Morality is objective!!

put a bullet in your head, slavefucker

...

What a great argument. Go ahead, try and convince me why a state should not be able to leave a voluntary union when the very founding documents of said union speak about a state's right to self-determination.

you didn't go to school did you?

This is false, the union is not something you can sunder and weaken at your whim. The government wasn't even forcing the south to change its laws, only restricting the practice of slavery in the frontier the government was parceling territories out of.

I should say it is a bad thing, I am an American, and I do not take kindly to it.

>You shouldn't judge people by the moral standards of today
>Take a look at the historical record
>Their contemporaries regarded them with the same amount of disapproval that we do

>The anti white shill calling anyone else suicidal

America was a mistake, we should have been 13 nations after independence for redundancy

>general lee thought it was good to kill niggers
proof?

These are not monuments to their opinions anyway, they are there because 19 year olds died in agony believing they were defending their homeland from northern aggression.

Constitution literally gives Congress the power to put down rebellions, rebel.

The south had a great chimpout then was out down and have spent the last 200 years being ass blasted. You and the rest of your rebel heroes should be at the bottom of a river.

Most of the monuments were just to remind blacks of their place in the early 1900's.

Lee himself was against civil war monuments and felt they were a step away from reunification that would do nothing be fester lingering resentment.

> the union is not something you can sunder and weaken at your whim.

Why? Seriously, please explain to me why you believe this. The Union was formed VOLUNTARILY as a confederation (huh, interesting word) between the former Colonies. You can't suddenly decide later on down the road, after they've already agreed to the union, that it has suddenly become mandatory, and you're not allowed to leave. That's not how contracts work, and make no mistake, that's what the Articles of Confederation and later Constitution were. A contract between the various states.
>believing
They were. The North invaded the South. In what way are they not defending their home? And don't give me that "hurrr durrrr that fired on Fort Sumter!" bullshit. The South told the Fed to get off their fucking land, and gave them to opportunity to walk away. They didn't, so they threw them out.

>Constitution literally gives Congress the power to put down rebellions
Go ahead and point to where it says that, you boot licking fuck. Once again, I will say this again since it's hard getting it through your head: a state that VOLUNTARILY joins a union may VOLUNTARILY leave it. They were under no obligation to stay when either the Declaration, Articles, or Constitution was created. It wasn't until after the Civil War that a bunch of Yankee judges decided that "yeah, sorry, what you did was illegal after the fact."

I cannot understand the mindset of you bootlicking foreigners. Get the fuck out of my country.

The formation of the nation under a constitution can not tolerate a party that then decides the obligations of law that applies to all members as debated and agreed upon does not apply to them.

>this is what the anti white left are actually brainwashed into believing

>the colonies voultarily joined the union
rhode island says hi

You are literally 89iq and I hate you

I mean you can do that, and the Union did do that; Civil war was just them enforcing the fact they changed the rules.
Now if you think that is unjust that is another statement.

>Article I
>Clause 15. The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.
>Confirmed precedent - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869); Tyler v. Defrees, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 331 (1871).

The southern declarations of secession were never legally recognized making their armies a rebellion.

Who are you quoting?

>confirmed by precedent AFTER the civil war
user, I....

>becoming traitors, die in masses and letting your country be ravaged just so the 1% could keep on using their outdated, ineffective, inhuman economic method
Dumbest people ever

>confirmed precedent
>after the civil war
>with the powers that the Supreme Court bullshitted into reality
Wew, you didn’t disprove his argument, though it does confirm my argument that the union changed the rules and won

I wonder if they'd let you buy the statues. I wouldn't mind having one of stonewall jackson.

>Changed the rules
>Literally says right there in the Constitution Congress has the power to raise the militia to inforce it's laws and suppress insurrection
>Confederacy illegally exits the union them attacks federal property with its illegal army

Southerners are fucking retarded.

Then again, I don't really have anywhere to put it and it would probably look very tacky.

When they say "morality," they don't mean whatever happens to conform with bourgeois opinions received within the last five years.

