"Renaming Military Bases?" Topic

Just wondering, will the TV series and film Dukes of Hazzard be targeted because of the Gen Lee? I'll miss Barbara Bach's legs if the TV series goes.

That happened years ago!

link

You cannot buy the General Lee model kit any more. It has been changed to a "Country Charger" with "historic flags" by MPC.

From the box:

I'm not sure I see the similarity. The former involved the dissolution of a country, and the latter is the voluntary leaving of a country from an economic union made up of many other countries. How is that anywhere near the same thing?

You are right its not.

The EU is made up of a collection of Sovereign nations operating under treaties from which they can choose to leave – as the UK did.

In 1861 the only Sovereign nation was the United States of America and there was no formal process of leaving that Union withing the Constitution the member states had agreed to.

Ignoring the illegality of an act doesn't alter its status. Try telling the Traffic Cop you don't care that you were speeding and see where it gets you.

I'm not sure I see the similarity. The former involved the dissolution of a country, and the latter is the voluntary leaving of a country from an economic union made up of many other countries. How is that anywhere near the same thing?

You are right its not.

The EU is made up of a collection of Sovereign nations operating under treaties from which they can choose to leave – as the UK did.

In 1861 the only Sovereign nation was the United States of America and there was no formal process of leaving that Union within the Constitution the member states had agreed to.

Ignoring the illegality of an act doesn't alter its status. Try telling the Traffic Cop you don't care that you were speeding and see where it gets you.

"there was no formal process of leaving that Union within the Constitution the member states had agreed to."

If only there had been, or if one could have been negotiated peacefully – how many lives would have been saved!

The fact that one had been omitted does not mean that one could not, or should not, have been agreed in future.

One could argue that natural justice requires that anyone or any institution entering into a marriage, a contract or any other agreement must have the right to terminate it. I suspect that, rather than the minutiae of constitutional law, was what motivated many ordinary Confederate soldiers.

@dnjackson

MiniPigs said: "if you could prevent substantial (and potentially destructive) change with the renaming of a few forts, would you do it?"

I would not, because then our republic turns into rule by mob. It would be a mafia like system, "You know, I'd hate for something to happen to your nice downtown. You should probably take down that statue of Columbus/Jefferson/insert name here."

I think you're speaking about "protection" which is organized crime's way of making money off of extorting people or institutions. That is pre-planned and intentional and not the same as demonstrations or activism for a moral point which results as as a result of the majority not being listened to.

I am making the assumption that you are blending the several definitions of the word "mob", one of which is a term for low brow organized crime, one for a mindless body of hooligans with no respect for property, and one for people who are a mix of idealists and the downtrodden who would like to see some justice extended to them.

Unless you have proof that some organized body is calling up governors and mayors and threatening to destroy property if certain statues aren't removed, I would suggest we must consider whether these statues are not just benign artistic items and actual symbols which people find offensive. I note that the vast majority of them are found in the South…which is in and of itself interesting.

Additionally, I dont understand why if so many Americans dont know their own history that it matters whether we have statues of these people or even really what statues accomplish? Maybe statues of personalities are like parades; useless and outdated relics of symbolism and solidarity that need to be eliminated.

The fact that one had been omitted does not mean that one could not, or should not, have been agreed in future.

One could argue that natural justice requires that anyone or any institution entering into a marriage, a contract or any other agreement must have the right to terminate it.

arthur1815:

Underlining that argument is the idea that each state is a sovereign entity, but their Union is not. The 'marriage' you describe does not create a third party which BOTH marriage partners have agreed is now the sovereign entity in that marriage. That is what the Constitution does: Creates a sovereign power over the states, greater than their individual powers. That is why states leaving such a marriage 'dissolves' the Union altogether--IF it is accepted as 'their right' to do so.

Sovereignty: Possessing supreme or ultimate power. Having the final say…

The EU began with the idea that 1. Each nation is sovereign and has to agree to any actions by the EU and 2. Has the right to leave whenever they want to. That is written into the EU charter.

Even so, after decades of the EU, you can see how Britain leaving the relationship is complex, messy and threatens both Britain's and the EU's economies. And that is with the legal right to leave and a much less tightly nit legal, economic relationship like the US lasting over twice the time, even by the ACW.

One could argue that natural justice requires that anyone or any institution entering into a marriage, a contract or any other agreement must have the right to terminate it.

Unless they all contractually agreed not to leave and did not provide for that contingency, then natural justice suggests the Federal government had the natural right to defend the Constitution, the contract they were charged with defending as detailed by the Contract. There was no 'pre-nup' to the Constitution.

Your arguments are very much in line with those of the Southern states at the time, referring to 'natural rights.' Northern soldiers fought to 'Save the Union' before it was a fight to end slavery.

