Should All Traces of the Confederacy Be Gone?

Ah..... NO.....

jerryrva said:

With apparent support of GOP members in Congress, the military may be required within 3 years to erase all names of bases, ships, aircraft and streets that honor the Confederacy. Are we going to be like the Taliban and erase history that some people don't like or refuse to even acknowledge?

GOP-led committee backs renaming bases that honor Confederates, setting up clash with Trump

The president said Wednesday that he would “not even consider” renaming Army bases that honor Confederate leaders.

www.nbcnews.com

Click to expand...

This shit keeps getting worse by the minute, with no sanity in sight.

lol, mostly celebrating Democrat confederate war heroes.

Democrats trying to erase the evidence that the south, who wanted slavery to continue, was run by democrats. So they've started a movement with dis-information and tried to paint the southern democrats of the 1800's as the equivalent of modern republicans. What's sad is that they are succeeding since they've taken over public education and done their best to make kids a dumb as they are.

Just my opinion on the matter anyway.

Branden

For fuck sakes all these monuments and bases were built/named by Democrats.

There are tons of Confederate memorials on the National Park Battlefields......it's strikes me as dishonorable to desecrate the graves of the dead.

Even on the graves of the dead British on the Battle Road to Concord the graves of the British are honored....let's rip them up.

In the Fort cemetery, Fort Devens, Fascist POW dead are honored every October.......rip out those graves too.

They are just clearing space for the monuments they expect to be put in place after the upcoming civil war is completed....

Didn't ANTIFA just set up a couple of "autonomous zones"???

Entire regions can become autonomous when their inhabitants want it to be

Are they giving us ideas on the down low???

NAH... How about a takeover of some turd world shithole like Syria or Somalia? The 'Confederacy' will bring all of those miserable wretches into the twenty-first century and twenty first century republican governance...

Training?

pmclaine said:

There are tons of Confederate memorials on the National Park Battlefields......it's strikes me as dishonorable to desecrate the graves of the dead.

Even on the graves of the dead British on the Battle Road to Concord the graves of the British are honored....let's rip them up.

In the Fort cemetery, Fort Devens, Fascist POW dead are honored every October.......rip out those graves too.

Click to expand...

Well, they're going back and erasing any mention of Nazis and swastikas, so it wouldn't surprise me

As much as I'm against destroying our country's history, I have to say it really made my day when I saw the video from VA where the statue was pulled down and it fell on another vandal.

I’m fairly certain most here know my opinion on war and I’m ok with it being as unpopular as it is. Even I don’t think all of the war history should be erased. The dead, their stories, and all of the history should definitely be remembered

the confederacy was the democrats, so that is the first thing that should be abolished....the democrat party.

No. Just no. Isn’t their an old saying about trying to forget history and only repeating it?

Um not just NO but HELL NO! HELL NO HELL NO!!!!

The campus of the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) is located in Oxford. Oxford is in Lafayette County. University Avenue carries you to the Lyceum. The Lyceum is the administration building. During the Civil War, it served as a hospital for both Union and Confederates. Entering the circle that leads to the Lyceum stands a statue of a man holding a Rifle, with the butt at his feet, shading his eyes with his hand like he is looking for something, maybe his son.

This statue was erected in 1906, paid for by the citizens of Lafayette County, in honor of the hundreds of their young men and boys who died in the "civil" war. This statue is seen as racist by those who don't, or don't want to know it's history. There is a current movement to move the statue to a less prominent location.

Like other statues and buildings being criticized, I think the liberals do not want the young black people to know about their history. History forgotten is history repeated.

No.

navynambu said:

"History" is often just some hogwash written down later by some pencilneck who wasn't there. The secessionists tried to destroy the United States. They were traitors, pricipally beacuse the lost the war, a war they started. The men that were in charge were all lucky they weren't all hung after the war. I would not have any problem renaming Ft. Benning to the name of any MOH VN vet.

Click to expand...

Wrong

navynambu said:

"History" is often just some hogwash written down later by some pencilneck who wasn't there. The secessionists tried to destroy the United States. They were traitors, pricipally beacuse the lost the war, a war they started. The men that were in charge were all lucky they weren't all hung after the war. I would not have any problem renaming Ft. Benning to the name of any MOH VN vet.

