can say what people were thinking when they built a statue to a person that had been returned to innocense by a lawful Constitutional process? I don't believe that those who hated and despised the men built the statues, which leaves those who loved and admired them. I don't know why the Almighty did not smite the men down immediately after the armistice, but instead some of them actually lived for decades after, only to die in the last century...when the statues were then built.
Of course, Confederate soldiers owned slaves. Well at least there's an 80% chance that the statues were built for the non-slave owners. As I've already posted, some Union statues might be of slave owners. And even though it's an irrelevancy, statues all over the world may be to men who were involved in the slave trade. Good luck cleansing the world's history. That's the real shame. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. For centuries, learned people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the fact we now know that the opposite is true. For centuries, people thought that one race was superior to another. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the truth we now know. Our mitochondrial DNA proves that the ancestors of every human alive today came out of Africa. There's only one human race and we are all Africans. People a century ago could not actually know this. We know it because people in the last century proved it. That doesn't make someone guilty for being born in an age of ignorance. I'm not the least bit interested in the smug version of historical facts.
However, someone who still thinks the Earth is the center of the universe should be the focus of debate to reveal their stupid claim as ridiculous. That goes doubly for racial supremacists. Learn the actual truth and speak with absolute facts to those who use pompous lies to impress their friends.
Concur with you completely. Genetic variability between any pair of random individuals shows greater variance than any difference in "race." Race is a medical irrelevance and race only matters as a social construct.
Racial supremacists are denying fact just as completely as those who assert that global warming does not exist. Happily, in the USA, they are entitled to their stupidity. Moreover, I find if helpful since someone who declares themselves an "Aryan First" type has signaled to me that their opinion on pretty much anything is likely to be useless and that I can therefore ignore them (save for obvious self protection issues).
My point has never been that a Presidential Pardon is incomplete or 'isn't really a pardon,' since the Constitution grants to the Presidency a broad and powerful power to pardon/grant clemency and the High Court has determined that this can, depending on the degree of pardon granted, function as anything up to a carte blanche.
My point is that it cannot make the offense to not have happened or change the agency of that offense. It can only alter the impact. Lee was a traitor; Lee was not simply shot at the conclusion of conflict; Lee was pardoned along with others by Johnson (who was impeached over his 'pro south' attitude); Lee could vote in federal elections, Lee could have served in office or gone back into military service. The pardon legally freed him from the status of traitor and restored his rights as a US citizen. It did not and could not, however, erase the fact of his treason between 1861 and 1865.
The President could pardon a child rapist. That child rapist would be viewed as having no legal impediment to their rights and would be free from judicial punishment or the requirement to be on a watch list etc. Is the child rapist any different as a person? Do her previous victims return to where they were before her crimes? Would you want this pardonee living in your neighborhood?
Yes, I am illustrating through absurdity here, but trying to clarify the distinction I am drawing.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-29-2017, 16:23
Shouldn't Stonewall Jackson's statues be taken down?
It is on the to-do list (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/stonewall_jackson_s_grandsons_the_monuments_must_go.html)with other confederate memoria.
Strike For The South
08-29-2017, 17:06
Read the Proclamation. Unconditional pardon is not ambiguous. You are being intentionally misleading in some ridiculous effort to create an alternate fact. The men were pardoned. Some served as mayors and governors or even judges who understood what a pardon is. They were not mostly pardoned or only 99.9% pardoned. Read it.
For the sake of argument, let's just give this to you.
The irrefutable moral argument, "You're still a traitor, because my mommy says you are!" will always be popular with pre-schoolers. I'll call the 90's so that you and Church Lady can do the superiority dance. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.
Except by definition, they are literally traitors. Now, the state may choose to not prosecute and restore their rights but they are traitors none the less. I am quite confident that even your wide net definition doesn't include erasure.
Who can say what people were thinking when they built a statue to a person that had been returned to innocense by a lawful Constitutional process? I don't believe that those who hated and despised the men built the statues, which leaves those who loved and admired them. I don't know why the Almighty did not smite the men down immediately after the armistice, but instead some of them actually lived for decades after, only to die in the last century...when the statues were then built.
