Schools Named After Confederates Debated

[Khephra]

HAMPTON, Va. -- At Jefferson Davis Middle School, a civil war of words is being waged over a petition drive to erase the name of the slave-owning Confederate president from the school.

Opinion is mixed, and it's not necessarily along racial lines.

"If it had been up to Robert E. Lee, these kids wouldn't be going to school as they are today," said civil rights leader Julian Bond, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "They can't help but wonder about honoring a man who wanted to keep them in servitude."

That argument isn't accepted universally among Southern black educators, including the school superintendent in Petersburg, where about 80 percent of the 36,000 residents are black. Three schools carry the names of Confederates.

more...................

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-confederate-schools,0,6166630.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[TacticalPeek]

1. "If it had been up to Robert E. Lee"

IANAH, but I thought that if it were up to Lee, Virginia would have not seceded.

?

[saigon68]

2. How about Strom Thurman Middle School?

Or Trent Lott High?

Orval Faubus Elementary?

"Move those dark trouble makers out of here"</sarcasm>

[Devlzown]

5. I hate to break it to you.........

but there is a Trent Lott Middle School in Pascagoula, MS.

[Thor_MN]

18. Damn, the first sensible arguement I've heard for school vouchers!!

.

[toopers]

3. Did Lee back not seceding,

or just his unwillingness to fight against Virginia?

[TacticalPeek]

10. Both.

"Lee was distressed when news reached him that Virginia had adopted an Ordinance of Secession on April 17, 1861. He had supported preservation of the Union that his father and uncles had helped create and opposed slavery, but he remained loyal to his native state."

http://www.nps.gov/gwmp/arl_hse.html

[toopers]

19. Thanks

[0rganism]

15. I seem to recall that Lee was morally opposed to slavery

From a letter in 1856,

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race."

Not exactly an abolitionist, but certainly he believed that there would be a gradual emancipation process -- which, it could be argued, there was. Despite the outcome of the civil war, segregationists ran the former confederacy for nearly a century afterward. Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Lee also thought the Africans to be uncivilized and benefiting from their harsh treatment.

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

Lee wasn't someone to idolize in that respect, but certainly not the worst of the lot. He emancipated his own family's slaves (in 1863) before many of the Union generals did theirs.

[Corgigal]

4. Great, name my local HS one of those

However this is the same school that has mass lawsuits being thrown at them daily for pulling guns on minority and other poor children.

Would make a great fit. Of course the school won't be around much longer because I have no idea how they are going to pay for all these lawsuits, all winners by the way, with the state being broke now. Maybe they can have a bake sale for the new sign or something.

[Terwilliger]

6. I attended Jefferson Davis High School in Montgomery, AL

the historical significance of the name was not lost on me when I thought to myself, "they're honoring Jeff Davis"?

[MasonJar]

7. Jefferson Davis and Abe Lincoln are both native Kentuckians, and

we are proud they were born here. They are historical figures, and we think that history is what it is. Most Confederates were sincerely fighting for the South and its bucolic way of life, not slavery. The North, which of course was industrialized, was not fighting to free slaves as much as to assert its dominance. Think of it as Bush versus Anybody But Bush. Just as today when the thinking of Americans is split into two distinct ways of approaching the world, the era of the Civil War was equally one of diametrically opposed opinions. The difference today is that it is not driven by region and philosophic thought, but mostly by the latter. Please remember these were living men and women trying to do the best in the world according to their beliefs; that their beliefs were wrong is not the point. They were the beliefs that the South held at that time. Change takes many forms; none of those is quick. If you think of Davis and Lee and Jackson and etc. as only slave owners protecting their property, it is natural that you would despise them. Instead take the time to read about them. History books are written by the winning side. A lot of our Revolutionary War history is different from what we learn in history class. The same can be said about the Civil War.

[tabasco]

8. You equate the North in the Civil War with Bush?????

I suggest you take your own advice and study some history. The South wanted to destroy the United States and started the war to do it. Those who served the Confederacy were traitors to the Republic. Many in the North wanted to avoid war. Abolitionists were probably the most fervent supporters of the war in the North. To deny the role of slavery as an issue in the Civil War is buying into the revisionist history you claim to decry.
Naming schools after these traitors is entirely inappropriate, but reflects the generosity of spirit which guided the North after the war. Reconstruction was a difficult period, but the North could have been MUCH harsher if they were truly interested only in domination as you claim.

