Public high schools named after Confederates

[JohnLocke]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22John+H.+Reagan+High+School%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jefferson+Davis+High+School%22&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&start=10&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22J.E.B.+Stuart+High+School%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Stonewall+Jackson+High+School%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Robert+E.+Lee+High+School%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Nathan+Bedford+Forrest+High+School%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22Wade+Hampton+High+School%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22P.G.T.+Beauregard+High+School%22

I'd like it if those voting "appropriate" justified their answer. Oh, and before anybody accuses me of "southern bashing," know this: I was born in Louisiana and spent my whole life in Florida. The south is my home, and I love it here; the people, the land, the ocean. That doesn't mean I have to love its history, and what people did here. And that certainly doesn't mean I'm obligated to like having traitors from my state and my region put on a pedestal, especially when there are so many great Southerners that weren't traitors.

[Endangered Specie]

1. Near here there is one called "R.J. Reynolds High"

[JPZenger]

156. Politicians No, Generals OK

I believe it is wrong for anything to be named in honor of the politicians who lead the succession movement. However, I don't see anything wrong with naming things in honor of the generals who thought they were defending their homeland and were doing their jobs.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. Are there any high schools named after Benedict Arnold?

I think naming schools after people who were traitors to the country is inappropriate. The South has a rich political and cultural tradition. Why name schools after people who tried to secede?

[whistle]

3. Ha hahahaha, Benedict Arnold High, purhaps in Great Britton...

...there may be some named after him, but I doubt that:

<snip>

Benedict Arnold and John André

Benedict Arnold was an early hero of the revolution. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold were both so eager for the honor of being the first man to enter the undefended Fort Ticonderoga, that they finally had to agree to synchronize their steps and walk in side by side. In fact, George Washington called him "The bravest of the brave."

But, Benedict Arnold died in disgrace as a traitor. Arnold heroically directed American forces toward victory at Saratoga, until a bullet shattered his leg. When the Americans regained control of Philadelphia in 1778, George Washington made Benedict Arnold its military commander.

In Philadelphia, Benedict met Peggy Shippen, the daughter of a family that was loyal to the British. The newlyweds lived lavishly and spent much more than they could afford. In 1779, Arnold was court-marshalled for using his post to enrich himself. He was cleared of most of the charges but he was mad. With thoughts of revenge, Arnold sent a message to John André, a British major, who had kept company with Peggy during the British occupation of Philadelphia. Benedict Arnold told André that he was ready to help him defeat the American cause.

Arnold persuaded Washington to name him commandant of West Point in August 1780. Seven weeks later, Arnold met secretly with André on the banks of the Hudson River. The pair agreed that Arnold would give up the plans to West Point for 10,000 pounds sterling. André set off for the British lines, but three American scouts stopped him and searched him, finding the plans in his socks.

The Patriots Capture John André

When Arnold heard that André had been captured, he escaped to the Vulture, a British warship. The Americans hanged André as a spy, but Benedict Arnold was never caught. John André was hanged in Tappan, New York in 1780

Arnold joined the Brits and fought against his own countrymen. After the war, Benedict Arnold moved to England, but he never got the honor or wealth that he expected and died at age 60, a lonely and bitter old man. <more>

http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/america10.html

[TyeDye75]

117. Thats OK

We have plenty of Arseholes of our onw to choose from.

[bluedonkey]

4. With all the South bashing around here

I'm ready to secede again.
What reason,other than bashing the South again,has this poll?

Why not deal with your own f*d up history first?

[ArkDem]

61. What you mean 'tried', kemosabe?

[annabanana]

69. hahahaha

the kids won't get it

[madfloridian]

5. I think Southerners have a right to name their schools as they wish.

I find your post a little insulting. Northerners may have won the war, but you guys are not superior. Stop acting that way.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

7. That is even more insulting. It sounds like Southern bashing to me.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......

[JohnLocke]

12. It's not "Southern-bashing," it's Confederate-bashing.

I can bash the Nazis without bashing the Germans.

[madfloridian]

18. This thread compares Southerners to Mussolini and Hitler.

Not good.

[JohnLocke]

22. No, it doesn't

This thread compares Confederates to Mussolini and Hitler, not Southerners.

[madfloridian]

8. Oh, and thanks for comparing us to Mussolini and Hitler.

Thanks.

[JohnLocke]

15. Southerners =! Confederates.

[bluedonkey]

9. The only ones

still fighting the 'War of Northern Agression'is you and some of your buddies around here.
How many yankee bashing threads are started here?

[Daphne08]

20. I agree!!

I was born and raised in the Deep South (as were most of my ancestors), but Geez, I'm a patriotic American as was my father who actually fought for this country in WWII in the Pacific as a Marine. He sacrificed his youth and his innocence there, and he was a Democrat for his entire life!!

I feel that this kind of divisiveness is totally unnecessary!

If this kind of Sectional prejudice is indicative of the direction of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Underground, then perhaps I'm in the wrong place!

[QC]

28. Yep, this is the only place I ever encounter people trying to refight

that war. In daily life in Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, where I have spent most of my life, I have only rarely encountered people hung up on the Civil War, and even here they're considered eccentrics.

But a day doesn't pass on DU when some "progressive" from, typically, California, Washington State, New York, or Massachusetts, isn't trying to fight that damn war again.

Having said that, I don't think that's what the poster of this thread is trying to do. But it's a very rare thread about the South here that is not intended as just another opportunity for people to indulge their ignorant prejudices yet again.

[primavera]

114. Ummm, wasn't this about naming schools after Confederates?

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I thought the point of this thread was to ascertain how many considered it appropriate to name public schools after Confederate figures. I may be wrong, but I don't think that California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts are trying to name schools after Ulysses Grant or whomever. But I have spent enough time in the south to know from my own experience that the names of Confederate heroes such as Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, etc., are highly revered in southern public memory, with numerous streets, buildings, libraries, schools, and so on being named after them. It is in states like Alabama - not California, Washington, New York or Massachusetts - that debate rages over whether to display the confederate battle flag over public buildings. Doesn't that lend at least some credibility to the claim that it is chiefly southern states which are vigorously preserving the memory of the civil war? And, in so doing, perpetuating - intentionally or not, it makes no difference - some of the divisive issues surrounding that conflict? If I'm off base, please correct me, I'm just asking.

[QC]

143. Did you read the context of my post?

I was responding to an earlier poster who pointed out the irony of Southerners on DU constantly being accused of needing to get over the Civil War when we're not the ones who bring up the topic at every opportunity.

I then went on to state, quite explicitly, that I did not consider this thread such a case. Very few threads here dealing with the South are much more than an opportunity for the same few people to trundle out the same old incest jokes and then congratulate themselves on how wonderfully enlightened they are, but I think this thread is a very welcome exception, since we're actually discussing an issue of substance on which honorable people can disagree, despite the efforts of a few to turn the thread into yet another flamewar.

If you want to get into the reasons why so many Southerners revere the memories of people like Lee, it's an interesting subject that has to do with things like the "Lost Cause" myth, historical memory, regional identity, and the like, but I don't think this thread is really the place to do it.

[JohnLocke]

10. That's not my question.

My question was this: Do you think it's appropriate to name high schools after Confederates?

[southlandshari]

91. I thought your question was clear

and this Southerner's clear answer is NO! Thankfully my public high school in Alabama bore the name of my hometown, but we were always competing in sports and academics against schools like Robert E. Lee H.S. and Jefferson Davis H.S., etc... No offense to folks who went to schools with like names - lots of my friends did - but I would heartily support any powers-that-be moving to rename these schools.

Ironically, all the schools bearing confederate-era names in my area have student populations that are mostly African American.

I would also second QC's excellent point above. I'm not offended by this thread (though I admit I am by many others), but I can bear witness to his/her statement that the civil war is brought up far more often here on DU by non-Southerners than it is in any typical small town in the Deep South these days.

[madfloridian]

11. I could tell you tales of what Sherman did here.

It was done to my grandparents and great grandparents who were minding their business. You should be ashamed, and it is wrong fro DU to be turned into Southern bashing haven.

[JohnLocke]

13. Why should I be ashamed? (nt)

[madfloridian]

14. You are insulting me because I have a Southern heritage. I am proud of it

That is why. And the sad part is that you don't even know you are insulting....I hope. I would hate to think you are doing it intentionally.

[JohnLocke]

17. I'm not insulting you.

See #12. The Southern heritage that I am proud of is not the Confederate part of it. I think that it's possible to celebrate the good and wonderful things about life in the South while recognizing the horrific things that happened here. I also think it's possinble to glorifying the former and not the latter.

