Do You think Gov't Entities Like Schools should be Named after Confederates?

The Emancipation proclamation didn't just bring up the issue of slavery out of thin air. Slavery was always the central issue of the war.

 

He was a traitor to the US, but a loyalist to the English.

He chose the wrong side, maybe they have schools named after him in the UK.

 

What did Jefferson Davis do to deserve having so much named after him?

 

The central issue of the war was about states rights, if it was totally about slavery than why didn't the Emancipation proclamation free the slaves in the northern slave states?

"The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves; the Thirteenth Amendment did that. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis in order to free the slaves in the South. Thus, it took effect only as the Union armies advanced into the Confederacy. Slaves in the border states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia) were emancipated by separate state action. Secretary of State William H. Seward commented on this by remarking, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Had any seceding state rejoined the Union before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily."

 

Link to Jeffersoin Davis bio


"A West Point graduate, Davis prided himself on the military skills he gained in the Mexican-American War as a colonel of a volunteer regiment, and as U.S. Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce."


DD

 

Well there's no Confederate States of America around

 

Nope but the states are still here, and these people are historic figures in those states.

I still don't see anything wrong with it.

Sorry.

DD

 

as long as those states are part of the US, there shouldn't be anything dedicated to the rebels.

 

You can't just separate "states' rights" from slavery. Lincoln didn't attempt to abolish slavery in any Union states because he felt that he was using his war power in issuing the proclamation; therefore, the Proclamation could only apply to those states that were at war with the US.

Also, before you ask why there were slave-owning states in the Union to begin with, I'll just point out that those states were typically themselves divided over the issue of slavery, and at any rate they didn't rely on slavery nearly to the same extent as those states which were willing to secede from the Union because of it.

 

Surely there are others who are far more deserving of such recognition. What kinds of lessons are we teaching children by naming their schools after men who are most notable for their willingness to kill to protect their "right" to enslave black people?

 

Like Thomas Jefferson for instance? He owned slaves. They not only names schools after him they have a giant monument for him. George Washington, the "Father of our Country" also owned slaves, not only do they have a monument for him, they even named the capital after him. Should those monuments be destroyed and should we also rename our capital?

 

hitler d.c.?

lets make it happen!

 

First of all, when did I mention those guys? I was thinking more along the lines of those who have worked for humanitarian interests or civil rights, or important scientists and intellectuals.

Still, I should ask, why are those things named after Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Is it because they owned slaves? Or is it because they made great contributions to our nation? Can you say the same about Jefferson Davis? As I said before, my objection is to giving such recognition to those whose misdeeds are the sole reason they are remembered today.

 

As a black man, I would have loved to have graduated from one of those schools.

 

If the question is: do you think it is important to name schools after confederates? than the answer is no.

If the question is: do you mind if schools are named after confederates? than the answer is No.

I go for the option: I couldn't care less.

 

I appreciate that this is a common view but it is wrong. The entire 'states rights' argument was created as a way to counter Lincoln's perceived desire to impose abolition on the south. The Lincoln Douglas debates, which was the first time Lincoln entered the public perception, were all about slavery.

If slavery had been removed from the equation, if 'Lincoln the abolitionist' hadn't been elected to the presidency, nobody would have been arguing about states rights.

 

Jefferson Davis was not really popular during his term as CSA president.

He did gain a lot of public (ie. Southern) sympathy during the years after the war during his jail term and his longstanding refusal at public contrition and pardon. In a sense, he was the opposite of Lee.

I've forgotten just about all the details - but the US found that treason charges would not have stuck in court. I'm forgot the reason for this but the US most assuredly would have tried him for treason if that could have.

 

First public figure brave enough to come out in public as a transvestite?

 

Ironically the South was opposed to Douglas's idea of "popular sovereignty" as well. They knew that if new states/territories were allowed to determine the legality of slavery by themselves - that the free states would continue to increase their numerical advantage.