The idea that there are still parks and places named after Civil War Generals from the South

[apocalypsehow]

166. No, it was not: it had absolutely NOTHING to do with their status as "veterans."

Here is the text of the OP, since you apparently could not be bothered to read it:

"The idea that there are still parks and places named after Civil War Generals from the South

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:59 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)
seems odd to me. Why do we still glorify these people? Glorifying people who fought to keep people enslaved? WTF?"

For reasons of your own, that most of us can guess, you rushed in with the "but they're veterans!" defense. That was (1) irrelevant, and (2) an attempt to change the subject.

The OP was talking about parks and other public spaces named after these racist traitors, not some act of Congress that bestowed "veteran" status on people who treasonously took up arms against the United States.

Now, you take to "meta" whatever you wish: the fact remains that those public parks and public spaces should not be named after traitors to the United States who fought a war to preserve slavery, and I don't care WHO was in Congress when that racist, insensitive bill that designated such traitors as "veterans" was passed, it's still a bad law that should be repealed.

Now, are you still finding it difficult to stop defending Confederate "veterans" long enough to denounce, as it should be denounced, the naming of public parks and public spaces after a group of men who attempted to engineer treason against the United States in the name of slavery? Or is that just asking a little too much of you?




Edit: typo.