[DrWeird]

38. I'm sure Germans are proud of their heritage too.

but I don't think there's a Hitler Jr. High School, or a Himmler Gymnasium.

Because, unlike many Southerners, they're rightfully ashamed about parts of their heritage.

[madfloridian]

40. And you wonder why the South is hard to win over?

If you go around talking to people like that, you will never win in the South.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[primavera]

115. So what would you suggest?

I agree with your complaint that comparisons between Hitler and prominent confederates are inappropriate, but I also think there's a valid argument to be made that the civil war reflects a dark and divisive chapter in American history and glorifying its memory only serves to prevent open wounds from closing over and healing. So how would you like to see the memory of the civil war addressed? You say that you believe that people should be allowed to name their public schools after anyone they like, but isn't there a valid argument against doing so in such a manner that it offends others? And I'm not referring to northerners who don't live in those communities, but I guarantee you that the names of Confederate war heroes occupy a very different place in the minds of African-Americans who are living in southern states. They are part of your local community and, in the minds of a great many of them, the confederacy was not about preserving some romanticized vision of the south. Regardless of whether one cares about potentially offending northerners, shouldn't one be concerned about offending ones neighbors who don't necessarily share the same perceptions of history?

[SaveElmer]

121. I don't want to insult all southerners...but

Southern civilians were not minding their own business. I of course do not know anything about your family so am speaking generally. The Confederate army could not have survived without the support of Southern civilians. They provided all the necessary support services, particularly food which kept that army alive. The war was a tragedy for civilians on both sides, but southern civilians were not minding their own business. Additionally, had it not been for the political support of the southern populace, the confederacy would never have been born.

[QC]

144. "the political support of the southern populace"

Historians generally agree that only a minority of white Southerners supported secession. A majority of the planter class wanted it, though, and used all the usual means of ruling classes to get it.

Once the war began, support for secession dwindled further even in the plantation belts, and dropped to nearly nothing in the mountain regions, where it was never popular to begin with. One of the biggest factors in that loss of support was the draft law, which exempted anyone with 20 slaves or the money to hire a substitute. Another big deal the insistence of the planters on putting all their acreage into cotton during a time when food was so short that people were starving. By the end of the war, a near-majority of confederate troops had deserted, many of them because their families were going hungry and they believed the war was solely for the benefit of the rich.

In other words, secession never had majority support and class conflicts played a major role--maybe the biggest one--in bringing down the Confederacy.

If you're interested in this subject, you might want to take a look at these books--they're fascinating:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813025702/qid=1106090428/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7456978-6485653?v=glance&s=books


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0820320331/qid=1106090428/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7456978-6485653?v=glance&s=books

[SaveElmer]

147. Correct to a point...

No political decision in antebellum America was made without the class aspect you talk about. Certainly the perceived benfit of seceding was in allowing those with a significant chunk of their wealth in slaves to keep their property. Certainly the American Revolution in many ways paralleled this. Our founding fathers supported independance for largely (though not exclusively) selfish reasons.

Southern plantation owners however, would not have gotten anywhere without the active support of most of the population. This was of course most obvious in the ability of the southern government to get more than a million men under arms (not all at once of course). As you point out, most of these men received no direct benefit from slavery, yet they joined. Throughout the war, without the active support of small southern farmers the army could not have survived as long as it did.

Had there been real opposition to the war among the yeoman classes, those advocating secession would have gotten nowhere. And of course, as defeat became inevitable, desertion increased, but the fact is, at least in the early part of the war, with the exception of unionist strongholds in upcountry Alabama, parts of Georgia and the Carolinas, western Virginia and eastern Tennessee, secession was supported by the people.

[QC]

148. Interestingly enough, some "old money" planters opposed secession

because they feared that it would be bad for business, and they had a lot more to lose than the new money firebrands. Most planters did support secession, but not all of them.

I think you're ignoring a key point here in reference to "most of these men received no direct benefit from slavery, yet they joined." You make this sound voluntary, like joining the Shriners, yet there was a conscription law in effect that authorized the military to take forcibly into custody anyone who did not report for duty. Those who escaped after being forced into service could be executed. That's some pretty powerful persuasion.

Likewise, the business about "the active support of small southern farmers" ignores the role of force. The government reserved the right to confiscate whatever they liked from small farmers, who disproportionately bore the burden of impressment, since planters were too powerful to mess with and didn't put much of their effort into food production anyway. If you'll read letters to soldiers, as well as to government officials, you'll see that there was incredible resentment of these impressment agents, a good many of whom were killed.

There's no way, of course, to know the exact percentage of the population that suported secession--Gallup wasn't around then. There was considerable variation based on class and region, and of course opinions changed over the course of the war. But the Old South was riven by class conflicts that only grew more intense under the pressure of war. The idea of a solidly unified South is popular among Lost Cause enthusiasts and those who seek to portray the war as a divine struggle between Good and Evil, but the class divisions were very real.

Given how interested you are in this subject, I really hope you'll take a look at the two books I linked to. They are fascinating.

[madfloridian]

16. Comparing Southerners and Mussolini and Hitler is over the line.

Way over the line.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

21. Kick - thread now unlocked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=120&topic_id=28316&mesg_id=28316&page=

[madfloridian]

23. Don't worry, I know when I am beat.

I won't bother you. I read your post about it, and I see it is approved. So I will not argue anymore.

[dogman]

24. There's a Santa Anna High School in Texas.

But it's named after the town it's in, which is named after an Indian Chief, not the Mexican hero (Texas villain).

[jocal]

25. Bigger fish to fry

I didn't vote because you didn't provide a "Who Cares?" choice.

Honestly, don't you think we've got bigger fish to fry than this...?

If we want to attract more red-state voters to our party, this ain't the way to do it.

[madfloridian]

26. What happened to my great grandparents.

My great grandfather remembered Sherman's men burning down their home. They were planters, not warlike, just people. They had to stand in the field next to their home in Georgia while the soldiers laughingly burned their home and the homes nearby.

Then when they finished burning the homes, they ran over to where the families were standing... the families had no weapons. They shot my great great grandfather in the head. No reason. They laughed according to very bitter family history.

There are two sides to every story, but the victor always gets to write history. My great husband was raised in NJ. His family has some wonderful historic items saved. One was a black and white print of Sherman's March through Georgia. When it came from up north when his aunt died, he left it leaning against a wall without thinking. I saw bitterness come out of my father that day....like I had never seen from this Christian, Baptist deacon. We worked through it once he understood, but it took my husband a long long time to understand.

My great great grandfather was a brilliant man. He was educated, a lawyer. He was not warlike, and according to what my grandfather remembered and what I have found of family history.....he was against slavery and against the war.

I just wanted to say this. I don't care if anyone understands anything anymore. I think our country has very little sensitivity left in any area.

[dogman]

27. You've made me curious.

Did your grandfather support the Confederacy? If not, why don't you dislike the Secessionists for what they brought on the South. If he did support them, how is he any different than any of the other casualties? There were horrible things done on both sides and I understand your sensitivity but there are many who are sensitive to those who suffered due to the treasonous acts of the Secessionists.

[madfloridian]

29. He was a human being, a civilian, a lawyer, a peaceful man.

I have some history, but I don't have the answer to your question.

But if he did, are you saying that it was ok to shoot a civilian in the head for no reason?

Do you think what we do in Iraq is ok, too?

Most of the people in the South actually cared little either way from what I have read....most just did not want their sons to die needlessly.

Remember, I said the victor gets to write the history. There are books that give intelligent other views. Perhaps you should read them. I am not going to list them in this atmosphere at this board. Any librarian could help you. Some folks are more enlightened than others.

Then perhaps you would not advocate or appear to advocate that if someone got shot in the head...not in the military, a civilian...that it was ok.

If you think that then our country has lost its way.

[Yupster]

31. Agree Madfloridian

Regardless of what you think of secession, you'd think we could agree shooting unarmed civilians was wrong and not an act of war.

I think there's also a lesson we can learn in Iraq. Whether the locals were Confederate supporters or not, once the foreign army comes through burning and looting, they will probably unite against its occupation.

I read a diary of a family living in Georgia and the vignette that stuck in my head the most was that the soldiers dug up the body of a family mamber who had died of fever two days earlier.

They dug up any earth that was recently moved as it was assumed that the citizens would try to hide their valuables underground. I'm sure it was true and they probably found many a silver setting that way.

[madfloridian]

36. I could tell lots more, but it is too dividing.

There is only one side being told now. Those of us who have done a lot of family research are quite aware of the things that occurred.

