Fairfax High School drops Rebel nickname, Mosby Woods name change coming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since the opposite of "rebel" is sheeple, I think we found a new a new mascot.

You know, the motto of you aging commies used to be "Question Authority." That is somewhat synomomous with "be rebellious." Perhaps nuance of thought is a lost art these days.

Are you advocating for losers? Doesn’t it feel bad to think about how a group of Northern liberals plus Black soldiers absolutely destroyed the confederacy, till each of its soldiers and leaders was begging for mercy? Traitors. But also losers.

The northerners were republicans, fyi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mosby was a pretty interesting fellow from a historical standpoint—after the civil war he condemned the confederacy and became a staunch supporter of the US, campaigned for Grant, appointed a diplomat, only to have his house burned down by Confederate arsonists who felt betrayed by his change of heart.

There you go with your nuance again.
No need to mentioned how Lee's surrender at Appomattox probably saved the country years of guerrilla warfare.

Is this some sort of Confederate fetish?
Lee was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

You might want to read up on Lee he is a very interesting character, very conflicted about the war, was a noted progressive who hated slavery having decried it as a "evil institution", who freed his slaves during the war a few days before the emancipation proclamation, and a famous educator before the war and after as well.

He was offered command of Union forces. Think of him in the following situation: Lee would be from France and offered command of the EU army, who itself was engaged in a war against France. The various states at the time were more akin to the current countries of Europe bound together via the EU today, so in such a scenario one might understand why he fought for Virginia.

This isn't to glorify the man, but understand that things were not black and white as the pop culture version of the civil war might appear to be.

I see the Confederate apologists have arrived in this thread. Someone like Lee who supposedly hated slavery but kept slaves and fought for the preservation of slavery is arguably worse. Certainly his priorities were effed.

And if you are also the PP arguing that Confederates were not traitors because they followed orders -- can you even hear yourself? We want our military to follow *lawful* orders, which secession was not. Lee resigned from the U.S. military in order to oppose it on unlawful "orders" from a subordinate political entity after that entity failed to advance its position using the existing legal processes, such as national elections and lawmaking.

This is not morally or legally complicated. Attempts to make it complicated reflect poorly on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mosby was a pretty interesting fellow from a historical standpoint—after the civil war he condemned the confederacy and became a staunch supporter of the US, campaigned for Grant, appointed a diplomat, only to have his house burned down by Confederate arsonists who felt betrayed by his change of heart.

There you go with your nuance again.
No need to mentioned how Lee's surrender at Appomattox probably saved the country years of guerrilla warfare.

Is this some sort of Confederate fetish?
Lee was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

You might want to read up on Lee he is a very interesting character, very conflicted about the war, was a noted progressive who hated slavery having decried it as a "evil institution", who freed his slaves during the war a few days before the emancipation proclamation, and a famous educator before the war and after as well.

He was offered command of Union forces. Think of him in the following situation: Lee would be from France and offered command of the EU army, who itself was engaged in a war against France. The various states at the time were more akin to the current countries of Europe bound together via the EU today, so in such a scenario one might understand why he fought for Virginia.

This isn't to glorify the man, but understand that things were not black and white as the pop culture version of the civil war might appear to be.

I see the Confederate apologists have arrived in this thread. Someone like Lee who supposedly hated slavery but kept slaves and fought for the preservation of slavery is arguably worse. Certainly his priorities were effed.

And if you are also the PP arguing that Confederates were not traitors because they followed orders -- can you even hear yourself? We want our military to follow *lawful* orders, which secession was not. Lee resigned from the U.S. military in order to oppose it on unlawful "orders" from a subordinate political entity after that entity failed to advance its position using the existing legal processes, such as national elections and lawmaking.

This is not morally or legally complicated. Attempts to make it complicated reflect poorly on you.

Then what’s lawful - it becomes lawful if you win like the American revolution? Or under your rationale, are we all a bunch traitors to England?

[Anonymous]

And PS what the nazis were doing was lawful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And PS what the nazis were doing was lawful.

Are you ... comparing the Union Army to Nazis?

PP argued that Lee had no choice because he was following orders.
Lee was not following orders, so that's BS.
If Lee had legally binding orders to fight against the Union Army, then your Nazi argument would make sense because Lee would have been morally bound to disobey those orders, like the Nazis were.
But Lee did wrong without even the flimsy excuse that he was following orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And PS what the nazis were doing was lawful.

Are you ... comparing the Union Army to Nazis?

PP argued that Lee had no choice because he was following orders.
Lee was not following orders, so that's BS.
If Lee had legally binding orders to fight against the Union Army, then your Nazi argument would make sense because Lee would have been morally bound to disobey those orders, like the Nazis were.
But Lee did wrong without even the flimsy excuse that he was following orders.

