Time to rename our Confederate Forts

[rightwinger]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

 

[rightwinger]

I believe they are part of history. Whether we like it or not, it is part of our heritage. That would like like Germany renaming Auschwitz and the other Concentration camps. It is part of their history. We may not agree to what happened there. But nonetheless...

West Point grads and heroes of Mexican-American War as Jr. officers. I don't believe in Orwellian revisionist history.

Since when do we name major military bases after junior officers? Especially officers who turned against their country in order to defend slavery?

 

[Bush92]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

Not according to Lincoln.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
- Abraham Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

 

[rightwinger]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

 

[Bush92]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

Do you really believe that freedom of any human being can't be restrained? Even if this being is criminal, or too young, or too stupid, or dangerous to other people?

No....I believe slavery to be the worst kind of tyranny

I believe communism and indoctrination of students such as Orwell wrote in his classic book 1984 is the worst kind of tyranny.

 

[rightwinger]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

Not according to Lincoln.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
- Abraham Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

Lincoln was a politician and a pragmatist.
Lincoln was personally vehemently against slavery. But he understood, saving the Union was paramount.

Southern States cherished their slave institutions so much that they would rather destroy the nation than give up their slaves

 

[Bush92]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

 

[Bush92]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

Not according to Lincoln.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
- Abraham Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

Lincoln was a politician and a pragmatist.
Lincoln was personally vehemently against slavery. But he understood, saving the Union was paramount.

Southern States cherished their slave institutions so much that they would rather destroy the nation than give up their slaves

Doesn't sound very "vehement" to me. That's all a revisionist history lie. If he wasn't assassinated Radical Republicans would have impeached him because he was opposed to their plans for Reconstruction. Radicals wanted to turn South into Republican stronghold, usurp democracy there, and pillage the wealth of the South.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I believe communism and indoctrination of students such as Orwell wrote in his classic book 1984 is the worst kind of tyranny.

Why do you folks always quote George Orwell?
Have you no knowledge about him whatever?

George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, a “premature anti-fascist” who almost died fighting Franco and Nazis in the Spanish Civil War, who hated the Conservative Tories. He generally supported the British Labour Party.

He never would agree with you on this issue!

 

[rightwinger]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

 

[rightwinger]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

Not according to Lincoln.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
- Abraham Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

Lincoln was a politician and a pragmatist.
Lincoln was personally vehemently against slavery. But he understood, saving the Union was paramount.

Southern States cherished their slave institutions so much that they would rather destroy the nation than give up their slaves

Doesn't sound very "vehement" to me. That's all a revisionist history lie. If he wasn't assassinated Radical Republicans would have impeached him because he was opposed to their plans for Reconstruction. Radicals wanted to turn South into Republican stronghold, usurp democracy there, and pillage the wealth of the South.

Lincoln wanted to save the Union first and foremost. Slavery would be dealt with in due time.

The war was always about slavery. The southern states withdrew because they thought the institution of slavery was threatened and were more loyal to owning slaves than they were to belonging to the United States

 

[Bush92]

I believe communism and indoctrination of students such as Orwell wrote in his classic book 1984 is the worst kind of tyranny.

Why do you folks always quote George Orwell?
Have you no knowledge about him whatever?

George Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, a “premature anti-fascist” who almost died fighting Franco and Nazis in the Spanish Civil War, who hated the Conservative Tories. He generally supported the British Labour Party.

I know all of this. But he became disillusioned over Stalin's take over of communist party in Russia. His book is a warning about totalitarianism and for people to be wary of those advocating revolution. Communism failed because class division will always exist. After they came to power the communist set up a class system where party officials had special perks and privileges like the pigs in his other great work, Animal Farm.

 

[Bush92]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

 

[Scamp]

The head General in charge of the entire Union Army, Ulysses S Grant, was a former slave owner.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

Sounds like you are practicing revisionist history that was taught in the south up until 1944 in the public schools. And it's still taught in many southern white homes. Remember it wasn't the North that fired the first shot. You are angry that the North fired the last shot. You want to attack the United States and raise an army to continue, expect that last shot to be fired. Just not by you.

