Arlington has asked Virginia to rename Jefferson Davis Highway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginians are Virginians in addition to being Americans. They can be proud if both their national and state history. Their state history includes NOT being part of the Union during the civil war.

in what way are you proud of the fact that Virginia seceded?

In the face of daunting odds they stood up for what they believed was right. Now no one today would agree with their cause, but that was a different era when the proper answer wasn't so clear. Especially considering the right thing to do meant the ruin of many of those in power. Economically wise, you could compare it to losing half your property and doubling the minimum wage. Many a person has decided on their pocket book over doing the right thing.

You just described any revolutionary on the planet. No one starts a civil war believing they are wrong.

Joseph Stalin thought he was doing the right thing.

In many respects Stalin was doing the right thing. The brutal means in which he chose to achieve those things was his historical scar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z8nbcdm

You would actually defend Joseph Stalin in order to back up your position on the Confederacy?

I don't have the position on the Confederacy you may think. I'm a far northerner who has no family connection to the south. But I also don't see any reason to discredit the entirety of a persons life simply because you and I don't agree with his policy. Also considering the era in which he lived, the wrongness of that policy was not as clear as it is today. It was a legitimately debatable topic at the time. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have had half the country divided.

It's not a matter of discrediting him, so much as refusing to honor someone who waged war against our country. How on earth is that debatable?

We regularly honor the British and they waged two wars against our country. The war was a long time ago. Perhaps you are unaware, but after reconstruction the north made a consious decision to honor both the north and south' participation in the civil war. This was done to promote healing and national unity. It's why so many confederate memorials were built in the early 20tn century. It's why many US Army bases are named after confederates. As we get further away from the event of the civil war itself, we should be getting LESS sensitized to it, not more. You don't see the British going around looking to tear down statues of Oliver Cromwell,

If there is a Sir Henry Clinton Parkway or a William Howe Avenue, I am unaware of it. And I'm betting that any likeness of them in the US is constrained to battlefield memorials and museums, where they should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who favor taking the sign down, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, U.S. President Buchanan told the southern states that they would be justified to secede:

Buchanan denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the federal government legally could not prevent them. He placed the blame for the crisis solely on "intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States", and suggested that if they did not "repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments ... the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."[56]

Buchanan was a Democrat who was pandering to the Democrats in the South because he was in a battle against Stephen Douglas.

In any case, he did say that secession is illegal. As for whether we had the right to fight that, Fort Sumter made the issue irrelevant.

Buchanan secretly made a deal with south carolina that he would not reinforce the federal bases in SC in exchange for SC not participating in any hostilities. The union military then violated this agreement (which Buchanan hadn't told the military about) by sending reinforcements to fort sumter. When SC saw that the agreement had been violated, they attacked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginians are Virginians in addition to being Americans. They can be proud if both their national and state history. Their state history includes NOT being part of the Union during the civil war.

in what way are you proud of the fact that Virginia seceded?

In the face of daunting odds they stood up for what they believed was right. Now no one today would agree with their cause, but that was a different era when the proper answer wasn't so clear. Especially considering the right thing to do meant the ruin of many of those in power. Economically wise, you could compare it to losing half your property and doubling the minimum wage. Many a person has decided on their pocket book over doing the right thing.

You just described any revolutionary on the planet. No one starts a civil war believing they are wrong.

Joseph Stalin thought he was doing the right thing.

In many respects Stalin was doing the right thing. The brutal means in which he chose to achieve those things was his historical scar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z8nbcdm

You would actually defend Joseph Stalin in order to back up your position on the Confederacy?

I don't have the position on the Confederacy you may think. I'm a far northerner who has no family connection to the south. But I also don't see any reason to discredit the entirety of a persons life simply because you and I don't agree with his policy. Also considering the era in which he lived, the wrongness of that policy was not as clear as it is today. It was a legitimately debatable topic at the time. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have had half the country divided.

It's not a matter of discrediting him, so much as refusing to honor someone who waged war against our country. How on earth is that debatable?

We regularly honor the British and they waged two wars against our country. The war was a long time ago. Perhaps you are unaware, but after reconstruction the north made a consious decision to honor both the north and south' participation in the civil war. This was done to promote healing and national unity. It's why so many confederate memorials were built in the early 20tn century. It's why many US Army bases are named after confederates. As we get further away from the event of the civil war itself, we should be getting LESS sensitized to it, not more. You don't see the British going around looking to tear down statues of Oliver Cromwell,

If there is a Sir Henry Clinton Parkway or a William Howe Avenue, I am unaware of it. And I'm betting that any likeness of them in the US is constrained to battlefield memorials and museums, where they should be.

Ever heard of Georgetown? -- King George
Pittsburgh -- William Pitt

[Anonymous]

Lord Fairfax also supported the crown during the revolution, yet we still have a Fairfax county.

[Anonymous]

You're welco

[Anonymous]

You're welcome to start a petition to have Fairfax or Pittsburgh renamed

[Anonymous]

I think slavery was obviously wrong to any right thinking man by the 1860s. The British had abolished it two generations earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think slavery was obviously wrong to any right thinking man by the 1860s. The British had abolished it two generations earlier.

Most Americans had abolished it two generations prior as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginians are Virginians in addition to being Americans. They can be proud if both their national and state history. Their state history includes NOT being part of the Union during the civil war.

in what way are you proud of the fact that Virginia seceded?

In the face of daunting odds they stood up for what they believed was right. Now no one today would agree with their cause, but that was a different era when the proper answer wasn't so clear. Especially considering the right thing to do meant the ruin of many of those in power. Economically wise, you could compare it to losing half your property and doubling the minimum wage. Many a person has decided on their pocket book over doing the right thing.