[dogman]

32. Not at all.

I was just curious as to his politics. One of the fallacies of War is that only combatants and "enemies" die. If he were a supporter of the War he would be more complicit in his own demise than if he opposed the War. Another point being, as you have noted, is the victor writes the history. I find in the case of the Civil War the losers would like to rewrite the history. I've had family move South who were treated rudely for being Damn Yankees. Ignorance has no side. I've seen momuments in the South that glorify Confederate victories over Yankee forces. Hell, if Hitler had won, we'd probably be conversing in German. Other views, no matter how intelligently presented, are not necessarily correct. War is nasty but Civil War can be far worse as this nation has seen.

[madfloridian]

34. Can we just leave it? I get your drift very well.

.

[Yupster]

30. The secessionists did not consider secession treason

They thought they were just legally leaving the union the same way they legally joined it.

We have a Robert E Lee High School in my city, and I think it appropriate.

I would not agree with a Nathan Bedford Forrest High School if there is one anywhere.

I certainly would puke if I saw a William Tecumseh Sherman High School or a Philip Sheridan High School though.

Also, I don't agree with calling the Confederate leaders "traitors." Davis and Lee were indicted for treason. If they were brought to trial, there is a very good chance they would have been found innocent. That's why they were never tried. The government indicted them and then wimped out of giving them their day in court. Lee didn't want a trial, but Davis begged for one and was loaded to bear with a high priced legal team of northern abolitionist lawyers who thought they had a good case of proving secession was legal and therefore the invasion of the Confederacy illegal.

To avoid a possible Supreme Court ruling in the Confederacy's favor after the war, the government chose never to try Davis.

So now people on supposedly a progressive website just declare him guilty without trial.

[dogman]

33. I'm not disputing that, but

we are the USA now and unless the Confederacy goes to court and secedes legally they lost. They fought against the USA and surrendered at which point they lost the arguement. If Davis felt he was right he should have taken it to the courts himself. It would have been far better to have fought the battle in court than on the battlefield. Unfortunately for the Confederacy there was no International Court to appeal to.

[madfloridian]

35. Methinks you need to see a librarian who is not biased.

And ask her for the other side of the story.

[dogman]

37. Yeah, they could probably hook me up with B$$$'s side to the Iraq War

too.

[madfloridian]

39. You let yourself show too much there.

Backing off now for sure.

I thought the human element I presented might make a difference, but it doesn't. The victor has taught the lesson well.

Bye.

[DrWeird]

42. Same goes for you.

Seems you've swallowed a lot of the pro-Confederacy revisionist history that crept up back in the twenties.

As for Sherman's March to the Sea, it ended the war far sooner than it would have without. And it paled in comparison to the atrocities committed by the Confederacy.

[BansheeDem]

66. You're Kidding, right?

Seems you've swallowed a lot of the pro-Confederacy revisionist history that crept up back in the twenties. As for Sherman's March to the Sea, it ended the war far sooner than it would have without. And it paled in comparison to the atrocities committed by the Confederacy.

The history of the war is there for all to see. It is not a matter of re-writing what happened. It is well documented that Sherman's march to the sea in 1864 was one of the most brutal acts of the war. Many innocent lives were lost - thousands upon thousands of acres of land destroyed, and innumerable lives disrupted in the name of victory. But at what cost? If your family had suffered through it, I'll wager you would not feel the same.

[DrWeird]

68. Not at all.

There was widespread revisionism that occured back in the twenties. Birth of a Nation, resurgence of the KKK, etc. They came up with a lot of shit, Sherman's March to the Sea, great exaggerations of Robert E. Lee's prowess, etc.

Sherman's March to the Sea wasn't any worse than the Allied campaign in Europe in WWII. And with just as much at stake.

[madfloridian]

70. You are saying Sherman's March was "revisionist history"?

No wonder Bush has so much support for what he is doing in Iraq.
No wonder there are threads like this that won't let wounds heal.

I have researched with some of the best on this subject. My husband's ancesters of course were Union, so I have worked through phone and email on this with both sides.

Guess what. You have been brainwashed.

[DrWeird]

71. No, it happened.

Portraying it as an atrocity of the worst sort is revisionist.

Like I said, compared to what the Confederacy did the March was a walk in the park.

[theboss]

79. Actually, Lee ordered his soliders in PA to not steal from locals

Granted, some did. But Sherman's entire objective was to punish civilians. In his march to sea, he only encounted one small piece of organized resistance. Some Georgia militia made up of old men and children was severely routed.

And to be honest, the march to the sea was nothing compared to what he and his men did in South Carolina after they were refitted in Savannah.

[DrWeird]

82. Sherman's objective was to destroy the Confederacy's infrastructure.

But Lee's campaign in PA wasn't the atrocities I was referring too.

[theboss]

83. I know, but I thought it was an interesting point.

Two stories from the Civil War I find interesting to show how complicated the whole thing truly was:

1. A Confederate soldier is captured. The Union guards are quizzing him in a somewhat friendly manner. Does he own slaves? No. Does he know anyone he had slaves? No. Does he believe in Secession? No. Does he like Jefferson Davis? No. So they ask him why he is figthing the Federal Troops. His answer:
"Y'all are here."

2. Lee's invasion of the North was not without controversy. Some of the worst desertion the Army of Virginia faced was right before the invasion of Pennsylvania, because a lot of troops believe they were signing up to protect Virginia, not to invade the North.

[BansheeDem]

84. I am a history buff ...

and have been a student of both conflicts for a long time. I must take exception to your assessment that Sherman's march to the sea was no worse the Allied Campaign in WWII. By today's standards, much of what Sherman's commanders did would be classified as a war crime. At that time, late 1864, the war was already essentially lost to the Union Army. From a tactical standpoint, there was not a need to conduct the campaign at all. Left to their own devices, the Confederacy would have fallen under their own weight. Many historians believe that it was ordered more as punishment than for any tactical advantage it may have given.

A number of posters here have described what happened to their ancestors during this campaign; and it is clear from their description that Sherman's commanders did not follow his Rules of Engagement. The historical record also backs their claims as to the brutal manner in which he conducted the march. (see my earlier post for a partial listing of his orders)

As to the prowess of Lee as a Commander; we would tend to agree. His less than stellar record speaks for itself. However, it must be noted that he was not the absent-minded old man that he has been portrayed in many movies about the period.

[DrWeird]

86. Well, from a tactical standpoint...

the Confederacy was lost from the beginning. So there was no need to fight at all.

:eyes:

[BansheeDem]

87. I agree in part ...

"Well, from a tactical standpoint the Confederacy was lost from the beginning. So there was no need to fight at all."

The Confederacy was saddled with all the disadvantages from the beginning. From ongoing blockades and oppressive tariffs to the inability to industrialize the war effort. The fact that they survived as long as they did is a testament within itself.

[Yupster]

99. I don't agree

I give the federals enormous credit for winning the war.

It was not usual in those days or today even for invading armies to be able to conquer and occupy lands as large as the Confederacy.

Give Lincoln much credit for keeping his nation committed to the war while 350,000 men were killed. Lincoln got 40 % of the vote in 1860, and there was a large and well-organized peace party in the north. I think it was well within the realm of possibility that Lincoln would lose his reelection bid and a negotiated peace would follow. Supposedly Lincoln told his cabinet that he would likely lose the reelection in spring 1864.

That was actually a high point for the Confederacy as they won victories in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee, and then captured an entire federal garrison in New Berne North Carolina.

Looking back, they all seem like small insignificant victories today because soon Grant and Sherman would start their war-ending campaigns, but at the time the people of the south saw victories everywhere, the Yankees occupied very little Confederate land though they passed through lots of it, and Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and Johnston's Army of Tennessee both looked very strong as they in fact were.

I don't believe a northern win was ordained from the start. I give the northerners much credit for winning.

[Yupster]

98. Lee had many faults as a commander, but

I still rank him at the top of those in the war.

Certainly Pickett's charge and Malvern Hill were horrible blunders, but no worse than Grant's Cold Harbor. It's just Lee had so much less margin for error.

His biggest credit in my opinion is in striving so hard to maintain the initiative regardless of the strategic or even tactical situation. He recognized that once the lines were fixed, he couldn't win.

I see him at his best in 1864 when he detached Early's corps to strike through the Valley into Maryland. How many commanders who were that outnumbered and hard-pressed by such an aggressive foe as Grant would still attempt a strategic counterattack. To me that was real brilliance, even more so than Chancellorsville or Second Manassas, or even the Gettysburg campaign which was wonderfully executed until the mismangement of the battle.