 

[rightwinger]

The head General in charge of the entire Union Army, Ulysses S Grant, was a former slave owner.

Very true
He had one that was given to him when he married. He freed him shortly after.

Grants parents were abolitionists

 

[Bush92]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

Not according to Lincoln.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
- Abraham Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

Lincoln was a politician and a pragmatist.
Lincoln was personally vehemently against slavery. But he understood, saving the Union was paramount.

Southern States cherished their slave institutions so much that they would rather destroy the nation than give up their slaves

Doesn't sound very "vehement" to me. That's all a revisionist history lie. If he wasn't assassinated Radical Republicans would have impeached him because he was opposed to their plans for Reconstruction. Radicals wanted to turn South into Republican stronghold, usurp democracy there, and pillage the wealth of the South.

Lincoln wanted to save the Union first and foremost. Slavery would be dealt with in due time.

The war was always about slavery. The southern states withdrew because they thought the institution of slavery was threatened and were more loyal to owning slaves than they were to belonging to the United States

They withdrew from the contract of Union because they felt that had every right to do so. Nullification as cited by Madison and Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Also, southerners felt their culture and society was civilized as compared to the polluted industrial disease ridden slums that had high crime rates and large numbers of foreigners, especially Catholics that characterized the North. The Confederate Battle Flag background is not red, like most you can buy today, but instead orange, signaling their support of Protestantism by paying homage to the Dutch King William of Orange. He would become British King William III and defeat the former Catholic King James the II at the Battle of Boyne when James traveled from France to reclaim his throne. Hence the "Orange Order" that is still alive and well to on the British Isles and March through Catholic neighborhoods each July on the anniversary of the battle.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The head General in charge of the entire Union Army, Ulysses S Grant, was a former slave owner.

Rather than toss out that blanket statement that shows little homage to a great man, here is some good reading. It doesn't deny what you said but it certainly clarifies it.

Myths & Misunderstandings | Grant as a slaveholder

Grant owned one slave that was given to his wife. In 1859 he freed him for zero money. His wife was the daughter of a wealthy slave owner farmer in Missouri who originally gave her 4 as a child as was customary. She retained one. I think if you read the URL you will find that if there ever was a person that was the last person to need to own a slave, it would be Grant.

 

[rightwinger]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

Socialist Carl Sandburg rewrote history when he published his twisted biography of Abraham Lincoln stating that Lincoln thought the war was about slavery. BTW their is a Ft. Sheridan dummy.

The war WAS about slavery, dummy

Not according to Lincoln.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "
- Abraham Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley

Lincoln was a politician and a pragmatist.
Lincoln was personally vehemently against slavery. But he understood, saving the Union was paramount.

Southern States cherished their slave institutions so much that they would rather destroy the nation than give up their slaves

Doesn't sound very "vehement" to me. That's all a revisionist history lie. If he wasn't assassinated Radical Republicans would have impeached him because he was opposed to their plans for Reconstruction. Radicals wanted to turn South into Republican stronghold, usurp democracy there, and pillage the wealth of the South.

Lincoln wanted to save the Union first and foremost. Slavery would be dealt with in due time.

The war was always about slavery. The southern states withdrew because they thought the institution of slavery was threatened and were more loyal to owning slaves than they were to belonging to the United States

They withdrew from the contract of Union because they felt that had every right to do so. Nullification as cited by Madison and Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Also, southerners felt their culture and society was civilized as compared to the polluted industrial disease ridden slums that had high crime rates and large numbers of foreigners, especially Catholics. The Confederate Battle Flag background is not red, like most you can buy today, but instead orange, signaling their support of Protestantism by paying homage to the Dutch King William of Orange. He would become British King William III and defeat the former Catholic King James the II at the Battle of Boyne when James traveled from France to reclaim his throne. Hence the "Orange Order" that is still alive and well to on the British Isles and March through Catholic neighborhoods each July on the anniversary of the battle.

Um......In all that dirge, you fail to mention they withdrew from the Union because of the threat to slavery. They formed a confederacy to ensure slavery would exist forever.

Slavery was more important than belonging to the United States.