Politics: Statues coming down II

[Crimson1967]

The renaming of Fort Bragg to honor someone else is similar to what happened in King County, Washington. (Where Seattle is located).

At the time of its founding in 1852, it was named in honor of William King. He had recently been elected vice president and was a Senator from Alabama. He was from Selma and is entombed in a very creepy looking crypt there. He is also believed by some to be the boyfriend of James Buchanan.

In 1986, county leaders decided to “rename” the county after Martin Luther King.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I don’t have a dog in the fight, but it sure seems to me that the renaming of Fort Bragg - that could’ve just been Fort Bragg anyway - is both insane kind of stupid.

I mean, you would think step one in renaming bases by somebody not filled with rage would basically be, “Is there another person with a similar name so we don’t have to spend millions changing all the signs and all that other stuff?”

Thing is, renaming the stuff and tearing down the statues has never really about renaming the stuff or tearing down the statues. If you don’t think so, note how often “racist” is thrown around regarding the tomahawk chop when it is the Atlanta Braves compared to the number of times that same accusation is made towards the Kansas City Chiefs or the Florida State Seminoles. That’s the “issue” I’ve always had with it. It’s pretense at every level. (And btw it’s the same with the Rebel advocates who whine about “erasing history” when a statue erected a century after the war and put up as a relic of Jim Crow comes down; these folks don’t care about erasing history, it’s just as pretentious as “this is racist but only if southerners do it”).

 

[Padreruf]

If a man says, "South Carolina is a state in the Union," and "we are going to wage war on South Carolina, by sending an armed force to overthrow the elected government, install a military government, and suppress the ability of the citizens of South Carolina to vote," and then actually acts on that, then that person has committed treason.
Every Union soldier in the Civil and Abraham Lincoln himself were, by definition, traitors.

Oh man, have you opened up a can of worms now! To my meager legal knowledge what has never been solidified in law is the autonomy of the local state vis a vis the federal government. Your reasoning is actually quite valid from a "States" point of view. I know the Federal POV is that there was never a referendum on the issue pre-Civil War...but in my mind that is a slim thread to stand on. I'm not a secessionist and I do believe that being in the Union was/is better than being out of it. However, the matter was not settled by lawful debate but by armed conflict due to the primary nature of the war: slavery and economics.

 

[Bamaro]

If a man says, "South Carolina is a state in the Union," and "we are going to wage war on South Carolina, by sending an armed force to overthrow the elected government, install a military government, and suppress the ability of the citizens of South Carolina to vote," and then actually acts on that, then that person has committed treason.
Every Union soldier in the Civil and Abraham Lincoln himself were, by definition, traitors.

I thought it was understood but since these are US bases I was referring to traitors against the US.

 

[Padreruf]

I thought it was understood but since these are US bases I was referring to traitors against the US.

Missed that reference...oh well...

 

[mdb-tpet]

If a man says, "South Carolina is a state in the Union," and "we are going to wage war on South Carolina, by sending an armed force to overthrow the elected government, install a military government, and suppress the ability of the citizens of South Carolina to vote," and then actually acts on that, then that person has committed treason.
Every Union soldier in the Civil and Abraham Lincoln himself were, by definition, traitors.

Well, first of all, the Union did not attack South Carolina, and at the time of the start of the Civil (Slavery) War, South Carolina had long since seceded and met with other states to form a new government. And the definition of being a traitor from Oxford dictionary is: a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc. So, when so the Union Army in Fort Sumter was attacked, South Carolina had already multiple times betrayed the United States. Any act after that was both self preservation and and attempt to reform the United States to which SC had already pledged. At no time was any Union soldier a traitor by definition to South Carolina, who had already betrayed the USA.

 

[dtgreg]

If a man says, "South Carolina is a state in the Union," and "we are going to wage war on South Carolina, by sending an armed force to overthrow the elected government, install a military government, and suppress the ability of the citizens of South Carolina to vote," and then actually acts on that, then that person has committed treason.
Every Union soldier in the Civil and Abraham Lincoln himself were, by definition, traitors.

The declaration laid out the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery".[3] The declaration states, in part, "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

These people, if you can call them people, worshipped slavery. The apocryphal story of the rescue of the Koran from the library fire at UA meant "If Christianity is against slavery, Christianity be damned." They would adopt Islam before they would give up their slaves.

