Posted on 05/10/2024 7:43:51 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The education board for a rural Virginia county voted early on Friday to restore the names of Confederate generals stripped from two schools in 2020, making the mostly white, Republican district the first in the U.S. to take such an action.
By a 5-1 vote, the Shenandoah County board overturned its 2020 decision that stripped a public high school and elementary school of their original names honoring three military leaders of the pro-slavery South in the Civil War.
Under the board's action, Mountain View High School will again become known as Stonewall Jackson High, while Honey Run Elementary School will revert to the name Ashby Lee Elementary.
The names belong to some of the most well-known military leaders of the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia; Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson was a Confederate infantry general, and Turner Ashby was a rebel cavalry commander. All of them were Virginians.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The vote to not secede was taken 5 months before the legislators were arrested.
With malice towards none.
And still have an NPR fed view of revisionist history.
No, I stand with the US, not men who committed treason against it.
Then you fail the understanding of the purpose of reunification and history in general and, back to the original point, why these men’s names were on the schools to begin with.
You are an example of the American Taliban.
I don’t want the names removed, they can keep them. But they can also be known as the traitors they were.
You dou realize Northerners didn’t give 2 sh!ts about freeing the slaves. That is why the conscription act needed to be enforced.
I would have replaced Confederate “heroes” with our founding fathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.
They can keep them, I have no problem withh that. But facts are stubborn things. They WERE traitors against the US.
How many “traitors” were tried for treason after the civil war? Hint: this answer is the same as your IQ.
None, because reunification had to be done. Doesn’t mean they weren’t.
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Not a fan of Ike, for his betrayl of McCarthy, and his lobying to defeat an amendment that would have reigned in globalist treaties.
Salmon Chase, the CJ of the USSC, and an abolitionist and former member of Lincoln's cabinet (so no friend of the South) recommended against prosecutions for treason and warned that there was no legal authority under the Constitution and laws at the time. The reason for this is that citizens were "citizens of the several states" and not of an entity called "the United States." That came much later.
Even Jeff Davis was never prosecuted. They kept him imprisoned for awhile but eventually let him go, because they couldn't make a charge stick.
Several New England states had attempted to secede, unsuccessfully, some time before, but with no penalty or charges.
. . . and whether you are a fan of Ike or not, you don’t address the factual content of his letter. I can tell you (having been a member of the bar for nearly 50 years) that he is absolutely right (as I noted above before reading centralva’s post).
His ruling was to re- unify the Country.
I have an admiration for Lee because he surrendered honorably, and worked to re- unify the US. That makes him a great American
(But I’m sure someone here will school me.)
‘’’’’’’’’
May well happen but that doesn’t mean that
they hold the only opinion on a subject as
bad as they want that to be.
Decent judges do NOT opine for political reasons.
Moreover, you still have not addressed the *legal* basis for the opinion: the absence of any basis for treason against an entity called the "United States". Art. III Sec. 3 refers to the United States as "them" - not "it". And there's your problem.
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.