The other place where Lee stands out is the utter support and confidence his men had in him, both officers and men. This was not the norm in that war where generals constantly picked at each other for political advantage.Of the many characters in the Confederate Army, they all worked hard for Lee, and he also enjoyed enormous support among the political leaders starting with the President. Those relationships were not easy ones to manage.

[BansheeDem]

104. He was outnumbered and outgunned on too many occasions ...

I agree in part that sending General Early through the Shenandoah Valley to threaten Washington was a brilliant move. It forced General Grant to draw troops away for the purpose of defending the city. Unfortunately it garnered him little in the way of a tactical advantage (and as you know) Early retreated back to Virginia after stiff resistance from Grant's troops. All in all, I still have to count Chancellorsville as Lee's greatest victory and Gettysburg as his most stunning defeat.

There is no doubt, however that General Lee was well respected by both his commanders and his troops; which played a vital role in his early victories against the north.

[Yupster]

48. It's true the issue was settled on the battlefield

As far as Davis goes, he was one of the last southern senators to stay in Washington trying to reach a compromise with the president-elect which would have kept his state and all the other states but South Carolina in the union. He also agreed to serve on John Crittenden's senate committee to try once more over Christmas to reach a compromise.

He was no secessionist hothead. He tried as long as anyone to avert the crisis.

Also, when he left Washington, he went home. Most prominent southern politicians went to Montgomery where the Confederate government was forming. Davis did not. In fact that is probably a reason he got elected president because there were so many politicians campaigning in Montgomery for the job that he looked statesmanlike staying away.

He assumed he'd get an army command since he had earlier quit the senate to serve in the Mexican War, and was later Secretary of War.

In the end, the convention went with him because he was a moderate and they were wooing the key slave states which hadn't left the Union yet, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina. They also picked a moderate, Alexander Stevens for vice-president. He even voted against secession at Georgia's secession convention.

Stevens was quickly dispatched to Virginia to try to talk that key state out of the union. It was a close call until Lincoln blundered by ordering Virginia to supply regiments for the invasion of the Confederacy after Fort Sumpter. That forced Virginia off the fence and they joined the south. The same with Tennessee and North Carolina. Kentucky stayed in the union theough it had representatives in the Confederate congress too as did Missouri.

And another lesson for Iraq. The Confederacy held congressional elections during the war even with some of their biggest cities occupied and with foreign armies moving throughout their countryside. They just did the best they could.

[dogman]

50. Foreign armies?

Says it all. These were enemies of the USA. I find it amusing that these same states claim they represent the USA in todays political discourse. They could never be Republican because of Lincoln. Now because of Nixon's Southern strategy of using racism they are the Republican base. We are to have sympathy for the poor Southerners because slavery was ended and they could not live their heritage. It seems there is less acrimony between the German people and the Jewish people.

[Yupster]

55. Yes, once they voted to secede,

elected their own congressmen and president, wrote their own Constitution, got drafted into their own armies, they were no longer part of the USA. That made the US armies foreign armies.

[dogman]

58. Which brings us back to the OP.

Why should schools in the USA be named after enemies of the USA? It makes no sense. It only prolongs the misery of the war and supports the misguided notion that there was greatness in the secession movement.

[cattleman22]

157. RE: Naming schools after R.E. Lee

I think a case can be made for honoring R. E. Lee, not on his actions fighting the war, but rather on his actions ending the war and healing the wounds.

Lee disobeyed a direct order to disband his army and form a guerilla campaign out of the Blue Ridge Mountain in VA. In addition, after he surrendered, he attempted to help heal the wounds and tone down the rhetoric.

[Yupster]

164. Hey It's January 19 !

Happy birthday General Lee.

[primavera]

116. Isn't that kind of a double standard?

You say you have nothing against a Robert E Lee high school but "certainly would puke" over a high school named after Sherman. Why? Why is it okay to revere the memory of one civil war general and vilify the memory of another? They were both soldiers engaged in killing people, they are both bathed in the blood of hundreds of thousands of people, what makes one of them more deserving of commemoration than the other?

[Yupster]

150. Well the fact that I think schools should be named after some

Civil War generals doesn't mean I think schools should be named after every Civil War general.

For instance, were I to get a vote for the Hall of Fame, I would certainly vote for Rod Carew. Am I using a double standard if I don't then vote for every baseball player?

Don't I have some right to sort between great, near great, good, average, bad and awful?

[DaveinMD]

43. They don't have Hitler or Himler High in Germany

[Nimble_Idea]

44. The southern confederate types will never learn.

They can't get over the fact that they lost. They continue to make monuments and have hot flashes over the civil war. Good old Tent Lott let the hood fall out of his back pocket. They thought they could run their conservative taliban concentration camps of black people working against their will and being mistreated as if they were animals. While all of America was culpable, the Yankees finally decided it was time to destroy the evil...and did. God Bless the victorious North! God bless the blue states!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Up2Late]

52. As a Student of the Dalai Lama,

a replanted Southerner, and a practicing Buddhist, I find it really offensive that you have a picture of the Dalai Lama appearing next to the unenlightened and (in some cases), very offensive statements, you are making here. Maybe you should find a picture of Gloria Stienim to go with your quote?

Imagine if I (as a Buddhist),I had a picture of Jesus, and next to Jesus, it looked like he was calling someone that disagreed with him a "self-righteous prick?":grr:

[bluedonkey]

57. I have no problem

with different opinions,but obviously the poster I replied to has and you seem to have a problem with it,too.I had a problem with the hate and the attitude in the post.
You find my posts offensive,but you don't find other posts,calling Southerners traitors and the like,not offensive?You ,sir,have double standards!
And BTW,even Buddhists get angry sometimes and I will keep my avatar and my quote.
Peace to you,brother.

[Up2Late]

85. I have more than double standards

I have learned how to see multiple sides of any issue that I comment about, and not to defend a position, if looked at honestly, is indefensible. I also know that making angry, hate filled statements to someone who say such things, as the other posters did, will not change that persons mind. I don't remember the exact quote, but it's something like, "The reason you don't try to teach a pig to dance is that it wastes your time, and it only pisses off the pig."

Anger and hate only bring more of the same, and war brings more war. I do not defend war, and I do not think schools should be name for any General or Colonel, I feel it's just another way that those that DO think war solves problem, promote that idea to children.

I also think that the Civil War was a Stupid, un-necessary War, and it's time's we southerners admitted that it was a mistake to have started it. As we are seeing in Iraq today, if you don't learn from your mistakes, you're doomed to repeat them, and the folks who start these wars are rarely the people who have to go fight them.

Now if it makes you feel better to believe the Lies of the North or the Lies of the South, you go right ahead, but just remember that they are both lies, meant to justify State sponsored Killing for the sake of Greed. The North was only marginally less sinful than the South, because one of it's goals was the abolition of the immoral institution of Human Slavery.

The TRUE reasons will probably never be taught in U.S. schools, but the U.S. Civil War was fought, because Southern Farmers didn't want to give up the nearly free labor they had with slaves, and then used select quotes from the Bible to try to justify it.

The U.S. Civil War was by no means the most shamefully war the U.S. Government ever fought though, the mostly forgotten Mexican/American and the Spanish/American Wars, and probably the most shameful of them all, the American/Indian Wars, which resulted in the nearly total genocide of the "American Indians," another fact that will never make the High School text books.

I don't know who deleted your previous post, that I commented on, I'm just glad it's gone and ask that, if you are going to keep that avatar, you remember that he is a very wise and highly respected spiritual leader, try to keep your comments at that same level in order not to be disrespectful to him.

[QC]

53. Sometime you should put down the Kool-Aid for a bit

and take a look at the economic factors behind both the war and the abandonment of Reconstruction. Then you might even research the question of why Lincoln explicitly disavowed any interest in emancipation until near the end of the war, and what happened in places like New York when the focus of the war shifted to ending slavery (think New York Draft Riot of 1863). It will forever disabuse you of that naive, morality-play version of history in which you seem to have a very strong emotional investment.

[WoodrowFan]

128. Despite the Lost Cause types

denying the place of slavery, just read what the confederates themselves had to say about why they succeeded.. (hint, they wanted to preserve slavery!)

Mississippi

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

South Carolina
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Georgia
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

Texas
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.


the following are from.. http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/ordinances_secession.asp


Alabama

Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,


Virginia

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:


The other Southern states, including Florida, North Carolina and Arkansas pretty much said “we’re outta here” and mentioned the election of Lincoln.


