Way to Go Army (Page 2): YUP !

agatemaggot Loc: waterloo iowa

YUP !

rjoeholl

Kevyn wrote:

It was far from necessary, they turned traitorous against our nation primarily to preserve slavery, the “states rights” rubbish is a whitewash job by the defeated.

It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery ya dunce. The south wanted to sell their cotton to Europe to get a better price and avoid paying illegal taxes. Annnd at the time they had every right to secede. Learn a little American history or shut your piehole.

bggamers Loc: georgia

Kevyn wrote:

Rommel was also a good general, we don’t have a base named after him. The officers of the confederacy were traitors plain and simple and defeated enemies of the United States, they deserve no honor for their treachery.

Kev he's not american get a grip

Mike Easterday

President Lincoln, said the Confederate soldiers were to be respected as American soldiers .

okie don

American Vet wrote:

So, IOW, you are dodging the question. No more than I expected - and not a very good dodge at that.

But, being the dedicated teacher that I am, I will give you another chance:

What do these words mean and where they come from?

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"

These ' political.bands' included high tariffs supporting the north.
Southerners got tired of all the taxes without representation.
Much to the civil war we are not told. Yes, slavery was "part" of it too...

okie don

rjoeholl wrote:

It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery ya dunce. The south wanted to sell their cotton to Europe to get a better price and avoid paying illegal taxes. Annnd at the time they had every right to secede. Learn a little American history or shut your piehole.

You are 100% right. The north even blockaded the southern shipping ports to prevent the south from selling tonBritian and get a fair price for their merchandise.

Tug484

American Vet wrote:

The U.S. Army does not plan to change the names of... (show quote)

I'm glad.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Kevyn wrote:

This is shameful, it is no different than having a Fort Hirohito, Camp Ho Chi Minh or Karl Dönitz Navel air station. Why on earth would we allow our military installations to be named after defeated enemies of our nation?

Because these weren't enemies as you wrongfully think to Southerners, so we would take offense at that. Yes Naming them after real enemies I can understand, time for you to understand that to many Lincoln, Grant, many 'heroes of the Civil war' were an enemy. And no, the war was not to free the slaves that's revisionist history, the real reason states sovereignty.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Kevyn wrote:

Rommel is not removed from history, why would he be? But he is not honored in the US, to do so would dishonor the brave Americans who died defeating him. The same is true for the tens of thousands of Union soldiers who gave their lives to end the treasonous secession of the confederacy when the traitors are honored.

Your own logic just destroyed you. "The same is true for the tens of thousands of Union soldiers who gave their lives to end the treasonous secession of the confederacy when the traitors are honored." Once the Civil war ended, there were no more enemies (technically) so the same can be said of the southern soldiers who were killed.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

rjoeholl wrote:

It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery ya dunce. The south wanted to sell their cotton to Europe to get a better price and avoid paying illegal taxes. Annnd at the time they had every right to secede. Learn a little American history or shut your piehole.

Yep that was part of state's sovereignty.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

okie don wrote:

These ' political.bands' included high tariffs supporting the north.
Southerners got tired of all the taxes without representation.
Much to the civil war we are not told. Yes, slavery was "part" of it too...

Slavery, sort of. Ever read Brian Kilmeade's book about the Civil War? The North was losing, they needed more bodies on the line. Black bodies since all the white ones had been used. After the War was won Lincoln kind of had to free the slaves. That's why every so often you hear it was an afterthought.

Smedley_buzkill

Kevyn wrote:

Rommel was also a good general, we don’t have a base named after him. The officers of the confederacy were traitors plain and simple and defeated enemies of the United States, they deserve no honor for their treachery.

You are more of a traitor than the generals you named. First off, I will pay you $50 if you can show me anywhere in the Constitution, OR in US statutory law where secession was prohibited in 1861. This also means you can pay ME $50 when you cannot produce the evidence. When the Constitution was ratified, three of the original 13 state, NY, RI and VA, included a written reservation of a right to secede in their ratification statements. They were accepted into the Union anyway, with this condition intact.
https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
https://usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html

I know this is hard for you, but try and find one of your Liberal friends who can read, and have them read to you the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constititution. (It's okay, you can have them explain the big words to you.)
Any powers not delegated specifically to the Federal Government are reserved to the states, or the people. One. More. Time. Show me where in the Constitution secession is prohibited, and where the Federal government, by Constitutional or statutory law, had the right to use military force to put down a legal act. They were not "suppressing a rebellion;" they were suppressing a legal action with military force.

Cash or money order. I don't take checks from Liberals.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Kevyn wrote:

This is shameful, it is no different than having a Fort Hirohito, Camp Ho Chi Minh or Karl Dönitz Navel air station. Why on earth would we allow our military installations to be named after defeated enemies of our nation?

Because they were Americans and our brothers despite our political differences. Sometimes you just can't agree and that's when we have wars. Most of the generals on both sides were one-time school mates. The politicians caused the war the generals just fought it.

Mike Easterday

Peewee wrote:

Because they were Americans and our brothers despite our political differences. Sometimes you just can't agree and that's when we have wars. Most of the generals on both sides were one-time school mates. The politicians caused the war the generals just fought it.

I agree with you on this . Government was already to powerful!

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Mike Easterday wrote:

I agree with you on this . Government was already to powerful!

Not sure it was too powerful but it was already corrupt.