Correct. Do you remember the song by Kansas, "Dust in the Wind?" I never liked the lyrics in that song: Dust in the wind
"All we are is dust in the wind Oh, oh Now don't hang on Nothin' lasts forever but the earth and sky
The Earth and sky will NOT last forever! LOL! BTW, the "sky" is part of the Earth! I know, "poetic license," and all that, but those lyrics always bugged me.
It's just another sign tat will need to be changed in a couple of years. Just like the Gulf of Mexico which will revert back to the Gulf of Mexico. Come November the dems can go back to what they do best and that is impeach trump and let the country move forward. At the DNC/DSA rally many of the speakers made getting trump as their main objective not helping the American people. Now that AOC is totally into the socialist movement and she is the favored DSA candidate it will be an interesting two years.
Getting rid of the MCP trump is only a start. To really help the American people Citizen United and Project 2025 both must go. As well as removing the Zionist lobby's hook in America and ending ALL aid and weapons support.
"Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.” The dog barked and the caravan moved on
I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
I guess changing the names of military bases, mountains, professional teams even cities and valley's is OK as long as a democrat administration does it. Maybe the DNC should change it's name to DSAH or Democrat Socialist of America Hypocrites. I don't see why we needed to change the name of Mount McKinley or the Gulf of Mexico but we did and as all things, it is politics and accomplishes nothing but the blame game.
Your comment is wrong. I took the time to see if any Democratic president renamed any of the places of things you listed. You are wrong on every one, except the military bases, which were renamed for non-traitorous military heros.
Historical records do not show any Democratic U.S. president renaming an international body of water.
Unilateral renaming of shared or international geographic features—such as Donald Trump's recent executive actions regarding the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario—has been a rare and unconventional presidential action rather than a standard precedent across political parties.
The military base names that were changed were bases that were named for Confederate military who were traitors to the United States. They waged war against the United States, so that was a perfectly legitimate name change that was long overdue.
Mount McKinley was NOT the original name of the mountain! The official federal name of Denali was first made Mount McKinley in 1917, after a gold prospector unofficially named it in 1896 to support presidential candidate William McKinley. President McKinley never set foot on it nor had any connection to it!
a U.S. president has never changed the name of an American city.
City names are managed and changed exclusively by local or state municipal governments (such as city councils, state legislatures, or public referendums), not the federal executive branch.
No U.S. president has ever had the legal authority or power to change—or force the change of—an American sports team's name.
Private franchise owners control team names and branding, while public pressure, sponsor demands, and internal club decisions drive actual rebrandings (such as Washington's NFL franchise moving from the Redskins to the Commanders, or Cleveland's MLB team shifting from the Indians to the Guardians).While presidents like Barack Obama and Donald Trump have publicly expressed personal opinions—or in Trump's case, politically pressured teams and threatened stadium negotiations—these actions remain expressions of political influence rather than direct authority over private sports organizations.
What "valley" are you talking about?
Geographic names for valleys in the US are typically managed through standard public proposals processed by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names rather than direct presidential orders.
I have no idea why you brought this up and why you posted those incorrect instances, which, as you can see, were wrong, except for renaming military bases. And that was a legitimate name change, since those bases were named for traitors to the United States. FACT.
BTW, "WE" didn't change the name of the Gulf of Mexico, Donald Trump did, and it was by executive order, which will promptly be negated as soon as his ridiculous posterior is out of office
I apologize because I thought obama was president in 2015 and biden was president in 2021. Squaw Valley is now Palisades Tahoe and the team name change was not done by a president just pressure from the office. It is so easy to change history and the only reason the officers were deemed traitors is because they lost otherwise they would have been hero's. Are you still waiting for Yale to change their name from honoring a slave trader or remove Franklin from history because he was a womanizer.
Apology taken. BECAUSE PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND BIDEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME CHANGES, except for the military bases, former President Biden was POTUS when that happened.
The leadership of the ski resort, led by former president Ron Cohen in partnership with the Washoe Tribe and local community members, changed the name from Squaw Valley to Palisades Tahoe in September 2021.
The previous name contained a word that is widely considered an offensive, racist, and sexist slur against Indigenous women.
Resort management worked alongside the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada and local community focus groups to choose the new name.
BIDEN WAS PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, BUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME CHANGE.
