Time to Spike Rebel Names

[1965hawks]

Today's army posts need better names than those of treasonous generals who defended slavery.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/29/remove-rebels-us-army-bases-column/29236823/

[Byteryder]

Unbelievable.  What do you use for brains, Hawk?  A warm wet turd?

[WWV10MHZ]

Why? Makes no sense. What kind of twisted mind or ultra-sensitive person LOOKING for every possible way to be offended would find offense in a NAME from 160 years ago?

[dont-blameme]

Better yet why don't we remove the idiots that request the removal of history, just what purpose do they serve besides causing trouble and expense?

[upyrwazoo]

APPARENTLY THE LEFT IS COMPOSED OF FUCKING LOSERS WHO DREAM OF BECOMING TIN HORN DICTATORS AND WANT TO GIVE ORDERS BUT DIDN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO JOIN THE MILITARY OR TAKE ROTC IN COLLEGE! LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THEY WANT CONTROL IT IS AN EGO THING WITH THEM!

[Truman62]

No, we are not bigots like you Repocon loons.

We stand for equality and freedom for EVERYONE.

YOU Repocons stand for your beliefs and ONLY your beliefs.

Why is that so hard for you Repocon bigots to understand?

[Local5th]

Those Southern generals were great military leaders who fought northern aggression. Nothing like you bigots who hate them.

Using your logic hawk the great American Indian leaders were traitors too. Right Hawk?

Idiot!

[1965hawks]

in re: Reply #1
Byteryder ignored the argument and attacked the arguer instead. (logical fallacy: ad hominem)

in re: Reply #2
WWV10MHZ conveniently avoided discussing the evidence the article's author provided to support her argument.
(logical fallacy: avoiding the issue)

in re: Reply #3
don't-blameme posted a laughable attempt to turn the argument back on the article's author. (logical fallacy: tu quoque)

in re: Reply #4
upyrwazoo attempted to defend the losers of the American Civil War by alleging that left-leaning college students don't enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps. (logical fallacy: non sequitur)

in re: Reply #5
Local 5th conveniently omits the fact that although some Confederate generals were good military leaders, they all waged war against their own country and, thus, were traitors who committed treason against the United States of America. There's no logical reason at all to name US army posts after those who took up arms against this country.

And, furthermore, a traitor is one who betrays one's country, a cause, or trust, especially one who commits treason. And treason is the betrayal of allegiance towards one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2011).

So were Native Americans traitors? Were they committing treasonous acts when they were defending their homelands against American invasion during the Indian Wars? Obviously they weren't.  A traitor betrays allegiance towards his own country. The American Indian Wars of US history were multiple conflicts that began during the earliest colonial settlement and lasted until 1890. Native Americans were not granted US citizenship, however, until 1924. Robert E. Lee, Braxton Bragg, Ambrose Powell Hill, and Henry Benning were traitors. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Geronimo, and Cochise were not. 

 

 

[Local5th]

Local 5th conveniently omits the fact that although some Confederate generals were good military leaders, they all waged war against their own country and, thus, were traitors who committed treason against the United States of America. There's no logical reason at all to name US army posts after those who took up arms against this country.

Hawk conveniently omits the fact that not one US army post is named after one Confederate general found guilty of treason. So there is not one logical reason not to name a army post after a Confederate General. Especially if one supports inclusion and healing, as opposed to division, hate and bigotry.

[sweetwater5s9]

Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.

General Grant made the comment that, "The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I be convinced it has any other object, or that the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side" in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862. Union General William T. Sherman said in 1864 "I am honest in my belief that it is not fair to my men to count negros as equals. Let us capture negros, of course, and use them to the best advantage."

Confederate General Robert E. Lee, however, saw the world of slavery from a different view. He said "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery is an institution of a moral and political evil" In 1858. In 1866 he also made a statement that "All the south ever desired was that the union, as established by our forefathers, be preserved; and that the Government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." It wasn't a far fetched idea yet the people in this country then and still today are yet to grasp hold of something like morals, purity, or truth. But I guess that's where Confederate States President Jefferson Davis comes in with "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."


Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world. And do not think that blacks were the only ones in this country who were slaves.

If you are going to hold every white person accountable for the acts of whites AND blacks more than a lifetime ago, then go to Africa and hold them accountable as well. Until then, learn the facts before you speak. If you speak intellectually I will gladly listen to and respect you, otherwise I will blow you off as another ignorant individual who couldn't pay attention to true history to save your life.




Amy M. Wrobel

amy_wrobel@att.net

[1965hawks]

Local5th: Hawk conveniently omits the fact that not one US army post is named after one Confederate general found guilty of treason.







That's because they were never tried for treason, Local5th. Had that happened, they most certainly would had been convicted of treason and hanged.  You're still ignoring the fact that Confederate generals,for whom several US army posts are named, did in fact commit treason by waging war against their own country--the United States of America.

So there is not one logical reason not to name a army post after a Confederate General. [sic]

Really? You're again conveniently ignoring the fact that Lee and other Confederate generals led their forces in an armed rebellion against the Constitution and people of the United States. Whether they were never tried for treason is irrelevant. The fact remains: They were traitors and there's no logical reason to name US military installations in remembrance of this country's enemies. 

Especially if one supports inclusion and healing, as opposed to division, hate and bigotry.

Local5th, you're still ignoring historical fact: It was and still is the recalcitrant South that's still fighting the Civil War.The states that comprised the old Confederacy should had removed any reminder of the Stars and Bars from their state flags a long time ago. Truth is, they should had never been allowed to do so in the first place. And the there never should had been any army posts named to honour our country's enemies--especially treasonous generals who led troops against their own country, the fallacious arguments you've posted so far notwithstanding.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/24/1395988/-Who-won-the-Civil-War-Rename-the-Army-Forts#

[1965hawks]

sweetwater5s9: Africans sold their OWN people into slavery and there is still slavery going on in other parts of the world.

Evidently you're confused again: That's not the topic of this discussion. The issue here is US army posts named for treasonous Confederate generals who fought to defend the despicable institution of chattel slavery in the United States.

Traitors who instigate insurrection against their country for the right to enslave others do not deserve to be celebrated by the very country they waged war against. Treachery should not be celebrated, but that’s exactly what America is doing by naming 10 U.S. military bases after Confederate generals.

http://breakingbrown.com/2013/05/fort-benning-army-base-was-named-after-racist-confederate-general-and-so-were-9-other-military-bases/