One of the main beauties of the written word is we know, or can at least infer, what they were thinking. There are a few monuments that were set up by the daughters of the Confederacy which are straight forward memorials. There are a few which are naked displays of defiance against the federal government (The obelisk in New Orleans comes to mind). However,The lions share of the monuments were erected while the black populations of these states were trying to assert their rights as citizens. That is not a coincidence.
Isn't it odd how Mississippi, which had a majority Black American population until the 1940 census, only has statues of European Americans? Actually I take that back. There are probably a few Choctaw monuments around. The enemy you vanquish must always be powerful. These things are very much about ensuring a European power structure.
Of course, Confederate soldiers owned slaves. Well at least there's an 80% chance that the statues were built for the non-slave owners.
The distinction between slave owner/non-slave owner is irrelevant. These things feed a larger European power structure. That is the issue here. The war may have ended, but the confederacy didn't lose.
As I've already posted, some Union statues might be of slave owners. And even though it's an irrelevancy, statues all over the world may be to men who were involved in the slave trade. Good luck cleansing the world's history. That's the real shame. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. For centuries, learned people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the fact we now know that the opposite is true. For centuries, people thought that one race was superior to another. Fallacies with this and observation lead to the truth we now know. Our mitochondrial DNA proves that the ancestors of every human alive today came out of Africa. There's only one human race and we are all Africans. People a century ago could not actually know this. We know it because people in the last century proved it. That doesn't make someone guilty for being born in an age of ignorance. I'm not the least bit interested in the smug version of historical facts.
It is not that people thought differently yesterday. It is that people today are using yesterday to impose the same power structure. Also, our concept of races as we understand them is only a few centuries old.
However, someone who still thinks the Earth is the center of the universe should be the focus of debate to reveal their stupid claim as ridiculous. That goes doubly for racial supremacists. Learn the actual truth and speak with absolute facts to those who use pompous lies to impress their friends.
A fact is useless on its on.
Agent Miles
08-29-2017, 17:17
Seamus, like Monty, you're confusing a Presidential pardon of a criminal with the 179th Proclamation. The former is described at that DOJ site. The latter is a unique rendering that describes itself, step by step.
This part of the Constitution allows the President the power to pardon.
I, Johnson am the President.
I extend an unconditional pardon to all of these men.
Read the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Paraphrasing, it explains that traitors cannot become Congressmen. If I remember enough from Logic 101, that means this:
Congressmen cannot be traitors.
If pardoned Confederate soldiers are Congressmen,
Then pardoned Confederate soldiers cannot be traitors.
That pretty much means I nailed what the 179th Prsidential Proclamation did. If you read all of the 14th Amendment, you'll see that it also protects people from undo persecution. Liberals that cowardly malign the dead for personal gain are off the hook though, because obviously the dead cannot protect themselves in a court of law. I'm sure that Lenin would be proud of their efforts. However, statues aren't the enemy. Racists are.
I don't advise debating Nazis and white supremacists with liberal lies or half truths or opinions. I believe the actual truth works just fine.
Montmorency
08-29-2017, 17:42
Congressmen cannot be traitors.
If pardoned Confederate soldiers are Congressmen,
Then pardoned Confederate soldiers cannot be traitors.
But this is simply false. It means they are pardoned traitors. A pardoned traitor is still a traitor.
You are mistaken about the meanings of "pardon" and "unconditional". Until you overcome that, you have no hope of legitimate argument.
It is on the to-do list (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/stonewall_jackson_s_grandsons_the_monuments_must_go.html)with other confederate memoria.
I think the fact it is the relatives who are saying this, makes it very crucial and important, as it blows a massive hole into the excuses those with an alternative-tiki torch agenda and exposes them for who they really are.
For the sake of argument, let's just give this to you.
:laugh4:
I don't think anyone even argued against what he said there, he just repeated it claiming we were all wrong on it when we actually agreed on that point. :dizzy2:
Read the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Paraphrasing, it explains that traitors cannot become Congressmen. If I remember enough from Logic 101, that means this:
Congressmen cannot be traitors.
