(04-28-2014 08:00 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:28 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:48 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...But certain figures (Lee and Jackson spring to mind) who were revered long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1950's and 1960's came along don't strike me as falling into the same category...

Confederate figures such as Lee might have been excellent generals and excellent people in general, but their association with sustaining widespread slavery and oppression is too real for me to approve of naming a school, county, etc. after them. There are many other people who can be so honored. Certainly Lee's status as a reputedly principled man yet a defender of the South should be discussed in history classes and such, though. IMO, studying that contrast provides insight into mid-19th century America, the Civil War, and the Civil War's ongoing impacts. Historical figures need not be one-dimensional.

Another way to look at it, is that when one side has won, and ultimately changes are forced on people (even moral, necessary and needed changes), finding some way to allow those on the losing side to retain some dignity is not a bad idea. Lincoln's views on Reconstruction reflected that.

One way to preserve dignity, is to allow the losing side to keep their heroes (limited to those who were truly worthy of respect and admiration).

We all know who was on the right side of history (as well as morally).

After the loss of millions of lives, utter ruin of their economy, loss of fortunes, status, and in some cases property (not referring to human 'property', but homesteads etc.) . .. . .. . .

allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory. (It's why I said LBJ would not have batted an eye over this stuff).

You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there.

But most who might object to a Robert E. Lee High School would not want to remove George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's name in every instance where they removed Lee's)

If association with injustice, no matter the degree of the association, is an issue, we should also argue for the destruction of the pyramids.

Schools named shortly after war see would be one thing. But 100 years is a long time; seems a stretch Houston seeing itself as the losing side in need of the dignity of its heroes. That's how you see an all-white high school named "Robert E. Lee" in 1962? As a grab at self-respect by the conquered of a 100-year-old war?

This is smack in the middle of a 15-year period when desegregation was the law of the land, but HISD was perpetrating a "palpable sham and subterfuge designed only to accomplish further evasion and delay" per federal judge Ben Connally, in a Texas that still outlawed marriage between blacks and whites.

The segregationists ALSO (and correctly) lost, too. I think there is benefit to having respected generals (like Lee) retain some degree of respect, while clearly refusing to honor people like Nathan Bedford Forrest. The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

But they hadn't lost. The schools were still segregated. The battle was ongoing. Naming a school after a confederate in 1962 was, likely, a shot taken to cow the other side.

The crux of this discussion seems to be whether the naming of schools after Confederates was an action taken to oppose segregation and intimidate blacks. Probably, in some cases. Probably not, in others. In any case, I cannot see that it had any effectiveness, and I cannot imagine anybody being intimidated by the name of a school.

(04-28-2014 12:33 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 08:00 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:28 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  Confederate figures such as Lee might have been excellent generals and excellent people in general, but their association with sustaining widespread slavery and oppression is too real for me to approve of naming a school, county, etc. after them. There are many other people who can be so honored. Certainly Lee's status as a reputedly principled man yet a defender of the South should be discussed in history classes and such, though. IMO, studying that contrast provides insight into mid-19th century America, the Civil War, and the Civil War's ongoing impacts. Historical figures need not be one-dimensional.

Another way to look at it, is that when one side has won, and ultimately changes are forced on people (even moral, necessary and needed changes), finding some way to allow those on the losing side to retain some dignity is not a bad idea. Lincoln's views on Reconstruction reflected that.

One way to preserve dignity, is to allow the losing side to keep their heroes (limited to those who were truly worthy of respect and admiration).

We all know who was on the right side of history (as well as morally).

After the loss of millions of lives, utter ruin of their economy, loss of fortunes, status, and in some cases property (not referring to human 'property', but homesteads etc.) . .. . .. . .

allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory. (It's why I said LBJ would not have batted an eye over this stuff).

You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there.

But most who might object to a Robert E. Lee High School would not want to remove George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's name in every instance where they removed Lee's)

If association with injustice, no matter the degree of the association, is an issue, we should also argue for the destruction of the pyramids.

Schools named shortly after war see would be one thing. But 100 years is a long time; seems a stretch Houston seeing itself as the losing side in need of the dignity of its heroes. That's how you see an all-white high school named "Robert E. Lee" in 1962? As a grab at self-respect by the conquered of a 100-year-old war?

This is smack in the middle of a 15-year period when desegregation was the law of the land, but HISD was perpetrating a "palpable sham and subterfuge designed only to accomplish further evasion and delay" per federal judge Ben Connally, in a Texas that still outlawed marriage between blacks and whites.

