Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clemson University [monuments & names]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Red folks won another decision at the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, but you can count on the folks in D.C. to use it for toilet paper at the same they continue to hector China about Hong Kong and Russia about Ukraine, not to mention the fact that the Iraqi government asked I.S. to leave 6 months ago and our government blew them off.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKBN24A268

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
      Federal law trumps state law, you know that. When federal troops were sent into the south during the 1950's and 1960's to enforce civil rights against the will of defiant insurrectionist governors, they no doubt had many southerners among them, and I've never heard of one incident of these southerners defecting to the side of their governors. Hell, when JFK nationalized the Alabama National Guard in 1963, all of them were Alabamans and not a single answered George Wallace's call to defend segregation forever. The fact that Lee wasn't as clear-minded as these young men who were half his age doesn't speak well of him.



      Arnold wasn't a traitor, he was a British patriot.
      You are applying present "post civil war' interpretation of the US constitution to pre civilwar Americans. It was not at all obvious in 1860 that a man owed allegiance to the president of the United States over his own state legislature. It was called the United States of America for a reason. It was a union of states. At that time it was not a nation in the same way Spain or France were nations. In fact the founders were clear that it state governments were sovereign in many ways.

      We must understand the world as it was in order to understand the men that lived in it.

      Regarding Arnold, he was under oath to the continental congress under the command of george Washington. Arnold never relinquished his office to Washington. While under Washingtons command he accepted cash from the adversary in return for giving up his fort and safe haven with the enemy. That is a traitor.

      Lee relinquished his office before taking command of the confederate army. Had he taken command of Union forces and then cooperated with confederate states to undermine Lincoln he would have been a traitor. He did not do that.

      ​​​

      Comment


      • User4, I have to give you credit. It takes some inpressive lawyering of the Constitution and history books to argue that Lee was not a traitor because the U.S. was not yet a fully formed nation-state when he fought against it but Arnold was a traitor nearly 90 years earlier when the colonies hadn't even won their independence from England.
        Last edited by jazzcyclist; 07-10-2020, 04:07 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post
          User4, I have to give you credit. It takes some impressive lawyering of the Constitution and history books to argue that Lee was not a traitor because the U.S. was not yet a fully formed nation-state when he fought against it but Arnold was a traitor nearly 90 years earlier when the colonies hadn't even won their independence from England.
          Not at all,
          First and I repeat, the differences between Lee and Arnold are stark. Lee relinquished his command to the union. Arnold DID NOT relinquish his command to Washington and the continental congress, he stayed under command of Washington as he waged war against Washington. He committed treasonous acts while in office under Washington:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

          Arnold committed treason because he violated his oath. Arnold did not have to commit treason, he could have left for New York City put his subordinate in command and delivered a letter to Washington informing Washington that he was leaving his office. But Arnold did not do that, he used his office as a powerful tool to destroy the army of the continental congress while he was serving under Washington. He entered in covert negotiations with the enemy to hand over the critical Fort at West Point to the enemy.

          Contrast that with Lee, Lee did not violate his oath and it would have taken some incredible juijitzu lawyering to convict him of treason. 1) He relinquished his office before he took command of the confederate army. 2) It was an open question of whether a state could seceed. Certainly the colonial state governments just 70 years prior believed that they could indeed seceed from what later become the "united kingdom". But all parties knew it would mean war and it would require winning that war. The Northern states saw Union as a non-negotiable, there was going to be either Union of all the states or war between the states. The South saw secession as non-negotiable, they were going to break away from the Northern states and if it meant war they were in their minds prepared to win that war.

          Please make use of the following facts: 1) Lee relinquished his command of the Union before taking command of the Virginia Army (his home State). 2) There were ample efforts made to try Lee for treason after the war, there were politically and legally skilled advocates on the winning side of the war that were ready willing and able to do that.

          It is important to understand the world as it was so that we can properly judge the men that lived in it.

          The bottom line is that it was a civil war, there would be NO union had not the letter and spirit of the Appomattox court house went out across the land. Grant knew this and made his own judgement on the matter very clear to all. Lee was no traitor.

