I'm a bit surprised NOVA localities haven't changed Confederate names (Jefferson: how much, top schools)

[eyeball]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

its actually named after John Mosby, terrorist.

The idiocy on this thread is palpable. I suppose your opinion is that whatever Mosby did was terrorism and whatever William Tecumseh Sherman did was just patriotic exuberance...

[dkf747]

If someone can't stand the names that are here then why not move to Maryland? You'll be in a similar area without the offensive names.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by dkf747

If someone can't stand the names that are here then why not move to Maryland? You'll be in a similar area without the offensive names.

Interesting point as to whether parents/students would rather attend a public school in VA named after a Confederate soldier or general that is now fairly diverse (Mosby Woods, Lee) or one named after a liberal who sent his kids to private schools (Sargent Shriver) that enrolls almost entirely minority students from poor neighborhoods.

To be fair, there are lots of schools named after poets and astronauts over in MD. I think almost every astronaut who wasn't a white male who died in the Challenger explosion was so honored.

[Margery]

Originally Posted by eyeball

The idiocy on this thread is palpable. I suppose your opinion is that whatever Mosby did was terrorism and whatever William Tecumseh Sherman did was just patriotic exuberance...

As has often been said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". A native of WV, I had ancestors on both sides.

[Bigfoot424]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

its actually named after John Mosby, terrorist.

[Bigfoot424]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

So by this reasoning, there should be a Hitler Avenue in Berlin. Because hey, that's part of their history.

The Confederacy was a stain on our history--Americans rebelling against their own government for the right to own other people. We should indeed study history, but naming our infrastructure after its villains honors them. And that's bad.

Bull S***. The war wasn't just fought over slavery although that was a reason. The south just wanted the north to mind their own business and let them live their lives as they felt. Obviously it's more complicated than that but slavery was not the only reason. Keep in mind that although owning slaves now would be so wrong that I can't even imagine anyone thinking it a good idea. But things were much different in our still developing country with morality and such on a different level VS what we are used to. I wish slavery had never happened but it did and many in the south (and north) believed it their right.

[Bigfoot424]

Originally Posted by Margery

As has often been said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". A native of WV, I had ancestors on both sides.

Yeah. And WV needs to get back where it belongs. In Virginia's control.

[Alltheusernamesaretaken]

Originally Posted by Bigfoot424

Bull S***. The war wasn't just fought over slavery although that was a reason. The south just wanted the north to mind their own business and let them live their lives as they felt. Obviously it's more complicated than that but slavery was not the only reason. Keep in mind that although owning slaves now would be so wrong that I can't even imagine anyone thinking it a good idea. But things were much different in our still developing country with morality and such on a different level VS what we are used to. I wish slavery had never happened but it did and many in the south (and north) believed it their right.

Finally!
This post is right on.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Alltheusernamesaretaken

Finally!
This post is right on.

Yes, and that's pretty much who espouses that know-nothing revision of civil war history.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by Margery

As has often been said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". A native of WV, I had ancestors on both sides.

I consider that statement ("one man's terrorist...") nonsense. Anyone who uses organized violence intentionally against civilian non-combatants for political or religious purpose is a terrorist (if the violence is not organized, he is just a violent criminal).

Both Washington and Lee took a pretty dim view of such warfare... which is why we today have a legitimate government in the United States devoid of Northern Ireland-like recurring terrorism.

Notwithstanding the ridiculous early inferiority of American troops in mainline battles against British soldiers, Washington INSISTED on American troops fighting along European lines as an organized, legitimate military force. He had a good amount of experience in "Indian warfare" and understood the ugly hell paved by those who came to power through partisan warfare, terrorism, etc.

Lee, too, understood that the South would be really torched and never recover if the defeated took to the bushwacking war (as did take place in the MO-KS area where "war" soon degenerated into an orgy of interfamily violence that settled "scores" which had nothing to do with the war).

Both Washington and Lee knew that losers often paid with their lives in rebellions, but they were willing to make their wars as legitimate and gentlemanly as possible because they knew that to do otherwise was to risk perpetual warfare by ever disgruntled and dissenting groups.

Where the definition gets a little thorny is when organized forces attack civilians and their properties that play some role in military capacity of their opponents.