Click to expand...

I'd bet the MOH vet would.

theLBC said:

the confederacy was the democrats, so that is the first thing that should be abolished....the democrat party.

Click to expand...

Don't forget they started the Klan also.
One more reason to abolish the Dimrats.

navynambu said:

"History" is often just some hogwash written down later by some pencilneck who wasn't there. The secessionists tried to destroy the United States. They were traitors, pricipally beacuse the lost the war, a war they started. The men that were in charge were all lucky they weren't all hung after the war. I would not have any problem renaming Ft. Benning to the name of any MOH VN vet.

Click to expand...

I’m calling b.s. on that also.
on the VN vet, I’d bet not.

Sorry, my answer to the OP’s question is emphatically no.

I got news for folks! White skin is offensive to many!

Blue Sky Country said:

Didn't ANTIFA just set up a couple of "autonomous zones"???

Entire regions can become autonomous when their inhabitants want it to be

Are they giving us ideas on the down low???

NAH... How about a takeover of some turd world shithole like Syria or Somalia? The 'Confederacy' will bring all of those miserable wretches into the twenty-first century and twenty first century republican governance...

Click to expand...

Here's a thought; why not let these people form their own little utopia? Agree to it give them 1/8-1/4 acre per person and then build a truly impregnable wall, and let them live there all to themselves. Don't allow them to have anything but what is on their person (like Naked and Afraid, but for real) and see how long it takes before they are either killing each other and/or begging to be let back into a CIVIL society. No computers, no power, nothing. Jam their phones so they cannot get internet and see IF they can actually BUILD a society!!

navynambu said:

"History" is often just some hogwash written down later by some pencilneck who wasn't there. The secessionists tried to destroy the United States. They were traitors, pricipally beacuse the lost the war, a war they started. The men that were in charge were all lucky they weren't all hung after the war. I would not have any problem renaming Ft. Benning to the name of any MOH VN vet.

Click to expand...

"History" is often just some hogwash written down later by some pencilneck who wasn't there. The patriots tried to destroy the British colonies. They were traitors, principally because they objected to the rule of the Crown. They happened to win the war, a war they started. The men that were in charge were all lucky they won or they might've been hanged after the war.

You see how it's not all so cut-and-dry? You know that after 1865, people in the USA were still very much racist/prejudiced against black people, right? That the Northern states weren't any less racist just because they abolished slavery? That just because the official stance of the US government during the Civil War was that slavery was bad and abolition was good, politicians and military personnel and civilians weren't all automatically not racist towards black people?

There is a military barracks in Augustdorf, Germany that is named after Erwin Rommel. Germany, a country that abhors and is duly ashamed of what happened under the Third Reich, has its largest army base named after one of the single best commanders of Hitler's Wehrmacht. It was named after Rommel in 1961, when it was still located in Allied-controlled West Germany. Let me reiterate: A German military base in Allied-controlled West Germany was named after a Third Reich military commander less than twenty years after WWII was over.

Savannah GA's Hunter Army Airfield was named after one Major General Frank O'Driscoll Hunter, a native of Savannah and a WWI fighter ace. By all accounts, an outstanding pilot and officer during the Great War, receiving the Distinguished Service Cross with four oak leaf clusters, second behind the renowned Eddie Rickenbacker (who received six). Gen. Hunter was, however, considered a racist later on because he believed that segregation in the Armed Forces was a good thing. One such incident: Among the units under Hunter's command was the all Negro 477th Bombardment Group stationed at Freeman Field in Seymour, Indiana. Hunter was commanding general when 104 African-American were subjected to military court martial for trying to integrate the base's officer club in early 1945. So a WWI ace and then WWII general was racist, was he? Should we rename Hunter AAF because he was a racist bigot?

No. The forts and installations should be named after Confederate, Union, Revolution, WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, Korean, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, whatever. Any and all of the above. Even foreign military personnel we've fought against or fought beside. It doesn't matter if they were racist or if they were "traitors" or if they were utterly inept or what. If a military installation is named after someone, it is out of respect for their memory and for their role in history no matter how marred that memory and role are. Removing them does the memory of the men who died in those wars, on all sides, a deep disservice.