[MasonJar]

11. I was not equating either side with Bush. I was

using the present day divide to hope you might give a different perspective a chance. We had abolitionists in Kentucky too..one of the most famous actually. Cassius Clay. I just think that history is not as one-sided as some believe. The Southerners did want to break with the Union; the two sections of the country were exceedingly disparate. Kentucky was bribed to stay, but being a border state, it had an experience that no one would relish: father against son, brother against brother, etc. These soldiers on both sides were flesh and blood. They deserve to be respected as such.

[toopers]

20. You are not entirely correct.

The South was not trying to destroy the US. The South was trying to protect its financial life from the Northern capitalists who were hell bent on controlling the entire manufacturing process -- from seed to sewn.

In regards to the harshness of reconstruction, I would advise you to read your history also. The Northern carpetbaggers were extremely harsh. And while they were not sanctioned by the Federal Government, the Gov did nothing to stop the post war pillaging of the Southern states.

[tabasco]

21. The North could have been much harsher is what I said.

Were J Davis or RE Lee or any Confederate leaders executed? Were reparations demanded from the South? Lincoln and Grant established the policy of reconciliation rather than retribution. Was life a bitch in the South for awhile? You bet. But don't claim carpetbaggers was the worst thing that could have happened to the South.
The South WAS trying to dissolve the United States. Just because they had what they thought were sufficient reasons doesn't mean they were not trying to DESTROY THE UNITED STATES. That is EXACTLY what they were trying to do.

Everybody should read history. Great suggestion.

[KoKo]

44. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!

No, No, No! It's more complicated than that.......Please........tearing hair out! I "Protestested Against the IRW (Iraq War Resolution) in front of a statue commemorating "Daughters of the Confederacy!"

Pleas.....don't do this to us Southerners.....please!!! It's more complicated than you understand in limited soundbytes...it is....it goes deep....and if many DU'ers want to start this "Southern Bashing" thing again, well..I hope not. Haven't we done this before? Too Much? And, lost some DU'ers who were really good folks who saw you didn't get some of it?

Edited: Iraq War Resolution.

[KoKo]

46. I knew this would turn into "South Bashing." No one read my post above,

so WTF! Go at it folks. BUT.....let it be known, that this issue will Divide our Party forever if we don't talk about it and COMPROMISE! AND, the COMPROMISE....shouldn't always be coming from the SOUTHERNORS here on DU!! This thing cuts both ways!

But, no one want's to deal with it.....the "breach."

[KoKo]

45. Yes..agree ..Think about Sports Stadiums named after "Corporate Sponsors?"

Would I rather have an "Historial American" or some damned Corporate Sponsor naming my schools? Like in..."Bill Gates High School"...."Michael Eisener High," "Tom DeLay Christian High," "Bill Bennett High," "Ronald McDonald High," "Newt Gingrich High," "Rush High...." (gotta laugh at that one), and "G. Gordon Liddy High."

We could go on an on with this, but in all areas of America our "Sports Stadiums" are being re-named after Corporatists one wonders why "Famous Americans" are being "dissed" just because they weren't? :shrug:

[way2tacky]

9. Only in America

would a school be named after the losers of a war. *lol* What next? Adolph Hitler Middle School? Josef Stalin High?

The South seceeded from the US, therefore they were a foreign aggressor. They lost. End of story.

[Llewlladdwr]

59. Huh?

If you concede that upon seccesion the Southern states became a sovereign nation wouldn't that make the Yankees the foreign aggressor?

[pfitz59]

12. There are schools named after lots of folk.....

Geronimo, Cochise, Tecumsah..... Its history, like it or not!

[mbperrin]

13. Ted Bundy U, anyone?

nt

[tabasco]

14. Honoring Native Americans is appropriate.

The United States launched war against Native Americans to obtain terrritory. In hindsight, we realize the government committed wrongs in the name of manifest destiny. Quite different from the situation of citizens and States of the United States launching a powerful insurrection to destroy the Nation.

[beanball]

17. The americans or native people

are quite differant than americans that attack other american,the indians(native people were defending their homeland against intruders and killers of the people and their animals and stealing land,not the same.)

[pfitz59]

30. North invaded the South..........

and stole their land and property. How is that so different from the Indian Wars?

[hellhathnofury]

16. It's like the flag issue,

should be changed but won't happen without an enormous fight.

