Biden admin signs off on scrubbing 'names and displays' from military bases

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Always amazes me that conservatives, Real America loving conservatives, haven taken up the fight to preserve public honoring of figure from the confederacy. A group america went to war with. 

In their typical desperate reactionary freak out against change they've decided to hang their hats on traitors. 

"Own the libs" first. Mental gymnastics second. 

Not surprising. But unfortunate

You don't even understand the definitions of the words you use. All was forgiven, they put America back together again -

and you still look more stupid than you think. But if misplaced sarcasm is all you have, must suck to be you, your beakness.

   Surely you will grow up someday and be a happy bird.

[cccjwh]

On 4/21/2023 at 2:10 PM, calfoxwc said:

You don't even understand the definitions of the words you use. All was forgiven, they put America back together again -

and you still look more stupid than you think. But if misplaced sarcasm is all you have, must suck to be you, your beakness.

   Surely you will grow up someday and be a happy bird.

"They put America back together"

Who torn it apart again? Oh yeah, the traitors. 

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

You don't even understand the definitions of the words you use. All was forgiven, they put America back together again -

and you still look more stupid than you think. But if misplaced sarcasm is all you have, must suck to be you, your beakness.

   Surely you will grow up someday and be a happy bird.

Thanks for proving my point 

 

You throw out common sense in favor of blind political allegiance. This is no exception

[Jax]

Aren't we all traitors anyways? What was the American Revolution?

I'm pretty sure today, we can recognize the fact that the civil war was a war we wish didn't have to happen but it doesn't mean we ignorantly label people that fought in the war, no matter what side they were on, just because you want to tie it to some political movement of today. It was a different time for a young America.

To keep in context of renaming of military bases It seems as though some of the names were picked simply because of location, the south naming their own camps after southerners. At this point in time, who cares? These are still Americans and we can absolutely honor them for their place in battle instead of their political views, within reason.

These bases built their own reputation over time and that's whats connected to hearing their names, I doubt most people would even know who these bases were named for or cared until it served as some type of lame political movement. That's why people are protesting it, not for the actual names of who they represent, but because of the lame political reasons. Maybe the names do need changed, but given today's political environment, it might be best to show focus on greater needs such as oil, inflation and illegal immigration. Those hurt a lot worse than any name.

If we're going to erase anything attached to the name Benning, does that mean democrats get erased since he was one?

[Canton Dawg]

1 hour ago, Jax said:

Aren't we all traitors anyways? What was the American Revolution?

I'm pretty sure today, we can recognize the fact that the civil war was a war we wish didn't have to happen but it doesn't mean we ignorantly label people that fought in the war, no matter what side they were on, just because you want to tie it to some political movement of today. It was a different time for a young America.

To keep in context of renaming of military bases It seems as though some of the names were picked simply because of location, the south naming their own camps after southerners. At this point in time, who cares? These are still Americans and we can absolutely honor them for their place in battle instead of their political views, within reason.

These bases built their own reputation over time and that's whats connected to hearing their names, I doubt most people would even know who these bases were named for or cared until it served as some type of lame political movement. That's why people are protesting it, not for the actual names of who they represent, but because of the lame political reasons. Maybe the names do need changed, but given today's political environment, it might be best to show focus on greater needs such as oil, inflation and illegal immigration. Those hurt a lot worse than any name.

If we're going to erase anything attached to the name Benning, does that mean democrats get erased since he was one?

Too much common sense in your post.

Welcome to the Poly Board.

[FY56]

On 4/20/2023 at 4:51 PM, The Cysko Kid said:

Its interesting to me that people who hate america, the values it was founded on and who only stand for degeneracy and deviants and want to fundamentally change the country to mirror a failed state like the u.s.s.r. are so concerned about traitors.  dead white men.

That's how I'd phrase it after reading a quote by a black woman.

I don’t fear 150-year-old statues of old dead white men. What I fear is the hatred we see in real time in 2017 on social media and in our political rhetoric.

Opinion: Don't Take Down Confederate Monuments. Here's Why. (nbcnews.com)

[FY56]

4 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Thanks for proving my point 

 

You throw out common sense in favor of blind political allegiance. This is no exception

 Common sense to you is wiping out historical names, statues, and monuments? 

[FY56]

7 hours ago, cccjwh said:

I feel like your feelings don't mean shit to me. All I can say is scoreboard. Your traitors' names are going away. You keep on wishing your side had won the Slavers Rebellion.

 

Haha..Feelings? It seems to me it's always been about your feelings.  Confederate names, statues, and monuments offend you. To which our response has always been that we don't give a fuck about your feelings..