Section 9.4 of the CSA Constitution…

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

From the “Cornerstone Speech” delivered by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.{emphasis added} Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."


and last but not least, a good Civil War quiz… http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/e/mebuckner/civwarquiz.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

45. No different than naming a school after some of our past presidents

How do you think that Native Americans would feel about "Andrew Jackson high school". Hell there's really no difference between "Jefferson Davis high school" and "Woodrow Wilson high school". How about all of the people whose ancestors were thrown in prison illegally by Lincoln's suspension of the constitution? How about all of those people whose ancestors who were killed at Pullman because Grover Cleveland called in the army to break their union. Hell, how about "George W. Bush high school".

[SemiCharmedQuark]

108. Lincoln did NOT suspend the Constitution...that's racist propaganda

Lincoln did NOT suspend the Consitution. He suspended Habeas Corpus and it was restored in 1866. He was within his presidential rights to do this because, guess what, the Consitution allows for the suspending of Habeus Corpus in times of Rebellion. Ipso Facto, this shitty point is debunked.

[Hippo_Tron]

141. It allows for suspension of Habeas Corpus by CONGRESS

The President has no authority to do this on his own, Lincoln did it. He also attempted to try civilians in military courts. Lincoln was a great president, and like very single other great president, he did some things that were very flawed.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

142. The Constitution does not explicitly deny the executive branch this power

It is listed under Article I though, so Lincoln's legal reasoning doesn't hold up. You're right on this one, I apologize. :hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

161. Tiz okay, just making a point that every president has some flaws

Though I think that the good that Lincoln did ultimately outweights the bad.

[Yupster]

149. If you're reading this Jenna

don't give your dad any ideas.

[madfloridian]

47. Reading this thread helps me see the mindset....

of the people who don't see the human side of what we have done in Iraq. These ugly statements don't bother me really, as I have a rich sense of my heritage.

Many on this thread sound no different toward us than the right wing sounds on the people of Iraq.

There is an ugly undercurrent, and I can see how Bush was able to get his way on this war and be cheered onward....if this is how minds think.

[Up2Late]

49. With both Southern roots and Northern Upbringing

I'd say I'm neutral enough to comment.

My Great, Great Grand-father was a Confederate Lt. Colonel in the Georgia Defenders, I grew up in Indiana.

I've now spent more than half of my life back here in Georgia, and even though most Southerners still consider me a Yankee, my vote is for inappropriate.

Mostly because, almost every time this type of thing is done, it's done for the wrong reasons and the people pushing for this type of thing, are ignorant of both sides of the argument and totally lacking in empathy. :spank:

Most of the time, these schools are in minority or soon to be minority neighborhoods, and it is done to intimidate minority residents or for full blown bigotry, NOT for Heritage, :silly: as is usually said in defense.

Respect is earned, not won by force or willful action. :think:

[quaoar]

51. I went to a high school

that bore the name of the Confederate ambassador to France.

Of course, I didn't know who it was named after until a few years after I graduated.

And I suspect most kids couldn't tell you anything about the person their school is named after.

[JohnLocke]

78. John Slidell? (nt)

[LevelB]

54. I have lived in Georgia for 20 years

although I am not native to the state.

Yes, they should be allowed to name the schools as they choose. Political speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, the same Constitution that permits this website to operate.

It is a losing strategy nationally to just write off the south because it is "different".

Honestly, was this thread started just to drive the wedge deeper?

B.

[Rockerdem]

56. Remember to celebrate a great American on Monday

Dr. MLK. Don't desecrate it by shopping, seeing a movie or skiing, please.

[Mr.Green93]

59. It is past time

to erase all that remains of confederate culture.

[momisold]

60. Still affected by Civil War

My ggggrandfather came to Texas from Illinois in 1836 and was given land grants for his service in the Republic of Texas army. When he died his daughter inherited the land. She married and her husband was in the Confederacy. After the war was over they lost that land, we think because the Reconstructionist taxes were so high. From what we can find and from family stories, my family never got back on their feet again. One of my treasured pictures is one of father in front of his one-room school house, sitting on the ground with bare feet. When I asked him why he said matter-of-factly that he only had one pair of shoes and he didn't want them to wear out.

That legacy of being dirt poor continued until my father, who did not go to college, worked two jobs most of his life and sent me to college. I was the first person in my family to graduate from college.

I don't tell this story from a "poor me" standpoint, but to tell those of you whose families didn't feel negative fall-out from the Civil War to understand that it has taken a long time for the South to economically and emotionally heal from the war. Until my generation, there were still people living who had some type of connection with the war....a greatgrandparent who came to live with other members of the family and still talked about the war and they passed it down, etc.

So I think we are just now at the point of really getting over the war. I know it seems like it happened so long ago, but it's still haunting the losers.

[Yupster]

100. Many people know about the human losses

in the south with 1/4 of all the adult white men killed and another 1/4 wounded, and many also know about the complete wiping out of the livestock throughout the south. That took a full generation to even come close to replacing. And the burned cities amd homes and ripped apart railroads.

What fewer understand though is the complete destitution of everyone who remained.

The people had their wealth in Confederate currency and Confederate bonds both of which became worthless overnight. That left you with absolutely nothing. The next step was losing your land when you couldn't pay the property taxes.

Today I think we'd be smart enough to exchange in the dollars for federal dollars at some exchange rate so as to not make the entire region destitute.

[Charon]

62. It is past time

Maybe while we are at it we should erase the final traces of Native American Culture, don't forget the hispanic culture and of course we absolutly need to erase all traces of shamrocks, harps and big St Patrick Day parades.

[JohnLocke]

73. You're comparing the Confederacy with Native Americans?

:eyes:

[Charon]

111. You're comparing the Confederacy with Native Americans

This was a tongue and cheek response to # 59. I would in no way equate the two.

[txaslftist]

124. Best way to erase memories... just kill them.

I mean, shouldn't we just kill of the whites who have ancestors who were on the wrong side of that war?

We can ban the confederate flag, but there's bound to be some redneck hick who keeps one in the closet. We could make possession of it a capital offense. Some grandma probably has a family bible with the names of soldiers who served in the Gray. Let's burn that bible and kill the grandma. Let's knock down all the statues in the courthouse squares throughout the South, and find the people who built them and shoot them.

This nation does not have room for secessionist viewpoints or people who refuse to see that this misnamed "civil war" was actually treason of the highest order.

Let's round 'em all up and hang them. Everyone who says the South had ANY valid reasons for seceding should be shot.

-By order of the Great White Father.

[Yupster]

151. I'm currently reading General Longstreet's memoirs

That's how I spent my Christmas gift certificate at Barnes and Nobles.

Anyway, General Longstreet was the commander of I Corps in General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The II Corps was commanded by Stonewall Jackson. Upon Jackson's death, the army was divided into three corps with Longstreet retaining command of I Corps.

Anyway, Longstreet is creditted with having amore modern view of using his staff in a more efficient way than other Civil War generals, especially Confederate.

Early in the book he picks his staff, and comments favorably on some of them who served with him the entire war.

Key among them was a certain Payton Manning.

I assume it's the same family. How many Payton Mannings can there be?

[trezic]

63. This is just silly

The Civil War ended 140 years ago this April. And yet, people love to go on and on about it. Here in the South, when it's discussed, it's usually in reference to family or locality. I don't know and don't much care how anyone else talks about it.

Is it appropriate to name high schools after Confederates? Sure. Were they inherently evil? Unlikely. I'd say they were no worse than their opponents, who introduced America to the joys of unbridled capitalism. Which was worse? I'm of the opinion that when you get to the point of comparing child labor and chattel slavery for that purpose, you've got a bad case of moral confusion. It was equally bad.

As a Southerner, I get a little tired of hearing people from other regions discuss us negatively. The worst racists I have met in my life come from New York, not North Carolina. The South has made great strides in ending segregation, but I have yet to see any other region do the same. A little more recognition of that particular fact is long overdue.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

110. Sorry, but the South still leads in segregation.

It was the South, not the North that had Jim Crow laws. It is the South, not the North where people today remain afraid of whites. It is the South, not the North where they still fly the Confederate flag.

There are racists everywhere. I'm not about to congratulate the South on something that has come so slowly. We should be far closer to the goal. Yet, the activities of this last election show that racism is alive and well in the South.

And as far as "no worse than their opponants", well, if you believe that, there's really nothing left to say. Maybe swing by the African American issues group and let them have their say.

[trezic]

118. Ever heard of Harlem?

Ghettos are proof of segregation. Neighborhoods made up of virtually only one ethnic group are another example.

