Should George Washington and Thomas Jefferson be removed from Mount Rushmore

Chill out on the Adderall, bruh.

 

TheGreatSatan WITH AN AMAZING PARRY from the Stationary Strawman! Quite the swordsman indeed!

 

Does this really do something for you? "MOM MAKE HIM SAY SORRY TOO!!!"

 

Golem said: ↑
Monuments being removed are not of slave owners. They're of people who committed treason.

No. Lincoln offered a general amnesty, but not to everyone. Various amnesties & pardons were issued later - see https://www.genealogytoday.com/articles/reader.mv?ID=2758

"Most Confederate soldiers signed an oath of allegiance in order to gain status as a United States citizen. In 1863 President Lincoln issued a proclamation to grant pardon or amnesty to Confederates. President Johnson issued an amnesty proclamation on 29 May 1865. Under the 1865 proclamation, former Confederates who had not been pardoned in 1863, could receive amnesty. First they had to take an oath to defend the Union and Constitution, and obey federal laws and proclamations regarding slavery. These were similar to that issued by President Lincoln in 1863. The pardons issued in 1865-1867 were normally not to Confederate soldiers, but to other individuals who supported the Confederate cause.

"If their property was valued at more than $20,000 they could not apply for a pardon. Persons who had broken their oath under the Lincoln proclamation of 1863, could not re-apply for pardon. It was also not extended to graduates of Annapolis or West Point who had served in the Confederacy. Civil or diplomatic agents or officials in the Confederacy and ex-Confederate governors could not apply for amnesty.

"Confederate military officers above the rank of a Navy lieutenant or Army colonel were excluded. Members of the United States Congress who resigned to assist in the rebellion were also excluded. Military personnel who resigned their commissions in the Army and Navy of the United States were not allowed to apply for a pardon."

Political & military leaders were not included in the initial amnesties & pardons.

"Another proclamation was issued on 4 July 1868 in which Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, John C. Breckinridge and a few others were restricted from pardon. A final proclamation was issued on 25 December 1868 which granted amnesty to everybody who had participated in the rebellion."

This was after Lincoln's assassination. So he didn't pardon everyone on the Confederate side.

 

Which means that they're not executed, or go to jail. Not that their treasonous act becomes "un-committed". And certainly not that we erect monuments for them.

 

I thought all whites were either racists or in denial.

All statues of whites should be scrapped.

 

Pointing out hypocrisy *ALWAYS* does something for me.

The truth is that monuments of Confederate soldiers are not the *real* issue today. The *real* issue is undoing US history in order to prepare America for a cultural makeover by the Marxist Democrats and their far-left support. We have less than 10% of the populace in America today trying to dictate to the rest of the populace what they must believe, how they must think, and how they must act. It's fuel for a true second civil war in America. The violence of the far-left has been demonstrated for over five years now - and it increases every year. We have just seen six police officers shot by suspects driven by the anti-police rhetoric of the far-left on a single Friday night. If the far-left continues with their actions against America there will be armed revolt in the streets by the time the 2020 presidential election rolls around. And there *will* be a violent response against the far-left's violence by those who still believe America represents a shining city on the hill and the best hope for humanity that we've ever seen.

 

I do believe it makes sense.

 

I say let the radical fools that want to tear down the Jefferson memorial, and blast Washington and Jefferson of Rushmore rant an rave. Everyone can then see just how stupid and ignorant they are.

 

There's a problem with that.

Few if any (and none that matter) are advocating taking down any monuments other than those of Confederates. Was Jefferson or Washington a Confederate?

Not unless they lived a lot longer than history books say they did

 

No, just slave owners, guess that is OK by you.

 

Considering the fact that slavery was part of the Constitution and the norm of the time. ..

But to venerate monuments to slavery erected 60 years after that horrific war during the height of the Jim Crow era...that is wrong. There IS a difference

 

Seeing how there was no law against succession at the time and the federal government decided to wage war over it, you can hardly blame the south for what happened. Succession did not become illegal until 1869.

You don't have to like slavery or the south to understand history.

 

No. Because treason consists only in levying War against the United States, or in adhering to its Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

 

Sounds good to me.

 

And you don't have to celebrate slavery and Jim Crow to understand history

 

Your post just bolstered the fact that Washington and Jefferson should be removed from history along with renaming New York and Washington DC.

 

If we ever discover that Washington and Jefferson turned against and fought against the nation they founded, I would immediately call for the removal of their resplendent semblances from the mountain that Gutzon Borglum defaced, to be replaced by a yooj Trump head (with ChiaPet® hair.)

 

I think the United States has become a country of Namby Pamby Wimps that can find something to be offended by everyday, so they want everything they disagree with removed. They want to censor what you see on TV, they want to censor what you see in Parks, they want to censor every damn thing in our lives and live in accordance to what they have deemed fit for society. If they want to cherry pick what statues are offensive, I say TEAR UM ALL DOWN, MLK, Malcome X and while were at it Rocky Balboa in Philadelphia.

 

So in other words he was a democrat.

 

this one, maybe needs to be removed. but that's just my opinion and if there is a group of people rallying to "Save Our Historical Clowns" , I'm not going to counter protest probably, unless I'm really hungry and just happen be in the drive thru while they occupy McDonalds.

 

The slaveholding South was always dependent on outside capital, transport, financing, banking, insurance, ships, crews, food, manufactured goods & on & on - the North took on all those auxiliary roles, & both prospered. The South was a boom & bust economy, & they lost control of their own financing in a boom that turned sour. The plantations simply walked away from their debt - went to Texas, as they phrased it - & cotton bonds lost their appeal Worldwide.

Read any of the books on the political economy of the colonies & then of the US.

 

Q

You want to try again with 'succession?'

 

Not fond of fact?