You just described any revolutionary on the planet. No one starts a civil war believing they are wrong.

Joseph Stalin thought he was doing the right thing.

In many respects Stalin was doing the right thing. The brutal means in which he chose to achieve those things was his historical scar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z8nbcdm

You would actually defend Joseph Stalin in order to back up your position on the Confederacy?

I don't have the position on the Confederacy you may think. I'm a far northerner who has no family connection to the south. But I also don't see any reason to discredit the entirety of a persons life simply because you and I don't agree with his policy. Also considering the era in which he lived, the wrongness of that policy was not as clear as it is today. It was a legitimately debatable topic at the time. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have had half the country divided.

Are you for real? Slavery was a legitimately debatable topic in the 19th century? There were many many people, not just in the United States but all over the world, who realized the evil of slavery, long before the Civil War started. There were tons of anti-slavery tracts and speeches and editorials. Those who defended the practice in the 19th century were the wingnuts of the time. The brutal reality of slavery was right there in front of their eyes, and they chose to ignore it and the constitution because they were heartless, soulless racists. In other words, they were terrible people. Yes, they absolutely were.

Defense of slavery as one's heritage is nothing to be proud of. It is shameful. If I had slave-owning or slavery-defending ancestors I would be ashamed of them, not celebrating them.

Would you say that anti-Semitism was a legitimately debatable topic in the mid-20th century?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginians are Virginians in addition to being Americans. They can be proud if both their national and state history. Their state history includes NOT being part of the Union during the civil war.

in what way are you proud of the fact that Virginia seceded?

In the face of daunting odds they stood up for what they believed was right. Now no one today would agree with their cause, but that was a different era when the proper answer wasn't so clear. Especially considering the right thing to do meant the ruin of many of those in power. Economically wise, you could compare it to losing half your property and doubling the minimum wage. Many a person has decided on their pocket book over doing the right thing.

You just described any revolutionary on the planet. No one starts a civil war believing they are wrong.

Joseph Stalin thought he was doing the right thing.

In many respects Stalin was doing the right thing. The brutal means in which he chose to achieve those things was his historical scar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z8nbcdm

You would actually defend Joseph Stalin in order to back up your position on the Confederacy?

I don't have the position on the Confederacy you may think. I'm a far northerner who has no family connection to the south. But I also don't see any reason to discredit the entirety of a persons life simply because you and I don't agree with his policy. Also considering the era in which he lived, the wrongness of that policy was not as clear as it is today. It was a legitimately debatable topic at the time. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have had half the country divided.

It's not a matter of discrediting him, so much as refusing to honor someone who waged war against our country. How on earth is that debatable?

We regularly honor the British and they waged two wars against our country. The war was a long time ago. Perhaps you are unaware, but after reconstruction the north made a consious decision to honor both the north and south' participation in the civil war. This was done to promote healing and national unity. It's why so many confederate memorials were built in the early 20tn century. It's why many US Army bases are named after confederates. As we get further away from the event of the civil war itself, we should be getting LESS sensitized to it, not more. You don't see the British going around looking to tear down statues of Oliver Cromwell,

If there is a Sir Henry Clinton Parkway or a William Howe Avenue, I am unaware of it. And I'm betting that any likeness of them in the US is constrained to battlefield memorials and museums, where they should be.

Ever heard of Georgetown? -- King George
Pittsburgh -- William Pitt

We were the aggressor in the American Revolution and the War of 1812, so that's a poor analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who favor taking the sign down, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, U.S. President Buchanan told the southern states that they would be justified to secede:

Buchanan denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the federal government legally could not prevent them. He placed the blame for the crisis solely on "intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States", and suggested that if they did not "repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments ... the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."[56]

Buchanan was a Democrat who was pandering to the Democrats in the South because he was in a battle against Stephen Douglas.

In any case, he did say that secession is illegal. As for whether we had the right to fight that, Fort Sumter made the issue irrelevant.

Buchanan secretly made a deal with south carolina that he would not reinforce the federal bases in SC in exchange for SC not participating in any hostilities. The union military then violated this agreement (which Buchanan hadn't told the military about) by sending reinforcements to fort sumter. When SC saw that the agreement had been violated, they attacked.

That has to be the most transparent excuse for the war, ever. It is also not true. http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Buchanan-Fort-Sumter-1860/James-Buchanan-Fort-Sumter.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who favor taking the sign down, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, U.S. President Buchanan told the southern states that they would be justified to secede:

Buchanan denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the federal government legally could not prevent them. He placed the blame for the crisis solely on "intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States", and suggested that if they did not "repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments ... the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."[56]

Buchanan was a Democrat who was pandering to the Democrats in the South because he was in a battle against Stephen Douglas.

In any case, he did say that secession is illegal. As for whether we had the right to fight that, Fort Sumter made the issue irrelevant.

Buchanan secretly made a deal with south carolina that he would not reinforce the federal bases in SC in exchange for SC not participating in any hostilities. The union military then violated this agreement (which Buchanan hadn't told the military about) by sending reinforcements to fort sumter. When SC saw that the agreement had been violated, they attacked.

That has to be the most transparent excuse for the war, ever. It is also not true. http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Buchanan-Fort-Sumter-1860/James-Buchanan-Fort-Sumter.html

Ok I stand corrected. That was a fascinating read by the way, thanks.

[Anonymous]

One thing's for sure... the President Buchanan memorial in DC should be taken down.