A retired Tennessee law enforcement officer was held in jail for more than a month this fall after police arrested him over a Facebook post of a meme related to the September assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Prosecutors eventually dropped the criminal charge brought against Larry Bushart, but his stint behind bars came to exemplify the country’s tense political and legal climate following the tragedy, when conservatives sought to stymie public discourse about the late controversial figure that it saw as objectionable.
Now, Bushart is suing over his incarceration.
Read a history book those are all facts. Sure repubs were the “good guys” at the moment but that too is warped, Lincoln was against immediate emancipation but for slow rolling emancipation.
Look it up, the mythology behind the civil war in this country is fuckin wild.
youre fucking dumb and any conversation about the civil war, states rights, and property that does not mention slaves and that people are not property is disingenuous and fucking stupid. youre a fucking moron lol like fr? it was about states not recognizing property? you fucking clown lmao it was about (southern) states not recognizing people
Yeah, I’m pretty sick of the “It was a different time” bullshit too. It was not about property because people are not property, and humans decided that slavery is wrong LONG before the Civil War. Look in the fucking Bible, the most disseminated piece of literature of all time, and the book that many dumbasses say the US was founded on.
I don’t believe people are property but we aren’t talking about what I believe we’re talking about how the civil war was framed and specifically the mythology it’s evolved into. Sure sane people don’t believe slavery is a righteous endeavor but clearly that’s not changed anything today nor in the past given that slavery hasn’t ended globally and in the US slavery specifically and legislatively isn’t illegal in certain instances like lawful imprisonment, again mythology.
Not talking about other places. I’m suggesting that the arguments about “states rights” and “property” are disingenuous because they imply that we didn’t agree that slavery is fucked to begin with. If we are a country founded on Christian values as many would suggest, then it is not possible to have an argument about “property” when you’re referring to people. This was true in 1860, as well.
It was literally framed at the time as states rights and specifically interstate property rights, this is what I mean by mythology. You want to ignore actual history because it makes you feel weird, that’s how mythology starts and progresses.
We literally didn’t agree that’s why there was a fucking war about it genius.
The country wasn’t founded on Christian ideals, that’s more mythology you can literally read the founders talking about the nation not being Christian or Christ based at all. Moreover slavery is not just legal in Christianity but fucking prescribed, it’s more mythology.
It quite literally was not true in 1860 hence the goddamn war and continuing racism in America.
No it wasn’t. Emancipation is the outcome not the cause, even after Sumter was attacked Lincoln refused to act on slavery. The feds got involved to preserve state sovereignity and reenforce Lincoln’s position that states did not have the right to secede. Slavery was certainly involved it wasn’t however the cause of federal intervention.
You’re pushing American mythology and ignoring the factual basis for federal involvement. Did you never wonder why Lincoln went with essentially an executive order (that by the way lost him 30+ Republican seats in Congress) rather than passing an amendment rather then passing an amendment first? It’s because he didn’t have the support needed to pass it because the North was also racist and also wanted to keep slaves they just wanted a different mechanism for gaining and keeping slaves ie. Lawful imprisonment.
That’s clearly the property that was being referred to, I’m sorry I didn’t specifically spell that out for you.
It was about states rights, they just framed it as interstate property rights because slaves were property. Again I apologize for not pandering to the dumbest among us but you’re making a good point that I shouldn’t discount just how dumb people can be.
do you support the “lost cause” of the confederacy?
Clearly not.
Removed by mod
You just asked me three times in a row of I support the Confederacy and got the answer no 3 times so you decided to go ahead and ask again?
How exactly do you think knowing history makes me a racist or Confederate sympathizer? Are you seriously so dense that you think that framing the cause of the civil war correctly is tacit support of the Confederacy?
calling all lemmy people! calling all lemmy people!
For what? What a weird thing to do.
deleted by creator
Nah, that’s how we get here in the first place.
…said the devil’s advocate supporter
No one is sitting anything but teaching history instead of mythology. Though I do think you might need to work on your teaching comprehension if you got support or of anything I’ve said.
you said that the civil war is about “states’ rights”. surely, you jest. seriously!
It was dude. When people say it wasn’t about states rights they’re simply wrong. The only reason the federal government stepped in was to protect the federal governments right to control interstate trade. Yes the trade was slavery but to ignore history because it makes you feel icky is to be willfully ignorant.
i’m actually non-binary, and i prefer gender-neutral and feminine terms. that said, when i said that you’re playing devil’s advocate, what i’m saying is that by saying that the civil war is about “states’ rights”, you’re peddling in the same exact bs that dixiecrats such as strom thurmond peddle, despite you claiming that you’re against this idea.
the civil war was about slavery, and the union won and freed people who have been held in extreme involuntary servitude for years leading up to the war. seriously!
Dude is non binary and I don’t particularly care what you prefer, I prefer not to be called a racist or Confederate sympathizer but you went ahead and did it anyway didn’t you?
It was about states rights you can read Lincoln talking about it, you can read Jefferson Davis talking about it and notably some of the union states were slave owning states when they entered the union.
No it was not, it was about property rights across state borders, there’s a reason emancipation didn’t happen until like 3/4 off the way through the war and that’s because Lincoln didn’t have support for it in the legislature and talked about it at length. Sure the outcome was emancipation but was not the cause. Seriously! Read a fucking history book dude.
well i’m NOT even calling you that. oh and the civil war is NOT about states’ rights. you, a leftist, are unknowingly espousing the exact claims that people like strom thurmond say which is that the civil war is about states’ rights, when clearly it’s NOT.
it’s about slavery - the north at the time (working with abraham lincoln who was born and raised in the south, but moved to illinois which is in the north) wants to free people who were held in extreme involuntary servitude, but the south at the time insisted NOT to free them, and declares themselves a new country. this culminated in a four-year civil war which fortunately ended in a union victory, and led to the emancipation proclamation being signed on january 1863. seriously!
Aside from the president of the Confederacy and the union both agreeing that it was a states rights issue? I’ve already provided my sources, where are yours?
It wasn’t about slavery it was about interstate property rights, sure the property were slaves but that doesn’t change what started it or why the federal government interceded.
Lincoln was against radical emancipation he tried it as a bill in DC and got no support so he moved to support generational emancipation. And btw Illinois didn’t become a free state until after it joined the union and even then only in limited part with grandfathered in slaves still considered property until the emancipation proclamation.
Yes, the South was filled with racists and slaveholders so was a huge part of the North. What exactly do you think isn’t common knowledge in that? More specifically what evidence can you provide to say that states rights were not the cause of the civil war? I’ve provided my evidence why can’t you proffer any yourself if your position is so unassailable?
Like super seriously!