The segregationists ALSO (and correctly) lost, too. I think there is benefit to having respected generals (like Lee) retain some degree of respect, while clearly refusing to honor people like Nathan Bedford Forrest. The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

But they hadn't lost. The schools were still segregated. The battle was ongoing. Naming a school after a confederate in 1962 was, likely, a shot taken to cow the other side.

They were clearly in the process of losing. The response of the City of Houston in this area is acknowledgement of that (see lunch counter discussion above). I also don't think anyone was being 'cowed' in the 1960's (by that I mean, that clearly the Feds were supportive, and those fighting for change, led by MLK were not going to stop fighting for change)

I think with respect to certain figures (Lee foremost among them) who had schools, etc named after them all over the South for decades, there is enough latitude to grant consideration.

If you feel, like Calleigh does, that the 'ownership' issue is too big a hurdle to overlook, and you're willing to apply it to everyone, I'll buy that. But I certainly don't think it fair to paint everyone from that era and region with the same broad brush.

Now if you wanted to do research on HISD (and other school boards, including Boston's and other areas where desegregation was also fought - - The Red Sox were the LAST major league team to integrate), and see if the school board members who've been honored by having school's named after them included segregationists . . . . . .

(04-28-2014 01:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 12:33 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 08:00 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Another way to look at it, is that when one side has won, and ultimately changes are forced on people (even moral, necessary and needed changes), finding some way to allow those on the losing side to retain some dignity is not a bad idea. Lincoln's views on Reconstruction reflected that.

One way to preserve dignity, is to allow the losing side to keep their heroes (limited to those who were truly worthy of respect and admiration).

We all know who was on the right side of history (as well as morally).

After the loss of millions of lives, utter ruin of their economy, loss of fortunes, status, and in some cases property (not referring to human 'property', but homesteads etc.) . .. . .. . .

allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory. (It's why I said LBJ would not have batted an eye over this stuff).

You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there.

But most who might object to a Robert E. Lee High School would not want to remove George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's name in every instance where they removed Lee's)

If association with injustice, no matter the degree of the association, is an issue, we should also argue for the destruction of the pyramids.

Schools named shortly after war see would be one thing. But 100 years is a long time; seems a stretch Houston seeing itself as the losing side in need of the dignity of its heroes. That's how you see an all-white high school named "Robert E. Lee" in 1962? As a grab at self-respect by the conquered of a 100-year-old war?

This is smack in the middle of a 15-year period when desegregation was the law of the land, but HISD was perpetrating a "palpable sham and subterfuge designed only to accomplish further evasion and delay" per federal judge Ben Connally, in a Texas that still outlawed marriage between blacks and whites.

The segregationists ALSO (and correctly) lost, too. I think there is benefit to having respected generals (like Lee) retain some degree of respect, while clearly refusing to honor people like Nathan Bedford Forrest. The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

But they hadn't lost. The schools were still segregated. The battle was ongoing. Naming a school after a confederate in 1962 was, likely, a shot taken to cow the other side.

They were clearly in the process of losing. The response of the City of Houston in this area is acknowledgement of that (see lunch counter discussion above). I also don't think anyone was being 'cowed' in the 1960's (by that I mean, that clearly the Feds were supportive, and those fighting for change, led by MLK were not going to stop fighting for change)

I think with respect to certain figures (Lee foremost among them) who had schools, etc named after them all over the South for decades, there is enough latitude to grant consideration.

If you feel, like Calleigh does, that the 'ownership' issue is too big a hurdle to overlook, and you're willing to apply it to everyone, I'll buy that. But I certainly don't think it fair to paint everyone from that era and region with the same broad brush.

Now if you wanted to do research on HISD (and other school boards, including Boston's and other areas where desegregation was also fought - - The Red Sox were the LAST major league team to integrate), and see if the school board members who've been honored by having school's named after them included segregationists . . . . . .

Rick, the segregation battle was still hot in 1962, not seen as a fait accompli by the whites fighting it.

Brown v Board of Ed was 1954. The "palpable sham and subterfuge" quote is from June 1960, when at the deadline for the Houston school barod to submit a desegregation plan, the board proposed a plan to integrate exactly 3 schools. Connally then ordered they integrate first grade that fall, and one additional grade per year for the following 11.

On the board at the time was the lovely Bertie Maughmer, who in her successful 1956 school board campaign declared, "I'd rather go to jail than see my kids go to school with *******."

It wasn't until 1964 that the UIL, which ran and runs public high school sports in Texas, removed the word 'white' from the membership requirement from schools.