Jim Crow is dead. Maybe you missed that memo. Maybe you also missed the fact that the most virulent opposition to school integration was in BOSTON.

The Confederate flag, for most, is not a statement about racism. It's a reaction to all the abuse heaped on the South for years. The South has been continually attacked for the last 50 years about any and everything by those not from here. When outsiders, rather telling that I am compelled to use that word, come here, they do not find a recreation of Gone With the Wind. They find Americans. Americans with generally no interest in the Civil War or Jim Crow. People here are a little busier running their own lives, rather than others'.

You can attack the South as racist all you like. The natural home of the Democratic Party will continue to elect Republicans. I will say this, however. Malcolm X called it right years ago. Southern racists don't hide it. Northern racists do.

One last fight of the Civil War. It seems no other era of American history is more misunderstood. Why was the war fought? Slavery alone? Not quite. Men like Jefferson Davis rightly questioned the northern version of capitalism with its atomizing effect on society. They rightly questioned the integrity of abolitionists who regularly attacked the Irish as 'racially inferior.' They rightly questioned those who attacked chattel slavery while keeping quiet about wage slavery. How was the north so morally superior? Easy answer: it wasn't then and isn't now.

I'm of the opinion that the worst racists in America tend to be on the left, not the right. They tend to live in the north, not the south. The louder people yell about others, the more they try to hide their own failings.

P.S. This is not directed at you personally. It's more of a rant in general, than specific. Thanks.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

120. LIttle Rock, Arkansas

Probably the most violent and most famous of the opposition stands against integration.

I know there is racism in the North. And I definitely agree that people hide it. I'm sure it must be very obnoxious to hear people who are just as racist bash the entire south for racism. I hate it. I hate it when I hear it about liberals bashing all conservatives as well. Neither side is pure.


However, the mere fact that Northern racists hide it speaks volumes. It means that they know their stance is not the norm. They know it is not going to be welcome. They might believe they are right, but they know that most others will not agree. They know that society will not tolerate overtly racist remarks.

The fact that some southerners choose to go ahead and be openly racist speaks about the areas they are from. Small packets all across the South where it is ok to be racist. In fact, they resent people who are too "PC". This attitude of "it's ok" is only strengthened by things such as glorifying the Civil War.

[txaslftist]

122. And it was in the North where the last public lynching took place.

Minnesota, in fact.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

131. One incident does not make the policy for an entire region.

[txaslftist]

135. Nor should the pot call the kettle black

[carolinayellowdog]

123. Study finds most segregation in Northeast, Midwest cities

Hey,

That's one study from the late 1990s. Excerpt:
Where whites lived only on all-white blocks and blacks only on all-black blocks, the index would be 100. Where there was no racial pattern, the index would be zero.

On that basis, Gary rated 91, compared with 90 a decade earlier, while Jacksonville rated 31, down from 36.

Others on the most-segregated cities list included Detroit, 89; Chicago, 87; Cleveland, 86, and Buffalo, N.Y., 84.

The remainder of the five least-segregated cities were Lawton, Okla., 37; Anchorage, Alaska, 38; Fayetteville, N.C., 41, and Lawrence, Kan., 41.

Of 232 communities he studied, segregation declined in 191 during the 1980s, Farley reported. The national index declined from 68 to 64.

``I think that racial residential segregation is now lower in the South than in the Midwest or Northeast, not because of less bigotry, but rather because of the much greater volume of new construction in the South,''

link:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1997/vp970129/01290498.htm

Here's a more recent link:
http://www.detnews.com/2002/census/0212/23/census-22710.htm

which shows a list of the top 10 most segregated cities as of the 2000 census, all outside the South:

1. Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wis.
2. Detroit
3. Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, Ohio
4. St. Louis
5. Newark, N.J.
6. Cincinnati
7. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, N.Y.
8. New York
9. Chicago
10. Philadelphia

What amazes me is that my home region, Hampton Roads VA, is third from least segregated-- and it's still pretty damned segregated!

CYD

[SemiCharmedQuark]

126. This article is looking for cities with over 1 million people

and a black population over 20,000. There are few cities in the South that qualify.

[carolinayellowdog]

127. That's the 2nd; the 1st covers 232 metro areas, same result

Quote:

Of the 15 most segregated metropolitan areas, 10 were old Midwestern industrial cities, Farley reported.

The least segregated tended to be in the South and West, led by Jacksonville, N.C. Danville and Charlottesville in Virginia also were among the least segregated.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

129. The article credits this to the fact that these cities are newer

and therefore subject to the laws of fair housing. THe longer a city exists, the harder it is to change the composition of it.

[carolinayellowdog]

132. The cities are not newer, the suburban housing is

The Hampton Roads cities go back to the 17th century and are among the least segregated. Cities in VA and NC are generally MUCH older than those in the Great Lakes states. They have also grown more in recent decades.

As a resident of NC I have been surprised to see Wilmington, Fayetteville, and Jacksonville listed among least-segregated cities. This cannot realistically be attributed to a new housing stock, but rather to high military presence.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

133. They have grown more. That's what is key.

The new populations coming in are less segregated than the populations that were settled 30 years ago and have stopped growing.

A city, IMHO, is defined by its people.

[trezic]

145. Coming from Fayetteville

The military does have an effect on segregation. Fair housing laws may play some role, but I'm inclined to doubt that. The more likely cause is that money has no color.

I will continue to resist the stereotypical characterization of the South as backward and racist. It's hard to believe, but the generation that blocked the doors at Little Rock are dead or dying. As Dr. King recognized, and Malcolm before him, the real test of civil rights lies in Harlem, not Birmingham.

[QC]

146. "It was the South, not the North that had Jim Crow laws."

You might want to take a look at C. Vann Woodward's history of segregation, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Some of the information in it will undoubtedly surprise you. And before you dismiss it as a piece of revisionist history, bear in mind that MLK regarded the book very highly.

It might interest you to know that there were once laws forbidding free blacks from entering Indiana, even if they were just passing through, unless they could post a $500 bond to ensure their good behavior. Link The Indiana constitution was amended in 1851 to make it illegal for any new blacks to enter the state at all. (That same amendment also voided all contracts between blacks and whites, made it a criminal offense to encourage blacks to stay in Indiana, and set up a fund for "recolonizing" black Indianans in Africa. link) Sounds like Jim Crow to me. And Indiana still had a miscegenation law on the books as recently as 1960. Link

As for who leads now in segregation, the Census Bureau disagrees with you:

the five most segregated metropolitan areas for Blacks in 2000 were, in order, Milwaukee-Waukesha, Detroit, Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, St. Louis, and Newark (Milwaukee- Waukesha and Detroit are less than one average rank apart). Cincinnati, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, and New York, are roughly tied for number six, but each is more than one average rank behind Newark. The top ten are rounded out by Chicago and Philadelphia (the latter roughly tied with Kansas City, New Orleans, and Indianapolis).


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/resseg/ch5.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

154. As the article mentions, every city listed is a densely populated city.

As opposed to smaller cities. This has to do with a couple of reasons, not the least of which is just the patterns in which people move there and when they moved there.
I have no doubt that Indiana has extremely racist overtones. This is the state that had a governor who had been a member of the KKK. Does racism exist in the North? Undoubtedly. However, for whatever reason, Northern racists feel they need to hide their feelings. This indicates they know that their opinion is not generally welcome in social situations. SOME pockets of the South revel in the Confederacy and what it stood for. They are only encouraged by the glorification of the Confederacy.

[QC]

159. Nice dodge there.

But then, I can understand why you wouldn't want to deal with the main point of the post, which is that your statement that there were no Jim Crow laws north of the Mason-Dixon line was just flat out false.

This gets at something more important, though, which is the sanctimony with which you are approaching the issue. Given Indiana's long and ugly history of racism, you're simply not in a position to get up on your high horse and pontificate to anyone.

As for the business about there being few metro areas in the South that would qualify for that study, that's too silly for words. Of course there are metro areas over 1,000,000 in the South. Ever heard of Atlanta? New Orleans? Houston? Dallas? Memphis?

Besides, if you would trouble yourself to read the info at the link, you would find that there are multiple listings dealing with cities of differing sizes, different measures of segregation, etc.

[BansheeDem]

64. History is in the eye of the beholder ...

Every day, it seems, that someone on DU refers to the citizens of the south as ignorant rednecks or some other equally offensive pejorative. I have lived in the deep south most of my adult life and find these generalizations tiresome. Your question, which insinuates that all confederates are traitors, is not much different in terms of how it is framed.