          Coincidentally, another northern president made a similar gesture in 1974 regarding Lee. Gerald Ford (R) a WW2 veteran himself pardoned Lee and made the facts of all of this front and center when he did:

          https://www.archives.gov/publication...ring/piece-lee

          Though there were strong bitter radical republicans, the vast majority within the Republican party wanted to preserve the Union, in order to do that they had to insure that they brought back into brotherly bonds the rebellious states. Going on witch hunts and carrying out tribunals filled with lawyer tricks to defame and slander the men they sought to bring back into the Union was not going to cut it with Grant and the vast majority of Americans.

          The purposes of honoring Lee and other confederates and not demonizing them was in preserving the Union (and preserving the Union was the biggest reason the Union army was formed) .. Today that purpose is long since fulfilled and those statues can come down and user4 recommends that they come down in an orderly and lawful manner.

          I appreciate the credit you give me, you make me earn it!!
          Last edited by user4; 07-10-2020, 05:21 PM.

          Comment


          • I will leave those more learned and opinionated than I to thrash this out. My paternal ancestors were still in England during the Revolutionary War and I have no knowledge of their sentiment. My maternal ancestors met the boat and afaik were not involved in that war.
            I am too burned out to re-fight the Civil and Indian Wars. My ancestors fought on both sides in both wars, with a winner and a loser in each. I gonna call it a draw and get on with life.
            Last edited by lonewolf; 07-10-2020, 09:42 PM.

            Comment


            • For what it is worth, Washington & Lee was renamed because of direct connections with the two historical figures rather than their historical context. Washington gave a sizable grant to keep the university going. Lee served as the University President for five years after the Civil War.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Halfmiler2 View Post
                For what it is worth, Washington & Lee was renamed because of direct connections with the two historical figures rather than their historical context. Washington gave a sizable grant to keep the university going. Lee served as the University President for five years after the Civil War.
                And now that they're going to rename it, I vote (though I have none) for an indigenous tribe of the area: Monocan University.

                I can do this Native name thing all day long!!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                  And now that they're going to rename it, I vote (though I have none) for an indigenous tribe of the area: Monocan University.

                  I can do this Native name thing all day long!!
                  Nope. Name it Washington & Chavis, or just Chavis University.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gm View Post

                    Nope. Name it Washington & Chavis, or just Chavis University.
                    That sounds good. For John Chavis, I presume.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by J Rorick View Post

                      That sounds good. For John Chavis, I presume.
                      Yes indeed.

                      Comment


                      • By the way, Lee is actually buried at W & L.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Atticus View Post
                          And now that they're going to rename it, I vote (though I have none) for an indigenous tribe of the area: Monocan University.

                          I can do this Native name thing all day long!!
                          That is a great name for a university. They could also rename it Augusta University, which was its name before it was named after Washington.

                          The trustees are like most American elite business class people, they are spineless worms, they are not worthy to oversee a university named after George Washington or George Foreman.

                          Last edited by user4; 07-11-2020, 01:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • This week, none other than GEN Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff used the "T" word when referring to Lee.

                            But it feels that the rush toward holding "heroes" of the past to more modern standards taking on a life of its own. I fully understand the symbolism of it, but it seems to be keeping opposing sides further apart than is productive. Sure, humanity is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, but there is arguably at least one greater concern at the present. I say we hold that particular issue until we have managed to figure out how to behave under the current pandemic. A leading state politician from my current state of Alabama said, this week, that he wishes everyone would be exposed to COVID-19. As someone who sees the needs of others as very important, I view this guy, and his ilk. as a greater concern than statues or the names of cities. The dead guys are already dead, and we should currently be worrying about preventing too many more from joining their number.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by KevinR View Post
                              humanity is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, but there is arguably at least one greater concern at the present.
                              The effects of racism are virulently pernicious and predate Covid and therefore are justifiably on the front burner.
                              The effects of unemployment are likewise dire and need immediate attention.
                              We need MANY front-burners for these times, and I believe we can mind them all simultaneously.

                              Comment


                              • i hope you are right on this, Atticus. But it seems that the information presented to the general public is coming at us somewhat scattershot. In an age of virtually immediate responses on cable news and social media, I believe that the collective American (at least) consumer bounces from one crisis to the next, without really addressing solutions.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X