If pardoned Confederate soldiers are Congressmen,
Then pardoned Confederate soldiers cannot be traitors.
You're either wording this poorly or your logic is false. Either way you're still not making the distinction between the legal status and the "real", or as I earlier called it "moral" status.
Either way, about the logic:
If traitors cannot become congressmen it does not automatically follow that congressmen cannot be traitors, it only follows that traitors cannot be congressmen because that is the initial statement. A congressman can be a traitor if nobody knows about it (yet) but a known traitor cannot become a congressman. The way you worded it it sounds like a congressman could just give info about stealth tech to North Korea and then he couldn't be labelled a traitor. At least to me at first.
Wording aside, the pardoned Confederate is not a traitor anymore before the law, therefore he can become a congressman. Everybody still remembers that he performed actions that made him a traitor though, so in the eyes of the people he can still be a traitor. An unconditional presidential pardon is not thought control and not a memory wipe, it just means the person cannot be held responsible for a crime before the law.
Society in general doesn't just consists of lawyers and judges though and there are other rules in a society next to the rule of law. You also don't poop on the carpet in your friend's house just because that may be legal. Would you deny him the right to call you a bad friend then even if a judge does not legally label you a bad friend in court?
Montmorency
08-29-2017, 19:34
Setting aside history or the topic of the thread, observing someone like Agent Miles is psychologically and philosophically alarming.
He's arguing something detached from law or legality, essentially a bizarre special pleading against ontological status.
Or is it not special pleading in that he really adopts a totally different ontology, one in which being fired from your job means you never worked that job or in which lost virginity can be 'done over'?
Is it just a linguistic quirk? Insanity? It recalls fundamental problems of human relations...
He's arguing something detached from law or legality, essentially a bizarre special pleading against ontological status.
:wall:
That's what I was looking for when I said moral status, yes.
I'm a good example for not learning/remembering the proper terminology I guess. :sweatdrop:
Agent Miles
08-30-2017, 15:48
Ouch!
How does that saying go, "If you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger."
Fortunately for me, I'm told that saying is in the Loser's Handbook for Intellectual Cowardice.
So most of us now get the part about the legal pardon actually working as advertised. At least "for the sake of argument". The 14th Amendment proves the legal status of Confederates allowed them to serve as Congressmen, while actual traitors could not. So legally, a Confederate could only honestly be called a traitor from 1861 to 1868. (They were paroled from 1865 until the pardon, but "for the sake of argument".) Then, continuing use of this term would violate the restored rights and immunities they possessed under the 14th Amendment. They couldn't even be forced to sew a scarlet "T" on their clothes. Imagine liberals violating the civil rights of tens of thousands of people.
Now the deeper moral argument, "Once a traitor, always a traitor!", doesn't really seem moral to me. If the LGBTQ community builds statues to Chelsea Manning, can I tear them all down? Would Manning's statues get a pass because of the famous Liberal Total Hypocracy rule? It's a hypothetical question, because no decent human being would ever actually perform such a despicable, pathetic act. So the moral outrage only seems directed at these statues. The moral arguments I grew up with usually ended with "Live and let live" or "Forgive and forget" but not with "I'm going to get you even if it takes 150 years!". That sounds like vengeance. I don't see moral justice in talking ill of the dead. Undue persecution of the dead who cannot defend themselves also seems devoid of moral justice. In fact, blind hatred of tens of thousands of people that none of you could possibly have ever really known isn't moral, it's just bigotry.
Confederate soldiers became U.S. citizens again and got all the protections awarded our nation's citizens. None of them are traitors. Calling them such violates their rights under the Constitution, although the dead cannot sue you. That's how all those people get away with lying on TV. A supposed moral issue isn't an exception to this.
We as a nation didn't just pardon the Confederates, we forgave them. Two percent of the population had died in the war. Families had been torn apart and ripped to pieces. We didn't want to fight anymore. The nation wanted to heal and move on. Few knew the horror of that war better than U.S. Grant. He speaks to us from his tomb and the four words he chose to say for the rest of eternity are, "LET US HAVE PEACE".
Pannonian
08-30-2017, 15:50
Ouch!
