Posted on 05/15/2019 12:48:32 PM PDT by EdnaMode
Almost 100 years after Confederate sympathizers named a major Virginia road after the president of their lost cause, Arlington County won approval from a state transportation board to rename Jefferson Davis Highway.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board voted unanimously Wednesday morning to allow Arlington to change the name of the road — commonly known as Route 1 — to Richmond Highway by Oct. 1, after lobbying by the county, legislators, business and residential groups, and Gov. Ralph Northam (D).
“What we just heard, through the unanimous vote and the words of the governor, is it’s past time,” said Christian Dorsey (D), chair of the County Board. He added later that the street signs would be changed no later than Oct. 1.
The county has tried for years to change the road’s name but has been stymied by the General Assembly, which held the power to block requests made by counties, officials believed. But Del. Mark Levine (D-Alexandria) found an exception that allowed the statewide transportation board to act, if requested by the county. Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) agreed in an advisory opinion in March, and one month later, Arlington made the formal request.
Business owners told the board Wednesday that having addresses on Jefferson Davis Highway cost them customers, including the loss of a convention at the hotel where the board meeting was held. Other potential tenants have refused to rent space in buildings with a Jefferson Davis address, an Arlington Chamber of Commerce executive said. In addition, Google Maps and other online navigational sites have already started calling the road Richmond Highway.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yep. MLK Blvd. Always the safest road in any town.
No...the Angela Davis Highway.
FMCDH(BITS)
Yep. MLK Blvd. Always the safest road in any town.
There are many King George Roads in New Jersey (ahem, one of the 13 original colonies) as well as many towns named after English royalty. So, pretty much your argument is nonexistent.
George Washington led a traitorous movement. It was traitorous because the United Kingdom did not recognize a right to independence and so it required perpetual allegiance to the King.
*We* on the other hand founded this nation based on a right to Independence, so seeking independence may have been treasonous to the Brits, but it wasn't treasonous to this nation's founding principle.
I still get a chuckle when I hear "four score and seven years ago...". If you do the math, Lincoln was talking about 1776, when a collection of 13 slave holding states separated from a Union and formed a Confederacy, while having their armies led by a slave holding general from Virginia. :)
Pretty sure George didn’t lead any traitorous movements. Pretty sure that was our guys. Pretty sure there were plenty of monuments for those traitors too.
“Northam Highway works.”
Blackface Way.
‘You think they are going to stop at Jefferson Davis?’
nope; I believe they will attempt to wipe out the entirety of nineteenth century America...
Big difference. George Washington led the winning side. Not the losing side. Jefferson Davis was a disaster as President of the CSU.
“Lincoln was flexible; Davis was rigid. Lincoln wanted to win; Davis wanted to be right. Lincoln had a broad strategic vision of Union goals; Davis could never enlarge his narrow view. Lincoln searched for the right general, then let him fight the war; Davis continuously played favorites and interfered unduly with his generals, even with Robert E. Lee. Lincoln led his nation; Davis failed to rally the South.”
They want to go to “Year Zero”, just like the Khmer Rouge.
You’re not a traitor if you lead the winning team. History rewards success, not failure.
Yes, all their correspondence documentations (including business cards) have to change.
Of course, sometimes they can rather easily “paste over” the old with a few prints ready to go when needed.
MD sure didn’t care when they made most of us (except dear ol’ DC counties) change area codes AND have to use them for locals 30 years ago.
“Lincoln searched for the right general, then let him fight the war;”
That’s a joke right there.
But overall, so you’re agreeing that “history is written (i.e., spun) by the winners”. So only winners get to be heard, regardless of whose side they’re on?
King George didn't throw hundreds of thousands of lives away trying to subjugate the colonies. Rest assured, if King George had decided to throw the full weight of England against the colonies, they would have lost.
“Lincoln was flexible;
So long as the South continued to remain an underdog in the Union and continued to pay the vast majority of all the taxes. Lincoln was flexible on continuing slavery. He was not flexible on letting the South run their own affairs, especially foreign trade.
The North was making too much money off of it.
Certainly the new name will bring a reduction in crime, increased wages, quieter neighborhoods and a better standard of living, right???
...1776, when a collection of 13 slave holding states separated from a Union and formed a Confederacy’
really...? there were states in 1776...? who knew...?
BTW, your usage of the terms ‘union’ and ‘confederacy’ is a distinction without a difference...
‘He was not flexible on letting the South run their own affairs’
really...? then whose affairs were they running when they seceded from the union...?
Of course history is written by the winners! Thats just life. Look, its simple in the greater scheme of things. The South’s aims were not noble. They wanted to continue the institution of slavery (and yes, that is really what the Civil War was about). And they lost. And thats good.
They were once they declared independence.
That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
The word "State" is used 9 times in the Declaration of Independence, referring to themselves.
BTW, your usage of the terms ‘union’ and ‘confederacy’ is a distinction without a difference...
You may have missed the humor. The US did indeed began as a "Confederacy." It did indeed secede from a "Union". (Union of the Crowns.) It was indeed a collection of "slave owning states." It's armies were indeed led by a slave owning general from Virginia.
The better question is "who was running their affairs?" The answer is, "New York and Washington DC."
Same bastards as is running *ALL* of our affairs nowadays, and for the same reason. To make us serve them and send them our money.
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.