"...including Boston's and other areas where desegregation was also fought - - The Red Sox were the LAST major league team to integrate."

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I think the "Southern Strategy" was directed as much towards whites in the North as whites in the South (think Archie Bunker).

Andrew Young has said the one time he genuinely felt his life was in danger was when he marched with MLK in Chicago.

(04-28-2014 03:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 01:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 12:33 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 08:00 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Schools named shortly after war see would be one thing. But 100 years is a long time; seems a stretch Houston seeing itself as the losing side in need of the dignity of its heroes. That's how you see an all-white high school named "Robert E. Lee" in 1962? As a grab at self-respect by the conquered of a 100-year-old war?

This is smack in the middle of a 15-year period when desegregation was the law of the land, but HISD was perpetrating a "palpable sham and subterfuge designed only to accomplish further evasion and delay" per federal judge Ben Connally, in a Texas that still outlawed marriage between blacks and whites.

The segregationists ALSO (and correctly) lost, too. I think there is benefit to having respected generals (like Lee) retain some degree of respect, while clearly refusing to honor people like Nathan Bedford Forrest. The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

But they hadn't lost. The schools were still segregated. The battle was ongoing. Naming a school after a confederate in 1962 was, likely, a shot taken to cow the other side.

They were clearly in the process of losing. The response of the City of Houston in this area is acknowledgement of that (see lunch counter discussion above). I also don't think anyone was being 'cowed' in the 1960's (by that I mean, that clearly the Feds were supportive, and those fighting for change, led by MLK were not going to stop fighting for change)

I think with respect to certain figures (Lee foremost among them) who had schools, etc named after them all over the South for decades, there is enough latitude to grant consideration.

If you feel, like Calleigh does, that the 'ownership' issue is too big a hurdle to overlook, and you're willing to apply it to everyone, I'll buy that. But I certainly don't think it fair to paint everyone from that era and region with the same broad brush.

Now if you wanted to do research on HISD (and other school boards, including Boston's and other areas where desegregation was also fought - - The Red Sox were the LAST major league team to integrate), and see if the school board members who've been honored by having school's named after them included segregationists . . . . . .

Rick, the segregation battle was still hot in 1962, not seen as a fait accompli by the whites fighting it.

Brown v Board of Ed was 1954. The "palpable sham and subterfuge" quote is from June 1960, when at the deadline for the Houston school barod to submit a desegregation plan, the board proposed a plan to integrate exactly 3 schools. Connally then ordered they integrate first grade that fall, and one additional grade per year for the following 11.

On the board at the time was the lovely Bertie Maughmer, who in her successful 1956 school board campaign declared, "I'd rather go to jail than see my kids go to school with *******."

It wasn't until 1964 that the UIL, which ran and runs public high school sports in Texas, removed the word 'white' from the membership requirement from schools.

If you accept that education is a requirement for any real change, then you might be able to see why a major social change might take a generation, or a generation and a half, to accomplish. I can understand why that should be considered as 'too long' in this case, but that doesn't change the reality of the time line.

It's one reason why it should be hard to put ourselves in the shoes of people who lived in past generations. Our education and the impact of media were not available during the Depression and other eras. It's also potentially easy to assume the worst levels of racism for an entire era/population/region, when their is a distribution throughout the population from violent and virulent to cultural bias, to moderate discomfort to relative comfort to lack of all prejudice. The mean of the distribution is what shifts. And at any given moment, given education as the prime factor in shifting the mean, the 'tolerance' distribution probably mirrors an age distribution as well, with age tied to educational opportunity.

Other factors, such as personal experiences/interactions also play a part, and can trump education or cultural bias (i.e., both directions)

(04-28-2014 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The crux of this discussion seems to be whether the naming of schools after Confederates was an action taken to oppose segregation and intimidate blacks. Probably, in some cases. Probably not, in others. In any case, I cannot see that it had any effectiveness, and I cannot imagine anybody being intimidated by the name of a school.

Sounds like you see naming with intent to intimidate as no big deal. Are you equally ambivalent about changing such names?

(04-28-2014 05:50 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The crux of this discussion seems to be whether the naming of schools after Confederates was an action taken to oppose segregation and intimidate blacks. Probably, in some cases. Probably not, in others. In any case, I cannot see that it had any effectiveness, and I cannot imagine anybody being intimidated by the name of a school.

Sounds like you see naming with intent to intimidate as no big deal. Are you equally ambivalent about changing such names?