History is quite dependent on the point of view of the person reading it. For example - ask anyone in Georgia about General Sherman, and you are likely to hear many less than complimentary things said. What his army did in 1864 might qualify today as a war crime. Even though he gave explicit orders to his commanders (see below) very few of them were obeyed.

Before you start calling confederates traitors and ask if high schools should be named after them - you might want to see if the US Government is prepared to re-name some of their property as a first step. Fort Lee, Fort Hood, and Fort Rucker immediately come to mind.


From Sherman to his commanders:

Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi,
in the Field, Kingston, Georgia, November 9, 1864

1. For the purpose of military operations, this army is divided into two wings, viz.:

The right wing, Major-General O.O. Howard, commanding, composed of the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Corps; the left wing, major-General H.W. Slocum commanding, composed of the Fourteenth and Twentieth Corps.

...

4. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten days' provisions for his command, and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass; but, during a halt or camp, they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock in sight of their camp. To regular foraging-parties must be intrusted the gathering of provisions and forage, at any distance from the road traveled.

5. To corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, etc.; and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested, no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless, according to the measure of such hostility.

[Blue_Tires]

65. the biggest irony is that

most of these schools (especially those in AL from my experience) have a huge black student population...

Personally, as a black american originally from VA, I think it's kind of a futile arguement at this point in time, like the rebel flag....if people in affected school systems care enough to put up enough pressure, then the names will probably change

[quaker bill]

67. Largely, these schools were named 50 to 100 years ago

It is rare to see a new one named that way.

Why fight yesterday's battles?

We are killing people today.

[SixShooter]

72. Jacksonville,FL

I believe has both a Nathaniel Bedford Forrest High and a Robert E Lee High

[quaker bill]

94. And Orlando has a Robert E. Lee Middle School

It was named that way before I moved there in 1966. I am pretty sure that they have not renamed it.

So your point is?

We have much larger things to do than this. Let's stop killing people first then worry about renaming the schools.

[Yupster]

101. Both Laura Bush and Tommy Franks

are graduates of Robert E Lee High in Midland Texas.

[ArkDem]

74. In Arkansas there is a town (Forrest City) named after

Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) and it's high school is (gasp) Forrest City High School.

[theboss]

80. A very good friend of mine is a desecendent of Forrest

The family is still not quite sure how to deal with his legacy. There is some really interesting stuff in his history - along with some real ugliness of course.

[Yupster]

89. He was certainly an extraordinary

military leader, but there's so much bad to go with the good.

Still, no one would hold his descendents responsible for his behaviors.

[theboss]

96. She is extremely liberal

And, is obviously a little defensive about having the freaking founder of the Klan in her history. But, at the same time, the Klan Forrest started was not "entirely" what it turned into after its founding and certainly not what it became in the 20s. Not defending Forrest but it was more of a resistance movement to Reconstruction (with as obvious racist aspect) at first and quickly morphed into a violently racist, vigilante movement. It's funny how many people don't realize that the "meeting" Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy keep sneaking off to in "Gone With the Wind" is a Klan rally.

But anyway, everyone's lineage gets complicated. Apparently half my family was wanted for murder in Italy.

[ArkDem]

107. He also quit the clan and denounced it later on....

Like Robert Byrd.

[robbedvoter]

113. Arkansas Project - ready as always to stab a democrat. Never fails.

[ArkDem]

160. I see the 'intellectuals' are out today!

[AuntiBush]

75. It's there FREEDOM of CHOICE

You see, if we deem it unappropriate to name a school after "whomever," or "whatever," then we've stuck a knife into our own belief system - the one we're united on. Our Freedoms of speech, freedom to practice whatever religion or non-religion we deem fit to ourselves; the freedom of choice, etc.

If we try to undermine this very issue, we're not being "democractic."

Hope I explained that appropriately. Still learning the posting Du ropes here DU'ers!

[AntiCoup2K4]

76. Would you let your kids attend GEORGE W. BUSH Middle School?

Of course the school isn't actually named after Junior or his daddy, but I wouldn't be surprised if future generations assume that it was.

Here's a little info about the original George W. Bush...

http://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/ResearchCenter/Early%20Pioneers.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Racist "heroes" for racists and revisionists.

You know, the ones who claim the civil war wasn't about slavery. That Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson and the rest were just fighting for "states rights". Forgetting to note that the "states rights" they were fighting for was the right to keep human beings in bondage.

But, of course, we all know that the massa's were all kind, the ladies all were all beautiful, the rebs were all noble, and the "darkies" were all happy.

History says different.

[merh]

81. I agree with you Mr. Locke.

That the South tried to leave the Union and that southern troops attacked a United States of America fort and began the agression is not a matter of pride for this Southerner.

The Confederate soldiers killed troops of the USofA. They were the traitors, the agressors, the insurgents.

If other Southerners are not comfortable with those facts, so be it. The truth often hurts.

[Yupster]

90. Fort sumpter was certainly a blunder, though

in the short run it was seen as a master stroke because it provoked Lincoln into ordering troops from the border states which forced some of them out of the Union. There couldn't be a Confederacy that could survive without states like North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee.

Anyway, the only person killed in the taking of Fort Sumpter was a gunner who was killed after the fort had already surrendered when a cannon exploded during the ceremonial salute to the flag.

[merh]

92. Didn't say there was a killing at Fort Sumpter. I said the

confederate army attacked the United States. That is a treasonious act, the action of traitors.

Confederate soldiers did kill United States of America troops. The confederates were traitors to the USofA.

[Yupster]

102. I don't agree that the Confederates

were traitors.

Once the states left the union they were foreignors.

If the government thought they had a case for treason they would have tried the Confederate leaders for it. The people of the north certainly wanted to see someone hang for the 350,000 dead.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

109. Bullshit. They were traitors.

Lincoln wished to heal the wounds of war, but he never got the chance. Johnson was a southern sympathizer who let the gains of the Civil War slip away for another 100 years.

[Yupster]

137. "Bullshit - they were traitors"

Heck who needs a court system. Think of all the money we could save if we would just ask you who was guilty and who was innocent.

Anyway, Johnson may have had sympathies for the south, but he sure didn't have any for Jefferson Davis. The two hated each other long before the Civil War ever started.

Some say the feud went back to when they served in congress together. There was an argument on the budget for West Point. Davis, a West Point graduate lauded the worth of the military school saying the country needed a professional army which could properly construct fortfications and handle artillery professionally. It was something that not any blacksmith or tailor could do.

On the other side of the argument, Johnson happened to have been a former tailor, and he took it as a personal insult that Davis threw that line into his debate just to insult him. Whether it was intentional or just an example is not known.

Anyway, that started over a decade of hatred between the two men before the Civil War even started. Of course it only got worse as Johnson was the best known southern politician to go north and stay with the government during the war.

When Lincoln was killed, Davis was with Joseph Johnston's army in North Carolina. When told of the assasination, Davis immediately recognized it as a disaster for the south. He hated Johnson and knew he would have no sympathy for him or his dying country.

No - if Johnson thought he could have gotten a treason conviction, he for sure would have tried Davis and enjoyed watching him hang. He was the one who had him indicted after all.

The fact is that there is a very good chance that Davis would have been found innocent, and then the whole invasion of the south would have been ruled illegal.

Better to deny Davis his day in court and maybe some day guys on the internet would declare him guilty without ever having to bother proving him such.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

140. So what defines treason?

If say, a state now were to declare itself its own country would that be treason?

It was treason. So was the Declaration of Independence.

The constitution has Treason as this:

Article III, Section 3:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Since war was waged against the United States, that is treason.

[madfloridian]

88. I guess the North still gets to tell the South they are superior.

So the North still gets to dictate the terms of whether we get to name high schools the way we want?

What else do you get to tell us? That we are ignorant?

I am quite aware this thread is approved by DU, so I am being careful here.

I think it is one of the most tasteless threads I have never seen. I hope it ok to say that since we in the South have been so insulted on here. I mean, I guess it is ok for me to have an opinion. Maybe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Ignorant? Do you call naming schools after racists smart?

Perhaps (white) southerners would find themselves less derided as ignorant rednecks if they started acting less like ignorant rednecks who idolize those that fought for slavery.

[BansheeDem]

95. Obviously, you haven't spent a great deal of time in the south ...

Perhaps (white) southerners would find themselves less derided as ignorant rednecks if they started acting less like ignorant rednecks who idolize those that fought for slavery.

I was raised in the north, but have spent the past 30 years in the South; and I had the same pre-conceived notions about the people and culture that you seem to have.