Anything named after Woodrow Wilson should be destroyed?

I wonder what the financial impact would be to rename Forts and how much confusion it cause?

But , I guess that tthe expense should not be an issue, just pass it on to the taxpayer! The important thing is to pacify the people, if memory of the Confederacy causes some discomfort for a few people, then erase it from history. (Hope y’all are detecting the sarcasm).

Fuck no . I'm a born and bread yankee . The Condederate soldiers are American and deserving of all the respect and honors afforded any US serviceman or Vet . In fact isn't there a law on the books stating that thereby making these desecrations illegal .

A bit of research and you will find that only about 10% of the south owned slaves. Anyone who truly thinks that the south was only fighting for slavery, is and idiot, and anyone who thinks the north was only fighting to free the slaves is a double idiot.

Alphatreedog said:

Fuck no . I'm a born and bread yankee . The Condederate soldiers are American and deserving of all the respect and honors afforded any US serviceman or Vet . In fact isn't there a law on the books stating that thereby making these desecrations illegal .

Click to expand...

Laws apparently do not apply to leftists....

Looking at this objectively- many of these posts were established at the tail end of the first world war. The civil war and reconstruction were in living memory, the 'lost cause' movement was in full swing, and Federal Control/National Identity were not as consolidated as they are today. It was surely much easier for state and local sensibilities to stomach a Federal Government plopping a bunch of posts in the middle of the South if they were at least named after Confederate leaders.

Like many elements of reconstruction and its legacy, this trend has perhaps outlived its utility and is worth discussion. Doing it now, however, looks like caving to the most iconoclastic populist tendencies.

I never understood the naming of places/streets/buildings after Confederates. They renounced their US Citizenship and fought against us. A lot of more deserving heroes should be considered in renaming US bases. Statues I can see if they are a public park, and there is some connection with the confederate person, like Gen Stonewall Jackson at Manassass Battlefield Park. He did fight there, and earned his nickname there. But how many statues were build long after the Civil War?

If it happens, slavery should never be mentioned again.

Actually, roughly 6% of the South owned slaves. Of that, about half-3%, owned the majority. I forget the exact numbers but it is huge. Most of that 3% were large plantations in the Deep South. Slaves were very expensive. The remaining 3% owned 6 or less slaves. If you are interested in getting one of the most accurate and objective looks at slavery in America, get a copy of The South was Right . I have a copy but not near me at the moment. Last name of the authors is Kennedy--they are brothers. NO--they do not endorse or make any excuse or justification of slavery. They make that clear from the start. About half or so of the book deals with slavery and the remainder deals with State's rights and how the federal government has usurped those rights since the War of Northern Aggression (I'm a Southerner by the way). Very thought provoking read and not for the politically correct. Would not be surprised if the authors are in jail and the book banned given the current climate...

All of the statutes were built after the Civil War.

BytorJr said:

Here's a thought; why not let these people form their own little utopia? Agree to it give them 1/8-1/4 acre per person and then build a truly impregnable wall, and let them live there all to themselves. Don't allow them to have anything but what is on their person (like Naked and Afraid, but for real) and see how long it takes before they are either killing each other and/or begging to be let back into a CIVIL society. No computers, no power, nothing. Jam their phones so they cannot get internet and see IF they can actually BUILD a society!!

Click to expand...

Can we capitalize on televising this?

MadDuner said:

Laws apparently do not apply to leftists....

Click to expand...

Clearly. Skinny jean wearing Armed mofos took over part of Seattle and nobody doing shit. Just think if a bunch of Armed white rednecks did that? They’d have been televised nonstop, likely already shot, captured and or castrated and everyone would be fine with it because they would be labeled terrorist. Apparently if you are Antifa and are a terrorist, it’s ok. I swear you can’t make this shit up. The world has always been looney but now it’s in overdrive.