Again, I'm not sure intimidate is the right term. I see it potentially more as resentment of change resulting in an action meant to be defiant or a rejection of 'powerlessness' on the part of the of the school boards, if in fact the naming was driven by the circumstances of the times.

And again, if the naming occurred immediately after Brown vs Board of Education (Topeka, Kansas, not a deep South town - 1954, not 1961), or a similar ruling, I might see it as aimed at the Supreme Court and the Federal Government, not the minority population..

If the naming occurred in 1961-62, at the time the Centennial observations were kicking off, I could very easily see naming a school after Lee or Jackson (or Union generals in other areas) being perceived by some or many as honoring significant historical figures.

Again, there was much more interest in the Civil War then than now. And it's possible and likely that different people in a given group had different motivations for the same action. I would be very hesitant to ascribe motivations with a broad brush, even if the motivation were true of some.

Obviously naming anything after a Klan leader is sending a very specific message.

Segregation was still a very live issue in Texas into the 1970s. A court order de-segregating all of Texas public schools was issued in 1970 by Judge Justice (yes, that was his name).
Mrs. Maughmer was still on the HISD board in 1960, about the time when a school that was to open in 1962 would be approved (and named). If the intent was merely to remember the Civil War, one might expect some balance to be struck. I am unaware of a Houston area school named after Ulysses S Grant. There is one school in Houston named after a Unionist Texan who left for the North after the Civil War. Its colors are Blue and Gray.

(04-28-2014 10:38 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  Segregation was still a very live issue in Texas into the 1970s. A court order de-segregating all of Texas public schools was issued in 1970 by Judge Justice (yes, that was his name).
Mrs. Maughmer was still on the HISD board in 1960, about the time when a school that was to open in 1962 would be approved (and named). If the intent was merely to remember the Civil War, one might expect some balance to be struck. I am unaware of a Houston area school named after Ulysses S Grant. There is one school in Houston named after a Unionist Texan who left for the North after the Civil War. Its colors are Blue and Gray.

Civil War Memorials in the South, at least the ones I've seen, including the one in downtown Houston, were dedicated to Southern soldiers. Many were dedicated by the Daughters of the Confederacy (similar at the time to the DAR, I doubt the CSA version still exists), and most are over a century old.

I doubt any malice was intended in only memorializing the soldiers who fought for the local citizenry, but the desire to be, or focus on being, 'balanced', 'inclusive', etc is a relatively recent concept.

I'm not saying that some, if not a majority of people weren't considerate, open and thoughtful of other points of view. However, the level of concern that we exhibit today, which on occasion borders on obsession, is recent in nature IMO (and is a function of education and emphasis - see my comments above ).

In that light, the argument that if HISD didn't name a school after U.S. Grant in the 1960's, then because a 'balance' was not struck the motivation to name a school after Lee couldn't have come in whole or part because of the Centennial and interest in the Civil War and Lee, . . . . . . seems a stretch to me. . . . and isn't one that I would think holds water, outside of our own current thinking.

It's that heightened level of concern that, for fear that anyone, anywhere might be offended by something, equates Robert E. Lee with Nathan Bedford Forrest. Or, IMO, causes us to assume motivations like 'intimidation of minorities' (which certainly did occur at times, by some; but was more overt, threatening and physical than naming a school) by a school board, and not resentment over Federal mandates. And also 'assumes' without referring to meeting minutes, discussions of the decision, etc, when in fact it is likely there were those who supported the move at the time of the Centennial, who were still reverent of Lee as a beloved Army General, and generally an honorable man. Seriously, that's how he was viewed post War, and to a great degree was talked about that way in history class (and in the books I had on the Civil War in my childhood) in the 1960's. I wouldn't be surprised that some saw this as a way to snipe back at the Supreme Court and Federal Government, but I'd bet the discussions at the time brought up positive reasons for wanting to name it after Lee. There certainly was discussion about the decision, whether it reached the level of debate or not. An assumption (presumed, or subconscious) that every minute of every discussion at every school board meeting centered around the desegregation issue would be inaccurate I'm sure.

Desegregation took way too long, and it had to be pushed, more so in some places than others. All true. That doesn't mean that all signs of regional pride were 100% tied to desegregation. Frankly, it was probably healthier for Southerners to focus on someone like Lee, then to focus on the present day alternatives such as Mrs Maughmer.

I think it can be easy to cast the issue in a single dimension. Life is always a lot more complicated than that.

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory...

Is this something that has been the outcome of any other war? I'm not saying that it could never be a worthwhile gesture, but I'm not coming up with examples of other wars in which this happened.

