I know, nobody is banning any flag......

If you were a person with slavery in your family's past, wouldn't you want these street names removed or at least understood?

Wouldn't you feel different if it was named Heinrich Himmler?

a reply to: rnaa

I actually have quite a good grasp on the subject... my family came to the nation after the civil war so I do not have any skin in the fight beyond wanting to preserve history, both good and bad.

You made a statement, it is on you to provide proof defending your claim..

I find it hard to believe that if it was so simple that someone from the confederate govt was not charged and put on trial... as a show piece if nothing else.

sorry Davis was indicted but not put on trial and after 2 years he was released... that is it.

Grant gave amnesty to lee,and his troops and officers... as did other generals that accepted surrender... Andrew Johnson pardoned officials before leaving office.

so no trial.. no conviction... then what is left is your opinion until you can prove otherwise.

a reply to: alphabetaone

You, and every other American citizen and member on this board, especially those who have never seen war, should really hope that you are sorely mistaken about this.


Because if you're correct, there will be no safety net; there will be no police to come to their rescue; there will only be blood and death like many have never seen.

Hope? Yes, and pray as well.

I am fully aware of what I am saying. I completely understand the ramifications (as much as anyone can). I only wish others could understand the horror I see happening. At least you can.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Irishhaf

I actually have quite a good grasp on the subject... my family came to the nation after the civil war so I do not have any skin in the fight beyond wanting to preserve history, both good and bad.

You made a statement, it is on you to provide proof defending your claim..

I find it hard to believe that if it was so simple that someone from the confederate govt was not charged and put on trial... as a show piece if nothing else.

I am not sure what statement you need proof for, and I never said it was 'simple'. It was very difficult, controversial, and long.

You certainly do have 'skin in the game' because it is our shared history. Even if your family came afterward, they came to an America that was profoundly changed in very fundamental ways by that war. Apparently your grasp on the subject does not include an understanding of President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of 1865, perhaps you don't even know of its existence.

I recommend, as a starting point, this document from North Carolina State University: Civil War Era NC The page pointed too begins a chapter on the amnesty process in North Carolina studying some of the amnesty applications submitted by exempted persons. It begins with a precis of the development of the amnesty plan.

How does a nation, recently torn by civil war, piece itself back together? How does it work to reincorporate its members who rebelled against the government? In what manner do these men seek forgiveness, and what measures does the nation go through to ensure the renewed loyalty of its strayed citizens? The United States of America, following the end of the Civil War in 1865, faced the cumbersome and controversial task of readmitting former Confederates into the Union and restoring the bonds of brotherhood throughout the nation with the institution of Presidential amnesty and pardon.

The designs for amnesty and pardon under Abraham Lincoln were intended to encourage desertion from the Confederacy with a promise of leniency. (Dorris 1953, 256) Lincoln desired to hasten the end of hostilities and quickly reestablish the fraternity of the parted Union.... (then Vice President) Johnson asserted early on in the war that he wished to harshly punish the leaders of Confederacy. (Dorris 1953, 95) Upon ascending into the executive, Johnson stuck to this ideal, stating the day after being sworn in that 'Treason must be made infamous, and traitors must be impoverished.' (Dorris 1953, 98) Although many fellow Republicans encouraged Johnson, the advice of Attorney General James Speed softened his hard-line approach.

Thus, on May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, which laid out provisions governing the restoration of citizenship and rights to former rebels. The majority of former Confederates could receive pardon for their participation in the rebellion by taking an oath swearing allegiance to the United States of America. However, within the Proclamation, Johnson excluded fourteen classes of former Confederates (eight more than Lincoln), who could not gain amnesty simply by taking the oath. Among these classes, three applied directly to members of the Confederate military. The third exception excluded "All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy." The fifth class excluded all those who had left the United States military to serve in the rebellion. And the eighth class of those exempt from amnesty excluded "All military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or in the United States Naval Academy." These provisions essentially excluded all high-ranking military officers from the benefit of gaining amnesty by simply taking an oath due to their elevated position within the Army or Navy. However, the Proclamation stated that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.

As time passed, Johnson narrowed the exemption classes, making it easier to be pardoned

It was under these proclamations that, from May 1865 to December 1868, former Confederates flooded the office of Andrew Johnson with thousands of amnesty requests, with the numbers eventually tapering off as the exemptions narrowed

Petitioners were anxious to have their amnesty requests granted and their rights and privileges as citizens of the United States resumed. Their exemption from amnesty precluded them from such activities as the transfer of titles or properties and the obtainment of copyrights and patents, making business very difficult. Some were even tentative to marry. Until these individuals were pardoned, they lacked civil rights and faced the prospect of having their property confiscated. Above all, they lacked political rights, and thus could not take part in the discourse involving Reconstruction, and were unable to participate in the future of the South. Thus, asking for pardon was the sensible thing for these people to do.(Dorris 1960, 23)

