U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-02-2011, 06:25 PM
 
1,403 posts, read 1,847,691 times
Reputation: 451

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigfoot424 View Post
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.
Well that's rather funny because when Southern politicians controlled Washington (as in Congress and the Presidency) prior to the period in question, they had no problem using the power of the central government to impose on individual states federal policies that favored Southern agriculture and economic interests. They didn't exactly mind their own business when the shoe was on the other foot.

No matter what kind of revisionist apologia is offered, the history is pretty clear. The South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery, which was considered vital to Southern economic interests. Most Southerners also could not fathom existing in areas where free blacks outnumbered whites by a large margin. They were pretty afraid of a race war if the black slaves were freed in mass (Rhodesia anyone?).

Let's not kid ourselves. The war was primarily and foremost about slavery -- treating other human beings like animals and property.

I am about as pro-small government and -tradition as they come and the government can have my guns bullets first if they try to curtail my God-given right, but I would be intellectually dishonest to defend sundry excuses and rationalizations that try to whitewash that sordid part of Southern history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2011, 06:44 PM
 
5,071 posts, read 8,615,610 times
Reputation: 2722
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta View Post
Well that's rather funny because when Southern politicians controlled Washington (as in Congress and the Presidency) prior to the period in question, they had no problem using the power of the central government to impose on individual states federal policies that favored Southern agriculture and economic interests. They didn't exactly mind their own business when the shoe was on the other foot.

No matter what kind of revisionist apologia is offered, the history is pretty clear. The South seceded to preserve the institution of slavery, which was considered vital to Southern economic interests. Most Southerners also could not fathom existing in areas where free blacks outnumbered whites by a large margin. They were pretty afraid of a race war if the black slaves were freed in mass (Rhodesia anyone?).

Let's not kid ourselves. The war was primarily and foremost about slavery -- treating other human beings like animals and property.

I am about as pro-small government and -tradition as they come and the government can have my guns bullets first if they try to curtail my God-given right, but I would be intellectually dishonest to defend sundry excuses and rationalizations that try to whitewash that sordid part of Southern history.
Well, yes. It's often been noted that there's an inconsistency between denying that the primary goal of the South during the war was to perpetuate the institution of slavery and asserting that the aim instead was simply to "preserve the Southern way of life" (which, as it happens, depended largely on slave labor).

But where does that take you in terms of this thread? Do you propose to rename the schools and roads named after Confederate officers in NoVa? And, if so, will you go ahead and rename institutions in the North - such as Stuyvesant HS in NYC - named after individuals who were active participants in the slave trade? Or do you subscribe to the view that there's actually poetic justice to the notion that, in the 21st Century,schools named after Confederate generals may have many AA students, or that a school named after a Dutch anti-Semite might have a large number of Jewish students?

I mean, if we're going to clean up all these past decisions to name schools and highways after folks who, with the passage of time, don't always look so great, let's not mess around and limit ourselves to the South.

Last edited by JD984; 04-02-2011 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2011, 08:17 PM
 
1,403 posts, read 1,847,691 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77 View Post
Well, yes. It's often been noted that there's an inconsistency between denying that the primary goal of the South during the war was to perpetuate the institution of slavery and asserting that the aim instead was simply to "preserve the Southern way of life" (which, as it happens, depended largely on slave labor).

But where does that take you in terms of this thread? Do you propose to rename the schools and roads named after Confederate officers in NoVa? And, if so, will you go ahead and rename institutions in the North - such as Stuyvesant HS in NYC - named after individuals who were active participants in the slave trade? Or do you subscribe to the view that there's actually poetic justice to the notion that, in the 21st Century,schools named after Confederate generals may have many AA students, or that a school named after a Dutch anti-Semite might have a large number of Jewish students?

I mean, if we're going to clean up all these past decisions to name schools and highways after folks who, with the passage of time, don't always look so great, let's not mess around and limit ourselves to the South.
That cowardly peg-legged loser who gave up New Amsterdam without a fight? Sure, let's get rid of it and rename the place Ronald Reagan High School. (Or if that's not local enough Rudy Giuliani HS; I would actually like LaGuardia HS, for the man who kicked Tammany Hall's ass, but that name's taken by the school of perfoming arts.)

If I were the emperor of the area, yes, I would rename many of these places, maybe. But from a policy point of view, I would prefer that renaming is left up to the local stakeholders. If after a period of time, enough property tax payers in the area decide John Mosby Highway is no good and want to rename it Loudoun Rangers Highway. So be it. If the locals want to leave it as such, fine by me. I'll take poetic justice, irony or whatever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,131 posts, read 27,013,351 times
Reputation: 6824
The Sherman highway would have a nicer ring to it than the Jefferson Davis. We could keep the Lee Jackson but rededicate it to Peggy and Jesse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Virginia
18,717 posts, read 26,828,884 times
Reputation: 42860
It's interesting to wonder what our grandchildren will find offensive. Will there be a future uproar over Sparkleberry Court? Gallows Road and Redrum will surely offend some sensitive soul. Sure, they're reminders of our history, but how violent. Frying Pan Road will be seen as mocking those who've died from teflon-related cancer.

