Time to rename our Confederate Forts

[otto105]

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?

Trump opposes efforts to remove Confederate commanders' names from military bases

President Donald Trump said Wednesday he opposes any effort by the US military to rename the nearly one dozen major bases and installations that bear the names of Confederate military commanders.

www.cnn.com

Why don't libs want to reconcile with the Confederates? The War of Northern Aggression was more than 150 years ago.

I just don't see the point of picking at old scabs.

We are the United states, not the Divided states. Let's show it.

Even Obama, even Slick Willy, didn't think that this was a good idea, to continue internal conflict.

It was the Civil War polish cracker.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

The fun part was that Lincoln did not have the power or inclination to abolish slavery. He wanted to stop the spread into new territories.

Slavery would have eventually been phased out in the next 20 years with slave owners receiving some compensation for their lost “property”

But by leaving the union and attacking US property, the Confederacy brought the end of slavery in four years.

When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture slavery would have ended without all the bloodshed caused by the North's occupation of a fort in a Southern harbor. Lincolns' election and his vow to end slavery (and ruin the South) resulted in the South lawfully leaving the union they had voluntarily joined. Rich Northern industrialists who feared having to pay more for cotton had far more to do with the start of the war than slavery. A little Northern patience and slavery would have ended naturally with a united nation instead of a bloodbath.

They did not have machinery to pick cotton until the 1930s
The South loved their “peculiar institutions” so much that they kept blacks as second class citizens well into the 1960s. When their Jim Crow policies were threatened , they resorted to terrorism to enforce their rules

How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

www.thoughtco.com

Educate yourself. The farm machinery tech. revolution was well underway and picking up speed at the time of the Civil War as I said. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. The Jim Crow laws were not related to slavery they were intended to keep the peace. The KKK was formed in reaction to "reconstruction" and carpetbaggers and the fact that whites do not like becoming second class citizens either. You might want to remember that busing children to achieve intergration was met with more violence in the Northeast than anywhere else.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The fact you think Biden could win a fair election says a lot about you. You forgot about reconstruction. After the war the South was tightly controlled by the North and their pet carpetbaggers. If they didn't like existing laws they would have changed them. I take it as fact that the South is now no more prejudiced than other parts of the country on average and that includes people of all races. Seems to me that race riots occur far more often in other parts of the country. Aren't Chicago Detroit in the North Seattle and LA in the West and DC in the East? The Confederate States were not part of your precious union so just how could they be a traitor to it?
Shithole? What, like so much of Detroit LA DC NYC and SF? I thought the South was supposed to have lost. What's their excuse?

All those cities are doing okay. The only real shithole I would argue is Detroit. You know, there is more to Chicago than the South side? More to LA than south central.....San Francisco is hardly a shithole. More like a city of enlightenment if anything. What do you have? Houston? Atlanta? Montgomery? Austin? New Orleans? Charlottesville???? Ha!

Matter of opinion I live in a town of 200+ and I consider all big cities shitholes but those I mentioned way more than most.

 

[Markle]

Oh, that just changed my mind about everything I now believe in...<rolls eyes>...some hayseeds singing songs about the Southland...

Facts, truth, and history are of no interest to you so I thought we should have some fun music.

Here are your heroes.

Here are our heroes.

 

[Markle]

I’m sure you will
Most Americans won’t.

When Biden becomes President, those forts will receive honorable names

I have no doubt that you will.

Fort Che Guevara

Camp Alinski

US Naval Base Ted Kennedy

You have so many heroes to choose from, maybe you could name some police stations too!

 

[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.

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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

You keep telling yourself that. But if it were so peaches and cream, the undergound wouldn't have been so active. "Some" were humane in the treatment while others weren't. "Some" kept families together while other sold children off when they became of age. "Some" kept their hands off the black daughters while other didn't like Jefferson. "Some" beat them to death. "Some" You should get the idea. But you won't.

 

[gtopa1]

The title of this thread is idiotic.
There are no Confederate Forts ...

They are not American

Yes they are: North to be a bit of a stickler for detail.

Greg

 

[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

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

 

[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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

The fun part was that Lincoln did not have the power or inclination to abolish slavery. He wanted to stop the spread into new territories.

Slavery would have eventually been phased out in the next 20 years with slave owners receiving some compensation for their lost “property”

But by leaving the union and attacking US property, the Confederacy brought the end of slavery in four years.

When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture slavery would have ended without all the bloodshed caused by the North's occupation of a fort in a Southern harbor. Lincolns' election and his vow to end slavery (and ruin the South) resulted in the South lawfully leaving the union they had voluntarily joined. Rich Northern industrialists who feared having to pay more for cotton had far more to do with the start of the war than slavery. A little Northern patience and slavery would have ended naturally with a united nation instead of a bloodbath.

They did not have machinery to pick cotton until the 1930s
The South loved their “peculiar institutions” so much that they kept blacks as second class citizens well into the 1960s. When their Jim Crow policies were threatened , they resorted to terrorism to enforce their rules

How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

www.thoughtco.com

Educate yourself. The farm machinery tech. revolution was well underway and picking up speed at the time of the Civil War as I said. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. The Jim Crow laws were not related to slavery they were intended to keep the peace. The KKK was formed in reaction to "reconstruction" and carpetbaggers and the fact that whites do not like becoming second class citizens either. You might want to remember that busing children to achieve intergration was met with more violence in the Northeast than anywhere else.

