If you buy a slave and then have them work off the purchase price and then set them free ... are you really a slave master? History could still correctly regard you as a slave owner for doing so ... but are the negative connotations that come with that appropriate for Stonewall? Not from what I've seen and read.
[/quote]

Paying off your servitude is no different than what White people who signed up to come to the US and working for a certain time to pay off their trip is like what this guy did. He just wanted his money back and it's a fair deal.

If you hire a landscaper he'll do the work because he knows he'll get paid. Isn't buying a slave and then allowing him to pay off what the buyer paid with his sweat the same thing.

(07-06-2020 01:35 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Paying off your servitude is no different than what White people who signed up to come to the US and working for a certain time to pay off their trip is like what this guy did. He just wanted his money back and it's a fair deal.

If you hire a landscaper he'll do the work because he knows he'll get paid. Isn't buying a slave and then allowing him to pay off what the buyer paid with his sweat the same thing.

The indentured servitude parallel you drew is more applicable to what Johnson did than your second commercial transaction. The latter is a agreement between two parties for a specific service with agreed upon limitations. Those factors are complicated for indentured slaves and servants IMO.

(07-06-2020 12:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:25 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  (Lee's) view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces.

That doesn't square with the oath he took upon commissioning in 1829:

I, Robert Edward Lee, appointed a lieutenant in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

The bolded segments don't have an asterisk; there is no exception for loyalty to a state above the nation. Lee's post-facto rationalization is irrelevant. Winning battles (while losing the war) and behaving in a courtly manner does not obviate this basic truth: Lee was an oathbreaker and a traitor by definition, a man without honor.

Look, oaths are hard. They're supposed to be hard. If you can't abide by their terms, then don't raise your hand and swear to them.

The justification was that the United States had exceeded it's authority by violating state sovereignty, thus invalidating the Constitution. Keep in mind, Virginia was one of the last states to join the CSA and only did so after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

That's a stretch that even Roger Taney didn't attempt: the Supreme Court, the only body capable of sch a statement, never made it. Lee was never released from his oath.

That he broke his oath after the traitors opened fire on United States forces doesn't mitigate the act; if anything it makes it worse. He joined what was already an armed rebellion.

Going by Confederate legal standards, George Pickett ordered the hanging of North Carolina boys in New Bern because they had enrolled in Union service and therefore were traitors to North Carolina. These were not commissioned officers who broke an oath. By their own standards, the Confederate generals earned hanging (except Jackson, who, had he survived, had earned commitment to a lunatic asylum along with several barrels of lemons, for Americans are a generous people).

(07-06-2020 01:51 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:25 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  (Lee's) view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces.

That doesn't square with the oath he took upon commissioning in 1829:

I, Robert Edward Lee, appointed a lieutenant in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

The bolded segments don't have an asterisk; there is no exception for loyalty to a state above the nation. Lee's post-facto rationalization is irrelevant. Winning battles (while losing the war) and behaving in a courtly manner does not obviate this basic truth: Lee was an oathbreaker and a traitor by definition, a man without honor.

Look, oaths are hard. They're supposed to be hard. If you can't abide by their terms, then don't raise your hand and swear to them.

The justification was that the United States had exceeded it's authority by violating state sovereignty, thus invalidating the Constitution. Keep in mind, Virginia was one of the last states to join the CSA and only did so after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

That's a stretch that even Roger Taney didn't attempt: the Supreme Court, the only body capable of sch a statement, never made it. Lee was never released from his oath.

That he broke his oath after the traitors opened fire on United States forces doesn't mitigate the act; if anything it makes it worse. He joined what was already an armed rebellion.

Going by Confederate legal standards, George Pickett ordered the hanging of North Carolina boys in New Bern because they had enrolled in Union service and therefore were traitors to North Carolina. These were not commissioned officers who broke an oath. By their own standards, the Confederate generals earned hanging (except Jackson, who, had he survived, had earned commitment to a lunatic asylum along with several barrels of lemons, for Americans are a generous people).

I agree with you that it is a stretch. But I really don’t see any other thought process that would allow Generals like Lee and others to justify their defection to the CSA. And you stated, states might have been more important to the masses, but many of these military men swore an oath the the nation.

(07-06-2020 01:51 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:25 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  (Lee's) view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces.

