Makes you think. Just what should we do with Mar-a-lago when this is all over?
it’s a golf course, which is, like, environmental imperialism or something. ecological deserts, wastes of water and space.
I say we repurpose it into a nature reserve, ie rip it all out and let nature take it back unimpeded, but under our protection
Hear me out, but maybe we should properly enshrine the grave on the course.
I say move the grave/body to a proper location, considering why she was buried there in the first place.
or maybe don’t if the goal is erasure of all things Trump which was my unspoken goal for the nature reserve idea. undo his ‘monuments’ in the most antithetical way, make him forgotten
They commit to history erasure, we do not.
I’m going to intentionally interpret your comment in a way I don’t think it was intended.
LIke the finale of Yellowstone. Hell yes.
Low income housing developments for immigrants with free citizenship classes.
maybe it stays as a golf course, but no use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, heavily limits on fertilizer use, no watering except collected rainwater, rainwater, and/or tertiary treated sewage, nothing motorized, and nothing electric except from more environmental sources—maybe have a few wind turbines there—and/or wp:nickel-iron batteries.
Oh, see that’s much more wholesome than what I was thinking.
Pave over it and erase it from history.
It really is a shame the Confederate generals weren’t lined up and publicly hanged, but then as now, power gives you access to a different tier of ‘justice’.
So true and being white.
We shoulda had him hanged by his balls.
Andrew Johnson is still the worst president the US ever had. He led us to where we are today by allowing the cancer to live and eat us alive from the inside out.
That would be to peaceful. I say set him on fire and let people take turns beating out the fire. Instead he became the 1st President of Washington and Lee University.
maybe do a few years picking cotton, with ex-slaves as overseers.
TIL: In the future all of Trump’s golf courses will be filled with the bodies from the next civil war.
Only if we sit back and do nothing to change it. Trump is not a unicorn, he is a horse. America chose to allow this over years and years of voting.
Good.
Lee’s more strict expectations and harsher punishments of the slaves on Arlington plantation nearly led to a revolt, since many of the enslaved people had been given to understand that they were to be made free as soon as Custis died, and protested angrily at the delay.
it doesn’t count if it’s from a terrorist leader.
/s
/s
We love our traders
Going off memory, but Lee wasn’t even really pissed about it either.
He fought harder than anyone else in the Confederacy against going to war, and was very open about how it would be an incredibly bloody and expensive war the South had zero chance of winning.
As soon as the war ended, he spent his time arguing for unification and against any commerarion of what he saw as the biggest stain on America’s history.
But at the time the federal government was more like the EU, and everyone treated states like European countries. So Lee was loyal to his state.
It’s important to understand what happened, because it’s a great lesson on blind loyalty.
Lee thought the honorable thing to do was fight a war he disagreed with, but without Lee the South likely wouldn’t have had the balls to do it. He was that good of a general, but the governors didn’t listen to him, they had blind faith in him to win a war he told them was unwinnable.
So everyone just plowed ahead anyways and millions died horrible deaths.
Lee’s reputation as an honorable man is something of a fabrication by false lost cause narratives.
The reality is that his reputation and skill as a military leader was overblown, and he was as cruel an enslaver as they come. He felt slavery was a cause worth fighting for, all to protect his/his family’s wealth. If he chose to fight for the south in spite of low odds of winning, it’s only more indicative of just how strongly he supported the confederacy and the right to own people.
The notion that he only acted out of loyalty to his home state is the work of lost causers trying absolve him of responsibility for betraying his country. This way, he can continue filling the role of (white) people’s hero long after his death and get monuments built for him that celebrate and perpetuate confederate ideals. If Lee’s decision was normal, one might ask why General George Henry Thomas, another Virginian, still chose to fight for the United States alongside 100,000 other southern unionists who disagreed with secession.
Lmao yeah right. If that were true he would have defected.
You missed the end apparently:
It’s important to understand what happened, because it’s a great lesson on blind loyalty.
Lee thought the honorable thing to do was fight a war he disagreed with, but without Lee the South likely wouldn’t have had the balls to do it. He was that good of a general, but the governors didn’t listen to him, they had blind faith in him to win a war he told them was unwinnable.
So everyone just plowed ahead anyways and millions died horrible deaths.
Like. You really think the lesson:
Just following orders isnt a valid excuse
Isn’t important?
You can’t think of a modern reason we’d want people to understand that?
We were immediately taken before Gen. Lee (http://fair-use.org/national-anti-slavery-standard/1866/04/14/robert-e-lee-his-brutality-to-his-slaves), who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.
Doesn’t sound like he stood on the side of progress. You are either knowingly or unknowingly white washing him. I hope you are doing the latter.
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder/
If you think the Civil War was about whether slavery should be legal…
You should read up on it, I mean, if you’re American someone should have taught you, but they clearly didn’t. So you should do it on your own at least.
What was the reason for the civil war?
The south wanted a strong federal government willing to go into Northern states and capture African Americans to send South so they could be enslaved.
Lincoln and the North refused, but if you think they wanted to outlaw slavery, I suggest you read Lincolns inaugural address:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/lincolns-first-inaugural-address
It’s pretty much all about how they didn’t think the feds should have a say in slavery.
There wasn’t even talk of outlawing it till well into the war, and that was as an economic sanction.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to realize the Confederacy lied about why they started the war…
Its like modern day people saying trump got elected because African refugees were eating cats. That was just one of many lies that were told.
It’s pretty much all about how they didn’t think the feds should have a say in slavery.
So slavery?
You really should read the link, but since your couldn’t click it here’s a chunk:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause–as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution–to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
The U.S. did not want slavery to to spread pay its current states. This is why Texas gave up land to Oklahoma.
So once again, what was the civil war fought over if you believe it wasn’t slavery?
State’s rights?
The civil war was absolutely fought over slavery. That was the reason given by every state that attempted to secede. Any suggestion otherwise is historical revisionism based on the lost cause narrative.
So…
You think Putin invaded Ukraine to fight Nazis too?
That’s what he said, and apparently you just trust what anyone says…
I’d hate to hear why you think the Nazis started WW2, would you just start repeating Nazi propaganda too?
I’ll never know if this worked, maybe if you’re nicer to the next person they’ll wait to see if you understand before they block you.
Best of luck!
What does this have to do what u/Stovetop said?
He was that good of a general…
Somewhat related, he remains the only person to graduate West Point without a single demerit, IIRC. Granted, school accomplishments don’t necessarily translate into real world capability. Just a bit of trivia I’ve retained over the years.
wp:Robert E. Lee#Postbellum life
After the war, Lee was not arrested or punished (although he was indicted),[136] but he did lose the right to vote as well as some property. Lee’s prewar family home, the Custis-Lee Mansion, was seized by Union forces during the war and turned into Arlington National Cemetery, and his family was not compensated until more than a decade after his death.[137]
…was not compensated…
I thought I was going to have an aneurysm there, ngl
lee was a total loser