I dunno, but if there were some area in the north named "Redneck Valley," perhaps southerners would be insulted. Why? Because "redneck" is commonly used as a pejorative label for poor, working-class white people living in rural areas—especially in the Southern United States. It often implies that a person is uneducated, unsophisticated, culturally backward, or racially prejudiced.
The word "squaw" is also a slur against indigenous females. So, a wrong was corrected when that name change occurred.
These decisions were ultimately driven by respect, cultural awareness, and smart business. What was acceptable decades ago can carry different weight today. These changes didn't happen overnight. They were the result of decades of advocacy from Native American communities who expressed that these specific names caused real harm.
MLB chose to change because they wanted their brands to be inclusive, welcoming, and profitable for all fans, not just some.
PS. The heroes were the ones who kept the Union together, not who warred against it.
As for your question about Yale and Franklin: Changing the name of that university is up to those who run it, not me. If enough pressure is there for change, then it should change. Countries change their names, even names that have been used for centuries.
And if we remove men from history because of womanizing, there'd be very few left to read about.
Skud, of course he did, said this... "the only reason the [Confederate] officers were deemed traitors is because they lost otherwise they would have been hero's" [sic]
Do they teach that BS in southern schools Skud?
The men who led the Confederate Army, the army which fought to tear apart the US, were all men who had sworn an oath to "bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them [the United States] honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
This is the oath those men took Skud.
Before they took up arms provided by the US, to attack the US.
Here's what the Constitution says about treason...
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Did the leaders of the Confederate Army levy War, against the United States?
By all objective standards, yes they did. They denied their oath, formed their own nation, changed their uniforms and attacked us, leading to the death of hundreds of thousands deaths.
People, leaders and even lower rank soldiers who do this are by definition, traitors.
They are not called traitors because they lost Skud. They are called traitors because they were.
This mentality that the Confederates would have been seen as heroes had they won the Civil War is persistent in many parts of the South. It is rooted in the Lost Cause cultural mythology, which reframed a war fought to preserve slavery into a noble defense of regional autonomy..
Here's what I found:
"Following defeat, Southern writers, politicians, and organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy systematically rewrote textbooks and erected monuments to sanitize the Confederate cause.
Shifting Blame: Labeling the conflict the "War of Northern Aggression" (a term popularized heavily during the 1950s Jim Crow era) shifts the initiator of violence onto Abraham Lincoln, framing federal troop responses as unconstitutional invasions rather than a defense of the Union against the attack on Fort Sumter.
This same kind of "shifting the initiator of violence" pervades the January 6 insurrectionists. Trump, criminally IMO, pardoned the insurrectionists who were found guilty by a jury of their peers (and many acknowledged their guilt) and made them some MAGA heroes.
"Out of the 11 states that seceded, several of the initial states—specifically South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas—issued formal, detailed "Declarations of Causes" explaining their decision.
Explicit Mentions: Every single one of these formal explanatory declarations explicitly cited the protection, expansion, and perpetuation of slavery as a primary motivation.
While some of the 11 Confederate states passed shorter legal "Ordinances of Secession" that only contained brief procedural statements, the states that wrote comprehensive public explanations placed slavery at the absolute core of their grievances."
Yes Shaw... it's baffling. But if they believe it, it's like getting a MAGA person to see that perhaps, Trump is not the be all end all they thought, or think he is. Just not gonna happen because admitting something like that is a slash to years of culture and belief. And it's just too much pain to bear.
Yesterday VP Vance was speaking of people who see themselves "not as citizens of a common nation, fighting for every single person, whether they're Jewish or Christian, whether they're white or black or brown, but see themselves as fighting for one group at the expense of others. And that is how, ladies and gentlemen, you destroy the United States of America."
Unwittingly, Vance was describing exactly what the Confederate Army Skud always defends was trying to do. And even our Vice President understands that when one group of citizens decides to attack another group of US citizens, it's an attack on the union itself.
The very definition of treason and traitorous behavior.
In spite of Skud's Confederate love and protestations.
Slavery was the "crown jewel" of early colonial capitalism in American. The Antebellum South grew wealthy of the backs of slave labor. Just as the capitalism of today is propped up by wage labor. And modern capitalists have worked tirelessly to weaken unions and thus destroy the wage laborers strength and ability to hold capitalists greed for more, more, and more at te expense of labor in check.