Johnson and his Cabinet “agreed on a strategy to refuse amnesty to, or at least to scrutinize more closely” any of the applicants petitioning under the third, fifth and eighth exceptions of Johnson’s 1865 Proclamation. (Clampitt 2006, 260) Historian Bradley R. Clampitt reveals that this strategy was certainly enforced in Texas; the applicants falling under the “military exceptions” were pardoned at a rate of 35.2 percent, while all others were pardoned at a rate of 99.2 percent. (Clampitt 2006, 265)

It was thus facing this up- hill battle that former Confederate officers had to work to justify their actions during the war. Realizing this disadvantage, General Robert E. Lee nevertheless set the example for Confederate officers requesting amnesty from President Johnson. On July 13, 1865, he submitted arguably one of the shortest amnesty requests. Less than one hundred words in length, Lee’s request simply affirmed his complicity in the rebellion and proclaimed his exemption from presidential amnesty due to the fact that he attended West Point and held the rank of general in the Confederate army. In it was no defense, no justification, and no heart-felt plea for forgiveness.

Lee did not expect to be pardoned on account of his application, he was trying to encourage his fellow officers to apply for pardon.

Finally in December 1868, President Johnson granted a final blanket pardon to all former rebels. The title of that proclamation says it all:

Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko

Definitely more complex... as an example, Australia started out as a British penal colony.

TheRedneck

That's right. The Brits needed a replacement for their penal colony in Georgia that they had just lost.

Only a fool would refer to Australia as 'criminal,' however...

Foolish or not, it is still a national epithet to this day.

Australian's are now quite chuffed to find a convict in their family tree, but as close as the 1950's it was still a family taboo to discuss it.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Grant gave amnesty to lee,and his troops and officers... as did other generals that accepted surrender...

No he didn't. He had no authority to do that (until he himself became President and by then the issue was moot). Grant 'paroled' Lee and his troops so they could go home. Lincoln's goal was to get people back to their families and farms and shops as quickly as possible. He didn't have the chance to put his reconstruction plan into effect, that was left for Johnson to do.

Andrew Johnson pardoned officials before leaving office.

That is correct. Johnson's December 1868 proclamation was the final pardon and restored General Lee's full civil rights. In the 1970's scholars found Lee's original application for pardon in the National Archives and Congress made a big show of restoring his citizenship as if it had been sorta forgotten about. But that had already been done in 1868.

a reply to: rnaa

the very fact that a discussion on the facts of a historical event needs to take place is evidence that history is in jeopardy.
nothing by itself is any big deal, but the entire base of evidence that the history of the civil war is being "whitewashed" becomes clearer each day.

Will the removal of statues and street names make slavery not have happened? If not, why must they go, other than to cater to the minority who is loudest?

a reply to: network dude

Will the removal of statues and street names make slavery not have happened?

I know that is a rhetorical question, but no, of course not.

If not, why must they go, other than to cater to the minority who is loudest?

Changing a street name does not remove these men or their 'accomplishments' from history books, or change the facts of their lives, or reverse the consequences of what they did. It merely recognizes that those 'accomplishments' belong only in history books not on places of public honor like street names.

Changing of these street names and schools and parks and the removal of statues simply corrects the historical mistake of honoring men and women whose treason tore the country apart and resulted in over 600,000 deaths by Americans killing Americans.

a reply to: rnaa

so you are in favor of removing any and all references to the civil war? Would you mind explaining what that would gain you?

a reply to: network dude

I have made my point several times in this thread and at no time have I advocated anything like 'removing all references to the civil war'. Since you apparently have no reading comprehension skills I'll repeat that point one more time:

• Treason and Traitors need to be discussed and remembered in history books, their lives held as examples of how not to behave.
  
• Traitors and their treasonous acts should NOT be publicly honored by naming streets and parks and schools after them.
  

Forgetting treason and honoring Civil War traitors does nothing to 'remembering the Civil War'. What it does is dishonor and devalue the sacrifice of those who died defending the nation from being torn asunder and emboldens enemies that wish to use them as propaganda tools.

That may be more than you can understand at one go, sorry I couldn't keep it shorter.

