Posted on 06/12/2020 12:17:06 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
Since anything having to do with "slavery" is taboo it appears that we must rename all of the original thirteen colonies as well as any other state that once had slavery within it's borders. Just changing the names of a few military bases isn't going to cut the mustard. So far, the name changers and statue destroyers have picked on easy fruit, monuments to dead white folks. What are they waiting for? Let's get right to the main event and start demanding that the States themselves change their names.
Governor Northam, it's your turn to be a hero and have the Virginia state legislature lead the way. Netflix and Youtube can help by deleting any episodes of the television series "the Virginian" as a nice kick starter. The word "South" must be forbidden to be spoken by law. That place was full of slavery and any mention of the word itself probably causes considerable harm to the ancestors of those slaves. "Yankee" must also be stricken and that stadium must be renamed or torn down because "Yankees" won the Civil War and that is another painful reminder about slavery. In fact, blue and grey need to be stricken from the crayola box because everyone associates those colors with that war. One day, once everything has been removed or renamed, the word "slave" can be gotten rid of and there will be NOTHING upon which to look back at in history that could possibly trigger someone. It's time. Let's get started and get the ball rolling by calling your representatives at the local, state, and federal levels. We can do this and feel good about it now.
I am sorry to inform you that your assumption here is FLAT wrong. I cite as proof of my argument that the Confederacy was accepted as a separate country at the time the case involving the creation of the state of West Virginia. West Virginia was admitted as a state on June 20th, 1863 after having been a part of the state of Virginia. Had Virginia been seen by the United States Government at that time as a full fledged state of the union, West Virginia could not have been formed as it was specifically forbidden in the Constitution that you are so proud to mention under Article IV, Section 3.
Article IV, Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
That West Virginia was allowed to become a state of it's own is PROOF that the state of Virginia was seen as belonging to the Confederacy at that time. Soldiers fighting in the Confederate army could not be classified as traitors to the United States because at that time, the United States was a separate nation.
While the Leftists have control of Virginia they should rename it Sluttia.
So appropriate.
I want my state to be renamed My Little Broney Land! Let’s go, people!
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
I vote for Crabistan.
They will have to rename Connecticut then, because I am a resident there, and I am a slave to country singer Emmylou Harris.
The Mexican American War was in 1849. The Civil War was from 1861 - 1865. Now, I am the graduate of Public Schools and a State University, but even I know that 1849 is BEFORE 1861.
Braxton Bragg was a traitor, and no US Army bases should be named after him.
You sir have never served.
#AmericaIsRacist
I proved to you that he wasn't a traitor in posing number 101. Your opinion is worthless. Your feelings don't outweigh historical facts.
Your name is Alexander Busek? If so, then why the under bar rather than a space in between the names? Fail! Regards as well, ;-)
Your response in posting 101 stated that the entry of West Virginia into the Union was a violation of Article IV, Section 3. Nice story. Wrong, but a nice story.
There were certainly some questions regarding the entry of West Virginia as a state. There were some that claimed it was in violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. They are wrong. The Second Wheeling Convention was considered to be the lawful government of Virginia because it represented a majority of Virginia’s loyal citizens. This was reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case Virginia vs. West Virginia. They did not consider the action creating West Virginia to be unconstitutional so, therefore it was not a violation of Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.
So, notwithstanding those folks who really (really, really, really) wanted the Confederacy to be a separate country, it was not, it was just a bunch of states in rebellion to their lawful government. Soldiers fighting for the Confederacy were American citizens in rebellion to their lawful government and were traitors in accordance with Article III, Section 3 of THEIR Constitution.
So, you say Virginia was still a state but the Constitution didn’t pertain to Virginia at the time. Bull Shit. Go join a group and pull down a statue or two like the other idiots of history are. Don’t forget to wear a helmet.
Temper, temper. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the Supreme Court. They’re the ones who didn’t declare West Virginia entering the Union as a state to be unconstitutional. Since Virginia (and all of the other states in the Confederacy) were not a country, but merely rebellious states (a position confirmed at Appomattox Court House and at Bennett Place) all of these generals were in fact traitors.
Why don’t you like the idea of naming these bases after Medal of Honor winners? Do you have some problem with Audie Murphy (Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, 2 Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts, and a whole bunch of non-valor related medals)? You don’t think he’s an appropriate namesake for a US Army base in Texas? And, virtually anyone would be a better namesake than Braxton Bragg, widely proclaimed as one of the most (if not the most) incompetent general in the Confederacy.
So, you still haven’t refuted my position that the Confederate generals were traitors, and that US Army bases should not be named after traitors.
US Army bases should be named after US Army heroes.
None of the Confederate generals or soldiers that these bases were named after were EVER charged with treason by the very people they fought against. The people making that decision at the time deserve more credibility than some jerk who comes along with his own personal opinions 154 years later.
I have a problem accepting the premise being pushed that all things from the history of this nation must be judged by today's ridiculous leftist standards. Nobody appointed them or elected them to do this. There has been no public need for any of this other than to help destroy this nation's history. Your "Medal of Honor" argument does not address the core issue but instead gives the entire movement credibility. This "Medal of Honor" position is still giving the argument over to the destroyers and accepting their premise that there is some inherent evil being erased by tearing down statues and renaming buildings and bases named for those they wish to demonize.