I have had the time and inclination to come to know the people here, and can say unequivocally that you are mistaken. The people of the south share a pride in their history that is hard to explain to those from the northern states; and it doesn't involve them idolizing slavery and those that fought to preserve it. What they don't appreciate is someone from the outside referring to them as ignorant rednecks. Common courtesy and culture would generally prohibit true southerners from calling you anything pejorative. That alone should tell you something about them as a group.


I too like Twain, so I'll leave you with a quote from him:

"The American characteristic is Uncourteousness. We are the Impolite Nation...It is only in uncourteousness, incivility, impoliteness, that we stand alone--until hell shall be heard from."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Humbug.

I have lived in the south. My father was born and raised in Arkansas. My brother and much of my family live in Arkansas. I have in-laws in Kentucky.

The "people of the south share a pride in history..". That may very well be the case, but if their "pride" is in the Confederacy then it is sadly and ignorantly misplaced. To name schools after those that fought to protect one of the true horrors of history smacks of sheer ignorance and to take "pride" in it displays an incredible lack of compassion for the victims of it.

I have little doubt that Mark Twain would shrink from belaboring ignorance and bigotry. I give you "Huckleberry Finn" and "Letters to the Earth" as evidence.

[BansheeDem]

106. Well ...

you are getting better. At least you didn't use your wide brush to paint them as ignorant rednecks again. Any improvement is appreciated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. You're right! Ignorant and Redneck is redundant.

I really should watch my phraseology. However, I will relent on one point, "Southern" and "Redneck" are not synonymous. Here's a question for you to ponder: Why is it that people like Cynthia McKinney, John Lewis, and Julian Bond are never referred to as "Southerners" or "Southern Politicians"?

[BansheeDem]

139. The term Southerner ...

can be applied to all persons born and raised in the south. However, the term southern politician has been used as a pejorative for so long that most, if not all, black politicians will not use the term to describe themselves or when referring to other black politicians. If at some point in the future, the term is framed differently, I think we will see more politicians of all colors referred to by region.

"I don't think of myself as a Negro. I'm a Southerner. I just like the Southern way of life."

Julian Bond

[primavera]

119. Fair enough

But it leaves unanswered the question of how do you deal with situations in which "someone from the outside" (by which I understand you to mean other Americans who don't happen to live in the southern part of the country) has a legitimate complaint regarding some of the choices being made by some of their fellow countrymen? I'm sorry Americans in southern states feel that "Yankees" were meddling in "their affairs," but didn't the Civil Rights Act need to happen for all of our sakes? Plainly many in southern states in particular did not appreciate the passage of that law, but does that make it any less necessary? If we can agree that the Civil Rights Act needed to be passed, what would you consider an appropriate method of overcoming regional concentrations of resistance to its passage? How would you have avoided offending some people and still have managed to accomplish what needed to be done?

[BansheeDem]

152. Good question ...

Sometimes it is necessary to do the right thing even over the objections of the few that think differently. The Civil Rights Act is a good example. I'm not sure any amount of rhetoric would have convinced the southern politicians that the CRA was a good idea; even though a number of them eventually voted for it. On a positive note, and as a minor point of history; it is interesting that a southern city in a very southern state was one of the first in the country to desegregate. That city - Savannah, Georgia.

[flaminbats]

97. let the voters make such judgments..

there are no right or wrong answers to such questions. All humans are sinners, no human is purely evil.

Jesus was a sinner, yet he acknowledged the flaws and imperfections of mankind. Jesus has also become a religious icon, and therefore a political symbol. But funding a school named after Jesus would result in the establishment of religion. By naming public schools after Jefferson Davis and General Beauregard, are we not making exceptions for icons of corruption, treason, and slavery?

Schools in every county should receive federal and state money based on need and performance of the teachers, not the name of schools or political vengeance.

[formernaderite]

105. I approve because it's part of history....

...they certainly weren't "traitors" to the confederacy and that was the southern position. It's also an excellent educational opportunity to discuss the rift and resulting war.

[robbedvoter]

112. I'm supposed to get over WON elections, but they don't get over LOSING

the damn war.

[txaslftist]

125. Let's refight the war, then...

Them damn southerners. Don't they know that their loss at Gettysburg was God's way of telling them that they were sinners on the side of Satan and that the North had a lock on divine providence?

Sherman's march through Georgia was simply God, "tramping out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored."

There is no room in American political or public discourse for dissenting views such as those espoused by these southern apologists. America is not a society that can afford to tolerate any longer these southern communities who cling to the notion that their ancestors fought valiantly. They must be dug up -those that can be found- , their tombstones effaced, and mass, anonymous graves prepared, like those for paupers or criminals.

The civil war history should be sharply abbreviated, and summarized this way:

"Between 1860 and 1865 some treasonous white supremacists took control of part of the country and were resoundingly crushed by the armies of God under Saint Lincoln." All this talk about "States' Rights" and the "Southern Constitution" and such nonsense needs to be taken out of the history books, along with any discussion about economic inequities preceding the war or the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was written so that it only applied to the southern states.

All references to "preserving the union" should be taken out of the northern dialog and replaced with "abolishing slavery" so that there can be no confusion about the north's justification. All southern references to "State's rights" and "right to secede" should be cleansed from the history books and replaced with "We wanna keep our slaves" so there can be no doubt about southern perfidy.

Anyone trying to justify the south should be shot on sight, and anyone who refuses to lick the shoes of any yankee gracious enough to visit a southern "state" (we really shouldn't have given them back their statehood) should be publicly lashed.

[WoodrowFan]

130. the deserved it

I have ancestors on BOTH sides, and those who fought on both sides. My blunt view: the South deserved every thing visited upon it by the north, every drop of slave's blood that was spilled deserved to be paid in like blood many times over. And the North deserved to pay its bill for profiting by selling slaves and by allowing slavery to exist as long as it did in this country. As a nation we did a horrible thing and the debt, be it in sin or karma, had to be paid!

[txaslftist]

134. And they still do!

They voted Red, the damn ignorant rednecks!

Let's get organized, put an army together and retake the South. The problem is, they weren't punished ENOUGH by the civil war. Total economic collapse and the death of nearly an entire generation of young men still didn't teach 'em.

Hell, I think most nuclear weapons are in the northern states. We could just NUKE the SOUTH! First let's get all the blacks out, then anyone who will take the new loyalty oath (the last one wasn't strong enough, as it didn't forbid treasonous THOUGHT), then just turn all of the south into a big smoking glass field.

"Mine eyes have seen the glory, of the coming of the Lord!"

[WoodrowFan]

136. well ok then

but only Mississippi!

[struggle4progress]

153. Is there a "Denmark Vesey High School" anywhere?

[carolinayellowdog]

155. Students in Southampton County VA voted for "Nat Turner High"

years ago, but the School Board didn't care for the idea.

[struggle4progress]

162. Sounds like a great story!

[carolinayellowdog]

163. A Turner movie got aborted

Hey,

I used to live there and knew the Francis family who had owned Turner at one point and owned many of the places along the route his band followed, killing whites. Back in the late 60s after Styron's novel was a bestseller, Stanley Pollack (I think-- some big Hollywood director anyhow) was in the area planning to make a movie about Turner. Somehow it never came about, probably because of political controversy. Perhaps you'll be pleased to know that the recent generations of Francises are liberal Dems and have been politically active in the county.

CYD

[leanin_green]

158. Look, they still consider themselves rebels.

They have a proud tradition of being rebels. I never looked at the Civil War as being about slavery, anyway. It's much like the Iraqi conflict. The issue used to stir up the people and make it some crusade or altruistic struggle was WMD and the proliferation of terror. For the Civil War it was about preserving the Union and freeing the slaves. Smoke screens for maintaining the economic status-quo or creating a new source of economic development. The south was being bled by the northern states with tariffs for taking their cotton to the northern gin mills. Each state levied a tariff that they continually rose the price of. It was only when the plantation owners banded together and began to represent themselves and make their own deals that the North got busy.

Once the south began to make deals directly with England and Europe, essentially removing the middle-man north, that the business concerns of the northern textile merchants were threatened. The south continued to refuse to pay the higher tariffs and the northern business community began to apply pressure in Washington to enforce the "established law" by force if necessary. Federal troops were threatening to impose federal law on the southern states. Many in the south considered this an invasion on their sovereignty. The rest is history.

If anything, the south were the first to stand-up against the corporate tyranny of their day. Let them choose who their own heroes are. We were given Martin Luther King Day(which many people are against being a holiday, not me, but many others). I know they have a lot of negative images to overcome, but let them have their heroes.