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there....

I didn't say that. One thing that distinguishes the Civil War from the American Revolution is that a key component of the former--terrible racial inequality--did not cease to exist when the war ended. It continued for decades, sometimes manifesting itself in very violent ways. It continued for more than a century, even, and it could be argued that it still exists. Given the long, ugly history of racial oppression in the U.S. and given the role of racial oppression in the Civil War, I think it is, at best, insensitive to name a school after someone who is remembered primarily as a Confederate leader. I daresay polling the community in which the school is located would bear that out.

(04-29-2014 12:46 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory...

Is this something that has been the outcome of any other war? I'm not saying that it could never be a worthwhile gesture, but I'm not coming up with examples of other wars in which this happened.

The Boer War, arguably. For example, Boer commando leader Jan Smuts went on to become a British field marshal, leader of South African forces (as part of the British Empire) against Germany in World War I, member of the Imperial War Cabinet in World War II, principal author of the Charter of the United Nations, and one of the most esteemed figures in the history of South Africa.

Not coincidentally, Smuts and a young Winston Churchill were combatant enemies during the Boer War, and friends and colleagues for the rest of their lives afterward.*

Most Americans -- most people -- know little about this war, and it's hard for us to appreciate just how bitter a war it was, or even to appreciate the simple fact that it was a modern, first-world civil war -- with all the bloodiness which that implies, and which the century it prefigured would demonstrate in spades.



*Aside: The same pattern is also true of Churchill and the great Irish nationalist/guerilla leader Michael Collins. The history of Ireland could have been much different -- and much better -- if Collins's political rivals had not murdered him.

(04-29-2014 12:30 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It's that heightened level of concern that, for fear that anyone, anywhere might be offended by something, equates Robert E. Lee with Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I haven't read this whole thread -- has anybody equated Lee to Forrest? Obviously Lee was not exactly the same as Forrest, nor was he exactly the same as Jefferson. In the latter comparison, as you mentioned, it's hard to compare people across generations, and I don't think any of us really know what Jefferson would have done in Lee's shoes.

Lee, as a famous military leader who was able to choose his side, is an interesting individual. I will not pretend that his choice was easy. But ultimately he chose to fight for his state and against both the Union and his own convictions. That does not make him evil, but it also does not make him a hero.

(04-29-2014 02:44 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:30 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It's that heightened level of concern that, for fear that anyone, anywhere might be offended by something, equates Robert E. Lee with Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I haven't read this whole thread -- has anybody equated Lee to Forrest? Obviously Lee was not exactly the same as Forrest, nor was he exactly the same as Jefferson. In the latter comparison, as you mentioned, it's hard to compare people across generations, and I don't think any of us really know what Jefferson would have done in Lee's shoes.

Lee, as a famous military leader who was able to choose his side, is an interesting individual. I will not pretend that his choice was easy. But ultimately he chose to fight for his state and against both the Union and his own convictions. That does not make him evil, but it also does not make him a hero.

Equated in the sense that people react the same way to schools being named after them.

(04-29-2014 12:46 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory...

Is this something that has been the outcome of any other war? I'm not saying that it could never be a worthwhile gesture, but I'm not coming up with examples of other wars in which this happened.

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there....

I didn't say that. One thing that distinguishes the Civil War from the American Revolution is that a key component of the former--terrible racial inequality--did not cease to exist when the war ended. It continued for decades, sometimes manifesting itself in very violent ways. It continued for more than a century, even, and it could be argued that it still exists. Given the long, ugly history of racial oppression in the U.S. and given the role of racial oppression in the Civil War, I think it is, at best, insensitive to name a school after someone who is remembered primarily as a Confederate leader. I daresay polling the community in which the school is located would bear that out.

The Civil War is different than wars fought 'between separate nations.' It pitted families versus families and former military comrades and class mates against one another. In the end, there was a more immediate need for reconciliation than existed in wars between countries. This is something Lincoln recognized (and Grant did as well in some regards).

I don't know the ages of everyone on this board. But independent of the 'tweaking of federal noses' some allude to here . . . . . if polls had been taken in Southern states in 1870, 1900, 1930 and 1960 regarding whether a school could be named after Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson, there would have been an overwhelming support for those two generals. I've assumed that everyone on this board knows and understands that Washington and Lee University was named for our first president and Robert E. Lee.

The questioning of Lee in this regard is a very recent phenomena, and gets back to my comments about failing to distinguish between Lee and Forrest.