That doesn't square with the oath he took upon commissioning in 1829:

I, Robert Edward Lee, appointed a lieutenant in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

The bolded segments don't have an asterisk; there is no exception for loyalty to a state above the nation. Lee's post-facto rationalization is irrelevant. Winning battles (while losing the war) and behaving in a courtly manner does not obviate this basic truth: Lee was an oathbreaker and a traitor by definition, a man without honor.

Look, oaths are hard. They're supposed to be hard. If you can't abide by their terms, then don't raise your hand and swear to them.

The justification was that the United States had exceeded it's authority by violating state sovereignty, thus invalidating the Constitution. Keep in mind, Virginia was one of the last states to join the CSA and only did so after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

That's a stretch that even Roger Taney didn't attempt: the Supreme Court, the only body capable of sch a statement, never made it. Lee was never released from his oath.

That he broke his oath after the traitors opened fire on United States forces doesn't mitigate the act; if anything it makes it worse. He joined what was already an armed rebellion.

Going by Confederate legal standards, George Pickett ordered the hanging of North Carolina boys in New Bern because they had enrolled in Union service and therefore were traitors to North Carolina. These were not commissioned officers who broke an oath. By their own standards, the Confederate generals earned hanging (except Jackson, who, had he survived, had earned commitment to a lunatic asylum along with several barrels of lemons, for Americans are a generous people).

And yet the Confederate soldiers were pardoned. Maybe you should worry about the war zone you currently live in and quit crying about things that happened then. No confederate soldiers killed those kids in Hoover.

(07-06-2020 12:31 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 11:32 AM)king king Wrote:  I just read the Cornerstone Speech given by Confederate VP Alexander H. Stephens wherein he makes very clear that the cornerstone upon which the Confederacy built their constitution is firmly made up of the institution of slavery. In his words, and I'm paraphrasing here, the founders of the US thought slavery was an evil and that slavery itself was in violation of the laws of nature. They knew not how to deal with that evil but created a system whereby it could eventually be dealt with. He goes on to say the following:

"They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

This speech was given three weeks before the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter that started the Civil War. Lee, and the rest of the generals that supposedly chose their states over their country, knew full well what they were choosing to side with and what it was being built mainly on and fought mainly for.

There are contemporaneous accounts of Lee being very hard on his own slaves and on those that he inherited upon the death of his father-in-law. His own writings reflect a convenient "God will sort it all out in His own time" kind of diffidence to the question of slavery, despite his acknowledgement that it was a necessary evil. He seemed rather to look upon slavery as more trouble than it was worth due to having to deal with the day to day administration of it, with no commentary on why it was in fact bad for enslaved black people.

Despite numerous accounts of Stonewall Jackson having been more kind toward his slaves, he was still a slave owner and fought on the side of the confederacy FOR white supremacy (see the constitutional cornerstone speech from above). In fact, for a contemporary reference, his own sister, Laura Jackson Arnold, with whom he was very close throughout childhood, never spoke to him again after he chose to fight for the Confederacy. Such was her disdain that upon learning of his death she was quoted by a convalescing Union solider in a letter home that when she "heard of her brother’s death, she seemed much depressed, but said she would rather know that he was dead than to have him a leader in the rebel army.”

These men knew what they were fighting for. And it wasn't to preserve States' Rights.

Here’s another view. I don’t know anything about the author, but it is worth a read.

“Everything you know about the Civil War is wrong”

https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everythi...94f0118269

I read that last week and it's an interesting perspective, correct or not.

(07-06-2020 02:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 01:51 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:25 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  (Lee's) view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces.

That doesn't square with the oath he took upon commissioning in 1829:

I, Robert Edward Lee, appointed a lieutenant in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

The bolded segments don't have an asterisk; there is no exception for loyalty to a state above the nation. Lee's post-facto rationalization is irrelevant. Winning battles (while losing the war) and behaving in a courtly manner does not obviate this basic truth: Lee was an oathbreaker and a traitor by definition, a man without honor.

Look, oaths are hard. They're supposed to be hard. If you can't abide by their terms, then don't raise your hand and swear to them.

The justification was that the United States had exceeded it's authority by violating state sovereignty, thus invalidating the Constitution. Keep in mind, Virginia was one of the last states to join the CSA and only did so after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

That's a stretch that even Roger Taney didn't attempt: the Supreme Court, the only body capable of sch a statement, never made it. Lee was never released from his oath.

That he broke his oath after the traitors opened fire on United States forces doesn't mitigate the act; if anything it makes it worse. He joined what was already an armed rebellion.