And with Citizens United the Supreme Court gave the capitalist everything they needed to create the greatest inequality the modern industrialized world has ever seen. Right here in the richest nation on the planet. A situation that is likely soon to change.
Ms. Shaw and Mr. Dave, You seem to take things out of context when I said they were traitors because they lost. Had the Union lost they would have been traitors not hero's.
The South lost the war and if history is correct the south enacted jim crowe. They were primarily democrats and the party that supported civil rights was the republican party. I am a Southerner, actually a Texan which is in a higher tier and very proud to be one. I have never defended the confederacy as a movement but do feel they have a right to exist as do all parties, movements and groups.
There was a great division between the North and South but there is a greater division now between every political party and ethnic group. We are a melting pot that has frozen into specific groups and can't seem to figure out how to grow together. Once trump is no longer viable as a political movement and a group to love or hate we can meld together but it will take a long time to get over the hate.
skudrunner: "Ms. Shaw and Mr. Dave, You seem to take things out of context when I said they were traitors because they lost. Had the Union lost they would have been traitors not hero's."
How would the Union be considered "traitors?" The Union was fighting to keep the US together! It was the Confederacy that seceded! How could the Union that wanted to preserve the United States be considered traitors if they lost? That makes no sense.
skud: "I have never defended the confederacy as a movement but do feel they have a right to exist as do all parties, movements and groups."
What does "the Confederacy as a movement" mean? What is the goal of that movement? The South exists. No one disputes its right to exist.
I know how proud Texans are. Both my stepsons were born there. My step-daughter and her husband lived in Texas for 20 years. My brother has lived in the south for over 40 years. So I have nothing but good memories of that area of the country.
I sincerely do not understand how it supports Trump.
Skud posted... "Ms. Shaw and Mr. Dave, You seem to take things out of context when I said they were traitors because they lost. Had the Union lost they would have been traitors not hero's."
Mr. Skud... Bless your heart! We didn't take you out of context; we just took you at your word. In your first post, you said the only reason they were traitors is because they lost. That’s what we were correcting. Even if the Union had lost, the Confederate officers still would have been traitors to the United States constitution they swore an oath to protect. Winning a war can grant immunity or power, but it doesn't retroactively change the act of rebellion.
The confederates were traitors? Why weren't Native Americans considered traitors when they rebelled. Oh, right they were considered "sovereign nations". Weren't the States considered sovereign States after secession? That's right, after the Civil War SCotUS fruled that secession was illegal. But was it?
Texas v. White (1869): Following the war, the Supreme Court officially ruled that secession was legally null and void. The Southern states had never actually left the Union; they were simply "states in rebellion."
-FJ asked, in pure snark... "The confederates were traitors?"
Simple answer... YES.
If you disagree FJ, and I assume you do, tell us all, if you can, how the US Constitution defines treason. Because in this case, that's the only definition that matters.
Yes, Native American tribes were legally and rhetorically labeled "nations in rebellion" (or in insurrection) by the United States government, particularly during and immediately after the American Civil War.
This phrasing was not just casual name-calling; it was a deliberate legal strategy used by the U.S. government to invalidate standing treaties and strip Native nations of their land and sovereignty.
Here is how and why this label was applied throughout history
:1. The Civil War and the "Rebellion" Label (1861–1865)
During the American Civil War, several Native nations—most notably within the Five Civilized Tribes (the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole) in Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma)—were deeply divided. Factions within these nations, often led by wealthy, slave-holding members, signed formal alliances with the Confederate States of America.
Because the U.S. government legally defined the Confederacy as an illegal "rebellion," any Native nation that allied with the South was subsequently branded as being in open rebellion against the United States
.2. The Legal Fallout: Punitive Reconstruction Treaties (1866)
When the Civil War ended, the federal government used the "nations in rebellion" label as immense leverage.
Treaty Cancellation: Under U.S. law, if a foreign nation went to war against the U.S., existing treaties could be voided. By declaring that these tribes had participated in the rebellion, the U.S. claimed that all prior treaties guaranteeing their lands and rights were officially nullified.
The Reconstruction Treaties of 1866:
The U.S. forced these tribes to sign harsh new treaties. As punishment for their "rebellion," the tribes were forced to cede massive portions of western Indian Territory to the federal government. This land was later used to relocate other displaced tribes and was eventually opened up to white settlement.