Most of them are being moved to museums for historical record and safekeeping but some are being sold to private buyers.

Though I think it comes with caveats.

Several of the Founders would disagree.

But the whole illegally exit the union wasn’t made clear until the civil war happened

>Go ahead and point to where it says that, you boot licking fuck.

Calm down, it's just semi-intellectual trolling. I like it, since he actual does make some good points (which is the idea)

How much do you think I could get one for?

>has the power to raise the militia to inforce it's laws and suppress insurrection
State withdrawal is not insurrection. If yours is the correct interpretation, then the framers themselves never understood what they were creating.

Jefferson went back and forth on secession throughout his life. Morris openly declared that secession was perfectly legitimate. Washington said that, in case of secession, he would merely move to the Northern states and live there. Madison was against it, at least late in life.

Secession was pretty much an assumed right for a lot of American history. Calhoun, the southern "prophet of states rights" was a strong nationalist as a young man. He did not adopt secessionist views until the president of yale and chief of the federalist party in Connecticut convinced him otherwise.

And if the Confederates won and had actually been able to enforce their legitimacy, it would've swung in their favor.

But the important thing about rebellions is they actually need to win to be legitimate. But as it stands, States do not have the power to unilaterally secede from the Union on a whim. It was a grey area and one side won.

If the founders had intended the States to be a federation of sovereign powers united only on specific issues then the founders would have kept the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was a more unifying document.

Good question m8.

>antiamerican
>psychopaths
Pick one

>It was a grey area and one side won.
....That was my fucking point.

kek why not put up a statue of Osama Bin Laden while at it.

They’re not a state

Why the fuck not? We already have one of Lenin in Seattle

he's not american, he's an infidel

>People who are born American and then go to war against the United States are anti-American psychopaths.

As a european I will never get your talking point. It's so extreme. No room for ambivalence at all. Quite ungentleman-like. Why is it unamerican to secede from a union?

>If the founders had intended the States to be a federation of sovereign powers united only on specific issues then the founders would have kept the Articles of Confederation
The purpose of the constitution was to give the federal government more power as a general government. Coercion was not necessarily added

BECUASE MUH UNION BLOOD FOR THE DEMOCRACY EXPORT FREEDOM EVERYWHERE WE MUST PURGE RACISM MUH JEWS ARE OUR GREATEST ALLY

But Coercion was the inevitable outcome really.

Because we're taught from birth to revere the Union (not really, it was actually bad and icky; what we must revere is "equality" whatever that may mean.)

A lot of us see the gov't as a large father who has been making moral progress for centuries. People are afraid to go on without that paternal figure.

The mental gymnastics it must have taken to write this is baffling. I trust you are the same poster who wrote thisso where is the line drawn? You claim that the most heinous crime is to point your gun against your neighbour, yet just wished death upon user here .

>But Coercion was the inevitable outcome really.
News to many present for the convention. Especially the majority who expressly rejected a provision that would allow for coercion in case of secession.

Definitely would be. Still happened though.
I mean some were concerned but were assured how it would be fine
Funny how that worked out

>imblying the statues do anything negative as opposed to simply recognizing a significant event within American history and conveying the fact that both sides had major personalities and unknown soldiers alike, all of whom went through very real and very human troubles and turmoils throughout the entirety of the war

>. Still happened though.
Easy to say so in hindsight.

We killed 600,000 young men to maintain the integrity of a constitution that no one will care about in 30 years except as a vehicle for pet social reforms.

Hahaha
Our Country is so fucked

You just proved his argument there though.
The rebellion ended '65, that legislation was written 4 years later. Are you joshing us right now?

lel fair enough

Who cares, turn the other cheek.

he's literally a foreign enemy of the united states, what a stupid idea, not an american

That's not legislation. The first part is in Article I of the Constitution which establishes the power of the legislative branch. The precedence just shows that the judiciary enforced that clause.

>LARPing as a Know-Nothing

haha r/the_donald told me the confederates were BASED because they triggered libtards and were multicultural! those northerners are the real racists because they didn't want to be replaced with black people like we did!