Funny to see you coming out of your safe after learning "things are getting done" to your satisfaction.

[cccjwh]

On 4/21/2023 at 5:46 PM, Jax said:

Aren't we all traitors anyways? What was the American Revolution?

I'm pretty sure today, we can recognize the fact that the civil war was a war we wish didn't have to happen but it doesn't mean we ignorantly label people that fought in the war, no matter what side they were on, just because you want to tie it to some political movement of today. It was a different time for a young America.

To keep in context of renaming of military bases It seems as though some of the names were picked simply because of location, the south naming their own camps after southerners. At this point in time, who cares? These are still Americans and we can absolutely honor them for their place in battle instead of their political views, within reason.

These bases built their own reputation over time and that's whats connected to hearing their names, I doubt most people would even know who these bases were named for or cared until it served as some type of lame political movement. That's why people are protesting it, not for the actual names of who they represent, but because of the lame political reasons. Maybe the names do need changed, but given today's political environment, it might be best to show focus on greater needs such as oil, inflation and illegal immigration. Those hurt a lot worse than any name.

If we're going to erase anything attached to the name Benning, does that mean democrats get erased since he was one?

Yes, I heard this talking point before. The founding father were traitors to England. England doesn't go around naming their military base after them. Because that would be stupid. Feel free to look into how the military base got their names. There is a good book Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause that goes into to some of it. You can remember the past without honoring traitors to your country.

You should remember who Benning was.

Henry Benning never served a day of his life in the US military. 

Henry Benning was ardent secessionist.

Henry Benning thought the only way he could keep his slaves would be to dissolve the United States.

Henry Benning help Georgia seceded from the USA.

Henry Benning was a mediocre General who got his most of his men killed in the Battle of Chickmauga.

Henry Benning kill a bunch of US soldiers.

 

Why should any US military base be named after him?

 

[cccjwh]

4 hours ago, FY56 said:

Haha..Feelings? It seems to me it's always been about your feelings.  Confederate names, statues, and monuments offend you. To which our response has always been that we don't give a fuck about your feelings..

Funny to see you coming out of your safe after learning "things are getting done" to your satisfaction.

 I think honoring traitors to my country is a bad thing. You wish they had won. All I can say is scoreboard.

[FY56]

4 hours ago, cccjwh said:

 I think honoring traitors to my country is a bad thing. You wish they had won. All I can say is scoreboard.

I don't give a shit about your feelings.

I can only imagine what's next on you peoples hurt feelings agenda.

[FY56]

15 hours ago, cccjwh said:

Yes, I heard this talking point before. The founding father were traitors to England. England doesn't go around naming their military base after them. Because that would be stupid. Feel free to look into how the military base got their names. There is a good book Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause that goes into to some of it. You can remember the past without honoring traitors to your country.

You should remember who Benning was.

Henry Benning never served a day of his life in the US military. 

Henry Benning was ardent secessionist.

Henry Benning thought the only way he could keep his slaves would be to dissolve the United States.

Henry Benning help Georgia seceded from the USA.

Henry Benning was a mediocre General who got his most of his men killed in the Battle of Chickmauga.

Henry Benning kill a bunch of US soldiers.

 

Why should any US military be named after him?

 

 

Him being held responsible for losing his men Chickamauga is a reach.  He was such a minor player in that conflict that name is not even mentioned as a participant in most accounts. 

Why are you so hung up on secessionists? There was much more weight put on states rights then there is today. Succession wasn't made "illegal" until after the war ended. 

Six Confederate generals owned slaves as did 5 Union generals. Ther were 141 black slave owners in the Carolinas. Slavery was the way of the word. Stop clinging to your white guilt slavery bullshit..

Why the fuck does it matter whether or not he served in the US army? He was Georgias native son, a legislator, judge, lawyer, and a general who fought in many fierce battles, being himself wounded. 

 

[nickers]

4 minutes ago, FY56 said:

 

Him being held responsible for losing his men Chickamauga is a reach.  He was such a minor player in that conflict that name is not even mentioned as a participant in most accounts. 

Why are you so hung up on secessionists? There was much more weight put on states rights then there is today. Succession wasn't made "illegal" until after the war ended. 

Six Confederate generals owned slaves as did 5 Union generals. Ther were 141 black slave owners in the Carolinas. Slavery was the way of the word. Stop clinging to your white guilt slavery bullshit..

Why the fuck does it matter whether or not he served in the US army? He was Georgias son, a legislator, judge, lawyer, and a general who fought in many fierce battles, being himself wounded.

