Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "‘The End Of America!’ Ben Shapiro SAD That Robert E. Lee's Statute Removal Wasn't ‘Solemn’" video.

@barbiquearea He wasn't a seditionist to the US. It would be kind of nonsensical for England to have statues of George Washington.
11
Right. They have to believe that the most racist states in the country ... where the majority of white voters voted in pro slavery, anti abolitionist, leaders, for about 90 years ... where they seceded and were willing to die and kill for the "right" to enslave, beat, rape, torture, and kill, other human beings ... where they then voted in pro segregation, anti desegregation, leaders, for another 100 years ... all suddenly up and became the least racist states in the country, electing the least racist party. It couldn't possibly be that racists from those same racist places started running as Republicans and all the same racists started voting Republican. Anyone who can't see the switch is insane.
8
@MorarLa That was against the Commonwealth of Virginia. Do you think self, or other, defense, is a double standard, when it comes to assault or murder? Or, is it a different standard?
5
@barbiquearea States had already negotiated new treaty lines with natives, opening up plenty of land for settlement, before the American Revolution. Washington had also been personally given tens of thousands of acres, as a reward for his service in the French Indian War. There's no indication the proclamation line was a major factor leading into the revolution. American colonists largely did protest over new tax policies, to pay for debts from the war, and against being taxed without representation (and then they later went on to enacted their own taxes to pay for debts from the revolutionary war). Expanding voting to white male landowners, is still a much more democratic system, then nobody voting, and an appointed governor making decisions. Most white male colonists did own property, so it was almost all of them. Later expanding the system to include non landowners, then minority males, then women, were all also steps that made things more democratic, even if there are still undemocratic aspects to the system.
3
@MorarLa John Brown didn't separate from and go to war with the United States, itself, and your imagined course of events never happened. Being anti-slavery is equivalent to being anti-American or anti-Virginian? I was considering all the kidnapping, abusing, raping, torturing, and even killing, of other human beings to be the initial violence. You think slave owners can "just as well" argue they were innocent victims being attacked, and any violence started with John Brown?
3
@MorarLa Absolutely anyone who breaks laws is anti-American? It doesn't actually require trying to overthrow the government, or going to war against the nation? Like the underground railroad, sitting on the back of the bus, or whatnot? All anti-American, because they broke the laws of the times, in protest of the laws of the times? Give me a break. Everything I mentioned was commonplace. Plenty of research has led to the consensus that maybe 10% of slaves were treated decently, and they were still considered property, and had no rights. Slaves couldn't testify against white people (very undemocratic), even if there were a law against doing any of those things. Who was going to? The other white guys doing the same stuff? The senate going against the house is undemocratic. The very concept of the senate is undemocratic. Gerrymandering is undemocratic. Freezing the number of seats in the house, and therefore the number of electorals, is undemocratic. Women not being allowed to vote was undemocratic. Blacks and other minorities not being allowed to vote was undemocratic. By the time Brown came along, the Northern states had already abolished slavery. Are you sure, with over half the population not being allowed to vote, and the voting majorities in the North having already abolished slavery, that slavery was supported by the majority of Americans, and he was going against that?
3