- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,175
Marth and Dolly are on it because they owned or bought slaves. Martha actually was the wealth behind George.
Steve
ERASE HISTORY
- Thread starter AF6872
- Start date
Steve
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 5,468
So Yale does not get federal funds? I’ll answer that. Of course they do.
One argument for not changing Yale’s name is, “That name is no longer associated with the man, it’s associated with the school.” Graduates of army infantry or jump school know they did it at Fort Benning and bought t-shirts that proves it. Most though I bet have no idea who the post was named after.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 5,468
One of my FB groups had a witty new name for the white hat but I can't remember and am too lazy, I mean too busy to look for it.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20,479
Martha was wealthy in her own right, and much of that was held in enslaved people. There are allegations she was the mastermind behind rotating people between Virginia properties when they were in Pennsylvania or other places in the North, where if an enslaved person was there longer than X days, they could walk away. I read about in a museum publication several years ago, so I may not have specifics right.
Torero_dad
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2019
- Messages
- 228
Well @flieger83 and @Capt MJ, I will say that is not very nice and I sincerely hope that we don't have any military bases named after her. And the idea that we do have so many named after folks who rebelled in order enslave others is unseemly.
The town of Southbury CT needs to take a close look at that PT Barnum plaque, tout suite
unkown1961
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,224
If the statue, building, ship, etc. is named for them honoring their contribution to the fight against the nation and maintaining slavery, then I'd say yes. But if they are being honored for their contributions to America and they were not a major advocate for slavery, then I'd say no. For those listed above, you're right that it isn't cut and dried. But for a Jefferson Davis or the Mississippi flag, it seems cut and dried (or even the USS Stennis based on his active involvement in maintaining the fighting for segregation).
I would just say that given our increased awareness of issues, it's probably a good time to review who was celebrated in the past, even in the days when we overlooked things like a Senator's open prejudice and actions against people of another color.
But that is my humble opinion, which up here in Colorado just means you're still paying full price at the Circle K.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 5,468
I mentioned Matthew Maury here a few days ago. My office at BUMED was his as superintendent of the naval observatory and the one where he wrote his letter of resignation from the USN. The man LITERALLY wrote the book on oceanography and his contributions to navigating the sea lanes changed the world. He was also integral to the establishment of the USNA. As far as I can tell and I've been researching him off and on for almost 20 years, he wasn't a slave owner. He came from a prominent family name but moved to Tennessee at an early age and joined the navy early as well.
His name will soon be stricken from the naval academy, I don't know what VMI will be forced to do, and there's a military sealift command ship with his name on it. If there's a case for leaving the name of a confederate in place, it should be my office mate Commander Maury.
His name will soon be stricken from the naval academy, I don't know what VMI will be forced to do, and there's a military sealift command ship with his name on it. If there's a case for leaving the name of a confederate in place, it should be my office mate Commander Maury.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,994
Not that I'm in agreement removing / renaming, but did want to point out that Martha owned slaves. She was the wealthiest woman in America when she married George and she owned several plantations.
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
To quote the great Mississippi author William Faulkner, in the American South "The past is never dead, it's not even past." He said that almost 100 years ago but it still resonates today.
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
True!
George Washington, by benefit of marital choices (and adjusted for inflation), remains the richest president in US history. JFK was 2nd. The two Roosevelts follow.
None were self-made men. Three were military veterans who had seen combat. All were, in my opinion, pretty good chief executives.
Sometimes those "up by the bootstraps" biographies (Honest Abe, Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, etc.) isn't necessary on a resume to be a good national leader.
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
John Hancock owned slaves? Not sure about that one. I could be wrong, admittedly.
Francis Scott Key owned slaves in his early 20s but then got "woke", 19th century style. Freed his slaves then spent his last 40 years or so as an abolitionist.
Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave (given to him by his father in law upon marriage) for one year, not forcing him to work & teaching him (illegally) to read & write, before granting him freedom. This was after Grant's alcohol-driven resignment from the army & when was financially destitute. He could have used the money from free labor but said, no, this is just wrong.
And, of course, in 1861 Grant remained loyal to his nation & didn't become a traitor.
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
'bout a week.
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
Wernher von Braun was literally an aerospace genius. Couldn't have had a US space program without him. No von Braun, then no Neil Armstrong on the moon on July 20th, 1969.
He was also a Nazi. Responsible for countless deaths of slave laborers.
No statues for von Braun.
No statues for Maury, either, who was a traitor to his nation (the United States of America). We all have choices to make & if we make the wrong ones (serving the Confederacy or Nazi Germany) then we must expect the consequences.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 5,468
Did you look for a statue of Von Braun? I grew up in Alabama. I even know a rocket scientist. Huntsville also has the
Propst Arena
www.vonbrauncenter.com
Birmingham used to have a Von Braun arena. I went to a concert there and a few years later took my family to the circus there.
Also, Grant was a northerner and not a citizen of a state that was part of the CSA. Calling Lee, Maury, and the rest a traitor doesn’t change the facts and circumstances of the day.
Attachments
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
Hey, if Lee, Jackson, Davis, etc. won the war they'd be "founding fathers". But they lost, so they're "traitors." The bottom line.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 5,468
Day-Tripper
5-Year Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2014
- Messages
- 893
@bruno, you beat me to it.
The only historian who would stake a claim that taxation was the salient issue leading up to the firing on Ft. Sumter, is one with tenure. The Southern economy was based on slavery. It was completely dependent upon it. They were attempting to preserve a feudal system which had been been all but abandoned by the rest of what we refer to as Western Civilization. (Which is very ironic since the torch bearers in Charlottesville claimed to be the protectors of Western Civilization). The only major European country to preserve serfdom was Russia, which to this day prides itself on not being Western.
Those historians would never have gotten tenure in the United States, because they would know this history:
New York Draft Riots: 1863, Civil War & Causes | HISTORY
The New York Draft Riots of 1863 were a violent uprising against a strict military draft during the Civil War. Blacks were a frequent target of the violence.www.history.com
The abolition of slavery was very popular among the Abolitionists and Radical Republicans, but it wasn't a motivating force for the Union.
True, but for European nations to claim the moral upper hand over those awful hateful Americans over their abolishing slavery first is a joke.
Sure, Britain abolished slavery 40 years (a mere generation or so) before the USA, but there were virtually zero slaves in the British Isles when they did so. In the meantime, the slavery system the Brits (and French, Spanish, Portugese & Dutch) had established in the Western Hemisphere remained in place - only the colonists they had implanted declared, and won, their independence.
Had the revolution of 1776 failed, would Britain had been so keen to abolish slavery?
Mr. Wilberforce's popular movement didn't seem to gain steam until after the 1783 victory of the American independence movement. Coincidence? Easy enough to seek slavery abolition when you no longer have slaves.