Buchanan Decries "Old Heroes" Like Robert E. Lee Being "Replaced By Dr. King"

[zqt3344 21]

Agreed and good point, and white people are not going to be fooled by it either. It only just makes them more upset at Ovomit. And they will remember when they go vote again in 3 years.

I just don't see the relevance. Putting Lee on a pedestal is about as meaningful as glorifying Oliver Cromwell or the monarchs of the 17th century.

Even the famous ones like Henry VIII or Elizabeth I are remarked on for their contributions that defined the English State but I don't think any of them are held up as heroes in the patriotic sense.

The point you might be missing is the word "replacing".

As newer, noteworthy people emerge in history.. such as King, it is fitting to name monuments streets, parks, schools, public buildings after them, it is shameful to RE-name these places, erasing earlier great men or woman with others,

just as it would be wrong to erase Kings name from a park or street and Replace it with some one else in the future.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are a glubie Suka!

Who is Lee and this King people? What is so scandalous about these two persons?

They were both Ukranian. One was from Kiev, the other from Vinnitsa. They both were caught in tumultous love triangle with a USC, both fighting for his love and devotion. You'll have to stay tuned for the conclusion.

That's ok, my ZQT buddy. You are busuk ka, so we compliment each other.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just don't see the relevance. Putting Lee on a pedestal is about as meaningful as glorifying Oliver Cromwell or the monarchs of the 17th century.

Even the famous ones like Henry VIII or Elizabeth I are remarked on for their contributions that defined the English State but I don't think any of them are held up as heroes in the patriotic sense.

The point you might be missing is the word "replacing".

As newer, noteworthy people emerge in history.. such as King, it is fitting to name monuments streets, parks, schools, public buildings after them, it is shameful to RE-name these places, erasing earlier great men or woman with others,

just as it would be wrong to erase Kings name from a park or street and Replace it with some one else in the future.

I think too much importance is placed on the appearance of things. Nothing is forever Danno.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Clearly not a student of history. Or maybe some muddled Yankee history.

Robert E. Lee has, arguably, yet to be surpassed as a military mind. He did NOT fight for secession, a political idea, as he was a distinctly apolitical man. He lived in a time when United States meant what it was intended to be, United but independent states. A person was a Virginian first and an American second. Not only in Virginia but other states also. He resigned a commission in the US Army when he was asked to lead attack his own people and for that he is due a lot of respect. His conduct in life and his career can only be admired and emulated...wish that it were so. And NO that is not a comment about secession, slavery or anything other than the honor and dignity of a man doing his work as best as possible. He fought honorably and effectively, when the war was over he surrendered honorbaly and asked fair and honorable treatment for his men and then retired and went on to benefit his country in education as he had before. He had no political asperations, unlike the US's fourth General, Grant, who presided over the cruel destruction of Georgia and later the wholesale slaughter of native Americans. Great guy. And WHO do they put on the $50 bill????

Stonewall Jackson was likewise honorable and brave. Had he not been mistakenly killed by his own men, the war would probably have lasted considerably longer. Not saying THAT would have been a good thing, but the South's number 2 man ahd it all over anything the north could field. Both of these men dedicated themselves a smuch to their cause as Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Why would they not be honored? Their cause was NOT slavery, their cause was nothing dishonorable. It was dedicated, brave service to their country.

It is ridiculous to look back through a prism of 100 years or 200 years or 400 years and say this or that man was wrong or right based on today's beliefs and customs. Stupid. If we did so, we have to observe that DEMOCRATS supported slavery, not Republicans. MLK Jr. was a member of the REPUBLICAN party. It was DEMOCRATS that instittued Jim Crow laws, segregation. Wallace was a DEMOCRAT. The founder of the KKK was DEMOCRAT. The only memebr of the Senate that is a former KKK member is DEMOCRAT. Should we condemn the party forever because of what many of their founding and influential pepole believed?

[scandal 951]

Gary,

Very well stated, and generally quite accurate.

One observation: MLK's political affiliations are the subject of debate. In his public words and actions he was politically unaffiliated with either major party.