I will appeal to 75, Optimistic and others who were alive in the 1960's to share their thoughts and observations. Again, I was not born to Southern parents, nor do I have any positive feelings about the Confederacy. I did, however, as a child and high school student, read about the Civil War (from the library, books bought during the Centennial, and from school texts written in the 1960's and early 1970's). My views of Lee, and Jackson, Grant and Lincoln, were cast in that light.

The view of the combatants in the War seems to me to be different now, or at least in this thread, than what I remember of the 1960's.

I had assumed some positions on your part due to my perception that you had stated that Washington and Jefferson should not be given passes for being slaveholders and had used the term 'evil' in regard to all three. I certainly wasn't chastising you for what I thought was a consistent stance.

We can certainly look to Egypt right now for other approaches to handling internal civil turmoil.

I refer you to post 86.

(04-29-2014 05:46 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  The questioning of Lee in this regard is a very recent phenomena, and gets back to my comments about failing to distinguish between Lee and Forrest.

I'll try again.

"Schools should not be named after A or B" does not mean "A is indistinguishable from B."

Quote:The view of the combatants in the War seems to me to be different now, or at least in this thread, than what I remember of the 1960's.

In 1959, it was not unthinkable to name a public school for Forrest. In 2014, Forrest is your example of someone that schools should not be named after. The view of the combatants has probably changed a bit. What we look for in naming honorees for schools has probably changed more.

(04-29-2014 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I refer you to post 86.

I see in post 86 you say:
"I was born in 1945, so that can be used to determine my age at various points in the Civil Rights history. Graduated HS in '63.

I remember racism, such as segregated drinking fountains and waiting rooms, but I don't remember any violence or much gnashing of teeth in the process of integration in my corner of North Texas."

Questions: What was the first year a black student attended one of your schools? How many black students were in your school by the time you graduate?

I would say that what I've posted on Houston's integration history evidences a good deal of gnashing of teeth here, at least. What do you think?

(04-29-2014 04:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 05:46 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  The questioning of Lee in this regard is a very recent phenomena, and gets back to my comments about failing to distinguish between Lee and Forrest.

I'll try again.

"Schools should not be named after A or B" does not mean "A is indistinguishable from B."

Quote:The view of the combatants in the War seems to me to be different now, or at least in this thread, than what I remember of the 1960's.

In 1959, it was not unthinkable to name a public school for Forrest. In 2014, Forrest is your example of someone that schools should not be named after. The view of the combatants has probably changed a bit. What we look for in naming honorees for schools has probably changed more.

Fair enough. I think we can agree to agree on Forrest, and agree to disagree on Lee, who "retired" to the Presidency of a university.

This thread is so long, but I can't recall whether you've given an opinion on the difference, or lack thereof, between Lee and Jefferson, who was not a clearly not a Federalist. I ask not to argue, but rather because your views on things are always worthwhile.

(04-29-2014 05:22 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I refer you to post 86.

I see in post 86 you say:
"I was born in 1945, so that can be used to determine my age at various points in the Civil Rights history. Graduated HS in '63.

I remember racism, such as segregated drinking fountains and waiting rooms, but I don't remember any violence or much gnashing of teeth in the process of integration in my corner of North Texas."

Questions: What was the first year a black student attended one of your schools? How many black students were in your school by the time you graduate?

I would say that what I've posted on Houston's integration history evidences a good deal of gnashing of teeth here, at least. What do you think?

\My rural high school integrated the year after I graduated without incident. My younger sisters were both there, and I never heard a single word about it from them, any of my friends, my parents, or any of their friends. There were jokes, but nobody seemed to care a lot.

In my home town, a small town, I never saw any evidence of any Klan activity nor heard of any Klan members.

At Rice, i never had a class with a black person. I was at Rice from Sept. 1963 to June 1968.

Post grad, all my schools were integrated, and nobody's race was an issue. None were in Houston, all in Texas.

I saw angst and anger on the evening news, but none in my life. On the news, white people from Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi were upset. But not in any of the places I was.

Seems to me IIRC, busing was the big issue. A lot of people upset at busing. Still no violence.

I really don't see what this has to do with naming schools after R. E. Lee. I think attitudes differed not only from year to year, but place to place. I cannot speak to attitudes in Houston before September 1963, but while I was there, din't notice much. I think there was a riot at TSU around 1965 or 1966. I remember reading about sit-ins at lunch counters.

Sorry, just didn't see that much conflict, nor that much white anger. I am sure that if I had been in other places and venues, I would have seen more.

Hope that answers your questions. if you need more, ask.