The key for you to understand my point might be to examine the difference between 'remembering' and 'honoring'. So here is an analogy that might help: there is a US National Park in San Francisco Bay called 'Alcatraz Island'. At that park, some of the most dangerous and notorious criminals are remembered, their lives, their crimes, even their ordinariness. None of them, not one, is honored. There is no "Al 'Scarface' Capone Boulevard" anywhere in the country. There is no "George “Machine Gun” Kelly" School any where in the country. There is no "Meyer “Mickey” Cohen Park", anywhere in the country, not even in Las Vegas.

originally posted by: rnaa


Changing of these street names and schools and parks and the removal of statues simply corrects the historical mistake of honoring men and women whose treason tore the country apart and resulted in over 600,000 deaths by Americans killing Americans.

you typed this, did you not?

eta:
The loosing side is what you call "treasonous". At the time, those who fought, did so because they thought they were doing the right thing. I feel it's important to keep the memory of those who did their best to do what they believed was right, no matter how your jaded opinion may have evolved.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: rnaa


Changing of these street names and schools and parks and the removal of statues simply corrects the historical mistake of honoring men and women whose treason tore the country apart and resulted in over 600,000 deaths by Americans killing Americans.

you typed this, did you not?

eta:
The loosing side is what you call "treasonous". At the time, those who fought, did so because they thought they were doing the right thing. I feel it's important to keep the memory of those who did their best to do what they believed was right, no matter how your jaded opinion may have evolved.

OK, you are right, I lose.

Time for us to start naming streets for all the losers who thought they believed was right.

I nominate Broadway in New York to be renamed Heinrich Himmler Boulevard. And lets rename the city of San Francisco to Ceaușescutown, why not. Seems to me that "Fidel Castro Wetlands" would be a good name for what we used to call "The Everglades". These folks are all under-honored as far as I can see.

Of course we really should do Americans first, and since we are talking about the Civil War era, there should be streets and schools all over the country named for John Brown. Why is he left out of your argument, he certainly believed he was doing right.

And I'm sure that everybody in America would be happy with the new "Appreciate Your Local Misunderstood Convict Day" holiday.

Gimme a break.

a reply to: network dude

You're fighting a losing battle.

I've debated with rnaa before. He knows more about history that those whose family lived it; he knows more about electricity than electrical engineers; he and he alone decides who is "traitorous" and who is not; he knows more about everything than anyone else. Or so he thinks, and woe unto anyone who has information that contradicts his view.

That's why I dismissed him earlier. Just a heads-up.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rnaa

there is a saying I think it appropriate,
"you ain't from around here are ya?"
If you experienced life in the south and tried to understand things from a perspective other than yours, it's possible you might not stick to your lunatic fringe ideals. Or, you may just be that damn hard headed. But as Mark Twain said, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

It's the separation of church & state...should be pretty obvious. We actually devoted our constitution to that premise. A grand democratic experiment.a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't think its that, in this case, as much as it is him saying that history isn't being re-written simply because the name of a street is changing. Any more than a street name changes here via the adopt-a-highway program.

History, is what we remember of it and what we decide to pass down to others (at least this is the take-away for me from rnaa) and not in symbolism. The historical records of what the statues or flags symbolize doesn't change.


I think what he may be leaving out though, is the fact that some are actually proud of things like The Confederate flag, or those whose family lines still go back to Lee's, for example. I think he may be forgetting that a lot of people also revere Truman as a President (and we have symbols of him) though he dropped the atomic bomb. All leaders are faced with tough choices and its not what they do that define them but what they are / were.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Symbols are, however, an impetus to remembrance... or at least an invitation to research. I'm sure there are many many individuals who did great things throughout history, but were never immortalized and have thus been forgotten. Their history has not changed, but no one knows of it... so does it really exist?

I'll repeat the point I started in this thread with: it's New York and they can call their streets whatever they want. My concern is the overall push to remove all symbols of heritage, even in the South, in an obvious attempt to rewrite history for future generations.

I think what he may be leaving out though, is the fact that some are actually proud of things like The Confederate flag, or those whose family lines still go back to Lee's, for example. I think he may be forgetting that a lot of people also revere Truman as a President (and we have symbols of him) though he dropped the atomic bomb. All leaders are faced with tough choices and its not what they do that define them but what they are / were.

Exactly my position.

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude

This is beyond reproach, I don't agree with banning the Confederate Flag, or the removal of monuments, and now this you have got to be kidding me. Im sorry but what these SJWs are trying to do is systematically get rid of a very large piece of US History and I for one can't stand for that, as bad as the Civil War was it is still a major milestone in US History and could have changed world politics forever if it ended a different way. Military historian still believe that some of the greatest generals and minds for war fought during the Civil war on the side of the Confederates.

a reply to: rnaa

And back in the day, I have no doubt you would have advocated for mass genocide in the South too. After all, surely every citizen of those states who did not attempt to run north was traitor guilty of treason, yes?

I fail to see how changing the names of things erases anything. They've been there for over 100 years, and sadly, too many have no real clue who many of them are or why they are there. But I suppose that's your aim to completely erase something whose shame you cannot bear because it offends you, so you'd rather forget it than remember that it happened.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

They are street names for god's sake. Doesn't matter what you name them, it's not erasing history.

How do you figure, they are slowing getting rid of everything else from that time period that has to do with the Civil War. How are the names of people offensive to anyone?