Loss of Sovereignty: These treaties also forced the tribes to emancipate their enslaved people and adopt them into the tribes as citizens (known as Tribal Freedmen), while significantly expanding federal judicial power over tribal lands.
3. Rhetorical Precedents: "Savages" and "Hostiles"
While the technical legal application of "nations in rebellion" peaked during the Civil War, the framework for treating Native Americans as unlawful insurgents existed long before 1861:The Declaration of Independence (1776): The founding document of the U.S. laid early rhetorical groundwork by explicitly labeling Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages" and accusing the British King of exciting them against American colonists.
The War of 1812 and Northwest Indian War: Native leaders like Tecumseh, who allied with the British to protect their homelands, were regularly framed by American political leaders not as sovereign entities defending their borders, but as illegitimate insurgents or traitors rebelling against rightful American expansion.
The Plains Wars (Late 19th Century): During the post-Civil War military campaigns in the West, the U.S. military (led by Civil War veterans like William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan) routinely classified resisting tribes as "hostiles". Because the Supreme Court had defined tribes as "domestic dependent nations" (in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831), the government often treated tribal resistance not as a standard war between nations, but as a domestic insurrection or rebellion that needed to be suppressed by the War Department
-FJ: "Why weren't Native Americans considered traitors when they rebelled..."
Native Americans were not universally considered citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. They couldn't be traitors to a country in which they were not legally citizens.
Today and forever is a sentiment shared by many today. I dare say most.
ReplyDeleteHowever, nothing is truly forever.
Correct. Do you remember the song by Kansas, "Dust in the Wind?" I never liked the lyrics in that song: Dust in the wind
Delete"All we are is dust in the wind
Oh, oh
Now don't hang on
Nothin' lasts forever but the earth and sky
The Earth and sky will NOT last forever! LOL! BTW, the "sky" is part of the Earth! I know, "poetic license," and all that, but those lyrics always bugged me.
It's just another sign tat will need to be changed in a couple of years. Just like the Gulf of Mexico which will revert back to the Gulf of Mexico.
ReplyDeleteCome November the dems can go back to what they do best and that is impeach trump and let the country move forward. At the DNC/DSA rally many of the speakers made getting trump as their main objective not helping the American people. Now that AOC is totally into the socialist movement and she is the favored DSA candidate it will be an interesting two years.
Carney needs to read Plato's "Cratylus"... or study Heraclitus. Parmenides is not his friend.
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of the MCP trump is only a start. To really help the American people Citizen United and Project 2025 both must go. As well as removing the Zionist lobby's hook in America and ending ALL aid and weapons support.
ReplyDelete"Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
ReplyDeleteNothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
The dog barked and the caravan moved on
I just re-read that poem this weekend.
ReplyDeleteOzymandias
By Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
I guess changing the names of military bases, mountains, professional teams even cities and valley's is OK as long as a democrat administration does it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the DNC should change it's name to DSAH or Democrat Socialist of America Hypocrites.
I don't see why we needed to change the name of Mount McKinley or the Gulf of Mexico but we did and as all things, it is politics and accomplishes nothing but the blame game.
Your comment is wrong. I took the time to see if any Democratic president renamed any of the places of things you listed. You are wrong on every one, except the military bases, which were renamed for non-traitorous military heros.
DeleteHistorical records do not show any Democratic U.S. president renaming an international body of water.
Unilateral renaming of shared or international geographic features—such as Donald Trump's recent executive actions regarding the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario—has been a rare and unconventional presidential action rather than a standard precedent across political parties.
The military base names that were changed were bases that were named for Confederate military who were traitors to the United States. They waged war against the United States, so that was a perfectly legitimate name change that was long overdue.
Mount McKinley was NOT the original name of the mountain! The official federal name of Denali was first made Mount McKinley in 1917, after a gold prospector unofficially named it in 1896 to support presidential candidate William McKinley. President McKinley never set foot on it nor had any connection to it!
a U.S. president has never changed the name of an American city.
City names are managed and changed exclusively by local or state municipal governments (such as city councils, state legislatures, or public referendums), not the federal executive branch.
No U.S. president has ever had the legal authority or power to change—or force the change of—an American sports team's name.
