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.
New York was built on the slave trade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_York
There are _no_ clean hands.
Many Indian tribes had slaves
Okay, let’s find out what it would cost, then when you have the amount and get back to us.
No taxpayer money shall be used.
Not the case. The law you cite authorizes payment of CW pensions to widows of Confederate soldiers. Nowhere in the verbiage of the law does it state that Confederate soldiers are U.S. military veterans, it says they are Civil War veterans. Even the head stones provided for veterans of Confederate service are markedly different than those head stones provided to veterans of the Untied States Armed Services. Confederate soldiers & sailors are not U.S. Armed Service veterans.
The people of Van Buren County, Missouri, were so mad at Van Buren for that that they renamed the county after Lewis Cass (the Democratic candidate for President in 1848).
People can change. Benjamin Franklin became one of the first Americans to be actively against slavery, but earlier he had owned a slave. George Washington, as is well known, owned many slaves, but freed them in his will. In the current climate it isn't acknowledged that people can improve, and people inherit the guilt of their remote ancestors...but only for certain offenses like racism or slavery. At least white people do. Barack Obama is descended from American slaveowners through his mother but because his father was an African, he doesn't inherit any guilt.
.
I’ve got an even better absurdity :
Let good libtards and leftists TURN THEMSELVES into REAL SLAVES belonging to black people to MAKE PROPER AND JUST Reparation for their ill-gotten prosperous lives paid with the blood of black ....
.
Mistake in first sentence. Fail!
Regards,
I stand corrected; thank you.
The US Constitution on Treason (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.” Pretty simple and straightforward.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people did not levy war against the United States? Even though, in Braxton Bragg’s case, he was pretty incompetent in levying war, I still think it would be hard to argue that he didn’t.
I am not talking about “opinions” (kinda like rectums, everybody has one). I am talking about the actions they took vs. the clear statement of the law.
So, explain to me how the actions of these people did not meet the clear words of the US Constitution? Explain to me how they were not levying war against the United States. The act of breaking the law is not dependent on the “opinions” of the people or how those living nearby “saw” it.
Or do you not think that the US Constitution is the law of the land?
I don’t know if they were traitors to their state. Did those state constitutions have an explicit definition of what constitutes treason? I do know that the US Constitution (Article III, Section 3) does. It states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Their actions pretty clearly violate this.
Are you saying that they didn’t levy war against the United States? I am awaiting your response.
So, they’re “Civil War veterans”. Don’t deny that. Doesn’t alter the fact that they were traitors to the United States, and I don’t believe that US Army bases should be named after traitors. And, I strongly suspect that they were named because of their action in the Confederate Army. Even though the Fort Bragg website says that it was named after General Bragg for his actions during the Mexican American War, I find it quite interesting that it refers to “General” Bragg, a rank he never held in the US Army
As citizens of the Confederacy at the time, they were incapable of committing treason to a country they were no longer part of.
I don’t have the individual state constitutions at 1861. However by fighting on the side of the union, they were effectively attacking their state. It seems obvious that would be the ultimate form of treason against one’s state. Effectively, in 1861 any southerner soldier had a choice of treason against his state or the United States.
In 1861 the issue of whether a state could succeed was uncertain. By armed force the United States did not let them succeed. If the United States chooses not to use armed force in the future, I am not sure what prevents a state from succeeding.
Well, that’s the argument, isn’t it? The roughly 9 million white residents of the southern states (Note that I do not include the approximately 3.5M African American residents) thought they were no longer part of the Union. Other people (the US Government, the roughly 19M residents of the states that didn’t secede, and the whole rest of the world) thought they were.
There was a long, 4 year court case on this, and a final decision was rendered at Appomattox Court House.
According to the results of this adjudication, they were citizens of the United States, and traitors. After the results of this court case, I believe that most of them later became, at the very least, residents, if not citizens, of the United States. Therefore they were traitors.
I stand by my assertion that US Army bases should not be named after traitors. I believe that they should be renamed after Medal of Honor winners from that state.
American Army bases should be named after American Army heroes.
Your theory is clearly incorrect as even a cursory reading of history would indicate. Civil War veterans received pensions as did their widows. Try not to allow your emotions to rule your thinking, that’s a leftist trait.
You know, treason is an action with a strict legal definition. In this country, that definition is in the US Constitution. It says that treason shall consist of levying war against the United States. In addition, they all swore oaths that they would “... bear true allegiance to the United States of America”. By this legal definition, they were all committing treason (as well as breaking their sworn oaths).
So, even though you’re saying that “effectively” they were committing treason against their state, they were LEGALLY committing treason against the United States. BTW not all southerners committed treason. George Thomas, commander of the Army of the Cumberland, was a Virginia native.
I stand by my assertion that US Army bases should not be named after traitors. I believe that they should be named after Medal of Honor winners from the state that the base is located in.
US Army bases should be named after US Army heroes.
I would name the army bases after the nearest town or politically correct town.
I think in the near future, Metal of Honor winners will be chosen largely to reflect diversity. They have cheapened everything else. Why not head it off at the pass and just name the bases after the nearest town?
You think that, in the near future, Medal of Honor winners will be chosen largely to reflect diversity.
Do you have any proof of this?
While politics undoubtedly has a basis in the choice of what medal to put in for, and what is actually awarded, the last 7 Medal of Honor winners are all white males, so I don’t see a big diversity push there. In any case, my suggestion doesn’t limit it to the most recent awardees.
My choice for renaming Fort Hood, for example, would be Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of WW2, and a Texas Native.
My choice for renaming Fort Bragg would be Ray Eubanks, a North Carolina native (and paratrooper) who won his medal on Noemfoor Island in WW2.
There are a whole lot of other bases and other Medal of Honor winners, but you get my drift. Your choices may differ, but in both of these cases the bases would be renamed for Medal of Honor winners, in the US Army, from the state the base is in.
American Army bases should be named for American Army heroes.
You say my theory is clearly incorrect as even a cursory reading of history would indicate.
Not at all clear to me. Please elucidate.
Explain to me how someone fighting in the Confederate Army is not “levying war” against the United States. Since “levying war” against the United States is the Constitutional definition of treason, I fail to see how they are not traitors.
Traitors they were, and US Army bases should not be named after them.
The United States did not regard them as traitors, in fact Braxton Bragg later served with distinction in the Mexican-American War.
So, your theory is clearly incorrect. History demonstrates this.
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.