My point with the Nazi is that “lawful” isn’t actually a great barometer.

And as for Lee, I think he was following orders from his home state of VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mosby was a pretty interesting fellow from a historical standpoint—after the civil war he condemned the confederacy and became a staunch supporter of the US, campaigned for Grant, appointed a diplomat, only to have his house burned down by Confederate arsonists who felt betrayed by his change of heart.

There you go with your nuance again.
No need to mentioned how Lee's surrender at Appomattox probably saved the country years of guerrilla warfare.

Is this some sort of Confederate fetish?
Lee was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

You might want to read up on Lee he is a very interesting character, very conflicted about the war, was a noted progressive who hated slavery having decried it as a "evil institution", who freed his slaves during the war a few days before the emancipation proclamation, and a famous educator before the war and after as well.

He was offered command of Union forces. Think of him in the following situation: Lee would be from France and offered command of the EU army, who itself was engaged in a war against France. The various states at the time were more akin to the current countries of Europe bound together via the EU today, so in such a scenario one might understand why he fought for Virginia.

This isn't to glorify the man, but understand that things were not black and white as the pop culture version of the civil war might appear to be.

I see the Confederate apologists have arrived in this thread. Someone like Lee who supposedly hated slavery but kept slaves and fought for the preservation of slavery is arguably worse. Certainly his priorities were effed.

And if you are also the PP arguing that Confederates were not traitors because they followed orders -- can you even hear yourself? We want our military to follow *lawful* orders, which secession was not. Lee resigned from the U.S. military in order to oppose it on unlawful "orders" from a subordinate political entity after that entity failed to advance its position using the existing legal processes, such as national elections and lawmaking.

This is not morally or legally complicated. Attempts to make it complicated reflect poorly on you.

The problem with this analysis is that states are not a subordinate political entity to the federal government. As I tried to point out god knows how many pages back, the Constitution formed the federal government by the sovereign states. Lee was loyal to Virginia, and this was not unusual for the time. This is not a defense of the Confederacy.

That you people can't seem to understand basic Constitutional theory is not my problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mosby was a pretty interesting fellow from a historical standpoint—after the civil war he condemned the confederacy and became a staunch supporter of the US, campaigned for Grant, appointed a diplomat, only to have his house burned down by Confederate arsonists who felt betrayed by his change of heart.

There you go with your nuance again.
No need to mentioned how Lee's surrender at Appomattox probably saved the country years of guerrilla warfare.

Is this some sort of Confederate fetish?
Lee was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

You might want to read up on Lee he is a very interesting character, very conflicted about the war, was a noted progressive who hated slavery having decried it as a "evil institution", who freed his slaves during the war a few days before the emancipation proclamation, and a famous educator before the war and after as well.

He was offered command of Union forces. Think of him in the following situation: Lee would be from France and offered command of the EU army, who itself was engaged in a war against France. The various states at the time were more akin to the current countries of Europe bound together via the EU today, so in such a scenario one might understand why he fought for Virginia.

This isn't to glorify the man, but understand that things were not black and white as the pop culture version of the civil war might appear to be.

I see the Confederate apologists have arrived in this thread. Someone like Lee who supposedly hated slavery but kept slaves and fought for the preservation of slavery is arguably worse. Certainly his priorities were effed.

And if you are also the PP arguing that Confederates were not traitors because they followed orders -- can you even hear yourself? We want our military to follow *lawful* orders, which secession was not. Lee resigned from the U.S. military in order to oppose it on unlawful "orders" from a subordinate political entity after that entity failed to advance its position using the existing legal processes, such as national elections and lawmaking.

This is not morally or legally complicated. Attempts to make it complicated reflect poorly on you.

Then what’s lawful - it becomes lawful if you win like the American revolution? Or under your rationale, are we all a bunch traitors to England?

If we follow the logic we would be, which makes George Washingtons statue in Trafalgar square all the more confusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mosby was a pretty interesting fellow from a historical standpoint—after the civil war he condemned the confederacy and became a staunch supporter of the US, campaigned for Grant, appointed a diplomat, only to have his house burned down by Confederate arsonists who felt betrayed by his change of heart.

There you go with your nuance again.
No need to mentioned how Lee's surrender at Appomattox probably saved the country years of guerrilla warfare.

Is this some sort of Confederate fetish?
Lee was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

You might want to read up on Lee he is a very interesting character, very conflicted about the war, was a noted progressive who hated slavery having decried it as a "evil institution", who freed his slaves during the war a few days before the emancipation proclamation, and a famous educator before the war and after as well.

He was offered command of Union forces. Think of him in the following situation: Lee would be from France and offered command of the EU army, who itself was engaged in a war against France. The various states at the time were more akin to the current countries of Europe bound together via the EU today, so in such a scenario one might understand why he fought for Virginia.