Private franchise owners control team names and branding, while public pressure, sponsor demands, and internal club decisions drive actual rebrandings (such as Washington's NFL franchise moving from the Redskins to the Commanders, or Cleveland's MLB team shifting from the Indians to the Guardians).While presidents like Barack Obama and Donald Trump have publicly expressed personal opinions—or in Trump's case, politically pressured teams and threatened stadium negotiations—these actions remain expressions of political influence rather than direct authority over private sports organizations.
What "valley" are you talking about?
Geographic names for valleys in the US are typically managed through standard public proposals processed by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names rather than direct presidential orders.
I have no idea why you brought this up and why you posted those incorrect instances, which, as you can see, were wrong, except for renaming military bases. And that was a legitimate name change, since those bases were named for traitors to the United States. FACT.
BTW, "WE" didn't change the name of the Gulf of Mexico, Donald Trump did, and it was by executive order, which will promptly be negated as soon as his ridiculous posterior is out of office
I apologize because I thought obama was president in 2015 and biden was president in 2021. Squaw Valley is now Palisades Tahoe and the team name change was not done by a president just pressure from the office. It is so easy to change history and the only reason the officers were deemed traitors is because they lost otherwise they would have been hero's.
ReplyDeleteAre you still waiting for Yale to change their name from honoring a slave trader or remove Franklin from history because he was a womanizer.
Apology taken. BECAUSE PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND BIDEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME CHANGES, except for the military bases, former President Biden was POTUS when that happened.
ReplyDeleteThe leadership of the ski resort, led by former president Ron Cohen in partnership with the Washoe Tribe and local community members, changed the name from Squaw Valley to Palisades Tahoe in September 2021.
The previous name contained a word that is widely considered an offensive, racist, and sexist slur against Indigenous women.
Resort management worked alongside the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada and local community focus groups to choose the new name.
BIDEN WAS PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, BUT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME CHANGE.
I dunno, but if there were some area in the north named "Redneck Valley," perhaps southerners would be insulted. Why? Because "redneck" is commonly used as a pejorative label for poor, working-class white people living in rural areas—especially in the Southern United States. It often implies that a person is uneducated, unsophisticated, culturally backward, or racially prejudiced.
The word "squaw" is also a slur against indigenous females. So, a wrong was corrected when that name change occurred.
These decisions were ultimately driven by respect, cultural awareness, and smart business. What was acceptable decades ago can carry different weight today. These changes didn't happen overnight. They were the result of decades of advocacy from Native American communities who expressed that these specific names caused real harm.
MLB chose to change because they wanted their brands to be inclusive, welcoming, and profitable for all fans, not just some.
PS. The heroes were the ones who kept the Union together, not who warred against it.
As for your question about Yale and Franklin: Changing the name of that university is up to those who run it, not me. If enough pressure is there for change, then it should change. Countries change their names, even names that have been used for centuries.
And if we remove men from history because of womanizing, there'd be very few left to read about.
Skud, of course he did, said this... "the only reason the [Confederate] officers were deemed traitors is because they lost otherwise they would have been hero's" [sic]
ReplyDeleteDo they teach that BS in southern schools Skud?
The men who led the Confederate Army, the army which fought to tear apart the US, were all men who had sworn an oath to "bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them [the United States] honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."
This is the oath those men took Skud.
Before they took up arms provided by the US, to attack the US.
Here's what the Constitution says about treason...
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Did the leaders of the Confederate Army levy War, against the United States?
By all objective standards, yes they did. They denied their oath, formed their own nation, changed their uniforms and attacked us, leading to the death of hundreds of thousands deaths.
People, leaders and even lower rank soldiers who do this are by definition, traitors.
They are not called traitors because they lost Skud. They are called traitors because they were.
This mentality that the Confederates would have been seen as heroes had they won the Civil War is persistent in many parts of the South. It is rooted in the Lost Cause cultural mythology, which reframed a war fought to preserve slavery into a noble defense of regional autonomy..
DeleteHere's what I found:
"Following defeat, Southern writers, politicians, and organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy systematically rewrote textbooks and erected monuments to sanitize the Confederate cause.
Shifting Blame: Labeling the conflict the "War of Northern Aggression" (a term popularized heavily during the 1950s Jim Crow era) shifts the initiator of violence onto Abraham Lincoln, framing federal troop responses as unconstitutional invasions rather than a defense of the Union against the attack on Fort Sumter.
