POLL How long until lefties want to rename Stonewall Jackson Lake Park
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Can we rename it Over-rated, Over-priced, Over-crowded Sh*t Hole....or is that taken?
There's been some call for such foolishness already - over the past few months I've seen calls to rename U.S. Army posts named for Confederate generals. My own great-great-grandfather on my dad's side died in the service of the Confederacy, all I can say is 'he chose … poorly." Men like Lee, Hood, Bragg, etc., were the worst kind of traitors -- they had been educated by the U.S. government, and the Army had provided them with a career and a livelihood, and they shat all over that by leading an insurrection -- but attempting to erase all references to them is beyond PC run amok.
U.S. Military installations or government properties should not be named after ANY Confederate soldiers or leaders.
How appropriate that our own KKK Kleagle, Byrd, was instrumental in getting the funds for that park...,but he has been relieved of his past sins by none other than our own white-American decision maker on such things - aka doc
We would never, today, erect a memorial to Jonathon Pollard for the sake of Jewish heritage. Jackson and Lee were worse than Pollard. What is the difference? We should never, as a country, memorialize a Confederate leader or general. We'd never name a national park for them or put them on our currency. I fail to see much difference in memorializing a traitor from the past or contemporaneously. And last time I checked, the south lost that war and are now states within the US.
The Civil War has been painted by some as some romantic event where each side was noble. There was only one side that was in the right and that side won. Traitors should not be honored. This is America. Not the confederacy.
The Confederate Flag is hated by many because it represents racism to them, not because it represents "traitors". Since that is the case, then it is logical to remove all vestigages of racist symbols across the country including honoring slave holders, right?
The fact is, the country has a lot to be embarrassed about since slavery was a constitutionally recognized institution at our founding. Many of our founders had misgivings about it from the start. The Civil War changed all that. And our country did the right thing. As atrocious as it was for Washington, Jefferson, et al to own slaves, the facts remains that they founded this country and should be honored-warts and all. The country has evolved. And as such, we should not honor those who committed treasonous acts in combatting the notion of freedom for all.
You're being very inconsistent. The flag is hated not because of treason, but because of racism. Jefferson and Washington perpetuated slavery and were therefore racist. You're now trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. This is the problem with political correctness. Where does it end?
The flag is hated because it's treasonous too but it's just that the racist angle gets more press.
If people in SC wanted to honor their heritage they'd fly a SC flag from before the Civil War, not the one from during the Civil War.
The North has a lot to answer for in this. More on that shortly. Lee was urged just before he surrendered to take what was left of his army into the mountains and continue the fight as a guerrilla war. He refused, knowing what would come of such a move. Lincoln had only one aim in mind, and that was restoration of the Union and throughout the war his only terms for peace were for the Southern states to stop fighting and disband the armies. He correctly understood what months or years of legal or military reprisals against the beaten rebels would mean, and thus his orders to Grant and Sherman to "let 'em up easy."
Now to my first statement. The romanticizing of the noble Southern warrior started with Grant on the day of the surrender, when he ordered that no celebratory salutes could be fired. It deepened with Joshua Chamberlain and his salute to the enemies of the Republic as they stacked their arms at Appomattox. This PC revision of the rebels as noble and gallant (if ultimately misguided) continued throughout the post-war years, as it allowed the two sections to ignore what had been at the root of the rebellion. The Union didn't go to war to end slavery, and so the people of the northern states glossed over the slavery issue to assert that it had been to preserve the Union, which in turn allowed the South to perpetrate the canard that they hadn't been fighting to perpetuate slavery.
Many of the army bases named for dead rebels were established for World War I, when a racist Democrat named Wilson - himself born in Virginia and raised mostly in Georgia and South Carolina; his father was a Presbyterian minister who defended slavery and served as a chaplain to a Confederate unit - was in the White House. No doubt the names were chosen as a sop to the states where they're located.
All that being said, I can't see any benefit from changing the names. As we frequently say around the campfire at re-enactments, every day they wake up in The UNITED States of America.
I don't agree. The north wasn't all right, and the south wasn't all wrong. It wasn't an absolute good vs. evil fight. As this guy says... It's complicated (link)
Here is a very simple fact. We are judging actions taken over 150 years ago based on today's mores and values. Life and beliefs were much different 150 years ago. I very strongly suspect, as I read in an article today, that if the vast majority of those on this board had lived in the south at that time, they too would have fought for the south.
That is likely true but that doesn't answer why people believe and think what they do today. The question I keep asking and that nobody wants to answer is this. If the heritage thing is so important to the people of today then why do they pick that one symbol of heritage that is so closely related to being traitors back then and also to being racist today? Why not any of a thousand other symbols? Why not the SC flag from BEFORE the Civil War? That is SC heritage too.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the flag was Lee's battle flag from Virginia, not the flag of the Confederacy. Lee was not in favor of slavery. Lee is revered in the south and thus the use of his flag.
