BF2S Forums Should we name things after Confederate leaders?

If people don't want shit named after them then they can always petition to have roads renamed. There's a Jefferson Davis Highway in Virginia (and a few other confederate-named roads) but it doesn't really bother me. Nor does it really bother anybody else.

I wonder if we had lost the Revolutionary war, if we would name things after Washington.

Macbeth wrote:

We also shouldn't' encourage admiration for traitors.

They believed they were fighting the expansion of the federal government. It was that encroachment that they saw as traitorous, by violating their state rights. The civil war ended up bringing the states even closer together after the war. Lee and Stonewall were brilliant Generals (compared to the likes of Washington). They are part of American history, and both served the US in wars prior to the civil war. A rebellion is only traitorous if you lose.

If we're to go pack and nitpick history, reconsidering who we honor, why not start with the slave owners who founded the US? Perhaps we should rethink Jackson, and consider the terrorist-like tactics he used in Florida (which got him temporarily censored by congress). It's important to consider historical context.

I think the point to ending a civil war and reuniting the country is to end the civil war and reunite the country.

The Civil War is considered the bloodiest war in American history because people consider it to be Americans fighting Americans. They don't see the southern states, even then, as a separate entity. Jackson and Lee phenomenal generals. It's not honoring them as rebels of the United States. It's honoring them as Americans, which they were born as and who they died as. As already noted, the idea of the civil war for the Union was to reunite the country. I'm pretty sure demonizing two generals who still essentially considered themselves Americans would be a pretty poor idea.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

We also shouldn't' encourage admiration for traitors.

They believed they were fighting the expansion of the federal government. It was that encroachment that they saw as traitorous, by violating their state rights. The civil war ended up bringing the states even closer together after the war. Lee and Stonewall were brilliant Generals (compared to the likes of Washington). They are part of American history, and both served the US in wars prior to the civil war. A rebellion is only traitorous if you lose.

If we're to go pack and nitpick history, reconsidering who we honor, why not start with the slave owners who founded the US? Perhaps we should rethink Jackson, and consider the terrorist-like tactics he used in Florida (which got him temporarily censored by congress). It's important to consider historical context.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Andrew Jackson practically slaughtered the Indians himself and yet his visage graces the $20.

Grant was an absolutely awful president as well, yet he's on the $50.

Macbeth wrote:

The U.S. Navy has named a bunch of ships over the years after Confederate leaders including Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. I'm sure there are plenty of cities, roads, landmarks and other things named after them too. Do you think the U.S. government or we as a people should avoid or have a de facto ban on naming things about Confed leaders? No matter how good of generals they were or honorable or anything, they were still traitors who rebelled against their government and country. I'm leaning pretty strongly towards stripping them of any and all posthumous honors.

What do you think?

Now before someone chims in with "what are we supposed to name things after?!''. How about we name things after people who didn't nearly rip the country apart?

Shouldn't name anything after anybody American, you are all traitors who rebelled against our government.

I don't think Woodrow Wilson deserved to be on the $100,000 bill.

fdp

dennis you used to be such a nice person

eleven bravo wrote:

who cares what an immigrant thinks

Or a Puerto Rican.

inb4 some dumb ass wants to sound like a smart guy and says something like "it wasnt a civil war because the south wasnt trying to take over the country" or "northern industrial workers  had it much worse than slaves in the south derp derp"

Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-01-15 10:47:46)

Poseidon wrote:

Grant was an absolutely awful president as well, yet he's on the $50.

That might have more to do with him being commander of the Union army...