[UofIDem]

22. Why should it be changed?

I'm not understanding the outcry against schools being named for historic famed military generals. A majority of Southern generals were not fighting to continue slavery, most didn't even care. In fact, there are substantial arguments that slavery was not even a substantial issue in starting the Civil War. Certainly I can understand the view that the Confederate Flag is divisive, but Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackeson etc...are were American war heroes before they became confederate generals and even so, they represent a substantial part of history. Those men are symbols of perserverence, bravery, creativity, and honor. Why should their good qualities, ones I would want my children to learn and live be cast aside because a byproduct (albeit a morally repugnant one) of their unrealized victory would have been something that many of them, Robert E. Lee most vocally, didn't even care about.

[October]

23. Heroes?

They were traitors, as far as I'm concerned!

[RainDog]

25. If they didn't care

...and were fighting for the confederacy, then why would you think they have qualities you want your children to learn???

gee, it's okay to fight for a regime which made a fetish of slave labor and denied the humanity of a large part of the world's people because they were American heroes before they defected to fight for a corrupt and immoral system...

yep, just what I want my kids to learn...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

27. They Were Traitors

who seceded from the Union. We should have Benedict Arnold Grammar School, or King George High School. How about Emperor Hirohito Regional Vocational Technical High School?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. It's lots more complicated than you would like

Benedict Arnold, for instance, was a great American general UNTIL he turned traitor. By dishonoring what he did, you ignore the good.

Robert E. Lee was loyal to Virginia at a time when people chose state loyalty over federal. Yes, he led the Army of Northern Virginia and they WERE protecting slavery. But he also helped the South reconsile and, instead of continuing the war, pushed the South into peace.

He also advocated freeing the slaves of the South.

[hellhathnofury]

29. Divisive, and treasonous.

Robert E. Lee has his merits but if you allow him you have to allow all of those who fought against the Union.

I don't think they're all historically rotten but the nation they fought against shouldn't honor them by putting their names on schools.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Education is local

And it is the STATES that are honoring them.

[hellhathnofury]

37. We'll I guess they can kiss federal aid good bye.

Or at least that's what I would want to happen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. You must be kidding, over the name?

[hellhathnofury]

41. I'd like them to go. And it's how the fed gov does lots of things.

Would never happen though.

It really is one of the last vestiges of Jim Crow and slavery and certainly not a positive one.

Students pledging allegiance to the Constitution in a building honoring a person who fought against the Constitution, what irony.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. I'm more concerned about education than marketing

And, yes, I'm African-American.

Life is imperfect. I'd rather send a child of mine to Robert E. Lee Elementary and get a decent education, than send them to a school named after George Washington Carver in some place like D.C. and get a horrible education.

[hellhathnofury]

43. I'm concerned about education too.

But the marketing sometimes does affect the education. I wonder how they treat the Civil War at Robert E. Lee Elementary.

I don't care what color you are and the fact that you'd bring that up shows something about the level of discussion in this country. I don't even particularly want the schools named instead after civil rights figures. I just don't think we should be honoring traitors with schools names. I don't neccesserily opposed Trent Lott Middle School, Trent Lott is a senator who believes what he believes and if the people of Mississippi want to honor him thats their business. But the US Constitution holds that we must insure "insure domestic tranquility," honoring traitors does not do that. It's not just a local matter.

Life is imperfect, but we must do what we can and my feeling is that when the purse strings threaten they will change the names.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. My take on it

I've seen bad schools -- damn bad -- in D.C. I think this is all a big and useless distraction. There are vastly bigger issues to worry about.

But I do oppose the government getting involved in the naming of schools -- one way or another.

[hellhathnofury]

48. Agreed there are much bigger problems. You should see LAUSD.

But it's not like much else is getting addressed properly. I wouldn't propose federal intervention unless the petitioning process gets obstructed
If necessary, I support the government getting involved in the naming of schools.

[RainDog]

24. speaking of...

I saw Cold Mountain tonight, and in the opening fight scene, I couldn't help myself and had to say "Die Rebel scum" just for effect.

Why don't we also have Adolph Hitler High since that's another leader or a cult of slavery and death that we defeated..or so we thought.

[barnyardcollective]

26. ?

[davidinalameda]

31. it doesn't matter why the South left the Union

the fact is that they did leave the Union

they're traitors in my book as well--none of the leaders of the Confederacy should be honored with anything

[Cicero]

50. Why was it treason to want to secede?

There have been a number of secession movements in the United States, of which the Confederacy was the only one that was successful (for a short period of time, anyway.)

Why do you consider the desire to secede treasonous? If it were, say, the norther New England states that decide to secede if GWB wins a second term, would you call them treasonous as well?

I really do want to know.