Going by Confederate legal standards, George Pickett ordered the hanging of North Carolina boys in New Bern because they had enrolled in Union service and therefore were traitors to North Carolina. These were not commissioned officers who broke an oath. By their own standards, the Confederate generals earned hanging (except Jackson, who, had he survived, had earned commitment to a lunatic asylum along with several barrels of lemons, for Americans are a generous people).

And yet the Confederate soldiers were pardoned. Maybe you should worry about the war zone you currently live in and quit crying about things that happened then. No confederate soldiers killed those kids in Hoover.

Absolutely, anything else is spilled milk.

(07-06-2020 11:58 AM)king king Wrote:  Why have him work it off? Why not just free him? It wasn't without precedent as if Jackson didn't know this was something people did. Again, he chose to fight for the side that he knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, was fighting for the institution of slavery to remain.

I realize we are debating the actions of people whose minds we really cant comprehend since we are doing so from the vantage point of a more enlightened time. However, the notion that they were benevolent or kind in their slave ownership is somewhat skewed by inaccurate portrayals of them. Yes, Jackson was memorialized in a stained glass picture of him in an African Methodist church. Yes, he started a Sunday school for slaves and taught them to read and write. Yes, he also presided over the killing of other men who were resisting the notion of slavery. One could say he killed in the name of perpetuating slavery. It's a very blurry lens we have to view these men under to be sure, but those are undoubtedly facts no matter the time or the character of the man. And unfortunately for his legacy, it places him firmly on the wrong side of history.

It's not like the slaves were sold for nothing. The amount of wealth you would have to have to be able to just summarily buy and free all the slaves might be beyond anybody's possession on the continent in that era. Only the government has a purse that big. And, btw, that's exactly what the British did. They bought out all the slaves then made slavery illegal. Given that we had 1,700,000 casualities ... perhaps bribery was the smart choice.

(07-06-2020 02:17 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 01:51 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:25 PM)58-56 Wrote:  That doesn't square with the oath he took upon commissioning in 1829:

I, Robert Edward Lee, appointed a lieutenant in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

The bolded segments don't have an asterisk; there is no exception for loyalty to a state above the nation. Lee's post-facto rationalization is irrelevant. Winning battles (while losing the war) and behaving in a courtly manner does not obviate this basic truth: Lee was an oathbreaker and a traitor by definition, a man without honor.

Look, oaths are hard. They're supposed to be hard. If you can't abide by their terms, then don't raise your hand and swear to them.

The justification was that the United States had exceeded it's authority by violating state sovereignty, thus invalidating the Constitution. Keep in mind, Virginia was one of the last states to join the CSA and only did so after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

That's a stretch that even Roger Taney didn't attempt: the Supreme Court, the only body capable of sch a statement, never made it. Lee was never released from his oath.

That he broke his oath after the traitors opened fire on United States forces doesn't mitigate the act; if anything it makes it worse. He joined what was already an armed rebellion.

Going by Confederate legal standards, George Pickett ordered the hanging of North Carolina boys in New Bern because they had enrolled in Union service and therefore were traitors to North Carolina. These were not commissioned officers who broke an oath. By their own standards, the Confederate generals earned hanging (except Jackson, who, had he survived, had earned commitment to a lunatic asylum along with several barrels of lemons, for Americans are a generous people).

And yet the Confederate soldiers were pardoned. Maybe you should worry about the war zone you currently live in and quit crying about things that happened then. No confederate soldiers killed those kids in Hoover.

Absolutely, anything else is spilled milk.

I disagree because we are talking about the legacy of the Confederacy in the South. While the discussion is academic for us on this board, I think it is nonetheless important that these memorials and statues not be defaced or destroyed. Doing so requires enough info to combat the leftist notion that CSA = racist or that because slavery was allowed at it's inception that USA = racist. The differing perspective might not be of benefit to many, but I find them useful.

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

I haven’t read this entire thread yet, but did read/take a look at a few of the articles.

Uhhhhhh, Grand Master Jay?!? They gotta be joking with this schit. Grand Master? Is this an intentional parody?

Why not just Grand Wizard like Byrd? Too effing funny. Can’t make this schit up

(07-06-2020 02:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

I haven’t read this entire thread yet, but did read/take a look at a few of the articles.

Uhhhhhh, Grand Master Jay?!? They gotta be joking with this schit. Grand Master? Is this an intentional parody?

Why not just Grand Wizard like Byrd? Too effing funny. Can’t make this schit up

Wasn't Grand Master Jay a rapper from the 80's?