There have been claims that he was registered as a Republican (his father apparently was), but this has not been substantiated.

See for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-willia...le_b_30454.html

It is certainly true that the Democratic party was the choice of southern segregationists throughout Reconstruction and well into the 20th century, and the Republican party was seen as the party of Lincoln by those who pushed Jim Crow laws and segregation. However, the Democratic party was also the party of laborers, immigrants, trade-unionists (including Sleeping Porters union, the primary political force of African Americans during the pre-civil rights era.) It was not always easy for the Democrats to have both conservative (and often overt racist) southern whites, and unionized blacks, in a common party platform, but they did do so during some of the great Democratic administrations of Wilson, FDR, and Truman.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gary,

Very well stated, and generally quite accurate.

One observation: MLK's political affiliations are the subject of debate. In his public words and actions he was politically unaffiliated with either major party.

There have been claims that he was registered as a Republican (his father apparently was), but this has not been substantiated.

See for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-willia...le_b_30454.html

It is certainly true that the Democratic party was the choice of southern segregationists throughout Reconstruction and well into the 20th century, and the Republican party was seen as the party of Lincoln by those who pushed Jim Crow laws and segregation. However, the Democratic party was also the party of laborers, immigrants, trade-unionists (including Sleeping Porters union, the primary political force of African Americans during the pre-civil rights era.) It was not always easy for the Democrats to have both conservative (and often overt racist) southern whites, and unionized blacks, in a common party platform, but they did do so during some of the great Democratic administrations of Wilson, FDR, and Truman.

Things got put through the blender in 1968, and eventually settled out into the affiliations as we see them today. Many saw that as a direct result of Nixon not paying homage to MLK in his first run for the President against Kennedy, although Nixon, a Quaker, and the Republican's philospies were probably more in line with MLK than was Kennedy and the Democrats of the time. After all, it was JFK that escalated the situation in Southeast Asia, and against the Soviets in Turkey, and later in Cuba.

[zqt3344 21]

Gary! WOW that was well said and very true. Right on once again. Great post!

Clearly not a student of history. Or maybe some muddled Yankee history.

Robert E. Lee has, arguably, yet to be surpassed as a military mind. He did NOT fight for secession, a political idea, as he was a distinctly apolitical man. He lived in a time when United States meant what it was intended to be, United but independent states. A person was a Virginian first and an American second. Not only in Virginia but other states also. He resigned a commission in the US Army when he was asked to lead attack his own people and for that he is due a lot of respect. His conduct in life and his career can only be admired and emulated...wish that it were so. And NO that is not a comment about secession, slavery or anything other than the honor and dignity of a man doing his work as best as possible. He fought honorably and effectively, when the war was over he surrendered honorbaly and asked fair and honorable treatment for his men and then retired and went on to benefit his country in education as he had before. He had no political asperations, unlike the US's fourth General, Grant, who presided over the cruel destruction of Georgia and later the wholesale slaughter of native Americans. Great guy. And WHO do they put on the $50 bill????

Stonewall Jackson was likewise honorable and brave. Had he not been mistakenly killed by his own men, the war would probably have lasted considerably longer. Not saying THAT would have been a good thing, but the South's number 2 man ahd it all over anything the north could field. Both of these men dedicated themselves a smuch to their cause as Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Why would they not be honored? Their cause was NOT slavery, their cause was nothing dishonorable. It was dedicated, brave service to their country.

It is ridiculous to look back through a prism of 100 years or 200 years or 400 years and say this or that man was wrong or right based on today's beliefs and customs. Stupid. If we did so, we have to observe that DEMOCRATS supported slavery, not Republicans. MLK Jr. was a member of the REPUBLICAN party. It was DEMOCRATS that instittued Jim Crow laws, segregation. Wallace was a DEMOCRAT. The founder of the KKK was DEMOCRAT. The only memebr of the Senate that is a former KKK member is DEMOCRAT. Should we condemn the party forever because of what many of their founding and influential pepole believed?