 

[Tidewater]

I thought it was understood but since these are US bases I was referring to traitors against the US.

You are missing the point.
All Union veterans were traitors to the United States, not traitors to South Carolina.
Treason is waging war on the States. If one says South Carolina is in the Union, then it is one of the states within the category "United States." To wage war on any state in the Union is treason. Nowhere does the Constitution says that the traitor must wage war on all of them. Any of them will suffice.
Alexander Hamilton, a northern man who wanted an even stronger federal government than what came out of Philadelphia (like Putin, Hamilton wanted the central government to appoint state governors, for example), and even Hamilton said this: "Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? … But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible." So maintaining a Union by war and carnage is, according to Hamilton, "unreasonable."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 stipulates: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." The Constitution does not say, "may guarantee ... a republican form of government." It is a positive command. The US must, it is obligated to guarantee a republican form of government, so removing a republican form of government and replacing it with an appointed military government is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And this was the primary reason Virginia seceded in 1861. When the Federal government does something violent, antidemocratic, and unconstitutional, good people stand up and say, "No. We will not do that."

Because I have an interest in living in peace in the same country with the descendants of the former traitors, it is best to let that be. But since you brought up treason ...

 

[dtgreg]

You are missing the point.
All Union veterans were traitors to the United States, not traitors to South Carolina.
Treason is waging war on the States. If one says South Carolina is in the Union, then it is one of the states within the category "United States." To wage war on any state in the Union is treason. Nowhere does the Constitution says that the traitor must wage war on all of them. Any of them will suffice.
Alexander Hamilton, a northern man who wanted an even stronger federal government than what came out of Philadelphia (like Putin, Hamilton wanted the central government to appoint state governors, for example), and even Hamilton said this: "Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? … But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible." So maintaining a Union by war and carnage is, according to Hamilton, "unreasonable."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 stipulates: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." The Constitution does not say, "may guarantee ... a republican form of government." It is a positive command. The US must, it is obligated to guarantee a republican form of government, so removing a republican form of government and replacing it with an appointed military government is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And this was the primary reason Virginia seceded in 1861. When the Federal government does something violent, antidemocratic, and unconstitutional, good people stand up and say, "No. We will not do that."

Because I have an interest in living in peace in the same country with the descendants of the former traitors, it is best to let that be. But since you brought up treason ...

I believe you may be missing the forest (Forrest? Sorry, I can't resist puns) for the trees. The UNITED states. Not the "Sovereign country of South Carolina. Once a State has left the Union, it will be picked off eventually by some larger entity. England, Spain, France, Georgia, etc. The foolishness of the dissolution of the Union is so obvious as to be a postulate.

The Union could not abide the rich plum of South Carolina to be a dagger poised at the heart of the United States ready to be plunged by some foreign power all because of the insanity of some rich planters.

 

[Bamaro]

You are missing the point.
All Union veterans were traitors to the United States, not traitors to South Carolina.
Treason is waging war on the States. If one says South Carolina is in the Union, then it is one of the states within the category "United States." To wage war on any state in the Union is treason. Nowhere does the Constitution says that the traitor must wage war on all of them. Any of them will suffice.
Alexander Hamilton, a northern man who wanted an even stronger federal government than what came out of Philadelphia (like Putin, Hamilton wanted the central government to appoint state governors, for example), and even Hamilton said this: "Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? … But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible." So maintaining a Union by war and carnage is, according to Hamilton, "unreasonable."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 stipulates: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." The Constitution does not say, "may guarantee ... a republican form of government." It is a positive command. The US must, it is obligated to guarantee a republican form of government, so removing a republican form of government and replacing it with an appointed military government is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And this was the primary reason Virginia seceded in 1861. When the Federal government does something violent, antidemocratic, and unconstitutional, good people stand up and say, "No. We will not do that."

Because I have an interest in living in peace in the same country with the descendants of the former traitors, it is best to let that be. But since you brought up treason ...

Thats some convoluted reasoning. Pretzel logic.
One side was trying to preserve the union, the other side was trying to break it.

 

[Bazza]

From what I understand.....there's a movement to have Gen. Jackson's statue returned to the VMI campus.