Or, will future generations be offended because all the road names became so generic? "There's no sense of history here, and nothing that lets me know I'm in Virginia and not New Jersey!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,131 posts, read 27,013,351 times
Reputation: 6824
I'm wondering how much of this was done as a backlash to desegregation and the civil rights movements? Virginia has a rich history outside of the civil war we could draw on. We are "The Mother of Presidents" (all who served at other times in our history) after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 08:38 AM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,738 posts, read 8,938,746 times
Reputation: 3857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigfoot424 View Post
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.
So let me get this straight: You think the war was fought over the North not letting the South "mind its own business." So what specifically other than slavery are you suggesting was the cause of the dispute? Slave-based agriculture was 99% of the economy in the South--so you're suggesting the war was fought over what--pronunciation of the word "pecan"? The estate tax? Top hats?

I suggest you consult any legitimate, scholarly vetted history book (i.e., not something written by white supremacists or their sympathizers)--or even the Wikipedia entry, which is actually pretty thorough and accurate. The war was fought because the South wanted slavery to expand in the new states being added, and the North did not want it to expand. (And many in the North, but not all, thought it should be abolished.) No educated person in the South or the North believes otherwise.

In fact, the nation throughout the entirety of the 1850s was embroiled in the question of slavery. The Southern economy was almost solely agriculture, which depended completely upon slavery. The Southern planter aristocracy believed it could not be economically viable without slave labor and so viewed secession as its only option.

People who say the Civil War was fought over "states' rights" are only telling half the story. The war was fought over the Southern states' right to do one thing--to continue slavery, which they believed would be ensured only by continued expansion of slavery and by their rights to reclaim slaves who had run away to Northern states.

Saying it was just states' rights is like saying Ted Kaczynski was jailed for sending improper articles through the US mail.

Last edited by Carlingtonian; 04-03-2011 at 08:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:00 PM
 
5,071 posts, read 8,615,610 times
Reputation: 2722
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I'm wondering how much of this was done as a backlash to desegregation and the civil rights movements? Virginia has a rich history outside of the civil war we could draw on. We are "The Mother of Presidents" (all who served at other times in our history) after all.
I don't think there's much doubt on that score. In Fairfax County, Lee, Stuart and Madison HS were originally more or less identical buildings that were all opened at about the same time (in the late 1950s). Lee and Stuart were given those names right at the time that local authorities were still thinking of ways, post-Brown, to resist integration.

So, to me, the issue isn't whether the original intent in naming the buildings was honorable, but instead whether the current students and families nevertheless like being part of the school's own tradition, which may transcend the circumstances of its naming. Take Stuart, for example. It's now plurality Hispanic, but also has significant numbers of Asian, White and Black students. Would people there view it positively or negatively to change the name to, say, Bill Richardson HS (after the half-Hispanic, New Mexico Governor who was previously a Cabinet member)? On the positive side, the county would no longer be honoring a Confederate general who fought to preserve slavery. On the negative side, part of the connection to the school's past accomplishments (such as the boys' rowing team that won the Henley Regatta in 1968, the era when Stuart was among the top schools in the county in terms of National Merit Scholars, or the football team championed by Charlie Garner) might be lost, or at least diminished.

I don't have a ready answer to that question, other than to have a bias that such decisions be made by current students, families and school communities, rather than by third-parties who happen to have strong political views and/or a visceral hatred for all things associated with the South.

Last edited by JD984; 04-03-2011 at 01:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,131 posts, read 27,013,351 times
Reputation: 6824
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta View Post
Most of my black neighbors happen to be hard-working, financially successful, abhor self-victimization and and are fiercely conservative. Several of them are from the southern (or as they often say "the real") part of Virginia. They RELIABLY vote Republican.

Are these the "white supremacists who hijacked the Republican Party"?
I'll defer to JC "Buddy" Watts Sr. on that one:

Republicans Cast Watts as Leader, Healer - Los Angeles Times

As for changing names, I'd go for doing that to anything that was named during the Jim Crow era. However, I agree this should be up to the local community. I would love to see the right wing apoplexy over a Malcom X Blvd. or Cesar Chavez Elementary School.

Last edited by CAVA1990; 04-03-2011 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2011, 02:55 PM
 
1,403 posts, read 1,847,691 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I'll defer to JC "Buddy" Watts Sr. on that one:

Republicans Cast Watts as Leader, Healer - Los Angeles Times

As for changing names, I'd go for doing that to anything that was named during the Jim Crow era. However, I agree this should be up to the local community. I would love to see the right wing apoplexy over a Malcom X Blvd. or Cesar Chavez Elementary School.
More like Herman Cain, a tea party favorite. Haven't you been reading the papers? JC Watts is so 90's, early 2000. Get with the times, CAVA1990.

As for Malcom X. this or that, two wrongs don't make a right. The best revenge is living well, not redistributing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:37 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top