(07-06-2020 03:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:05 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t say anything about it not being their right to do that. My only comment was about the likelihood of some kind of serious conflict coming.

I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

I haven’t read this entire thread yet, but did read/take a look at a few of the articles.

Uhhhhhh, Grand Master Jay?!? They gotta be joking with this schit. Grand Master? Is this an intentional parody?

Why not just Grand Wizard like Byrd? Too effing funny. Can’t make this schit up

Wasn't Grand Master Jay a rapper from the 80's?

Jam Master Jay. Run DMC's DJ.

(07-06-2020 03:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 07:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I disagree. It looks like the leader and the subordinates had some military training. As such, they have a concrete understanding of what the rules of engagement will be should they become necessary. IMO they are more of a defensive/reactionary force than an offensive one. Much like their militia counterparts, neither wants to be the first to breach paramilitary action.

There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

I haven’t read this entire thread yet, but did read/take a look at a few of the articles.

Uhhhhhh, Grand Master Jay?!? They gotta be joking with this schit. Grand Master? Is this an intentional parody?

Why not just Grand Wizard like Byrd? Too effing funny. Can’t make this schit up

Wasn't Grand Master Jay a rapper from the 80's?

Jam Master Jay. Run DMC's DJ.

Dern...I'm embarrassed and evidently suffering some mental decline like Joe. I was a huge Run DMC fan during the 80's. I could rap every song on each of their first three albums.

Nothing scarier than a fat tub of goo who buys clothes a size too small carrying a .22 LR that because of the cheap ass drum magazine he bought for it because it looks cool is now jammed likely due to a failure to feed, rendering the rifle non-functional. At least he's wearing black so it will be harder to see the urine he'd release when there's a manic yell around him and the trees start shooting his way because there's no way in hell he's going to be able to run.

(07-06-2020 03:24 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 03:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 02:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  There were maybe a handful of trained participants, the rest were simply role playing as pretend warriors. The number of mishandlings of inefficient weapons was scary, I'm surprised no one was shot accidentally.

I question the "leaders" training as he was carrying two rifles, neither with a sling. What the hell was he going to do with two rifles?

You must have missed the vitriolic rhetoric he employed too. He stated in no uncertain terms that they looked forward to killing white people even as he commanded his "troops" to not take a first action. He even went so far as to threaten one white motorist who laughed at them. And for all their bluster he was exceedingly chummy with their white escort.

I found one comment hilarious, I believe it was him who could be heard saying "Bro, slow down, we have people back there who aint used to the running, bro". LOL, and they are expected to be taken seriously as an organized and trained threat? At the first sound of gunfire directed at them 90% of them would have scattered like cockroaches. The only threat they represented was an errant bullet finding an accidental mark.

I respect anyone's right to exercise their 2A rights, all the way up until a violent mob breaks out killing innocent people.

This was nothing more than a bunch of inappropriately outraged people playing pretend soldier. And had this been a white "militia" it would have made news on every network across the country for days as the libtards expressed their shock and indignation at such an affront to their sensibilities.

I haven’t read this entire thread yet, but did read/take a look at a few of the articles.

Uhhhhhh, Grand Master Jay?!? They gotta be joking with this schit. Grand Master? Is this an intentional parody?

Why not just Grand Wizard like Byrd? Too effing funny. Can’t make this schit up

Wasn't Grand Master Jay a rapper from the 80's?

Jam Master Jay. Run DMC's DJ.

Dern...I'm embarrassed and evidently suffering some mental decline like Joe. I was a huge Run DMC fan during the 80's. I could rap every song on each of their first three albums.

And ironically he was murdered in Queens. Most likely not from a cop or a white person.

(07-06-2020 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Nothing scarier than a fat tub of goo who buys clothes a size too small carrying a .22 LR that because of the cheap ass drum magazine he bought for it because it looks cool is now jammed likely due to a failure to feed, rendering the rifle non-functional. At least he's wearing black so it will be harder to see the urine he'd release when there's a manic yell around him and the trees start shooting his way because there's no way in hell he's going to be able to run.

I'm more concerned about that pistol(?) that looks like its about to fall out.

(07-06-2020 04:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Nothing scarier than a fat tub of goo who buys clothes a size too small carrying a .22 LR that because of the cheap ass drum magazine he bought for it because it looks cool is now jammed likely due to a failure to feed, rendering the rifle non-functional. At least he's wearing black so it will be harder to see the urine he'd release when there's a manic yell around him and the trees start shooting his way because there's no way in hell he's going to be able to run.