My guess is that people are smart enough to understand that it is very tough to villify someone from 150 years ago based on today's values. Those that support the flag don't view the men who died as traitors. Most of those that support the flag don't do so out of a sense of racism.
What wasn't the South wrong about? Imagine if a home-grown militia bombed Fort Bragg as a "protest" against Fort Bragg being located in North Carolina. Would you say that they had a point, or would you back unleashing the 82nd Airborne on them?
The fact that the flag was that of the Army of No Va makes it worse that it's flown in SC. That means it's even less about SC heritage. It didn't fly in SC until the Southern pushback against the Feds regarding integration. If the South integrated peacefully and the Feds didn't have to force the issue then the flag would have never flown in SC. The only reason any of this is an issue today is the backlash against integration.
And anyone that doesn't view the men who died under that flag as traitors are simply wrong. There were traitors, plain and simple.
What really mystifies me is how some people can defend the men that died under that flag and then turn around and call current social or political figures they don't like by the name "traitor." There is no politician around today that is nearly the traitor than EVERY man that died under that flag.
ETA: Lots of values have changed from 150 years ago but one that hasn't is that those that try to dismantle the country into smaller pieces are traitors. It was true 150 years ago and it's true now. By the standards of 1865 or of 2015, those guys were traitors.
Libs are supposed to be empathetic. But their empathy appears to be limited to causes with which they agree. At the time, many in the south thought that what Lincoln was doing was illegal and against state's rights. Many in the south thought they were fighting to preserve their freedom. Looking back today we can certainly say they were wrong. But at the time, things looked very differently to them.
Depends on what their protest was about. If it was about the federal government targeting North Carolina's livelihood, they might have a point.
Side note: I fully expect Christians of the Bible believing variety to be targeted for incarceration at the least within my lifetime. If my beliefs weren't that I allow them to do whatever it happens to be, that would be a point I would be a terrorist, or a freedom fighter... it all depends on your point of view. But I will take whatever punishment it is that they will dole out.
What had Lincoln done, besides get elected? What rights? The right to own slaves? Lincoln specifically said more than once that he had no authority to do anything about slavery in the states.
You need to read a little history. The abolitionist movement was growing dramatically and the South viewed Lincoln's election as a direct threat.
I know the US didn't exist at the time. Yeah, the Founder Fathers were traitors to the English throne but not to the USA, unlike the Confederates..
And if the English throne had been able to quell the rebellion and maintain its control it sure as hell wouldn't have permitted the American flag to fly all over the place, which is the equivalent of what some southerners want today with the Confederate flag.
I figure I know as much about the Civil War as anybody on this board, and more than many, including you. And in typical fashion, after asserting that Southerners believed "what Lincoln was doing was illegal and against states' rights" you deflected on the question: What had LINCOLN done that was illegal? Answer: Nothing -- except win the White House in a divided election.
Once again and I will type this slowly, opposition to the flag is due to perceived racism, not anything else.
From Causes of the Civil War:
Lincoln vehemently opposed the expansion of slavery into new western territories and served as one of the most influential advocates of "free soil." For this reason, the president posed a significant threat to the economic and political interests of the slaveholding South. Thus, in response to his 1860 election victory, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln was determined to prevent disunion by any means necessary, but his attempts at negotiation failed miserably; within the first months of his tenure, the divided nation was engaged in a full-blown Civil War.
Western expansion drove the Civil War, because neither side wanted to give up political power. Take slavery out of existence, western expansion occurs without a hitch, and there's no war.
Would you feel differently if the state flag of SC, prior to the Civil War, were flying over the state capitol today? I will call you a liar to your face if you answer in the affirmative. Slavery was definitely accepted under that flag.
IMO, you are simply trying to make an issue out of something again, as you often do, that is without issue. Are you opposed to the flag or the issue(s)? Hopefully you will take this as a response to your question and not chase rabbits into another direction just to perpetuate a discussion.
Nobody would care if the pre-Civil War SC flag was flying. For that matter, maybe it is. If so, it's not big enough news for anyone to care.
The idea isn't that nothing involving slavery can exist today. If that was true we'd have to get rid of the American flag and change the name of Washington DC and a million other things that nobody even considers doing.
The Battle flag of Northern Virginia was used in war by the South in an attempt to secede from the country, in an effort to preserve slavery amongst other things. And then it was resurrected a hundred years later explicitly as a rallying point against racial segregation.
The fact that people who say they want to honor their heritage choose a flag that has nothing but bad things associated with it says something.