Before the ACW, there were unresolved feelings among many states about soverneignty, who held it, states or the Federal government, even with the clarity of the Constitution concerning soverneignty and 'states rights.' The ACW resolved any questions in that regard.

@Thresher01

It's pretty easy to see how this, and the removal of many other statues, plaques, and other things are tied to attempting to discredit and destroy America, especially by those that don't believe in "American Exceptionalism".

I dont think this is true. Without a confederate attitude to go along with them, I doubt that the stautes themselves would really get noticed or acted against by more than an ineffectual handful.

What do Confederate personalities have to do with American exceptionalism?

Just read the articles, statements, policy positions, etc., etc., of many leftists – many of whom are communists, and/or devout socialists.

They want to remove all of our founding fathers from society and erase references to them from history, and to destroy their monuments (see the defacing of said monuments going on now in D.C. and other places) to them. Then, once they've done that, they'll have a firmer hand at tearing down/destroying our Constitution as well – many are advocating for the elimination of 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights, which help serve to protect the 1st and other Amendments, and to keep us free of totalitarian governments who want to disarm and enslave us.

This sounds every bit as anarchical and activist as you seem to be accusing others' viewpoints.

Are statues art or do statues constitute speech whether ideological or political? Do statues constitute history; do they serve to educate?

How does removing the statues eliminate or erase them (Confederates, Founders, whomever) from history? Until recently, there was no Dredd Scott statue; did he get erased from history?

Maybe it is the pose that the statues have? Are the statues placed as heroic reminders of men to look up to or merely as historical curios?

Perhaps replacing the current statues of Lee, Davis and Bragg with ones weeping due to their loss or begging runaway slaves for forgiveness would be more acceptable? Would you like that?

Our founding fathers knew this, since they had to flee England in order to exercise and regain many of our "inalienable rights".

The Founding fathers had to flee England? Maybe you yourself are erasing some history?

As we've seen, now they've moved on from attacking our military (though they frequently go back to that), to attacking our police, lawyers, judges, and legal system as well.

Mostly the police. Although, as I have noted, if the Police unions agreed to changing accountability and training, this would evaporate in a heartbeat.

The leftists are pushing for open borders, freeing everyone from prison, downgrading felonies to misdemeanors or completely ignoring them, etc., etc..

Felonies are definitely out of hand in the USA. I didnt realize not liking lots and lots of felonies made one a communist?

A little legal history here. Because the white south realized that men with felonies couldnt vote, the original handful of felonies were expanded and mostly enforced against blacks to prevent them from voting.

The policemen involved in the killing of the guy that kicked off all this protesting have been arrested and charged.

But only because of the protests.

Where are the arrests and charges for ALL those rioting, looting, burning buildings and cars, assaulting and murdering police officers, and committing numerous other crimes?

Wait, are they not getting arrested? If this is the case, are you going to do something about this?

We are either a nation of laws, or we are not.

Sadly, currently, we are not.

Because i know you are a big law and order guy and mentioned attacks on our lawyers and judges, I thought I would mention this from Justice Brandeiss:

"If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy."

Something to think about.

It's no big deal to me to rename certain bases, but it will NEVER appease those pushing for this. Once they get their "win" they'll just push for even more, and continue to push and push endlessly. They'll never be satisfied.

Who is "They", your fellow citizens? Those bases are owned by the people. The people can push for any changes they want. Unless, of course, you believe that some of the people should have an out-sized representation over the rest of the people?

This is a bit out of date and subject for this thread, but you did bring it up.

I guess we can add Bartolome de las Casas' descriptions of Columbus and his methods in his "Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias" as similar propaganda?

Yes, considering the fact Bishop Las Casas admired Columbus and said he and Spain had a providential role in "opening the doors of the Ocean Sea." The bishop thought Columbus was treated unjustly by the Spanish monarchs after he was accused of mismanagement.

Again, taken out of context and used to try to falsely justify something.

The Bishop wasn't even born until 1484. He was writing about the same people Columbus was writing against.

link

Now this is an idea!

link

@Thresher01

The Second Civil War has begun.

Are you referring to the Boogaloo?

link

The Washington Post had some good suggestions – link

I would like to see naming the bases after common soldiers who did uncommon things rather than naming them after generals. It would provide a better inspiration for the soldiers who pass through or are stationed there.

Certainly Generals Bragg and Polk aren't going to inspire anyone!

As a veteran military officer and a southerner, I have no problem changing the names to Generals from World War 1 or 2 or later.
In the military we did not know who many of those leaders were like Benning, Rucker or Pelham.it was just a place to go and train.