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.
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.
It’s not an echo chamber if there’s differing opinion.
Can’t help but notice you gave up without providing evidence against my argument. Want to try that again or simply cry about a disagreement you willingly took part in?
Wow, the articles of secession stating slavery as the reason are not evidence. You have an echo chamber in your own head. Saying the fed disn’t get involved because of slavery is like saying a murderer wasn’t sought for murder, but because their victim didn’t respect them. The causal chain to slavery is clear.
That’s one states articles of succession and I’m fairly sure the president of the Confederacy is probably a more definitive source as to the Confederacy and btw Lincoln agreed.
Here’s a fun question you’ve yet to address, why is slavery still legal in the United States if the war was to abolish slavery? Why were people still treated as property well into the 1900s?
Yes because that’s the property right they were trying to protect in interstate travel. I’m sorry two things can be true but learn to deal with it I guess.
You’re square in sovereign citizen “logic” territory. States can’t secede, because that usurps federal authority. Seceding because of slavery, explicity admitted by almost all seceding states, means causing a war over slavery. A kindergartner could get it. All the gobbledygook you write to the contrary is plainly, factually, irrelevant, like a sovereign citizen’s dream, ideas so compelling you just can’t let go.
No I’m not, you’ve apparently not read what I’ve wrote or you’re intensely confused.
I know that, you know that. It however was not tested until the civil war. I think it was Davis himself that said they found out first hand there is no right secede.
Yes a kindergartner could but you’ve apparently missed the point entirely so you’re where in that scale? Preschool? Somewhere in the neighborhood of lacking object permanence?
What you call gobbledygook (racist term btw) are actual facts, you may not like it but they are indisputable facts.
The rest is just weak attempts at personal attacks because you can’t find evidence against my position.