what are the arguments about Robert E. Lee statues that do not also apply to Sitting Bull?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @JesseLucasSaga
Robert E Lee swore an oath of allegiance that he then betrayed. Sitting Bull did not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sehro
Lee fought the enemies of half of the States though what did they say at his treason trial? did they conclude he had betrayed his oath?
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @JesseLucasSaga
The charges were dropped after General Grant made a threat to resign, saying the Appomattox terms, if honored, were enough penance. The trial never concluded.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sehro
oh so you're just accusing a man of oathbreaking groundlessly I see. I'll be glad to see you at the unveiling of the new Jefferson Davis statue though as he did not even swear any oaths to the US Constitution.
2 replies 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @JesseLucasSaga
That's not how facts work. Whether he betrayed the United States when he left to fight against it as a member of the Confederate Army isn't reasonably in dispute. Conviction of a tangentially related crime isn't required to establish a fact.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sehro
the United States was not a body applicable to him at that point in time and his oath to Virginia was also in effect. this is smoke and mirrors though because you don't hate him because he's an oathbreaker you hate him because you hate white Southerners and probably all poors.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @JesseLucasSaga @sehro
“I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty.” The Union broke its oath to honor the 10th Amendment right of secession.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @RoJi_Shuu @JesseLucasSaga
The 10th amendment does not now, nor has it ever, included an explicit right to secession. There were certainly attempts to interpret it to include such implicitly, but such interpretations did not find much backing from jurists on either side of the line.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, only "explicit right(s)" in the Constitution count? Does this apply to, say, gay marriage or abortion?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.