Should George Washington and Thomas Jefferson be removed from Mount Rushmore

There is no legal secession the history you're trying to erase proved it

 

Time will prove your side wants them all removed .

 

Leftist destroy. They won't stop until there is nothing left. First they came for the civil war statues....

 

Are you suggesting that removing Confederate statues is the first step toward ethnic cleansing?

 

Keep watching. The left wants to destroy our country. Don't be surprised when the left demands the Confederate soldiers be removed from Arlington National Cemetery. Just keep watching them, they are on a roll and we have few leaders who will publicly stand up for our country.

 

Only a matter of time. Bishop James E. Dukes of Chicago’s Liberation Christian Center responding to Mr. Trump’s question about Washington called on the city to rename Washington Park and to remove a statue of the first U.S. president over his ties to slavery.

 

Tell me, does it feel good just throwing insults back and forth, or are you doing it for some other reason?

 

Even Rahm Emannuel wasn't that dumb, he wouldn't even change the name of a park.
Washington and Jefferson weren't traitors so I don't know why you'd bring this up except as a strawman or something pushed by a lunatic fringe of a lunatic fringe.

 

And even Rahm Emmanuels slimly liberal ass shut him down. Its not going to happen.

 

Just pointing out the insanity of the new PC movement which is also used to label anyone that does not support taking them down as 'racists'. It is like they did with supporters of traditional marriage calling that hate speech. Twisting the world in a way which they think they have a new 'civil right' to fight for and another new evil other to blame, which of course are Americans.

 

People have been railing against **** like this for awhile, they're just getting more exposure now. Bleeds it leads and all that.

Its just the jesse jackson game. You just ignore these people, like you should also do to the KKK. They're children misbehaving for attention, starve them of that and they'll stop. Give them attention and they'll continue.

 

If only the media would follow your advice.

 

I d

Do you think people in colonized territories considered England to be "their county?"

 

Why must the liberals be appeased? Slavery was legal back then, and they don't give a rat's ass about it. It's not about the statues or the slavery. It's about the butt hurt and the snit they're in. Next week it'll be something else, and so on and so forth until they get over their tantrum, if ever.
They may be on a perpetual pout.

 

The history won't change because you tear something down.

 

do you think people from the south considered the north to be their country?

 

tell that to isis, next time they tear down some 3000 year old building.

 

The history is unchanged. History can't be changed.

 

Then why have monuments? Let's just raze them all down and build a parking lot, eh???

 

Monuments are to honor and remember or to mark an historical site. You can't find a place to park?

 

Washington & Jefferson were both concerned about the impact of slavery upon the political economy of the colonies & then the US. Washington provided in his will for the manumission of his slaves - & he would have spoken out about it, except that he didn't want to cause internal political/policy issues in the fledgling US. Jefferson similarly was concerned about slavery - he drafted blame upon King George & the UK for introducing Black slavery into the colonies (in the Declaration of Independence), but it was judged impolitic & deleted. He was instrumental in getting VA to outlaw the slave trade, & the importation of slaves & so on.

Jefferson freed a few of his slaves, but he could never figure out how to free them all - a money issue.

Lee was a product of West Point, & a brilliant tactician. He distinguished himself in the US Mexico War & rose in command. Despite his training & experience, he ignored the logistic & population & infrastructure & economic differences between the Union & the Confederacy. Lee owned slaves too - but he fought a spoiling campaign against the Union, & prolonged the war & the bloodshed to the point that Lincoln & the Union finally promoted combat efficiency rather than pretty &/or good old boys. Grant & Sherman levelled the South, wherever they marched into it.

That's the primary difference between the three - Washington & Jefferson put the US on the path to a republic open to merit, a novel idea @ the time, in political philosophy. Lee fought a rearguard action, to defend a racist notion of class & individual merit in the US. He was on the wrong side of history, that time had passed.

 

If you think the collective will stop at Confederate statues you got another thing coming.

 

In the UK colonies in what became the US, & later in the US? No - slaves were expensive, & only the wealthy could afford to purchase them (or marry into estates that included slaves). In practice, because of the way the colonies & then the young US were organized, that meant male WASPs with either a fair amount of real estate or a good-to-excellent income (or both) could own slaves. In the South (both colonial & US), slaves were attached to plantations - usually cotton or tobacco.

Indentured servants were a different arrangement, & those were more widespread in the North than slavery was. However, the indentured were apt to slip away if they were mistreated, & sometimes if they were ambitious they might slip away in any event. The Native People made poor slaves - they'd slip away easily, especially if their tribe or family were nearby, or they'd simply allow themselves to die.

 

Yes & No. The facts don't change, that's true. The USSR used to pretend to believe that if you could control all the media all the time, you could essentially render history malleable. There's a trace of truth to that, but in order to carry it off, you'd have to absolutely control all the ways that history is transmitted - texts, classes, newspapers, articles, diaries, print, electronic, memory & on & on. In theory, it's doable. In practice, you'd have to have a working Worldwide dictatorship in order to install that kind of universal censorship.

The Taliban & the God-drunken people like them have a much cruder ideology: Destroy any dissenting structures, writing, people, & in time everyone will forget, or they'll be too intimidated to say anything or resist. It's a crude way of thinking, & might work in a society that's barely able to feed itself. I don't think it'll work @ all in Western Civilization. We'll just have to see. Thus far - since the Battle of Lepanto - the West has been able to outperform radical Islam on the battlefield & off. If we can continue to do so, I believe we'll be safe for the foreseeable future.

 

Back then...is the 20s..and slavery was dead for 60 years by then. Jim Crow was not