What makes one person’s dudgeon higher than that of another?

This sign represents a movement to protect the integrity of native Stauntonian history.  There are historical negationists pushing a movement in Staunton to eliminate the name Robert E. Lee from the city’s high school.  The Leftist movement is spreading even to small-town Virginia here.  The most infuriating thing about such activists is that most, if not all, are not originally from Virginia.  The modern education system has served a disservice to history students by portraying the American Civil War as a simplistic dichotomy of slavery vs. abolition.  There was WAY more to it than that, particularly in Virginia, home of the majority of the battles in the war.

This sign represents the opposition.  These activists have imputed their view that people should feel pain vis-a-vis the name of Robert E. Lee.  All the years I grew up here, no one ever complained about such pain.  This is a recent movement… a “me too movement” contrived by National Socialists who wish to drum up racial strife for political leverage.

This was my Facebook post responding to the sentiment behind this sign:

If the decision hinges on how “hurt” someone is, consider the forgotten population in all this malignant narcissism: The descendants of Virginians who fought under General Lee.

Virginians historically honor Robert E. Lee for reasons other than the simplistic, dumbed-down version portrayed in public schools.

1. In 1860, Augusta County had 27,749 residents and 811 of those people owned slaves. Around 5,000 of those residents were slaves, so the white population was around 22,500. The slave owners constitute 0.04% of the white population. So, contrary to mainstream historical teachings, only a small number of white southerners even owned slaves.
2. Virginia did not initially secede with the first states to form the Confederacy. It was not until President Lincoln called forth an army of 75,000 soldiers did Virginia decide to leave the Union, and only then to hopefully avoid becoming the battleground between clashing armies.
3. General Lee declined President Lincoln’s appointment to command the U.S. Army because he could not justify taking up arms against his fellow Virginians. Knowing the integrity of this man, the decision to torch his illustrious military career with the U.S. Army solely because he believed in maintaining the servitude of any race of people would have been utterly illogical. His loyalty to the people of Virginia was much more compelling of his self-deprecating decision.
4. General Lee led the Army of Northern Virginia to defend the citizens of Virginia against the rampages of hostile invading army. General Sheridan sought to apply the policy of “scorched earth” to force the citizens of the South to withdraw their support for the war. This means he ordered his soldiers to destroy every resource of the farming landscape to effectively starve out the people of Virginia.

So… Robert E. Lee is revered by ancestral Virginians for his devotion to their protection in the face of an invading army
.

As a countervailing position regarding “the name hurts”, I posit the questions:

• What makes one’s “hurt” more important than others?
• Are these individuals not worthy of consideration because they are those repugnant white people?
• What hubris is it to place one’s putative umbrage above another’s?
• Is one group morally superior and thereby subject to preferential consideration to one’s “hurt”?

Regardless, blacks were political pawns in the 1800’s and they continue to be used for their “hurt” to this day. The perpetuation of 150 year old anguish over past servitude for purposes of political leverage needs to stop.
#savethename

A short time later, I saw a sign in another local resident’s yard with a new angle to the opposition’s sentiment:

I felt compelled to post again, to point out the narrow-mindedness of this perspective:

This photo shows another local nod to the opposition for keeping the name of Robert E. Lee High School.

The Beverly Street property upon which this sign has been displayed is in close proximity to Thornrose Cemetery. A large knoll in this cemetery entombs the remains of an untold number of Virginians in a mass grave marked only by the statue of a soldier. Robert E. Lee led these Virginians who died fighting for the sole purposes of defending the citizens of their home state from an invading army.

This invading army did not abide by today’s liberal rules of engagement that self-perilously restrain the actions of our military. This army was ordered to conduct “Total War” dictated by U.S. General William T. “War is Hell” Sherman. His subordinate commander, General Phillip Sheridan, applied this policy as he led his army through the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. “Total War” was the U.S. Army’s policy of destroying everything in its path to purposefully and indiscriminately starve out the citizens of Virginia to erode the will to fight back. These ancestral Virginians are the forgotten people of the war, lost underfoot in the road dust kicked up by all the political exploitation of “hurt”.

My stance is not motivated by white supremacy. The overwhelming bias is that to speak out in such opposition is tantamount to racism. I have nothing personal, political, or financial to gain from advocating against destroying the vestige of General Lee. As a Conservative, I am indiscriminately mis-categorized as a “racist” already, simply for opposing the Liberal agenda. I have nothing to gain by openly sticking out my neck onto the chopping block of public condemnation.

I have no reason to speak out other than to stand on the principle that the ancestors of much of the population of Virginia deserve consideration in this dispute. Hurt is not a manifestation unique to one perspective in history.

We descendants of Virginians of that era, those Americans whom President Lincoln advocated readmitting to the Union without further punishment beyond the ravages of war they had already endured, honor General Lee as a vicarious memorial to our ancestors.

For these reasons, I reject the movement to change the long-established name of our community’s high school:

1. Most of the people (if not all) who stand in favor of abnegating the name of Robert E. Lee from our history are not originally from Virginia and have no ancestral connection to Virginia. They have only one perspective with which to assess the controversy.
2. Advocates for change are exploiting the ever-festering rancor between racial groups in America to bolster their political leverage to force changes in public policy; a political pawn, proverbially speaking.
3. While ostensibly a beneficent activism to effectuate change to alleviate “hurt” in the spirit of a legitimate grievance, the activism is only an exploitation of wounds that are continually lanced to remain open for a never-ending political advantage It has become alarmingly clear that there will be no end to this.
4. The political advantage is utilized to exert power from the position of an ideology that does not currently possess the majority of representation in our government. This is not an acceptable means of usurping power that contravenes the provisions set forth in our Constitution.
5. Above all, I reject the hubris of continually striving to convince blacks that they have been, and always will be, victimized by America. This arrogant exploitation continues to harm the black community by promoting the collective dejection that inhibits many from making the most of opportunity. The name of Robert E. Lee High School does not hold anyone back from economic success; demoralizing an entire community in a manner that spreads maladaptive discontent does.

Perhaps this advocate would find it righteously carminative to go to Thornrose Cemetery, stand before the mass grave of Virginians killed by the invading army, and say “honor something worthy”.
This condescending arrogation desecrates the ancestors of much of the local population by saying that the man who led the defenders of the civilian population of this area from an invading army is not worthy.
Shame on the blame, perhaps?