For those calling the Confederates traitors, and for trying to destroy the United States, hating on them now,

appears they dont know Lincoln intended to pardon them all, offering forgiveness, to reunite the country after the at the time, most horrible conflagaration the country had been through. His goal was to as soon as possible put the U.S. back together and reunite all the families torn apart by the war, Make America Great Again.

Unfortunately someone assassinated him...

His plan was not instituted. Instead, big business interests who profited from the war and didnt want the competition from a restored southern economy AND who held hatred not forgiveness, instituted their plan.

Reconstruction created a longer lasting hatred and set in motion events still live today. All Southerners were punished, even though many were US supporters who had family murdered during the war by rabid states rights groups. Innocents were starved to death who were spies for the North the whole war, losing everything in Reconstruction "just because they were southern". Little people who never owned a slave were punished just as hard as the people who did. Little people willing to give all to the US who wanted to do as Lincoln wanted, who didnt support the war were punished simply because they were born southern.

When it became obvious reconstruction was NOT creating economic recovery and was leading into a larger financial meltdown, reconstruction was ended and all effort was put forth to reintegrating the Southern people into the working US.
Lincolns forgiveness plan was instituted somewhat watered down but nonetheless.

General Benjamin Beast Butler, the Northern Reconstruction COMMANDER, stationed in New Orleans, wrote much about this lamenting Lincoln's assassination and the MIC (even though it wasn't called MIC then) 's rape of the South during Reconstruction and the long term damages it would (and did) cause.

The reintegration of the South into the US following Lincolns plan did not intend to erase all things Southern, but give them their dignity and rights to freedom and practice of beliefs under the Constitution.

The number of Southerners who successfully reintegrated early and who worked to repair the damage caused by the war were rewarded. Things were named after them by a government intent on reuniting the United States, a government run out of Washington DC.

The NORTHERN run GOVERNMENT named the bases.... they are FEDERAL Installations. Federally owned. And for years a symbol of a reunified people...
Done for the good of the country, to MAGA...

You haters learn your history and the why behind it...

Now, from day 1 of Reconstruction, the SJW of the day tried to integrate the new freemen into society. Why did this fail, haters ???

Because it wasn't making Northern business AND foreign business interests the profits they were now accustomed to after the war, in fact many were losing their ass, because there was no markets for their goods. Both black and white southerners were struggling for survival in the South because no Northern, foreign, or Washington business institutions were willing to finance the reforms and rebuilding like the WW2 Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe. And they couldn't afford to buy jack shit.
It was rape and scrape. Again, General Butler documented this. His letters to Washington are in the Library of Congress...

The new freemen suffered at the hands of Southern people. True. True. True.

But they suffered the greatest because the NORTHERN RUN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... FAILED to keep every promise they ever made to them. The NORTHERN COMMANDER Butler documented this very well... his and his wifes diaries are in the Library of Congress. The freemen's multiple begging letters are there. And they are pitiful to read.

A few Klansmen versus a whole FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, both screwing the freemen. Who yall think funded the Klan... big business who wanted Southern businesses to revive and make $ for Washington... who you think kept the Klan alive. Follow the $...

There is enough blame to go around. Of that, there is no doubt...

The losers were the freemen who Washington wanted to still provide the cheapest labor to make Washington and big business rich. Robber barons. Industrial giants, foreign investors, all working together to keep the new freemen as cheap labor.
Looks like they succeeded doesnt it.

The most of the Reconstruction shit was run by Northern business interests. Southerners were not allowed to profit during Reconstruction...
Washington and fucking Yankees.... all about greedy motherfuckers trying to get rich, fucked the black race during reconstruction in ways still alive today, way more than the defeated Southerners did.
General Butler, the Yankee Commander documented it all.

So easy to blame all of it on the South and the Klan, than look long and hard at who ran the whole show and orchestrated it all.

Rant off....
Good Night..

Ahh, fuck no, leave the base names alone. Pussy hurt feelings, move the fuck on.

pmclaine said:

Anything named after Woodrow Wilson should be destroyed?

Click to expand...

he was one of the first deep state bastards.