How does that saying go, "If you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger."
Fortunately for me, I'm told that saying is in the Loser's Handbook for Intellectual Cowardice.
So most of us now get the part about the legal pardon actually working as advertised. At least "for the sake of argument". The 14th Amendment proves the legal status of Confederates allowed them to serve as Congressmen, while actual traitors could not. So legally, a Confederate could only honestly be called a traitor from 1861 to 1868. (They were paroled from 1865 until the pardon, but "for the sake of argument".) Then, continuing use of this term would violate the restored rights and immunities they possessed under the 14th Amendment. They couldn't even be forced to sew a scarlet "T" on their clothes. Imagine liberals violating the civil rights of tens of thousands of people.
Now the deeper moral argument, "Once a traitor, always a traitor!", doesn't really seem moral to me. If the LGBTQ community builds statues to Chelsea Manning, can I tear them all down? Would Manning's statues get a pass because of the famous Liberal Total Hypocracy rule? It's a hypothetical question, because no decent human being would ever actually perform such a despicable, pathetic act. So the moral outrage only seems directed at these statues. The moral arguments I grew up with usually ended with "Live and let live" or "Forgive and forget" but not with "I'm going to get you even if it takes 150 years!". That sounds like vengeance. I don't see moral justice in talking ill of the dead. Undue persecution of the dead who cannot defend themselves also seems devoid of moral justice. In fact, blind hatred of tens of thousands of people that none of you could possibly have ever really known isn't moral, it's just bigotry.
Confederate soldiers became U.S. citizens again and got all the protections awarded our nation's citizens. None of them are traitors. Calling them such violates their rights under the Constitution, although the dead cannot sue you. That's how all those people get away with lying on TV. A supposed moral issue isn't an exception to this.
We as a nation didn't just pardon the Confederates, we forgave them. Two percent of the population had died in the war. Families had been torn apart and ripped to pieces. We didn't want to fight anymore. The nation wanted to heal and move on. Few knew the horror of that war better than U.S. Grant. He speaks to us from his tomb and the four words he chose to say for the rest of eternity are, "LET US HAVE PEACE".
But should Stonewall Jackson's statues be taken down?
Agent Miles
08-30-2017, 16:15
Of course not. Do you want to burn books about him next? Every Confederate statue reminds me that when Republicans stand united, we can defeat any Democrat, even Jackson or Lee.
Pannonian
08-30-2017, 16:22
Of course not. Do you want to burn books about him next? Every Confederate statue reminds me that when Republicans stand united, we can defeat any Democrat, even Jackson or Lee.
You talked about respecting the families of the Confederates. Jackson's family want his statues taken down. Should their wishes be respected, or should your political stance be respected?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-30-2017, 16:26
...Confederate soldiers became U.S. citizens again and got all the protections awarded our nation's citizens. None of them are traitors. Calling them such violates their rights under the Constitution, ....
As a amateur student of the Constitution, I will note that no such rights exist in the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about what one private citizen can rightfully say to another. That would be up to state laws regarding slander. It would be an interesting point of law to test if a duly issued Presidential pardon justified a pardoned ex-traitor lodging a slander suit against someone who called him a "traitor" publicly. Most states hold that it is NOT slander if the statement is substantially true, however insulting. Somebody could call me "fatty" in public and I could not sue for slander, even if every person present thought the person insulting me to be rude and asinine.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-30-2017, 16:29
You talked about respecting the families of the Confederates. Jackson's family want his statues taken down. Should their wishes be respected, or should your political stance be respected?
Jackson was/is a public figure and as such his relatives/descendants do not have a final say in such things. They are but one more set of voices in the argument, though their ancestry may add a certain poignancy.
Montmorency
08-30-2017, 16:47
Ouch!
How does that saying go, "If you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger."
Fortunately for me, I'm told that saying is in the Loser's Handbook for Intellectual Cowardice.