Later,

[hellhathnofury]

51. It's not wanting to secede, they did secede which is treasonous.

[Cicero]

53. So if GWB wins a second term...

...and, for the sake of argument, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusets all decide to secede from the U.S., that's a treasonous act?

I quote from Article III of the U.S. Constitution:

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Yes, firing the first shot at Fort Sumter may well have been a treasonous act for the Confederacy (although an argument could be made that they were maneuvered into it), but the act of secession itself, if peacful (which it was for the first several months of the Confederacy's existance) is not (IMNSHO) in and of itself a treasonous act.

Later,

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Yes, it is treason

Secession is a dead issue, decided by the Civil War. Any attempt to do so, no matter how just you think your cause may be, will still result in you being squashed -- as you should be.

[GerryMH]

57. So the Declaration of Independence is a dead letter?

"Secession is a dead issue, decided by the Civil War."

So the Declaration of Independence is a dead letter?

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Lincoln, prior to seeing the source of nearly 80% of the tariff revenue he expected to collect for various Whig/Republican 'internal improvement projects' (read: corporate welfare) decide to walk away from the Union, seemed to think it was alive: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit." January 12, 1848

You could also familiarize yourself with the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Governments are tools, not ends in and of themselves.

If a State found the Patriot Act abhorrent, and it's legislature decided no longer to contribute toward the United States welfare/warfare State, and instead to exist as a neutral, free republic (nation of laws), would you want them 'squashed'?

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Just because

Yes, America seceeded from England. But that's it. The Civil War did indeed clarify that we are a nation, not a bunch of independent states.

As for the comments Lincoln made, people change. Attitudes change. The Civil War proved the supremacy of the federal government. If you have any doubts, try seceeding. You will fail.

In regards to the last comment, yes. I would also want them squashed if they decided to reinstitute slavery. We are a nation, not a bunch of loosely affiliated states.

[Cicero]

58. Doesn't look like treason to me

There was a reason why the definition of what constitutes treason is written in the U.S. Constitution. It was one of the problems that the Founders had had with old king George, in that the change or treason was thrown around fast and loose by the crown to round up whomever they didn't like.

From a plain reading, secession does not fall under treason.

Later,

[tabasco]

55. Yep, that "wanting to secede" is no big deal ...

It's that doggone armed insurrection that gets you in trouble.

[w4rma]

32. These guys were Americans who stood up for their beliefs and lost

But, they still stood up for their beliefs. Slavery wasn't the only issue. The South also battled against the increasing power of the Coporations which at that time were mostly in the Northeastern states. At the heart of the Civil War it was a power struggle between Corporatists and Plantationists.

Nonetheless, the Civil War is now a part of our history. I think it's best to keep these names where they are and remember that history, even when it's something that some would like to forget (erase?).

[TexasMexican]

33. Myself I dont consider either "The Union" or "The Confederates"...

as being "The United States of America."

[Nile]

35. There should be nothing named for any politician.

Unless they built and payed for it with their own money. They are all a bunch of glory grabing blow-hards.

[Fovea]

36. I personally think the schools named after Confederates

should be renamed.

I think, for example, that the Trent Loot High School should be renamed
the Kenny-Boy Lay Business and Accounting Magnet School.

I also like, the John Ashcroft school of the Humanities, formerly the School of the Americas...

[mumon]

38. If Jefferson Davis, why not Charles Manson?

Same thing.

[Terwilliger]

39. teh Charles Manson High's Fighting Family!

Instead of cheers, they brutally murder the other team's cheerleaders the night before!

[savannah51]

49. All you lovely South Haters

I think all you patriots who "hate" so well should go over to the dark side and join Mr. Bush & Co. I think you'd fit in well.

[RainDog]

52. south haters?

gee, I didn't realize that only confederate apologists occupied the south. I guess all the descendants of slaves who live there don't exist.

I guess white people who find the whole issue of the confederacy a shameful part of the south's past don't exist, either.

I'm from the south, so don't try to equate all southerners with the assholes who fly the rebel flag.

[Terwilliger]

56. que?

So, should we name some schools after Hitler or Tojo? They were on the wrong side of the Americans.

[OzarkDem]

61. Wedge Issue Alert!

Don't fall for Repub divide and conquer tactics.

Its an issue that can wait til after the election.

More important to discuss the fact that the schools are ancient and falling apart, regardless of who they're named after.

[maveric]

62. Isnt there a Meyer Lansky Middle School in Dade Co.?

:evilgrin: