(08-14-2017, 06:48 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 06:39 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Again I ask.  Where does it stop?  We have renamed some schools here in Jacksonville because the name of the school was deemed "offensive".  I can somewhat agree with that, though I don't totally buy it.  RJ was correct in the fact that new schools were built and named after Confederate Generals or other figures as a result of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.

My question is this though.  Why is the name of said schools all of the sudden "offensive" 4 decades+ later?  Why rename the schools after all this time?  Are they not a part of the city's history?

How long have these Confederate statues and monuments stood?  Why is it that they are somehow all of the sudden "offensive" and need to be removed?  As far as The Confederate Generals, officials, soldiers they were exorcising their right under the Declaration of Independence at the time.  They never committed "high treason" against the United States.  As a refresher, take a look at this bit.


The Confederacy was simply following the Declaration of Independence.

Putting that argument aside though, where does it end?  Should the Hart Bridge be renamed?  Should the city be renamed?  Should the river be renamed since it does have ties to Catholicism?

Where does the madness and PC stuff stop?

In my mind, and I know I'm probably one of three people whose minds work this way, it's not about PC or offense when it comes to Confederate monuments. It's about the notion of commemorating the actions of a traitor.

Think of it this way: would you support erecting a statue to Edward Snowden? I seem to recall you considering him a traitor, but he has far, far less American blood on his hands than Robert E. Lee.

You're comparing apples to oranges.  Those are two totally different situations that happened in two totally different points in time.

When you look back in history and consider the time-frame, the U.S. was not the same as the modern U.S..  I'm not going to say that the Confederate states were right in seceding, but it was well within their right to do so.  I wouldn't necessarily consider them "traitors" or committing "treason" back then.

On the other hand, what Edward Snowden (and Bradly Manning) did was in fact treason and they were traitors.  Releasing government secrets should never be taken lightly, no matter the content.  That's a whole other argument and discussion though.

Look at why the Civil War was fought and what each side believed in, and consider the time.  It's not like it was fought in 2017, we're talking the 1800's.  The world was very different back then.  Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't all about slavery.  It had more to do with State Rights.  Of course, part of the "State Rights" included slavery, but slavery alone wasn't the reason for it.

---