 

I would be more concerned about a player like Aaron Burr... He would fit right in with today's slime ball politicians, Like Biden,Pelosi,Clintons,etc... The guy was basically the first double agent spy in this country and a traitor. This guy was a social path who almost became POTUS.. Interesting personality Id say.. I still can't believe there hasn't been a feature film made of him...

[MLD Woody]

14 hours ago, FY56 said:

 Common sense to you is wiping out historical names, statues, and monuments? 

Many of which were erected during the civil rights movement just to shit on black people trying to be treated as equals? Using names that fought against the US and fought to keep slavery? 

Yeah, sounds like common sense 

[MLD Woody]

16 hours ago, Jax said:

Aren't we all traitors anyways? What was the American Revolution?

I'm pretty sure today, we can recognize the fact that the civil war was a war we wish didn't have to happen but it doesn't mean we ignorantly label people that fought in the war, no matter what side they were on, just because you want to tie it to some political movement of today. It was a different time for a young America.

To keep in context of renaming of military bases It seems as though some of the names were picked simply because of location, the south naming their own camps after southerners. At this point in time, who cares? These are still Americans and we can absolutely honor them for their place in battle instead of their political views, within reason.

These bases built their own reputation over time and that's whats connected to hearing their names, I doubt most people would even know who these bases were named for or cared until it served as some type of lame political movement. That's why people are protesting it, not for the actual names of who they represent, but because of the lame political reasons. Maybe the names do need changed, but given today's political environment, it might be best to show focus on greater needs such as oil, inflation and illegal immigration. Those hurt a lot worse than any name.

If we're going to erase anything attached to the name Benning, does that mean democrats get erased since he was one?

Much of the naming and stator erecting was done to send a message against the civil rights movement. Many are much newer than you'd think. 

Either way, pretty sure it is strange to honor traitors. Don't think England has anything named after colonists that fought them.

And yes, there are plenty of issues to work on. That doesn't mean you can't work on this. Much easier fix

[The Cysko Kid]

21 hours ago, cccjwh said:

I feel like your feelings don't mean shit to me. All I can say is scoreboard. Your traitors' names are going away. You keep on wishing your side had won the Slavers Rebellion.

 

Yeah, you know, im from ohio. We were unionites and in fact we pretty much won the civil war. I bet you didn't know that though because, you know, you're an idiot and you even attempting to insult me is like an actual maggot born in a stinking summer garbage can attempting to insult a mighty and resplendant cassowary. In other words, it doesn't mean much. 

[Jax]

Comparing England to naming anything to traitors is 100% different. We lived in North America, not on the mainland and all of us stayed here. Also, the 'traitors' won so it's even a different outcome.

We were talking about Benning and Bragg, they were opened in 1918. I don't think there was a civil rights movement back then. I'm going to assume that the majority of these names and statues happened before that as well and maybe only a handful 'might' have been named in counter to the civil rights movement. Though who cares, move on. The only reason it's an issue today is because of the political movement to falsely create this narrative of white supremacy. Normal society doesn't equate everything southern to slavery, in fact it's never on our minds. If you are hung up on slavery, there is a lot still going on today that maybe you could actually 'do' something about.

Also, it's an absolute big deal we're focused on these trivial matters because all the others are being ignored or made worse. Otherwise, you'd be correct though it's just not the case.

If these things were named to cause hurt then sure they should change, but a lot of people who are still Americans have southern heritage and they should absolutely be able to honor them in the ways they have. There is nothing wrong with southern pride, as Cysko said, we are from the north but we still recognize them as Americans and not traitors. It's such an elementary viewpoint not to understand the concept of a civil war.

What's even more absurd is changing all these Indian names, such as river and creeks. When I see those names I assume they refer to local tribes and it's a nice way to honor them. But it seems people want to twist their meanings to further their agendas.

Anyways, after these name changes it'll be great that the world can finally be at peace and we can all get along in harmony.

(I understand you may have head this talking point before but I assure you I just typed out my own common sense as these things you're bickering about don't mean enough to me for actual research, except to check on dates when the forts were named) So you know, just because you heard of a talking point doesn't somehow discount or trivialize it either. In any case, your counter was deficient. I'm also pretty sure there was no such recording as a US Army during the civil war, thus the title 'civil war'.

[The Cysko Kid]

23 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Always amazes me that conservatives, Real America loving conservatives, haven taken up the fight to preserve public honoring of figure from the confederacy. A group america went to war with. 

In their typical desperate reactionary freak out against change they've decided to hang their hats on traitors. 

"Own the libs" first. Mental gymnastics second. 