April 2022 article:

Jackson's statue finds new context at New Market Battlefield

After a tumultuous year that saw the Statue of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson abruptly moved from in front of Jackson Arch at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) on December 7, 2021 to an undisclosed location, it is now in place at its new home in the roundabout at the Virginia Museum of...

cadetnewspaper.com

After a tumultuous year that saw the Statue of General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson abruptly moved from in front of Jackson Arch at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) on December 7, 2021 to an undisclosed location, it is now in place at its new home in the roundabout at the Virginia Museum of the Civil War and New Market Battlefield State Historical Park. Jackson’s name was subsequently expunged from the arch in his honor on the VMI barracks while the Corps was on Christmas break December 2021.

According to VMI historian, Col. Keith Gibson '77, the new location provides important historical context to the statue.

 

[81usaf92]

I know people who met Moore and they are universally generous in their praise of Moore.
Rock Benning was okay as a leader, but not outstanding.
As for North Carolinians worthy of being remembered, Braxton Bragg was not an effective leader. The commission really dropped the ball by not naming the installation after William C. Lee, "father of the airborne." He was from Dunn, NC (just up the road from Fayetteville) attended NC State, and was the man most responsible for the US Army even having an airborne force in the Second World War.

Braxton Bragg may have been the worst general in the civil war. But I think the renaming of a long standing Special Forces base and the Army’s biggest training base (Benning) just really is something that wasn’t going to be accepted without a better name. Bragg to Liberty is probably one of the worst transitions. Benning to Hal Moore is far more acceptable.

 

[JDCrimson]

I'm waiting for the EO renaming the Washington Commanders back to Redskins, Cleveland Guardians back to Indians, and Pearl Milling Company back to Aunt Jemima...

 

[Tidewater]

Thats some convoluted reasoning. Pretzel logic.
One side was trying to preserve the union, the other side was trying to break it.

The people of those states had reason to expect protection from the army claiming their loyalty. Instead, Lincoln and his abettors displayed their contempt for both democracy and the Constitution.
The Union army, with their cruelty and barbarism, played the role of the Russians in Ukraine today. An upstart "provinces" wanted independence and the Empire invaded to crush that independence movement, and both the Union and the Russians behaved cruelly towards noncombatants in the process.
200 meters north of my current location is the highway that marked the boundary north of which the US Army shot every pig, every cow, every goat, and stole every horse, and burned every barn, with the seed corn for planting the next spring for 80 miles north.
They were evil and committed treason. They should be remembered that way.
For one hundred years, the gentlemen's agreement held, the agreement struck by the combatants themselves. Their magnanimity healed the country.
"Wiser" heads have reneged on that.
I will honor the memory of those who fought to defend democracy and the Constitution and you can honor their opponents, the murderous, traitorous ones.

 

[Tidewater]

From what I understand.....there's a movement to have Gen. Jackson's statue returned to the VMI campus.

April 2022 article:

Jackson's statue finds new context at New Market Battlefield

After a tumultuous year that saw the Statue of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson abruptly moved from in front of Jackson Arch at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) on December 7, 2021 to an undisclosed location, it is now in place at its new home in the roundabout at the Virginia Museum of...

cadetnewspaper.com

After a tumultuous year that saw the Statue of General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson abruptly moved from in front of Jackson Arch at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) on December 7, 2021 to an undisclosed location, it is now in place at its new home in the roundabout at the Virginia Museum of the Civil War and New Market Battlefield State Historical Park. Jackson’s name was subsequently expunged from the arch in his honor on the VMI barracks while the Corps was on Christmas break December 2021.

According to VMI historian, Col. Keith Gibson '77, the new location provides important historical context to the statue.

The current location is on the New Market Battlefield (as is the former Albemarle County Confederate monument). Jackson did pass through the town of New Market a few times, but he had been dead almost two years when the Battle of New Market was fought in 1864, so he has only the slightest connection to that town. At least the New Market Battlefield does not belong to the state so Richmond has nothing to say about it there.
I doubt it will go back to on-post at VMI.

 

[Tidewater]

I believe you may be missing the forest (Forrest? Sorry, I can't resist puns) for the trees. The UNITED states. Not the "Sovereign country of South Carolina. Once a State has left the Union, it will be picked off eventually by some larger entity. England, Spain, France, Georgia, etc. The foolishness of the dissolution of the Union is so obvious as to be a postulate.

The Union could not abide the rich plum of South Carolina to be a dagger poised at the heart of the United States ready to be plunged by some foreign power all because of the insanity of some rich planters.

