Jefferson Davis statue torn down in Richmond, Virginia

Associated Press ^ | June 11, 2020

[Olog-hai]

Protesters tore down a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis along Richmond, Virginia’s famed Monument Avenue on Wednesday night.

The statue in the former capital of the Confederacy was toppled shortly before 11 p.m., news outlets reported.

Richmond police were on the scene and videos on social media showed the monument being towed away as a crowd cheered.

About 80 miles (130 kilometers) away, protesters in Portsmouth beheaded and then pulled down four statues that were part of a Confederate monument on Wednesday, according to media outlets.

Efforts to tear one of the statues down began around 8:20 p.m., but the rope they were using snapped, The Virginian-Pilot reported. …

[CopperTop]

"..That would be significant were it not for the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans swapped ideologies around the 1930s.."

Got documentation of that from an objective source? I've heard this before. And I've also heard/read that it's BS. I'm not quite sure what to think.

But I do know that the current democRAT party and all their flying monkeys are antithesis of America as we know it.

[central_va]

Ideologically speaking the Democrats of the 19th century were Constitutional conservatives and the Republicans the wild eyed liberals.

[DoodleDawg]

...I think he will act when he decides the time is right.

And do what?

[oincobx]

What were Jefferson Davis’ accomplishments that earned him a statue? Was it his flawed military strategy? Or perhaps the economic intervention, regulation, and state control of manpower, production and transport that were much greater in the Confederacy than in the Union?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Ann Coulter had an excellent article yesterday about how we dealt with the anarchist Haymarket Riot and attacks on police. From History.com:

In August 1886, eight men labeled as anarchists were convicted in a sensational and controversial trial in which the jury was considered to be biased and no solid evidence was presented linking the defendants to the bombing.

Judge Joseph E. Gary imposed the death sentence on seven of the men, and the eighth was sentenced to 15 years in prison. On November 11, 1887, four of the men were hanged.

Of the additional three who were sentenced to death, one committed suicide on the eve of his execution and the other two had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by Illinois Governor Richard J. Oglesby. The governor was reacting to widespread public questioning of their guilt, which later led his successor, Governor John P. Altgeld, to pardon the three activists still living in 1893.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

By then, all of our priceless national monuments to our heroes, shared history, and freedom will be gone. The Cultural Revolution is accelerating at a frightful rate.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

We sat and let the radicals take over education two or three generations ago. People like Bill Ayers went into education for a reason. The “Long March through the Institutions” is a slogan coined by Communist student activist Rudi Dutschke circa 1967 to describe his strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions and education. The phrase "long march" is a reference to the prolonged struggle of the Chinese communists, which included a physical Long March of their army across China. We all thought having the schools teach “tolerance” was a good thing for the nation, for us, and our kids.

We are getting close to the situation of the Chinese Civil War fought between the Kuomintang-led government of the Republic of China and the Communist Party of China. There is absolutely no placating or appeasing this enemy. But there is no will evident anywhere to fight or stop them.

One FR poster a day or two ago quoted his millennial son: “Dad, to stop the, you would have to kill half of my generation.”

[DiogenesLamp]

Got documentation of that from an objective source?

You think there is a "source" on this? I am not aware of any "authority" which states this categorically, but one only need look at the policies and directions taken by each party to determine that the parties swapped ideologies since the Civil War.

The Roosevelts were from New York, and Teddy was a Republican. Everyone in New York was a Republican in those days. They were the party of big corporations, and the Wealthy classes in those days. They were the party that believed in Government management of the economy which was the forerunner of Socialism in this country. Henry Clay was Lincoln's mentor, and his philosophy, which Lincoln adopted, was that government should use it's power to aid in commerce and business, and what was good for business was good for the USA.

The Republicans of that era were the "Progressives." Look it up. Don't take my word for it.

Franklin Delano became a Democrat while serving under Woodrow Wilson, and he represented a break with the Republican party for his demographic.

New Yorker, Franklin Delano ushered in American Socialism, because it was all the rage among the wealthy of the 1920s, just as it's still all the rage among the wealthy of today.

His socialism, which was basically handing out freebies paid for with government money, attracted the poor, and so the transition from Republican to Democrat began in the 1930s.

[cmj328]

As its capital, the Confederacy is Richmond's authentic weirdness - the only other national capital to have sprung up on these shores in the last two hundred years.