So most of us now get the part about the legal pardon actually working as advertised. At least "for the sake of argument". The 14th Amendment proves the legal status of Confederates allowed them to serve as Congressmen, while actual traitors could not. So legally, a Confederate could only honestly be called a traitor from 1861 to 1868. (They were paroled from 1865 until the pardon, but "for the sake of argument".) Then, continuing use of this term would violate the restored rights and immunities they possessed under the 14th Amendment. They couldn't even be forced to sew a scarlet "T" on their clothes. Imagine liberals violating the civil rights of tens of thousands of people.
Now the deeper moral argument, "Once a traitor, always a traitor!", doesn't really seem moral to me. If the LGBTQ community builds statues to Chelsea Manning, can I tear them all down? Would Manning's statues get a pass because of the famous Liberal Total Hypocracy rule? It's a hypothetical question, because no decent human being would ever actually perform such a despicable, pathetic act. So the moral outrage only seems directed at these statues. The moral arguments I grew up with usually ended with "Live and let live" or "Forgive and forget" but not with "I'm going to get you even if it takes 150 years!". That sounds like vengeance. I don't see moral justice in talking ill of the dead. Undue persecution of the dead who cannot defend themselves also seems devoid of moral justice. In fact, blind hatred of tens of thousands of people that none of you could possibly have ever really known isn't moral, it's just bigotry.
Confederate soldiers became U.S. citizens again and got all the protections awarded our nation's citizens. None of them are traitors. Calling them such violates their rights under the Constitution, although the dead cannot sue you. That's how all those people get away with lying on TV. A supposed moral issue isn't an exception to this.
We as a nation didn't just pardon the Confederates, we forgave them. Two percent of the population had died in the war. Families had been torn apart and ripped to pieces. We didn't want to fight anymore. The nation wanted to heal and move on. Few knew the horror of that war better than U.S. Grant. He speaks to us from his tomb and the four words he chose to say for the rest of eternity are, "LET US HAVE PEACE".
Neo-Confederate lies exist today and come from living people such as yourself. The wrongs perpetrated by the Confederacy were perpetuated by a vicious 150-year insurgency. All these exist today and need to be opposed and corrected.
We will only have peace once Neo-Confederates accept it in their minds.
Ouch!
How does that saying go, "If you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger."
Fortunately for me, I'm told that saying is in the Loser's Handbook for Intellectual Cowardice.
Obviously, many or all of you were ignorant of the Presidential pardon. Some of you were still ignorant that an unconditional Presidential pardon does indeed return the pardoned to innocense. That leaves those who still just desire to be ignorant.
Read the Proclamation. Unconditional pardon is not ambiguous. You are being intentionally misleading in some ridiculous effort to create an alternate fact.
You are obviously ignorant on purpose.
So most of us now get the part about the legal pardon actually working as advertised.
I don't need the approval of the clueless.
At least "for the sake of argument". The 14th Amendment proves the legal status of Confederates allowed them to serve as Congressmen, while actual traitors could not. So legally, a Confederate could only honestly be called a traitor from 1861 to 1868. (They were paroled from 1865 until the pardon, but "for the sake of argument".) Then, continuing use of this term would violate the restored rights and immunities they possessed under the 14th Amendment. They couldn't even be forced to sew a scarlet "T" on their clothes. Imagine liberals violating the civil rights of tens of thousands of people.
Now the deeper moral argument, "Once a traitor, always a traitor!", doesn't really seem moral to me. If the LGBTQ community builds statues to Chelsea Manning, can I tear them all down? Would Manning's statues get a pass because of the famous Liberal Total Hypocracy rule? It's a hypothetical question, because no decent human being would ever actually perform such a despicable, pathetic act. So the moral outrage only seems directed at these statues. The moral arguments I grew up with usually ended with "Live and let live" or "Forgive and forget" but not with "I'm going to get you even if it takes 150 years!". That sounds like vengeance. I don't see moral justice in talking ill of the dead. Undue persecution of the dead who cannot defend themselves also seems devoid of moral justice. In fact, blind hatred of tens of thousands of people that none of you could possibly have ever really known isn't moral, it's just bigotry.
You still don't get it, Chelsea Manning is a hero.