IrishWind said:

I never understood the naming of places/streets/buildings after Confederates. They renounced their US Citizenship and fought against us. A lot of more deserving heroes should be considered in renaming US bases. Statues I can see if they are a public park, and there is some connection with the confederate person, like Gen Stonewall Jackson at Manassass Battlefield Park. He did fight there, and earned his nickname there. But how many statues were build long after the Civil War?

Click to expand...

A reminder to future generations the horror of fighting your brother, no matter the reason.

Snipe260 said:

I got news for folks! White skin is offensive to many!

Click to expand...

If I covered it with shoe polish, would that make it better? Feel'n Woke!

jerryrva said:

My small country church a few years back banned the Battle flag on graves of Confederate soldiers. Didn't want to offend people driving by.

Click to expand...

Do they own the cemetery? If not, your pastor and whatever you call the church leadership can eat shit and die

….does the removal of a building or a statue erase history?

Certainly countless institutions have done so or at least tried…some more successfully than others.

Realistically it is generally the victor who defines, colors and is often tasked with recording history creating a bias inherent in what survives and thrives. The dead rarely have the opportunity to pen their own memorial.

Historical events and context are lost when one allows them to be lost...if they are taught, reviewed, evaluated, discussed, written, recorded and challenged then it survives.

Destroy and oppress human beings, libraries, museums, art, literature and institutions of learning and history may well be lost or distorted. This is among the greatest of horrors and risk to historical record.

I don’t think future generations need a monument to Hitler or Stalin to remember, reflect, learn of and from the horror and reality of the past.

People evolve, sentiments, sensitivities, philosophies, ideas and ideals change…..with that so does the landscape.

It is not necessary to burn oneself to learn and appreciate the physics and consequence of fire.

want2learn said:

….does the removal of a building or a statue erase history?

Certainly countless institutions have done so or at least tried…some more successfully than others.

Realistically it is generally the victor who defines, colors and is often tasked with recording history creating a bias inherent in what survives and thrives. The dead rarely have the opportunity to pen their own memorial.

Historical events and context are lost when one allows them to be lost...if they are taught, reviewed, evaluated, discussed, written, recorded and challenged then it survives.

Destroy and oppress human beings, libraries, museums, art, literature and institutions of learning and history may well be lost or distorted. This is among the greatest of horrors and risk to historical record.

I don’t think future generations need a monument to Hitler or Stalin to remember, reflect, learn of and from the horror and reality of the past.

People evolve, sentiments, sensitivities, philosophies, ideas and ideals change…..with that so does the landscape.

It is not necessary to burn oneself to learn and appreciate the physics and consequence of fire.

Click to expand...

For some reason that reminds me of Shelley’s ‘Ozymandias’

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

that's beautiful...thanks for sharing that. i'm embarrassed to admit that my knowledge of poetry is terribly deficient. I recently read a book of Chinese poetry and have a book of Dylan Thomas ordered. I'm struggling with the former....

RRG said:

I wonder what the financial impact would be to rename Forts and how much confusion it cause?

But , I guess that tthe expense should not be an issue, just pass it on to the taxpayer! The important thing is to pacify the people, if memory of the Confederacy causes some discomfort for a few people, then erase it from history. (Hope y’all are detecting the sarcasm).

Click to expand...

My gun right constantly being under attack causes me some discomfort. I wonder if I tell the Democratic I'm triggered if they'll stop?

want2learn said:

that's beautiful...thanks for sharing that. i'm embarrassed to admit that my knowledge of poetry is terribly deficient. I recently read a book of Chinese poetry and have a book of Dylan Thomas ordered. I'm struggling with the former....

Click to expand...

Hey no sweat, I don’t know how to read wind....yet. I reckon the main thing is we keep learning and doing.

IrishWind said:
I never understood the naming of places/streets/buildings after Confederates. They renounced their US Citizenship and fought against us. A lot of more deserving heroes should be considered in renaming US bases. Statues I can see if they are a public park, and there is some connection with the confederate person, like Gen Stonewall Jackson at Manassass Battlefield Park. He did fight there, and earned his nickname there. But how many statues were build long after the Civil War?

Click to expand...

Someone like Sen Jim Lane, for example?