This isn't to glorify the man, but understand that things were not black and white as the pop culture version of the civil war might appear to be.

I see the Confederate apologists have arrived in this thread. Someone like Lee who supposedly hated slavery but kept slaves and fought for the preservation of slavery is arguably worse. Certainly his priorities were effed.

And if you are also the PP arguing that Confederates were not traitors because they followed orders -- can you even hear yourself? We want our military to follow *lawful* orders, which secession was not. Lee resigned from the U.S. military in order to oppose it on unlawful "orders" from a subordinate political entity after that entity failed to advance its position using the existing legal processes, such as national elections and lawmaking.

This is not morally or legally complicated. Attempts to make it complicated reflect poorly on you.

The problem with this analysis is that states are not a subordinate political entity to the federal government. As I tried to point out god knows how many pages back, the Constitution formed the federal government by the sovereign states. Lee was loyal to Virginia, and this was not unusual for the time. This is not a defense of the Confederacy.

That you people can't seem to understand basic Constitutional theory is not my problem.

There were Virginian officers who stayed loyal to their country. Lee didn’t and he chose wrong. He also wasn’t ordered to join the confederacy, he was offered a position and took it. He could have sat it out but didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There were Virginian officers who stayed loyal to their country. Lee didn’t and he chose wrong. He also wasn’t ordered to join the confederacy, he was offered a position and took it. He could have sat it out but didn’t.

And you could have refrained from offering this obtuse and off-topic commentary, but you chose not to.

(There were also generals from Northern states who enlisted for the Confederacy (for example, Pemberton) but, you know, people looking for nuance don't know history.)

I guess you are right. Might makes right. Any opinion not matching the victors must be utterly eviscerated. You know, freedom of thought and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were Virginian officers who stayed loyal to their country. Lee didn’t and he chose wrong. He also wasn’t ordered to join the confederacy, he was offered a position and took it. He could have sat it out but didn’t.

And you could have refrained from offering this obtuse and off-topic commentary, but you chose not to.

(There were also generals from Northern states who enlisted for the Confederacy (for example, Pemberton) but, you know, people looking for nuance don't know history.)

I guess you are right. Might makes right. Any opinion not matching the victors must be utterly eviscerated. You know, freedom of thought and all that.

DP. I’m not defending the confederacy- but I think actually knowing the correct history is important (those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, yada yada I think it goes) and it’s not an accurate understanding of history to consider Lee a traitor. Then you will never understand why he was so revered here - it’s because he was the exact opposite to VA. I’m not defending him or the confederacy but trying to give the background for understanding and hopefully learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were Virginian officers who stayed loyal to their country. Lee didn’t and he chose wrong. He also wasn’t ordered to join the confederacy, he was offered a position and took it. He could have sat it out but didn’t.

And you could have refrained from offering this obtuse and off-topic commentary, but you chose not to.

(There were also generals from Northern states who enlisted for the Confederacy (for example, Pemberton) but, you know, people looking for nuance don't know history.)

I guess you are right. Might makes right. Any opinion not matching the victors must be utterly eviscerated. You know, freedom of thought and all that.

DP. I’m not defending the confederacy- but I think actually knowing the correct history is important (those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, yada yada I think it goes) and it’s not an accurate understanding of history to consider Lee a traitor. Then you will never understand why he was so revered here - it’s because he was the exact opposite to VA. I’m not defending him or the confederacy but trying to give the background for understanding and hopefully learning.

He’s revered here because of an attempted rewriting of history called “The Lost Cause”, often referred to as “nuance” by those with a confederate fetish. He was a traitor, and a racial supremacist. The argument that he was loyal to his state is hog wash. He was from a privileged Virginia family who lived the privileged Southern life, which included having slaves. There were members of his extended family that rejected the confederacy, he did not have the morals or courage to do so. Other Virginian officers weren’t traitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There were Virginian officers who stayed loyal to their country. Lee didn’t and he chose wrong. He also wasn’t ordered to join the confederacy, he was offered a position and took it. He could have sat it out but didn’t.

And you could have refrained from offering this obtuse and off-topic commentary, but you chose not to.

(There were also generals from Northern states who enlisted for the Confederacy (for example, Pemberton) but, you know, people looking for nuance don't know history.)

I guess you are right. Might makes right. Any opinion not matching the victors must be utterly eviscerated. You know, freedom of thought and all that.

These people were also traitors. Again, this is not complex.

[Anonymous]

You are an idiot. This is not complex.

[Anonymous]

I heard that Woodson HS is named for a superintendent whose focus was really on maintaining segregation. Is that true? If so, we should change that. No one even knows who Woodson is anyway.