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.

  • Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • ngdev@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        it was about states not recognizing property? you fucking clown lmao it was about (southern) states not recognizing people

        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.

      • HarneyToker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • HarneyToker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

              And if a man sells his daughter to be a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                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.

                  • Madison420@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    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!