Instead of embracing that and offering candlelit horse-dran ghost tours and the like, Richmond is like, "I want to be like everywhere else on earth." I want to be some random hip city in the nation's new constellation of second-rate hip cities.

And so they shall. Pity for Richmond. Pity for tourists who like seeing new things. Pity for those who look to history for lessons. Pity for Richmondites who like pleasant art. Pity for those who love the good things the South stood for in that war, like States' rights and State nationalism.

[DiogenesLamp]

And do what?

Crack down on lawlessness. Order the National Guard to restore order.

I think when the public finally starts calling for order, it will become the politically appropriate thing to do.

We've seen this play out before. This is shaping up like 1968, which turned out to be a massive loss for the Democrats.

[DoodleDawg]

Crack down on lawlessness. Order the National Guard to restore order.

I know your knowledge of and support for the Constitution is problematic at best but even you must have heard of Article IV, Section 4.

Besides, unless he federalizes it the National Guard doesn't work for him.

[hanamizu]

If the police are to afraid to do anything. I will join the national guard to help.

---

Richmond police are under the orders of the mayor. Guess what his orders to them were. Virginia National Guard are under the orders of the governor. Guess what his orders will be. Any attempt to deface or destroy a statue of MLK or BHO will be met with armed police force.

[DiogenesLamp]

Details. You can call it an "insurrection" and do anything you d@mn well please, just as Lincoln did.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm thinking it is illegal for a mayor or governor to deny equal application of the law to people they don't like.

I don't think you can legally pick and chose which laws you wish to obey.

[DoodleDawg]

Details.

Yeah who needs all those details anyway? </sarcasm>

You can call it an "insurrection" and do anything you d@mn well please, just as Lincoln did.

Not really, no. Lincoln faced a situation where the governors and legislatures themselves were leading the rebellion. That's not the case here. Neither the Washington governor or the Seattle mayor are denying the authority of the federal government so long as it is in keeping with the Constitution. Trump just cannot say "I'll deal with it." Article IV as well as the 10th Amendment say he can't. But, as I said, not that you have much concern about the Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not really, no. Lincoln faced a situation where the governors and legislatures themselves were leading the rebellion.

It wasn't a "rebellion". Lawyer Lincoln called it one to justify unlocking the powers a president has to suppress a rebellion.

It was secession, not an effort to take over the existing government. It was a continuation of the process the founders asserted as a right in 1776.

Trump just cannot say "I'll deal with it." Article IV as well as the 10th Amendment say he can't.

I don't see your relevance for Article IV. Guaranteeing a Republican form of government would require Federal involvement in the enforcement of the 14th amendment if States do not enforce it themselves.

These rioters are denying the civil rights of other people, and these are clearly 14th amendment violations.

The state is standing by idly while the civil rights of American citizens are being infringed by rioters and insurrectionists.

[DoodleDawg]

It wasn't a "rebellion". Lawyer Lincoln called it one to justify unlocking the powers a president has to suppress a rebellion.

It was. Even Davis referred to it as a rebellion at a speech in Mississippi in 1863. The fact that you disagree with the commonly accepted definition of rebellion doesn't mean anything.

It was secession, not an effort to take over the existing government. It was a continuation of the process the founders asserted as a right in 1776.

Rebellion is defined as open, armed defiance to an established government. It doesn't require wanting to take it over. Unless, of course, you're making up your own definitions now.

I don't see your relevance for Article IV. Guaranteeing a Republican form of government would require Federal involvement in the enforcement of the 14th amendment if States do not enforce it themselves.

Maybe if you read it? "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

These rioters are denying the civil rights of other people, and these are clearly 14th amendment violations.

Of course they are.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Mr. President, please call out the military.

If he calls them out, will they come?

[DiogenesLamp]

It was. Even Davis referred to it as a rebellion at a speech in Mississippi in 1863. The fact that you disagree with the commonly accepted definition of rebellion doesn't mean anything.

I do not define my understanding on the basis of what other people assert. This is the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum".

Rebellion is defined as open, armed defiance to an established government.

The previous government had been deestablished in accord with the right asserted in the Declaration of Independence.

Refusing to accept the lawful result of people exercising their right to independence in according with established law, is "rebellion."

[windsorknot]

What positive changes have resulted from the statue revolt? Is Utopia any closer now? Are we there yet?