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.
To retain ownership across state lines where the property is considered a limited person in the other state. What part of this makes you think I do not know the property in question were people, that isn’t however why the feds got involved. State sovereignity was. Even after emancipation it was still legal to own people and still technically is to this day as slavery was never outlawed it was simply limited. To add to that children were still held as property until I want to say 1930 to the point that the first successful children’s welfare group was the goddamn ASPCA arguing children are property like livestock that it’s morally and economically unreasonable to abuse.
Your myopic and arguably ignorant meme usage and is implication is exactly what I mean by mythology.
But that wouldn’t work for say heroin.
If your state says heroin is legal and the fed says it’s illegal, you can’t really leave your state and still legally be in possession of it.
I guess you could claim you own a person in a red state but once they leave, you no longer own them?
Wasn’t that the red states’ whole complaint? That their slaves shouldn’t be considered free men once they leave?
So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.
And this doesn’t even talk about the moral issues which imo and most people’s opinion should override the above logic anyway.
That was an actual issue in America, nice of you to point that out for me and it’s also why drug prohibition was federalized.
Correct, that was their property right claim. It’s nonsensical but quite a lot of wars are over nonsensical shit.
No one said it worked, they fought and lost a war about it but that doesn’t actually make it not their argument nor does it imply we shouldn’t teach that property rights across state lines were the cause of the civil war, not in particular slavery as slavery was never outlawed and people were still considered property until well into the 1900s.
Nuance is sometimes difficult to deal with but that doesn’t mean we should pare away inconvenient truths.
Morality is subjective and therefore difficult to argue which is why they fought it as a property rights issue instead.
Everyone knows that owning other people is a topic with such significant moral subjectivity, so talking about racially justified ownership of other humans really emphasizes the need to have a nuanced perspective on property ownership.
Think about how you sound.
No one is saying slavery wasn’t involved, it clearly was.
No one is saying racism is a good thing.
What I am saying is that the federal government but it’s own explanation did not get involved because of racism or slavery but rather state sovereignity and succession.
Slavery may have been their reason for seceding, it isn’t however the framework of their disagreement with the federal government not the reason the federal government got involved. So to say it wasn’t about states rights is straight up, flat out wrong.
I can’t help not notice you didn’t provide any evidence for your claim that “no one cared about states rights” or that it states rights were solely a post war conjuring.
You’re wrong, call me a racist I don’t care since I know you’re wrong and simply attacking me on a personal level says you’re emotionally involved to the point you’re willing to ignore actual facts in favor of feelings.
lol. You’re such a doofus. You just spent a whole bunch of time complaining about me not backing my assertions when you are not even responding to the right person.
I just think that minimizing racially justified ownership of other humans, their children, and use of extreme violence to control them is not such a neat debate over property. I don’t think that racial ownership of other humans is really a matter of such nuanced morals. It is wrong, it’s disgusting, and I find it really strange that you’re trying to bend over backwards to minimize that.
I find it interesting that you are so eagerly anticipating being called racist in this thread. Why do you think that is? What remarks have you made that you think could be interpreted as racist? Nothing says not caring about something like preemptively bringing it up.
By all means, feel free to enumerate things that I haven’t said and that nobody at all has said. It seems like you’re carrying out an argument inside your own mind and you’re somehow still losing.
You should take a break. I think you’ve lost track of what’s going on. You can’t even respond to the right person.
I know you have two separate names, sure. You’re both still making the same idiotic argument blissfully unaware of nuance.
No one is minimizing it. No one said it is right either, you’re being obtuse.
You already have and just did again.
What things would those be exactly?
I think you’ve lost track of the contention hence your bullshit about minimizing things.
If you think that this account is somehow a sock puppet of other users who disagree with you, you might have a problem. I certainly don’t secretly follow you around online just to disagree with everything you say. I also don’t have people gangstalk you or send people to knock at your door ominously.
For someone who doesn’t care about being called racist, you sure like imagining that people have called you racist. I did ask you to contemplate why you might be so eager to anticipate me calling you racist because this is only my third comment in this thread. Never before have I interacted with you.
I did ask you to reflect upon why some might consider your remarks racist. Clearly, introspection is not your strong suit, so I’ll help you out.
Pointing out the immoral violence against and enslavement of people based around race is not some “idiotic argument blissfully unaware of nuance.” Accepting the legalistic justification of the perpetrators of this racially-justified violence isn’t just some really cool property fact. It’s disgusting. It’s not some fascinating instance of moral subjectivity as you seemingly want to believe.
Are you also going to share other really cool and nuanced moral debates like how black people were actually once considered 3/5ths of a person or how the institution of slavery is a positive good to those subjugated under it?
Initially, I just thought that your argument came across as odd and tone deaf. Initially, I just thought that you were just overly eager to respond and weren’t paying attention to who you were responding to. Your responses are somehow so much worse than that.
There is no nice way to say this: it is generally delusional and psychotic that you somehow think I am someone who I am not. Quite honestly, if you think that me pointing out that your, at best, distasteful and minimizing argument towards the enslavement and brutality against black Americans is such a stupid argument lacking nuance, you might be a racist. There. I sad it. (For the first time to you, I might add. I’m sure you genuinely don’t care, though, despite straight up imagining that I’ve said things that I haven’t and that I’m someone who I am not.)
You’re like some gross creature writhing on the ground lashing out at anyone who dares get near.
In all seriousness, some constructive criticism: think about what you are communicating when you so strongly tout and advocate for the legalistic justification used by a racist institution to try to justify the enslavement of black Americans. Think about how you come across when you so unwaveringly beat people over the head with points that they haven’t even made.
Naw, the meme holds: “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution”.
south caronlina seceded because of state’s rights to slavery. Almost all articles of secession had the same language. Have some history.
No one said the meme was wrong, I said it was myopic.
But it isn’t. It is right on point. Even the secession articles say it out loud. The fight was over slavery.
You just admitted it was about states rights… Hence myopic. We had the same issue with drugs pre federalization as others have pointed out and notably slavery was never outlawed in the United States.
No, states rights to slavery. Why try to whitewash it? That’s myopic, and dogwhistling in support of slavery.
Uh huh, states rights. The federal government did not intercede because of slavery, they likely wouldn’t have acted at all past flimsy legislation if not for fort Sumter.
Don’t believe me, listen to Lincoln, listen to Jefferson Davis.
It’s not white washing it, when people say it isn’t about states rights they are the ones removing context not the other way round.
You just repeat the same shit over and over til people give up, go back to your echo chamber and think you won something. Like the other guy said, words.
Insightful rebuttal.
Thanks man
Ya huh.