Confederate names make comeback, triggering lawsuits

[ColdHardTruth]

Ever hear of 'Fighten Joe" Wheeler. I'm sure you haven't!!!!

'Fightin' Joe Wheeler is memorialized with a statue in Capital Hall & of course deserves one.
A top confederate general he became longtime congressman from Alabama in the postwar years,
before he donned the US army blue once again as a major general in the war with Spain.

The fact that the government gave Wheeler a position of high
command suggests the bad blood had begun to dissipate. Wikipedia also lists Fitzhugh Lee &
Matthew Butler as former Confederate major-generals who commanded troops in the Spanish-American war.
After the war, 15 Confederate Officers served as U.S. ambassadors or ministers to foreign countries'

Funny story about Wheeler, Even after entering the US army as a General
fighting Spain, Joe remained true to his roots:
'Joseph Wheeler, a Confederate cavalry general in the Civil War, went on to serve as a major-general
during the Spanish-American war and forgetting his US uniform in the heat of a battle yelled "Let's go, boys!
We've got the damn Yankees on the run again!".
***************************************************
Confederate soldiers, sailors & marines that fought in the civil war were made US Veterans by congress in 1957. This made all confederate vets equal to US vets with the war department directed to recognize confederate grave sites as US war grave sites.

So when you remove a confederate statue you are in fact removing a stutue of a US Veteran.

I do not agree with this.

Removing statues is not removing the person from history. It's removing a reminder of a war that started to protect slavery. To some people, those statues are a reminder of lynching, murder, rape, and being worked to death for the benefit of a profit margin.

Removing that reminder is good for some people. Certainly, statues do not need to be at state houses, nor does the traitor flag to be flown in state houses.

Put them in a museum and let people see them there.

 

[Glitch]

Once again @Glitch is at war with the facts. They flew to Iraq to try to work on a diplomatic solution to avert war by allowing UN inspectors.

CNN.com - Democratic congressmen arrive in Baghdad - Sep. 27, 2002

I wasn't referring to their visit in September 2002 after receiving bribe money from Saddam Hussein.

I'm referring to their visit in January 2003, after the US had declared war against Iraq in October 2002. That is what made their visit treasonous, for the sole purpose of giving aid and comfort to our declared enemy. Under Article III, Clause 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution that makes the "Baghdad Boys" - Bonior, McDermott, and Thompson - traitors to the US. But that is par for the course for Democrat pieces of shit. They are all traitors, or hope to be.

 

[Lisa]

I wasn't referring to their visit in September 2002 after receiving bribe money from Saddam Hussein.

I'm referring to their visit in January 2003, after the US had declared war against Iraq in October 2002. That is what made their visit treasonous, for the sole purpose of giving aid and comfort to our declared enemy. Under Article III, Clause 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution that makes the "Baghdad Boys" - Bonior, McDermott, and Thompson - traitors to the US. But that is par for the course for Democrat pieces of shit. They are all traitors, or hope to be.

The war didn't start until 19 March, 2003. There was no declaration of war. The October 2002 Iraq War resolution by Congress was not a declaration of war.

In October 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the "Iraq Resolution". The resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq. Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. The U.S. government engaged in an elaborate domestic public relations campaign to market the war to its citizens. Americans overwhelmingly believed Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors had not uncovered those weapons. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons sequestered somewhere, about half responded that said weapons would not be found in combat. By February 2003, 64% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam from power

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Felis Leo]

This is interesting

Maybe when Trump gets in office we can bring back Fort Bragg and others?

====================================

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4722907-confederate-names-make-comeback-triggering-lawsuits/?email=c14f3288a64818ecb98f8e0573beceb318faed57&emaila=eb3b115abed24cacb59032280aed3dee&emailb=67a847116066088d41479c6f1dae9ff2f033f69b05a6b0ce26810fdcc2c7acc9&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06.15.24%20-%20JPJ%20-%20Confederate%20names

Huh. Gross.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I wasn't referring to their visit in September 2002 after receiving bribe money from Saddam Hussein.

I'm referring to their visit in January 2003, after the US had declared war against Iraq in October 2002. That is what made their visit treasonous, for the sole purpose of giving aid and comfort to our declared enemy. Under Article III, Clause 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution that makes the "Baghdad Boys" - Bonior, McDermott, and Thompson - traitors to the US. But that is par for the course for Democrat pieces of shit. They are all traitors, or hope to be.

More nonsensical right-wing bullshit.

While your side supports Traitor trump and the catholic cabal on the SCOTUS, your side does not get to discuss what is or is not treason.

Get rid of Trump, get the Catholic cabal off the SCOTUS, and then you can come to the table for this discussion.