PRAISE KEK

>We must judge the Confederates by the standards of today.
>Leave Jefferson alone! How was he supposed to know raping a 14 year old was bad?

America is a wonderful country.

Yeah but the Confederates were objectively correct at the time

>The founding fathers were actually AGAINST slavery
god I fucking hate the center left.

>Americans think that the "Founding Fathers" were a monolithic group rather than a broad spectrum of political thinkers that often vehemently disagreed with one another

So does that mean we can take down statues of Sherman and Custer for slaughtering Native Americans? How about the statue to Lenin in Seattle? Don't forget the Founding Fathers owned slaves so I guess we need to bulldoze down half of Washington DC. For that matter MLK defended domestic abuse by blaming women for not pleasing men enough. There goes his statues too. Malcom X wanted a race war so lets melt those statues down too. It seems to me it's easy to point out flaws to anyone in history if you want to find a reason to not honor them.

Yes, let's do all of those things, why not?

>today's morality
>the criteria for objective morality
almonds.....

this
i am so hopeless lads

>facts trigger me
inb4 anti-white Soros shill leftist Marxist

>justifying literally anything with appeals to the founding fathers

/thread

See above to understand why you're a low-IQ mouth-breather.

That's true, but there is a strong tendency for center-leftists to be charitable to them in a manner they're not towards Confederates, Andrew Jackson, etc. Going by a lot of the think pieces that keep getting pumped out it often comes across less like an honest reevaluation of history and more just shifting blame.

It's because Washington and Jefferson still aren't open for outright assault in America. Most americans still hold very positive opinions of them. Give it a couple generations and the leftists will be tearing them down as well.

why not? morality is objective after all and all those men are shit.

>Custer

He's basically a joke at this point. If a Johnny Horton song calls you out on your bullshit and you're American you're probably fucked.

>I can't tell the difference between great men who accomplished things and are loved in spite of their flaws to people who are worshipped because of their flaws

Having said that, sure. Take 'em all down desu. They should all be in museums.

>they should all be in museums
I disagree, I think a nice statue can really tie a public park or square together.

dumb hick WASP mutt

and confederate generals were also literally an enemy of the united states.

>an enemy of the united states
during that four year period the states were anything but united, you mean to say the federal government

I think it depends on the figure you use but I just don't want to risk them being damaged because shitheads on one side or another.

I think we should catalogue statues of historical figures and significance and replace them with replicas. Have a list with a certain age and just go adding to the list as statues get older.

they were americans, as a forefinger I'm sure you don't understand that, or you want americans to be divided

By this logic the Italian government should demolish most of the Roman monuments.

Morality is objective but just because peoples of the past were immoral due to their situation (as billions are immoral today) doesn't mean we should destroy our historical heritage.

>200-300 years ago
>slave owning is perfectly fine
>segregation is perfectly fine
>antisemitism is perfectly fine
>imperialism is perfectly fine

fast forward to 20th-21st century
all of those things are considered morally reprehensible and illegal.

>all these butthurt mutts

The truth hurts. The US went down the shitter the second Anglo Supremacy was lost

Just because America separated from a power doesn't mean that's the defining trait of the entire goddamn country. You look into the reasons that they separated, not the act itself. And with all that being said, there's little reason to separate from a union just because they aren't expanding the practice of enslaving human beings.

>a resident of a 45 percent white state is calling people in 80 percent white states 'nonwhite'
go back to your shithole creatura

This is comparing a country in which their heritage is millenia-old monuments to a wide, complex empire that left lasting influence, to a half of a country with monuments ranging to a century to less than a century old dedicated to a confederacy that existed solely to wage war on the basis that chattel slavery might stop being a thing at some point.

tl;dr false equivalency up the ass

As a yank I agree

Remove your history, and you're bound to repeat it

>West Virginia

Those crazy fuckers are probably the only ones to actually stand up to the Fed in the 20th Century, you're hard pressed to find anyone in America with the balls they had anymore

>1,000,000 rounds fired
>100 kills
why are americans such bad shots

Imagine how suppressed they were though