The black beret is kinda cute. If a handful of firecrackers went off they'd decimate each other.

(07-06-2020 09:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  In addition to the already mentioned fact that the KKK was founded at Stone Mountain, Stone Mountain was also opened on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. And it depicts Robert E. Lee (fine with that), Stonewall Jackson (fine with that), and Jefferson Davis (he's a traitor who should have hung for treason and a vile racist, he has no business being a monument anywhere). I'm not down with blanket monument removal. But Stone Mountain is totally indefensible.

Its art.

Destroying art is indefensible.

But the rest of what you say is true.

(07-06-2020 02:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 01:51 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:25 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  (Lee's) view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces.

That doesn't square with the oath he took upon commissioning in 1829:

I, Robert Edward Lee, appointed a lieutenant in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

The bolded segments don't have an asterisk; there is no exception for loyalty to a state above the nation. Lee's post-facto rationalization is irrelevant. Winning battles (while losing the war) and behaving in a courtly manner does not obviate this basic truth: Lee was an oathbreaker and a traitor by definition, a man without honor.

Look, oaths are hard. They're supposed to be hard. If you can't abide by their terms, then don't raise your hand and swear to them.

The justification was that the United States had exceeded it's authority by violating state sovereignty, thus invalidating the Constitution. Keep in mind, Virginia was one of the last states to join the CSA and only did so after Ft. Sumter was shelled.

That's a stretch that even Roger Taney didn't attempt: the Supreme Court, the only body capable of sch a statement, never made it. Lee was never released from his oath.

That he broke his oath after the traitors opened fire on United States forces doesn't mitigate the act; if anything it makes it worse. He joined what was already an armed rebellion.

Going by Confederate legal standards, George Pickett ordered the hanging of North Carolina boys in New Bern because they had enrolled in Union service and therefore were traitors to North Carolina. These were not commissioned officers who broke an oath. By their own standards, the Confederate generals earned hanging (except Jackson, who, had he survived, had earned commitment to a lunatic asylum along with several barrels of lemons, for Americans are a generous people).

I agree with you that it is a stretch. But I really don’t see any other thought process that would allow Generals like Lee and others to justify their defection to the CSA. And you stated, states might have been more important to the masses, but many of these military men swore an oath the the nation.

It was more academic back then. You were a citizen of your state first and through your state to the Country. If you state secedes your priority was to your state. State's elected, and still do, their Senators and House Members all of who take an oath of office. But they represent their State's first, or did before corporations bought them. And collectively they represent the nation. That is the model of service that the minds of 19th century people understood and followed.

Therefore to Lee when Virginia separated from the Union his first allegiance was to Virginia. It is also why the military academies had allotments of appointments recommended by their Congressmen and Senators. Each state sent its best and collectively they represented the nation. The friendships at West Point and Annapolis carried over through and after the war. The men didn't resent each other because they all felt duty bound to their states.

This is more of a 21st century projection into the past to apply woke standards to 19th century people and to reach a conclusion that satisfies revenge filled fantasies of today's cult of victimization. Live long enough and life screws everyone, and equally.

(07-06-2020 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 10:35 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The Confederate National Park is what it is at this point. The only modification I'd accept is putting a statue of MLK at the summit. Otherwise, leave it be, because there isn't a sculpture alive as talented as the one who craved Lee, Jackson and Davis. Thus leaving the only 'solution' destruction.

And your assessment of those depicted is inconsistent IMO. Either you are fine with them all or they are all traitors. My issue with Davis is that he unlike the generals, he was terrible at his job. His removal of Johnston is the reason Sherman took Atlanta and burned GA and SC to the ground.

Lee was top brass in the US Army pleading for peace on the eve of war. He didn't want any part of the war. His view of being Virginian above and beyond being American is what led him to be in charge of the Confederate forces. After the war he toured the country asking for peace until his death.

Stonewall bought slaves to emancipate them. After they repaid their purchase cost they were set free. That might not be perfection but it sounds like one man doing what he can in his power to create progress.

Jefferson Davis has no such softer side. He was a hard liner on race and his political writings make he clear that he views white supremacy as a fundamental part of the Confederacy. The others on Stone Mountain don't have this odious baggage.

And Davis was despised in the Confederacy during the war. Lee and Jackson were heroes. Its really hard to justify Davis except as a stick in the eye of the freed slaves.