 

[jaypatriot]

Jefferson should be impeached for being a scurrilous slave owner.
Doesn't he know how woke we have become cancelling references to Confederate heroes and any company that had any association with slavery over 160 years ago?
They should have realized the future would condemn them for condoning, supporting, and profiting from the slave trade.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Jefferson should be impeached for being a scurrilous slave owner.
Doesn't he know how woke we have become cancelling references to Confederate heroes and any company that had any association with slavery over 160 years ago?
They should have realized the future would condemn them for condoning, supporting, and profiting from the slave trade.

The confederates were never heroes, they were traitors.

People that support them today are supporting traitors whether they realize it or not.

 

[jaypatriot]

The confederates were never heroes, they were traitors.

People that support them today are supporting traitors whether they realize it or not.

The fans of Robert E Lee will be disturbed to read that.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The fans of Robert E Lee will be disturbed to read that.

Maybe so, but Lee is, was, and will always be a traitor.

 

[j brown's body]

Jefferson should be impeached for being a scurrilous slave owner.
Doesn't he know how woke we have become cancelling references to Confederate heroes and any company that had any association with slavery over 160 years ago?
They should have realized the future would condemn them for condoning, supporting, and profiting from the slave trade.

Food for thought:

"Despite such beliefs, Jefferson has inspired generations of African Americans. In a speech, Julian Bond, a civil rights activist, tried to explain why:

Martin Luther King didn’t care whether the… author of the Declaration of Independence thought he was inferior. The man may have thought so, but his words belied the thought.

For King and his audiences, the significant Thomas Jefferson was not the Ambassador to France or the Secretary of State, the farmer or the slaveholder; as did Jefferson, they thought his chief virtue was as author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically of those self-evident truths that all are created equal.

The promise of the words – for King, for those before him and us – became the true measure of the man.24"

 

[Juin]

Why should we name our military bases after losers?

General Robert E Lee was an excellent General. Romans recognised Hannibal as an excellent General even though it was Rome that won in the end

 

[Juin]

We should name them after people who fought for our founding principles such as equality and liberty.

But then we come back to the issue of honouring Jefferson who, as a slaver, violated the founding principles of equality and liberty

The same principles the troops living in those bases are fighting for today.

The troops living in those bases dont get to chose what they fight for. The troops fought for Operation Desert Freedom even though most- not me- now denounce that campaign as based on lies. Should troops who fought in desert storm be stripped of any honours they may have been awarded?

 

[Juin]

Sherman explained Grant's superiority to Lee by stating that while Lee would attack the front porch, Grant would attack the kitchen and bedroom..

That appears to me to be a strange observation by Sherman. Chancellorsville and Seven Days Battle- two of Lee's most noteworthy battles- Lee flanked the Army of Potomac. If anything it was Grant who charged like a bull

So put them in a military hall of fame. Why should the descendants of the victims they fought to destroy have to look at them?

Problem is that argument, if argued for Native Americans, would eliminate from hall of fame just about every ante bellum US General

 

[Juin]

Lee is a traitor. He deserves no statues or monuments.
The confederates were and are traitors. They do not deserve to have bases or anything else named after them.

After the Civil War the Southerners reverted to American citizens. As citizens they are free to honour whom it pleases them to honour

There are no statues of Nazis in Germany or anywhere else.

I mentioned Generals Rommel and Manstein. They were brilliant Generals. And it is as Generals that they are honoured.

 

[Juin]

Removing statues is not removing the person from history. It's removing a reminder of a war that started to protect slavery. To some people, those statues are a reminder of lynching, murder, rape, and being worked to death for the benefit of a profit margin.

If that is the case why are industrial scale slavers like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington honoured? Are they not reminders of branding, bondage, rape, forced separation and sale of families?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

If that is the case why are industrial scale slavers like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington honoured? Are they not reminders of branding, bondage, rape, forced separation and sale of families?

I suppose that is a fair question.

They were loyal Americans who never sold out. It doesn't mean much to many people, but they did not take up arms against the United States.

The confederates did exactly that.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

After the Civil War the Southerners reverted to American citizens. As citizens they are free to honour whom it pleases them to honour

They can, but honoring traitors is distasteful.

I mentioned Generals Rommel and Manstein. They were brilliant Generals. And it is as Generals that they are honoured.

Rommel was brilliant. I do not deny this but there are no statues of him anywhere.

Rommel was a victim of the Nazi government. He was murdered because he was defeated in battle.

 

[j brown's body]

But then we come back to the issue of honouring Jefferson who, as a slaver, violated the founding principles of equality and liberty





The troops living in those bases dont get to chose what they fight for. The troops fought for Operation Desert Freedom even though most- not me- now denounce that campaign as based on lies. Should troops who fought in desert storm be stripped of any honours they may have been awarded?

See post #335.

Troops choose to sign up for fighting to protect our country and our country's principle. Otherwise, what are they fighting for?

 

[Hamish Howl]

General Robert E Lee was an excellent General. Romans recognised Hannibal as an excellent General even though it was Rome that won in the end

He lost, therefore he is a loser.