Confederate soldiers became U.S. citizens again and got all the protections awarded our nation's citizens. None of them are traitors. Calling them such violates their rights under the Constitution, although the dead cannot sue you. That's how all those people get away with lying on TV. A supposed moral issue isn't an exception to this.
You still don't get it, they betryed their country, that makes them traitors. You cannot undo the past. The only one who talked about hatred here regarding these traitors are you. They can be traitors, forgiven and still not worthy of a statue all at the same time. That you can't wrap your head around this fact is your own problem.
We as a nation didn't just pardon the Confederates, we forgave them. Two percent of the population had died in the war. Families had been torn apart and ripped to pieces. We didn't want to fight anymore. The nation wanted to heal and move on. Few knew the horror of that war better than U.S. Grant. He speaks to us from his tomb and the four words he chose to say for the rest of eternity are, "LET US HAVE PEACE".
Yes, listen to Grant, support the OWG!
19783
Agent Miles
08-30-2017, 17:20
Pan, you sure got me there. What Seamus posted.
Seamus, I already posted about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution awarding protection from undue persecution. It is unlawful to defame a living person. Spreading a lie about a dead person has never resulted in a successful prosecution of the liar.
Monty your posts have missed the mark every time. I post the Presidentiasl Proclamation and you denied that it is a pardon. I present an explanation of the unconditional pardon and you post an excerpt from the conditional pardon explanantion. You give another explanation from a DOJ description of a President pardoning a criminal, which doesn't apply to the Proclamation. Finally you just contend that I don't know English or that a traitor is always a traitor. Now I'm a "Neo-Confederate". I was a soldier in the U.S. Army sworn to uphold the Constitution with my life for 21 years. That document protects all the citizens to include pardoned Confederates and even total lying POS. Try presenting evidence for what you claim. That's how honest discussions are done.
Husar, fine. I'm an ignorant, clueless hater in your mind. All of you now know that the soldiers were pardoned and protected from persecution just like the other citizens. You can't be sued for defaming the dead. It's just pathetic and discusting.
Now if you'll excuse me, I mistakenly thought I was speaking to the grown-ups.
Kralizec
08-30-2017, 17:55
Relevant link:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-pardon-of-jefferson-davis-and-the-14th-amendment
(about Jefferson Davis)
He was charged with treason after the Civil War, and his defense team claimed that the 14th Amendment already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
With a deadlock in district court, the Davis case would head automatically to the Supreme Court. But President Andrew Johnson issued a general pardon on Christmas Day in December 1868 for all those who fought for the Confederacy, provided that anyone eligible applied for one.
It was actually Johnson's fourth amnesty provision for Confederates, and it restored civil and property rights and provided immunity from treason charges. But it didn't allow former Confederate officials to vote or hold office. In 1872, the Amnesty Act was amended to allow almost all former Confederates, expect for several hundred former high-ranking officials (such as Davis), to hold public office and vote. So while Davis became eligible for a general pardon, he didn’t have full citizenship rights if he wanted to hold elected federal office.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-30-2017, 18:13
...Seamus, I already posted about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution awarding protection from undue persecution. It is unlawful to defame a living person. Spreading a lie about a dead person has never resulted in a successful prosecution of the liar....
True of course. I was just musing that it would be a lovely test case that would address the concept you and I have been batting about. I think the sweeping nature of the Presidential Pardon would, indeed, render such a suit actionable on grounds of slander despite the truthful nature of the defamatory utterance. I'm not fully versed in the law, though, so I admit I might be incorrect.
Husar, fine. I'm an ignorant, clueless hater in your mind. All of you now know that the soldiers were pardoned and protected from persecution just like the other citizens. You can't be sued for defaming the dead. It's just pathetic and discusting.
I didn't call you a hater, it's almost as though you're unable to read or comprehend what I write. The whole defaming thing completely misses the point. You would apparently force your daughter to go out with her rapist if he got pardoned (let's assume the governor or president were his friend) because if she refused on the grounds that he's a rapist she'd be defaming this now blameless man, right? Even better, he should sue your daughter and he'd have the constitution on his side! :rolleyes:
Now if you'll excuse me, I mistakenly thought I was speaking to the grown-ups.