Educate yourself

A machine to harvest cotton was not on the market until 1935.

Cotton picker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The cotton gin did not reduce the need for slaves, it made them more valuable. Slavery was on its way out until the invention of the cotton gin created the immense wealth of King Cotton.

Jim Crow was a direct response to the end of slavery. You may be free, but we will be damned if you will be treated the same as a white man. It created a whole legal and social code to formalize second class citizenship.

The KKK is nothing but a terrorist organization to keep blacks in their place.

 

[Polishprince]

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

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Polk wasn't a confederate, he died shortly after leaving office long before the War of Northern Aggression.

BTW, libs condemned Eisenhower as Literally Hitler for daring to oppose the liberal hero Stevenson.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

You keep telling yourself that. But if it were so peaches and cream, the undergound wouldn't have been so active. "Some" were humane in the treatment while others weren't. "Some" kept families together while other sold children off when they became of age. "Some" kept their hands off the black daughters while other didn't like Jefferson. "Some" beat them to death. "Some" You should get the idea. But you won't.

I do not think nor did I say that most slaves didn't have it pretty rough. There were an awful lot of hard times back then for most folks. Sharecroppers worked very hard and only got to keep a portion of what they grew. No pay and had to provide somehow for the needs of their family. If they didn't please the land owner for any reason they could be kicked out of their home and off the land into starvation. The vast majority of the soldiers in the Confederate Army didn't own slaves and had no desire to. Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

 

[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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

You keep telling yourself that. But if it were so peaches and cream, the undergound wouldn't have been so active. "Some" were humane in the treatment while others weren't. "Some" kept families together while other sold children off when they became of age. "Some" kept their hands off the black daughters while other didn't like Jefferson. "Some" beat them to death. "Some" You should get the idea. But you won't.

I do not think nor did I say that most slaves didn't have it pretty rough. There were an awful lot of hard times back then for most folks. Sharecroppers worked very hard and only got to keep a portion of what they grew. No pay and had to provide somehow for the needs of their family. If they didn't please the land owner for any reason they could be kicked out of their home and off the land into starvation. The vast majority of the soldiers in the Confederate Army didn't own slaves and had no desire to. Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves but they profited off of it. The whole south did.

A powerful incentive was that as low as their status in life was, slaves were still lower. The threat of blacks being equal, voting and stealing white women was quite an incentive.

 

[rightwinger]

Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

More Lost Cause revisionist history
It was black Union soldiers who were executed out of hand.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Grant is the only Civil War era general you mentioned and he was not an especially good general and he allowed Sherman to sully any honor he was due. The rest have had many things named after them but I doubt they were even born when most of the forts were named.

"The lost cause movement" is a Northern invention and delusion as far I know.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

You keep telling yourself that. But if it were so peaches and cream, the undergound wouldn't have been so active. "Some" were humane in the treatment while others weren't. "Some" kept families together while other sold children off when they became of age. "Some" kept their hands off the black daughters while other didn't like Jefferson. "Some" beat them to death. "Some" You should get the idea. But you won't.

I do not think nor did I say that most slaves didn't have it pretty rough. There were an awful lot of hard times back then for most folks. Sharecroppers worked very hard and only got to keep a portion of what they grew. No pay and had to provide somehow for the needs of their family. If they didn't please the land owner for any reason they could be kicked out of their home and off the land into starvation. The vast majority of the soldiers in the Confederate Army didn't own slaves and had no desire to. Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves but they profited off of it. The whole south did.

A powerful incentive was that as low as their status in life was, slaves were still lower. The threat of blacks being equal, voting and stealing white women was quite an incentive.

As I said before that slavery was critical to Southern economy and that nobody wants to be bankrupted much less everybody in several States. Pretty natural to want to be able to feed you children. Economy; not nearly so much slavery itself.
Your other paragraph is fairly correct except that most white people (North and South) of the time didn't believe that blacks could ever be equal due to a lack of mental capacity.

 

[Jitss617]

Im
Naming my children after these men

 

[9thIDdoc]

Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

More Lost Cause revisionist history
It was black Union soldiers who were executed out of hand.

Untrue. If interested look up Camp Douglas in Chicago. It is recorded that was a common practice whenever a black Confederate soldier was brought in. And, yes, many Confederate shot blacks instead of taking them prisoner when they could have. They considered them traitors. Was not a good time for a black to be a soldier in either army.

 

[rightwinger]

Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

More Lost Cause revisionist history
It was black Union soldiers who were executed out of hand.

Untrue. If interested look up Camp Douglas in Chicago. It is recorded that was a common practice whenever a black Confederate soldier was brought in. And, yes, many Confederate shot blacks instead of taking them prisoner when they could have. They considered them traitors. Was not a good time for a black to be a soldier in either army.

I am still calling Bullshit

You look it up is not an answer