Your stance that these folks were "traitors" makes you one of those willing to concede the point. This isn't me. They are wrong in doing this. You are wrong in placing your feelings and opinions above the people who erected these statues and named these bases at the time that they did. Those people deserve to have their decisions at the time respected.
You have an opinion, the Supreme Court has an opinion. I believe theirs carries more weight. Until you get nominated to the Court, affirmed by the Senate, seated on the court, and manage to convince 4 of your other Justices that your opinion is right, I’m going to go with the standing opinion. Until this happens, the decision to admit West Virginia as a state WAS NOT in violation of Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution.
The fact that they were never charged with treason doesn’t mean they didn’t commit treason. Their action of levying war against the United States is an incontrovertible fact. The decision to charge them or not charge them was a political action – don’t even necessarily disagree with it, but it doesn’t change the fact that they committed treason. This is not my opinion, it is fact. Or are you claiming that they did not levy war against the United States?
Names have meaning. If they didn’t why are we having this discussion?. The fact that we have US Army bases named after traitors means that we are honoring individuals who broke their oath to protect the country. What kind of message is this sending to the troops based there? That’s it all right to take up arms against their own country and its citizens?
You stated that “the people making that decision at the time deserve more credibility that some jerk who comes along with his own personal opinion 154 years later”. Camp Bragg was established (and named) in 1918, not 1866. Fort Hood was established (and named) in 1942, not 1866. Why is the opinion of someone in 1942 hallowed, but the opinion of someone in 2020 a jerk’s position? Please tell me the correct cutoff date between the two. 1945? 1973? I’m genuinely curious.
And I believe your “demonization” comment is a little bit of hyperbole. What I want to do is remove the veneration and honoring of traitors (and naming a US Army base for someone is in fact honoring them) and instead venerate and honor true heroes.
And, I refuse to accept the position that renaming the bases would destroy the nations history. Actually, I don’t even understand the position. Are you saying that if we rename Fort Bragg, then suddenly everyone will forget who Braxton Bragg was? That there was a Civil War? That he failed utterly at the Battle of Chattanooga? Please explain to me how that works.
US Army bases should be named after US Army heroes.
"Opinions" can't erase CLEARLY worded language in the Constitution.
,"no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State"
Can you read? What does the Constitution CLEARLY say about this? If Virginia was still a state within the union during the Civil War, West Virginia is/was legally impossible. The ONLY way to allow West Virginia a state status is to deny state status to Virginia at the time. You claim that Virginia was still a state in the union yet still claim West Virginia a state. You can't have it both ways. That's what liberals and leftist try to do all of the time.
I believe the concept of judicial review (that the Supreme Court has the ultimate say in whether a law is constitutional or not) as delineated in Marbury vs. Madison has been sufficiently justified in the last 217 years, and doesn’t really need my help. If you have an issue as to how they ruled, take it up with them, not me. If they didn’t find it unconstitutional, then it’s not.
So, regardless of your OPINION, the creation of West Virginia did not violate Section 4 Article 3 of the Constitution.
And, by the way, your contention that by this one act, the Union considered the Confederacy to be a separate country is ludicrous on its face. Show me one place where Lincoln treated the Confederacy as a separate nation, and not a bunch of rebellious states. I mean, in the Gettysburg Address, he references “a great civil war”, not a war against another country. In the Emancipation Proclamation it states “… within any State of designated part of a State, the people whereof shall ben be in rebellion against the United States…” The whole Article IV, Section 3 thing is just a red herring. Interesting, though. I did some research and learned some things, so it wasn’t all bad.
We’re back to where we started. They were traitors and US Army bases shouldn’t be named after them.
However, you didn’t respond to my other points/questions. Namely, why are we treating a naming decision from some faceless Department of War bureaucrat in 1942 as the Word of God, never to be questioned. Did he get it on a stone tablet or something? Why are we honoring and venerating a bunch of traitors when we could be honoring US Army heroes?
US Army bases should be named after US Army heroes
He beat up 3 black guys and a communist.
I answered your question about renaming for Medal of Honor winners. I don't accept the premise that is being put forth for tearing down our country's history, one statue, or building or street name at a time. This needs to be put to an immediate end. History belongs to all of us, not just opinionated liberal pinheads. Enough retreating has already invited more of this insanity. Go change YOUR own name at the local court house if that's what gives you a tingle up your leg.
I’m tired of this whole Article IV red herring. According to the Supreme Court, the creation of West Virginia was not in violation of it, and theirs is the only opinion that counts (unless you want to argue that Marbury vs. Madison didn’t happen).
I’m more interest as to why you think this one decision counteracts everything Lincoln said regarding the fact that the CIVIL War was a rebellion?
Why is renaming a military base a tearing down of our county’s history? The Civil War still occurred, and no one is claiming otherwise. Samuel Hood and Braxton Bragg still exist, and no one is claiming otherwise Why is wanting to honor Medal of Honor winners a liberal pinhead position? I personally consider it patriotic. Same for not wanting to honor traitors.
By the way, this country’s history belongs to the entire country, not just the ragtag Lost Cause remnants. If you want to take the names of ANY Civil War generals off of US Army bases, and name them after heroes from other wars, I’m all for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.