This same kind of "shifting the initiator of violence" pervades the January 6 insurrectionists. Trump, criminally IMO, pardoned the insurrectionists who were found guilty by a jury of their peers (and many acknowledged their guilt) and made them some MAGA heroes.
"Out of the 11 states that seceded, several of the initial states—specifically South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas—issued formal, detailed "Declarations of Causes" explaining their decision.
DeleteExplicit Mentions: Every single one of these formal explanatory declarations explicitly cited the protection, expansion, and perpetuation of slavery as a primary motivation.
While some of the 11 Confederate states passed shorter legal "Ordinances of Secession" that only contained brief procedural statements, the states that wrote comprehensive public explanations placed slavery at the absolute core of their grievances."
Yes Shaw... it's baffling. But if they believe it, it's like getting a MAGA person to see that perhaps, Trump is not the be all end all they thought, or think he is. Just not gonna happen because admitting something like that is a slash to years of culture and belief. And it's just too much pain to bear.
DeleteYesterday VP Vance was speaking of people who see themselves "not as citizens of a common nation, fighting for every single person, whether they're Jewish or Christian, whether they're white or black or brown, but see themselves as fighting for one group at the expense of others. And that is how, ladies and gentlemen, you destroy the United States of America."
ReplyDeleteUnwittingly, Vance was describing exactly what the Confederate Army Skud always defends was trying to do. And even our Vice President understands that when one group of citizens decides to attack another group of US citizens, it's an attack on the union itself.
The very definition of treason and traitorous behavior.
In spite of Skud's Confederate love and protestations.
Slavery was the "crown jewel" of early colonial capitalism in American. The Antebellum South grew wealthy of the backs of slave labor. Just as the capitalism of today is propped up by wage labor. And modern capitalists have worked tirelessly to weaken unions and thus destroy the wage laborers strength and ability to hold capitalists greed for more, more, and more at te expense of labor in check.
ReplyDeleteAnd with Citizens United the Supreme Court gave the capitalist everything they needed to create the greatest inequality the modern industrialized world has ever seen. Right here in the richest nation on the planet. A situation that is likely soon to change.
Northerners grew wealthy as well, especially those who owned the mills that turned the cotton into cloth. Not all northerners were against the war.
DeleteMs. Shaw and Mr. Dave, You seem to take things out of context when I said they were traitors because they lost. Had the Union lost they would have been traitors not hero's.
ReplyDeleteThe South lost the war and if history is correct the south enacted jim crowe. They were primarily democrats and the party that supported civil rights was the republican party.
I am a Southerner, actually a Texan which is in a higher tier and very proud to be one. I have never defended the confederacy as a movement but do feel they have a right to exist as do all parties, movements and groups.
There was a great division between the North and South but there is a greater division now between every political party and ethnic group. We are a melting pot that has frozen into specific groups and can't seem to figure out how to grow together. Once trump is no longer viable as a political movement and a group to love or hate we can meld together but it will take a long time to get over the hate.
skudrunner:
Delete"Ms. Shaw and Mr. Dave, You seem to take things out of context when I said they were traitors because they lost. Had the Union lost they would have been traitors not hero's."
How would the Union be considered "traitors?" The Union was fighting to keep the US together! It was the Confederacy that seceded! How could the Union that wanted to preserve the United States be considered traitors if they lost? That makes no sense.
skud: "I have never defended the confederacy as a movement but do feel they have a right to exist as do all parties, movements and groups."
What does "the Confederacy as a movement" mean? What is the goal of that movement? The South exists. No one disputes its right to exist.
I know how proud Texans are. Both my stepsons were born there. My step-daughter and her husband lived in Texas for 20 years. My brother has lived in the south for over 40 years. So I have nothing but good memories of that area of the country.
I sincerely do not understand how it supports Trump.
Skud posted... "Ms. Shaw and Mr. Dave, You seem to take things out of context when I said they were traitors because they lost. Had the Union lost they would have been traitors not hero's."
ReplyDeleteMr. Skud... Bless your heart! We didn't take you out of context; we just took you at your word. In your first post, you said the only reason they were traitors is because they lost. That’s what we were correcting. Even if the Union had lost, the Confederate officers still would have been traitors to the United States constitution they swore an oath to protect. Winning a war can grant immunity or power, but it doesn't retroactively change the act of rebellion.