If you want grown up responses, respond with a logical argument and not something like this:
The irrefutable moral argument, "You're still a traitor, because my mommy says you are!" will always be popular with pre-schoolers. I'll call the 90's so that you and Church Lady can do the superiority dance. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.
There's no logical argument to be found in there, but plenty of personal attacks, and here you are crying about how mean everybody else is to you...
Montmorency
08-30-2017, 18:51
Monty your posts have missed the mark every time. I post the Presidentiasl Proclamation and you denied that it is a pardon. I present an explanation of the unconditional pardon and you post an excerpt from the conditional pardon explanantion. You give another explanation from a DOJ description of a President pardoning a criminal, which doesn't apply to the Proclamation. Finally you just contend that I don't know English or that a traitor is always a traitor. Now I'm a "Neo-Confederate". I was a soldier in the U.S. Army sworn to uphold the Constitution with my life for 21 years. That document protects all the citizens to include pardoned Confederates and even total lying POS. Try presenting evidence for what you claim. That's how honest discussions are done.
I explained to you have misunderstood every point, that President Johnson's general pardons did not do what you think they did because no pardon can accomplish it. A pardoned criminal is still a criminal, and this can never be altered. Why do you believe something applies to the case of Confederate pardons that does not and cannot apply anywhere else?
Your basic claim is that Confederates are no longer traitors because a pardon removed this status. Your claim is false, because the pardon did not remove this status.
Sarmatian
08-30-2017, 21:16
All it does is remove legal consequences of the crime. It doesn't erase the crime. A murdered person doesn't rise from the grave when the murderer is pardoned.
a completely inoffensive name
08-31-2017, 01:13
How does that saying go, "If you don't like the message, then shoot the messenger."
Fortunately for me, I'm told that saying is in the Loser's Handbook for Intellectual Cowardice.
And somehow the right calls liberals smug, holy ****.
a completely inoffensive name
08-31-2017, 01:16
Neo-Confederate lies exist today and come from living people such as yourself. The wrongs perpetrated by the Confederacy were perpetuated by a vicious 150-year insurgency. All these exist today and need to be opposed and corrected.
We will only have peace once Neo-Confederates accept it in their minds.
We didn't do it right the first time the Confederates popped up, now the only course is wait for the neo-confederates to feel confident enough to play their hand and finish the job.
My question is, who will be this era's John Brown?
a completely inoffensive name
08-31-2017, 01:22
Pan, you sure got me there. What Seamus posted.
Seamus, I already posted about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution awarding protection from undue persecution. It is unlawful to defame a living person. Spreading a lie about a dead person has never resulted in a successful prosecution of the liar.
Monty your posts have missed the mark every time. I post the Presidentiasl Proclamation and you denied that it is a pardon. I present an explanation of the unconditional pardon and you post an excerpt from the conditional pardon explanantion. You give another explanation from a DOJ description of a President pardoning a criminal, which doesn't apply to the Proclamation. Finally you just contend that I don't know English or that a traitor is always a traitor. Now I'm a "Neo-Confederate". I was a soldier in the U.S. Army sworn to uphold the Constitution with my life for 21 years. That document protects all the citizens to include pardoned Confederates and even total lying POS. Try presenting evidence for what you claim. That's how honest discussions are done.
Husar, fine. I'm an ignorant, clueless hater in your mind. All of you now know that the soldiers were pardoned and protected from persecution just like the other citizens. You can't be sued for defaming the dead. It's just pathetic and discusting.
Now if you'll excuse me, I mistakenly thought I was speaking to the grown-ups.
By the way Agent Miles, I did not read any of the walls of text you have posted out of fear that somehow one your mistaken ideas will crawl into my head and lay eggs.
Also because the Federal Department of Justice disagrees with you after a 30 second google search.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions
10. Effect of a pardonWhile a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, you may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of your residence regarding the procedures for restoring your state civil rights.
All a pardon does is state that you will not be punished for the crime you are convicted of. It does not remove the conviction.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-31-2017, 16:01
And somehow the right calls liberals smug, holy ****.
They do. Doesn't mean their isn't a pot/kettle thing going on
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.