The best thing is to surround Bedford’s grave with many statues of Robert E.
That way you can’t see the Forrest for the Lees.
<Adds running coach to The List.>
http://wjbf.com/2015/07/13/naacp-calls-for-stone-mountain-carving-to-be-removed/
While I wouldn’t call the Atlanta NAACP’s request to be a stupid liberal idea, I think it falls under the category of “something we shouldn’t mess with”. Native Americans have just as big a beef with the Union and Confederacy alike and can make a very strong case to have many of our important historical figures removed from monuments and parks. I’d imagine it won’t be long after that FDR becomes persona non grata.
I’m from Memphis and have no problem with moving the Forrests back to Elmwood Cemetery. That is where he asked to be buried after all. Elmwood is the oldest cemetery in Memphis and full of historical figures. His grave will be added to the tour and people will learn his true history. That’s how it should be, not a park and statue glorifying a despicable human being.
There is a bill before the California state legislature which will remove the names of Confederate military leaders and officials from public buildings, etc. This would include two Robert E. Lee elementary schools in Southern California. But the town of Fort Bragg, in Northern California, is named for Braxton Bragg, and the bill was amended so as not to require the town to change its name. But the question still arises as to whether the city’s official buildings will have to change their names.
The bill is expected to pass.
We warned you about “bath salts”. See what happens when you don’t listen?
Sounds crazy in 2015. Won’t sound so crazy when all the other old dragons have been slayed and Japanese-Americans want theirs slain too.
It is important to note that the Confederate memorials are to traitors who wanted to leave the US and started a war to do so.
That’s carpetbagger talk! 
The “Lees”? As in that left-over shit at the bottom of the wine cask?
And Lincoln chose to pardon them, and future administrations chose to allow them to be honored.
Secondly, be careful about using the word traitor in that context. It may become desirable in the future for a state or states to secede for non-awful reasons. There is still no legally binding precedent that says a state can’t secede. It’s all about force and the willingness of DC to use force. Which is unlikely in the future, absent a morally compelling issue like slavery or perhaps a dictatorship in a state government.
Lincoln didn’t pardon any of them. He got shot. Remember? Murdered, assassinated, by one of these fucking honorable Southern gentlemen you’re so hot to support.
Go fuck a cactus, you appeaser.
If taking up arms against the country doesn’t maker one a traitor, what does?
Strangely, we don’t prosecute Americans who attack government targets as traitors. Helping the enemy, that’s treason. Taking up arms on your own is rebellion. Or terrorism. Or “workplace violence” as the Obama administration called it at one point.
Other than the workplace violence, Mrs. Lincoln…
And you know why, and you know how we’ve evolved since then, too.
Interesting thought. What sort of reasons might those be?
You really have been swallowing the crazy, haven’t you? It’s about democracy and law.
You’re serious, aren’t you? You’re really serious!
There’s the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v White (1869) that states lack a constitutional right to unilaterally secede. In adaher’s defense, as we’ve seen in the response to this year’s same-sex marriage ruling, a lot of conservatives don’t seem to think Supreme Court decisions are legally binding for them.
(Seem to have been ninja’ed while typing. Oh well.)
Mostly because it is an unusual charge and it is simply easier and more efficient to nail domestic terrorists on the more mundane charges. Honestly, how many DAs have actual experience in prosecuting treason charges? There have only been around 12 convictions in the US over our history.
Remember that adaher consistently ranks among the top SDMB posters in the “factually wrong” category.
Umm… John Wilkes Booth wasn’t a Southern aristocrat, he was a sympathizer from Maryland who worked as an actor. As for Lincoln did or did not do, he did NOT order that every man who ever wore rebel gray was to be hanged or shot- which he would have been completely within his authority to do, given the ancient and respected precedent for the fate of traitors.
Spell it out for us please.
Which at the time were in direct opposition to each other. While a credible case can be made that an indissoluble union was implicit in the federal Constitution, it was never spelled out. For example, Article One Section Ten, which lists the things the states are explicitly forbidden to do, says nothing about secession. And millions of southerners overwhelming supported secession- direct democracy in action.