That is a common misunderstanding. The secession of South Carolina was the decision of the people of South Carolina, not "some rich planters."
After Lincoln's election, the governor called for an election of delegates, people went to the polls, selected delegates based on their declared positions on secession. The delegates went to the convention debated, and then decided to leave, the same steps South Carolina had taken when she joined the Union.
Alabama followed the same procedure. Candidate declared their positions, voters voted, the convention assembled and made its decision.
Secession was popular and popularly arrived at. Only and enemy of democracy would take issue with it.

 

[Tidewater]

Well, first of all, the Union did not attack South Carolina, and at the time of the start of the Civil (Slavery) War, South Carolina had long since seceded and met with other states to form a new government. And the definition of being a traitor from Oxford dictionary is: a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc. So, when so the Union Army in Fort Sumter was attacked, South Carolina had already multiple times betrayed the United States. Any act after that was both self preservation and and attempt to reform the United States to which SC had already pledged. At no time was any Union soldier a traitor by definition to South Carolina, who had already betrayed the USA.

Why did South Carolina pick those dates to fire on Sumter?
The US sent infantry, cavalry, artillery and engineers departed New York, and then the Lincoln Administration sent a deceitful message that the US would only try to bring food to the garrison (Maj Anderson has already refused food sent by the city of Charleston).
The New York newspapers made clear that the US Army was loading infantry, cavalry, artillery and engineers onto ships head south.
There is no power delegated in the US Constitution to the Federal government to force the people of a state back into the Union against the will of those people. South Carolina (and Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas) had voted to withdraw the delegated powers when they had ratified the Constitution, but the key point is that there is no Federal power to coerce a state out of the Union back into the Union. To attempt to do so is a usurpation and a palpable violation of the Constitution.

Let me ask you this, in July 1788, North Carolina convention had met and refused to ratify the Constitution. Everyone at that time acknowledged that North Carolina was out of the Union. Had North Carolina "betrayed the USA" by failing to ratify? What did the Founders say about that?

 

[Tidewater]

In 1936, August Landmesser was in a crowd of Germans. Everyone around him was saluting Hitler. Landmesser refused to take part. And suffered for it.

I believe some people in 1860 knew what good people should do when the Federal government decides to do something violent, antidemocratic, and unconstitutional: Virginia set the example. You do not help evil men commit evil. Virginia was like Landmesser in the photo. When Republicans and northern states were gleefully doing the Nazi salute, Virginia said, "No. We will not take part in that effort. We will not help." And like Landmesser, Virginia suffered for her stand.
So when I hear people today call Virginians "traitors" for their stand, I take a measure of pride in noting that Nazis in 1936 called Landmesser a traitor as well.

 

[Tidewater]

Fort Gregg-Adams renamed to Fort Lee.
This one for Private Fitz Lee.

Private Fitz Lee (1866 - 14 September 1899) was a Buffalo Soldier in the U.S. Army who received the U.S. military's highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor, for his heroic actions during the Spanish-American War.

Fitz Lee joined the Army from his birth place of Dinwiddie County, VA, and on 30 June 1898, he was serving as a Private in Troop M of the 10th Cavalry Regiment. American forces aboard the USS Florida near Tayacoba, Cuba, that day dispatched a small landing party to provide reconnaissance on Spanish outposts in the area. The party was discovered by Spanish scouts and came under heavy fire; their boats were sunk by enemy cannon fire, leaving them stranded on shore.

The men aboard the Florida launched several rescue attempts; the first four were forced to retreat under heavy fire. The fifth attempt, manned by Lee and three other Privates of the 10th Cavalry (Dennis Bell, William H. Thompkins, and George H. Wanton), launched at night and successfully found and rescued the surviving members of the landing party. One year later, on 23 June 1899, all four rescuers were awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions in what had come to be known as the Battle of Tayacoba.


Citation: Voluntarily went ashore in the face of the enemy and aided in the rescue of his wounded comrades; this after several previous attempts had been frustrated.

 

[Crimson1967]

Digging through the archives looking for people with the same name as the old namesake is stupid to me. Ft. Rucker was changed to honor a MOH recipient rather than a Confederate officer. Now it is named for some WWI pilot named Rucker.

That said, I think naming the fort for Fitz Lee is appropriate. We should have a high standard for the names we put on military bases.