The confederates were traitors? Why weren't Native Americans considered traitors when they rebelled. Oh, right they were considered "sovereign nations". Weren't the States considered sovereign States after secession? That's right, after the Civil War SCotUS fruled that secession was illegal. But was it?
DeleteTexas v. White (1869): Following the war, the Supreme Court officially ruled that secession was legally null and void. The Southern states had never actually left the Union; they were simply "states in rebellion."
Scud was right. The "winner" makes the rules.
-FJ asked, in pure snark... "The confederates were traitors?"
DeleteSimple answer... YES.
If you disagree FJ, and I assume you do, tell us all, if you can, how the US Constitution defines treason. Because in this case, that's the only definition that matters.
Yes, Native American tribes were legally and rhetorically labeled "nations in rebellion" (or in insurrection) by the United States government, particularly during and immediately after the American Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThis phrasing was not just casual name-calling; it was a deliberate legal strategy used by the U.S. government to invalidate standing treaties and strip Native nations of their land and sovereignty.
Here is how and why this label was applied throughout history
:1. The Civil War and the "Rebellion" Label (1861–1865)
During the American Civil War, several Native nations—most notably within the Five Civilized Tribes (the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole) in Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma)—were deeply divided. Factions within these nations, often led by wealthy, slave-holding members, signed formal alliances with the Confederate States of America.
Because the U.S. government legally defined the Confederacy as an illegal "rebellion," any Native nation that allied with the South was subsequently branded as being in open rebellion against the United States
.2. The Legal Fallout: Punitive Reconstruction Treaties (1866)
When the Civil War ended, the federal government used the "nations in rebellion" label as immense leverage.
Treaty Cancellation: Under U.S. law, if a foreign nation went to war against the U.S., existing treaties could be voided. By declaring that these tribes had participated in the rebellion, the U.S. claimed that all prior treaties guaranteeing their lands and rights were officially nullified.
The Reconstruction Treaties of 1866:
The U.S. forced these tribes to sign harsh new treaties. As punishment for their "rebellion," the tribes were forced to cede massive portions of western Indian Territory to the federal government. This land was later used to relocate other displaced tribes and was eventually opened up to white settlement.
Loss of Sovereignty: These treaties also forced the tribes to emancipate their enslaved people and adopt them into the tribes as citizens (known as Tribal Freedmen), while significantly expanding federal judicial power over tribal lands.
3. Rhetorical Precedents: "Savages" and "Hostiles"
While the technical legal application of "nations in rebellion" peaked during the Civil War, the framework for treating Native Americans as unlawful insurgents existed long before 1861:The Declaration of Independence (1776): The founding document of the U.S. laid early rhetorical groundwork by explicitly labeling Native Americans as "merciless Indian Savages" and accusing the British King of exciting them against American colonists.
The War of 1812 and Northwest Indian War: Native leaders like Tecumseh, who allied with the British to protect their homelands, were regularly framed by American political leaders not as sovereign entities defending their borders, but as illegitimate insurgents or traitors rebelling against rightful American expansion.
The Plains Wars (Late 19th Century): During the post-Civil War military campaigns in the West, the U.S. military (led by Civil War veterans like William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan) routinely classified resisting tribes as "hostiles". Because the Supreme Court had defined tribes as "domestic dependent nations" (in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831), the government often treated tribal resistance not as a standard war between nations, but as a domestic insurrection or rebellion that needed to be suppressed by the War Department
-FJ: "Why weren't Native Americans considered traitors when they rebelled..."
ReplyDeleteNative Americans were not universally considered citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. They couldn't be traitors to a country in which they were not legally citizens.
We're the indigenous poeple of North America the rightful sovereigns of North America?
ReplyDeleteWe're Europeans imperial invaders taking the land of the indigenous people of North America by force?
We're the actions of the invaders ethical or moral?
The old phrase might makes right has always been the SOP of humankind.
Probably the reason why the people of this planet will never realize true peace and tranquility.
So, that makes finding inner peace even more important to one physical, mental, and emotional health.
Aggression leads to more aggression. Hate leads to more hate.
It is possible to flip the current realities. But only when and if collectively egos are tamed. An extremely unlikely thing.