[SmokingJoe]

Many of his generals were either worthless in battle (Bragg) or eager slaveholders (Benning).

Okay. I'll bite.
Washington was a slave holder too so I guess you are all for renaming Washington DC too yes?
How about renaming DC after Karl Marx?.
That sounds like a very nice name no?

This ain’t the hill I’m dying on.

What hill will die for then?
The Joseph Stalin Hill or Fidel Castro Hill?

[proud American in Canada]

Why yes! And there’s always Mount Hitler!

[Vehmgericht]

It’s just a matter of time.

[jz638]

Okay. I'll bite. Washington was a slave holder too so I guess you are all for renaming Washington DC too yes? How about renaming DC after Karl Marx?. That sounds like a very nice name no? As you may be aware, both Britain as well as the colonies were slaveholding entities in the 1780's. At the time of our independence, we were not a backwards colony, we embraced liberty even if it was not totally right at the time and the tolerance of slave states was not done put of an embrace of the practice, but in an effort to form a more perfect union in the future. By the 1860's, slavery was a central topic of debate in Washington. As much as some people want to pretend it was an ancillary reason for the civil war, it was the main reason the southern states seceeded. (The Union sort of was a latecomer to that debate, the freeing of slaves wasn't originally the main reason for preserving the union, but by Antietam it became a focus for winning the war.)

[rockrr]

Washington was a slave holder too so I guess you are all for renaming Washington DC too yes?

No. What a foolish idea.