Sarah Jeong and The NY Times

[Karha of Honor]

Oh BTW Wedgius Where these the likes of the Oathkeepers when DeAndre Harris was getting the shit kicked out of him or when Heather Heyer was run over?

Not wearing capes and possesing supespeed trying to do the best they could.

[unknownsample]

Oh BTW Wedgius Where these the likes of the Oathkeepers when DeAndre Harris was getting the shit kicked out of him or when Heather Heyer was run over?

Is that rhetorical? I can't always tell.

If the answer to the above was "No" (i.e., that it was not a rhetorical question), are you implying that because Antifa members were attacked, the Oath Keepers were not trying to protect free speech?

Just trying to be efficient!

Question why were they needed?

Second point

The Oathkeepers themselves are highly dubious

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... th-keepers

You don't seem to have any desire to answer my questions, sample. I can't imagine why, of course.

Why were they needed? Maybe because Antifa has a habit of assaulting people with different political opinions? That's just a guess.

The Oathkeepers may be conspiracy nuts, but did you see "National Socialist" in there? Did you see "white supremacist" in there? Your original comment was:

He said that Nazis were "very fine people"

That's where I corrected you. Saying that the Oathkeepers are conspiracy nuts doesn't change that.

Logic, sample. It's not just for breakfast any more.

Ok you want an answer No they weren't there to protect freedom of speech, they were there to protect one side, one side who came to that town to terrorise, to intimidate, to prevent the removal of a statue of a man who fought to defend slavery.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ice-215498

But hey Antifa.

[Antiboyscout]

Ok you want an answer No they weren't there to protect freedom of speech, they were there to protect one side, one side who came to that town to terrorise, to intimidate, to prevent the removal of a statue of a man who fought to defend slavery.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ice-215498

But hey Antifa.

You ever wonder why there are so many statues of General Lee? Because he is the equivalent to Rommel in so many ways. More importantly, after Lincoln died, Johnson utterly screwed up reconstruction. Lee did more to ease conflicts than the government did. The north could not place a winners peace upon the south and expect the union to hold. If that meant having a few Lee statues laying around then so be it.

Why is it, after over a 100 years later, you wish to implement a winners peace?

[TGLS]

You ever wonder why there are so many statues of General Lee? Because he is the equivalent to Rommel in so many ways.

So an ambitious, politically indifferent, and mildly talented general, who by a variety of circumstances, including the powerful influence of media both before and after the war, became regarded as morally clean and extremely skilled after the war.

More importantly, after Lincoln died, Johnson utterly screwed up reconstruction. Lee did more to ease conflicts than the government did.

It's rather telling that Lee supported Johnson's reconstruction while, like Johnson, opposed the Congressional reconstruction. After Johnson, he supported the Democratic party of the time, which was ridiculously racist.

[Antiboyscout]

You ever wonder why there are so many statues of General Lee? Because he is the equivalent to Rommel in so many ways.

So an ambitious, politically indifferent, and mildly talented general, who by a variety of circumstances, including the powerful influence of media both before and after the war, became regarded as morally clean and extremely skilled after the war.

More importantly, after Lincoln died, Johnson utterly screwed up reconstruction. Lee did more to ease conflicts than the government did.

It's rather telling that Lee supported Johnson's reconstruction while, like Johnson, opposed the Congressional reconstruction. After Johnson, he supported the Democratic party of the time, which was ridiculously racist.

Care to talk about a winners peace?

[TGLS]

You ever wonder why there are so many statues of General Lee? Because he is the equivalent to Rommel in so many ways.

So an ambitious, politically indifferent, and mildly talented general, who by a variety of circumstances, including the powerful influence of media both before and after the war, became regarded as morally clean and extremely skilled after the war.

More importantly, after Lincoln died, Johnson utterly screwed up reconstruction. Lee did more to ease conflicts than the government did.

It's rather telling that Lee supported Johnson's reconstruction while, like Johnson, opposed the Congressional reconstruction. After Johnson, he supported the Democratic party of the time, which was ridiculously racist.

Care to talk about a winners peace?

Cut short by the clusterfuck that 1876 was.

[Antiboyscout]

Cut short by the clusterfuck that 1876 was.

I seem to recall Lincoln crafting a lenient peace. The 10% Plan that was opposed by the Radical Republicans who wanted the Wade-Davis bill passed (a winners peace). Lincoln thought it would be too difficult to repair all of the ties within the Union if the Wade–Davis bill passed.

Here we are again. Radicals wishing to implement a winners peace and remake society and culture, Union be damned.

[Worffan101]

Who the FUCK can honestly claim that the Reconstruction we got was a winner's peace?

We should have systematically dismantled the Southern states and reorganized them into new states, executed every Confederate officer of General rank, hung Jeff Davis, imprisoned any state legislator or governor who voted for or supported secession, and executed any of those who also owned slaves, and we should've repossessed every single plantation and handed it over to the former slaves, and imprisoned any Southerner who owned slaves.

That would have been a winner's peace, and IMO it would've been the right thing to do.

[Antiboyscout]

Who the FUCK can honestly claim that the Reconstruction we got was a winner's peace?

We should have systematically dismantled the Southern states and reorganized them into new states, executed every Confederate officer of General rank, hung Jeff Davis, imprisoned any state legislator or governor who voted for or supported secession, and executed any of those who also owned slaves, and we should've repossessed every single plantation and handed it over to the former slaves, and imprisoned any Southerner who owned slaves.

That would have been a winner's peace, and IMO it would've been the right thing to do.

And forever after you would have to treat the south as an occupied territory kept in the "Union" only by force. Imagine Chechnya if Chechnya was 1/4 of Russia.

[LittleRaven]

We should have systematically dismantled the Southern states and reorganized them into new states, executed every Confederate officer of General rank, hung Jeff Davis, imprisoned any state legislator or governor who voted for or supported secession, and executed any of those who also owned slaves, and we should've repossessed every single plantation and handed it over to the former slaves, and imprisoned any Southerner who owned slaves.

No. All that would have done is break the nation irrevocably into two parts - even more than we already were, and we would have ended up fighting the Civil War over and over again. It wouldn't matter how thoroughly you crushed them, even you massacred every babe in its crib and resettled the south with pure northern souls, the difference in geography, climate and economy would mean that basic issues would resurface within a generation, and once they did, it would only be a matter of time until Britain or France or Spain used the South as a cats paw to weaken the new rival across the pond. The Great Powers had been playing these games for centuries, and were very, very good at them. Hell, our nation was BORN out of one of those schemes.

Remember, we didn't have the sorts of infrastructure and communication that we have now back in the 1860s. Holding a territory the size of the US together was widely considered impossible - certainly no European nation had ever managed anything close, at least not for any length of time. The wiser politicians of the time knew this, and they knew that if they were going to succeed, then everyone had to emerge from the war as an American - we couldn't be a nation of Americans and traitors. The war had to be cast as a tragic episode where brother was forced against brother, not where one nation conquered another. And that meant that the South had to have its story, and its heroes. Allowing them to have a tragic story of heroism against overwhelming odds and a few living heroes like Lee seemed a small price to pay in exchange for keeping the nation whole. Because it was. Preserving the Union entailed both winning the war and preserving the peace, and both demanded sacrifice. But the success of those ventures is what has allowed us to become the most powerful nation in the world. The fact that a person living in NYC and a person living in Hogseye, Alabama can both view themselves as Americans first and foremost despite the fact that they have almost NOTHING in common is a miracle of modern politics, and one that we have failed to replicate almost everywhere else in the world. You don't throw that sort of thing away lightly.