US Army Bases...WTF

Sep 2012
941
Tarkington, Texas
#71
Even Sherman didn't dislike the South. So what?

Sherman was living in Alexandria before the war. He was head of what eventually became LSU. He is famous for saying if he owned Texas and Hell, he would rent out Texas and live in Hell. I would guess Mrs Sherman did not like living in Texas frontier forts. She did like San Francisco and Chicago, though..


Pruitt
 
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
#72
Sherman was living in Alexandria before the war. He was head of what eventually became LSU. He is famous for saying if he owned Texas and Hell, he would rent out Texas and live in Hell. I would guess Mrs Sherman did not like living in Texas frontier forts. She did like San Francisco and Chicago, though..
Yes, I know about Sherman. Although Sherman liked the South and had southern friends, he hated the rebellion and I doubt he would have approved of naming U.S. military bases after Confederate leaders.

So I was asking you what some Union veterans not disliking the South had to do with naming U.S. military forts after Confederate leaders.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,960
San Antonio, Tx
#74
Confederate States of America

The side you're referring to weren't called Americans, they were called the USA, Union, Yankees, Blue Bellies, Blue Coats.

If you're going to be filled with hate over a historical event that ended 150 years ago, at least know your history.
Oh, I know my history quite well and when I don’t know it, I say so or say nothing. They were traitors to the USA, nothing more nor less.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
425
Minneapolis
#75
Oh, I know my history quite well and when I don’t know it, I say so or say nothing. They were traitors to the USA, nothing more nor less.
I wonder at the time of the Civil War how clear the sense was that citizens needed to be loyal to the federation over and above loyalty to their states. Obviously, for many, state loyalty took precedence. To Robert E. Lee, for example, betraying Virginia was a greater crime then betraying the United States. And this was the thinking of many, including a preponderance of West Point graduates.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2010
4,357
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#76
Erection of those statues, I would suggest, is a sign of the insecurity of the Southerners who were rightfully crushed by the Union. Many, if not most, of those statues were erected during the early 20th century and were intended to be a slap in the face of the blacks in the south to remind them of what “their place” was in southern society during a time when the Ku Klux Klan was resurgent. They were erected for the most part in public parks (bought and paid for by public money). I don’t mind if they are taken down and removed to museums so the south’s misguided perceptions about itself were preserved. But on publicly-owned land? No way Jose.
Picking up on this, I've tried to distinguish with some of my southern friends statues, etc., put up in different eras: if the statues were put up right after the War--that's O.K. Like the one in Athens, Georgia, erected in 1872. But I agree as to those put up in the early 20th Century during the revival of Jim Crow and those put up in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to the Civil Rights movement. The motivation behind those is pure racism and they should come down.

Re the carvings on Stone Mountain just outside of Atlanta: while those would be targeted for removal by my standard, I believe they are too identified with Atlanta and they draw too many tourists to sand blast them off the face of the "mountain", although I could go for removing Davis. I favor some kind of explanatory signs regarding how and when the carvings got there, the connection with the KKK, etc. And I'd take the statue of Gene Talmadge out of the capital grounds, just like they've moved the statute of Tom Watson into a neglected corner across the street from the Capital.
 
Jan 2010
4,357
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#77
I wonder at the time of the Civil War how clear the sense was that citizens needed to be loyal to the federation over and above loyalty to their states. Obviously, for many, state loyalty took precedence. To Robert E. Lee, for example, betraying Virginia was a greater crime then betraying the United States. And this was the thinking of many, including a preponderance of West Point graduates.
I don't think Lee thought of it as "betraying" the United States as much as supporting Virginia which, as you say, he thought of as his "country." But as you say, we do not understand today the primary loyalty most felt to their states versus the US. Lee was a good general and a good man. But if his statues were put up in the early or mid 20th century, down they would come if I had my way.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,446
#78
I wonder at the time of the Civil War how clear the sense was that citizens needed to be loyal to the federation over and above loyalty to their states. Obviously, for many, state loyalty took precedence. To Robert E. Lee, for example, betraying Virginia was a greater crime then betraying the United States. And this was the thinking of many, including a preponderance of West Point graduates.

Most of the West Point graduates (65%) remained in, or returned to, federal service during the war.
 
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
#79
Re the carvings on Stone Mountain just outside of Atlanta: while those would be targeted for removal by my standard, I believe they are too identified with Atlanta and they draw too many tourists to sand blast them off the face of the "mountain", although I could go for removing Davis. I favor some kind of explanatory signs regarding how and when the carvings got there, the connection with the KKK, etc.
If the concern is Georgia tourism, how about replacing Davis with a real Georgian?
 

Attachments

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,960
San Antonio, Tx
#80
I don't think Lee thought of it as "betraying" the United States as much as supporting Virginia which, as you say, he thought of as his "country." But as you say, we do not understand today the primary loyalty most felt to their states versus the US. Lee was a good general and a good man. But if his statues were put up in the early or mid 20th century, down they would come if I had my way.
I’d say that organizing an army whose sole purpose is to kill American soldiers is pretty much a betrayal.
 

Similar History Discussions