Not surprising. But unfortunate

The civil war was more or less the defining event in american history. I refuse to adhere it to the ridiculous tiktok mcdonalds politics of the 2020s and will not be joining the 20 year old transleftists in condensing everything into a game of final fantasy where there is only absolute good and absolute evil.

 

 

 

 

[MLD Woody]

9 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

The civil war was more or less the defining event in american history. I refuse to adhere it to the ridiculous tiktok mcdonalds politics of the 2020s and will not be joining the 20 year old transleftists in condensing everything into a game of final fantasy where there is only absolute good and absolute evil.

 

 

 

 

... Ok?

[MLD Woody]

9 hours ago, Jax said:

Comparing England to naming anything to traitors is 100% different. We lived in North America, not on the mainland and all of us stayed here. Also, the 'traitors' won so it's even a different outcome.

We were talking about Benning and Bragg, they were opened in 1918. I don't think there was a civil rights movement back then. I'm going to assume that the majority of these names and statues happened before that as well and maybe only a handful 'might' have been named in counter to the civil rights movement. Though who cares, move on. The only reason it's an issue today is because of the political movement to falsely create this narrative of white supremacy. Normal society doesn't equate everything southern to slavery, in fact it's never on our minds. If you are hung up on slavery, there is a lot still going on today that maybe you could actually 'do' something about.

Also, it's an absolute big deal we're focused on these trivial matters because all the others are being ignored or made worse. Otherwise, you'd be correct though it's just not the case.

If these things were named to cause hurt then sure they should change, but a lot of people who are still Americans have southern heritage and they should absolutely be able to honor them in the ways they have. There is nothing wrong with southern pride, as Cysko said, we are from the north but we still recognize them as Americans and not traitors. It's such an elementary viewpoint not to understand the concept of a civil war.

What's even more absurd is changing all these Indian names, such as river and creeks. When I see those names I assume they refer to local tribes and it's a nice way to honor them. But it seems people want to twist their meanings to further their agendas.

Anyways, after these name changes it'll be great that the world can finally be at peace and we can all get along in harmony.

(I understand you may have head this talking point before but I assure you I just typed out my own common sense as these things you're bickering about don't mean enough to me for actual research, except to check on dates when the forts were named) So you know, just because you heard of a talking point doesn't somehow discount or trivialize it either. In any case, your counter was deficient. I'm also pretty sure there was no such recording as a US Army during the civil war, thus the title 'civil war'.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/confederate-statues/

I would suggest you start by reading up on what you're taking about. 

 

 

What rivers are you talking about?

[FY56]

21 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Much of the naming and stator erecting was done to send a message against the civil rights movement. Many are much newer than you'd think. 

Either way, pretty sure it is strange to honor traitors. Don't think England has anything named after colonists that fought them.

And yes, there are plenty of issues to work on. That doesn't mean you can't work on this. Much easier fix

That is a deflection. Why are the colonists not traitors? 

To what foreign power did the Confederates owe their allegiance to or give secrets to?

"Traitor"  has a broad definition. -a person who gives away or sells secrets of his or her country, or someone who is not loyal to particular beliefs or friends:

By its definition, "traitor" would apply to you liberals who literally shit in the flag or are members of the American Communist party.

You people loosely use the word traitor today as it was used post-Civil War.

Traitor is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Benidict Arnold was a traitor to the Colonists, but a hero to the British.

[FY56]

21 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Many of which were erected during the civil rights movement just to shit on black people trying to be treated as equals? Using names that fought against the US and fought to keep slavery? 

Yeah, sounds like common sense 

Fair enough. However, there is an advantage in keeping the Civil Rights statutes around. Place a sign under each with the words "Democrats Did This".

Lest We forget! Right?

 

Btw, you guys have been going after Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson monuments and statues. Is that common sense too?

[calfoxwc]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:09 PM, MLD Woody said:

Always amazes me that conservatives, Real America loving conservatives, haven taken up the fight to preserve public honoring of figure from the confederacy. A group america went to war with. 

In their typical desperate reactionary freak out against change they've decided to hang their hats on traitors. 

"Own the libs" first. Mental gymnastics second. 

Not surprising. But unfortunate

your twisted beak might be "amazed" but it's fake amazement. You constantly characterize everything dishonestly, to make some kind of arrogant point.

    That is really infantile. You need to grow up someday.

It's called HISTORY, which you seem to never have learned.

Consider this - a church of folks divide into two "camps" over some religious issue. The church divides itself into

two different groups that can't live with the other's strong stance. So, the church divides into two different churches.

     It isn't uncommon - which side were "traitors" ? neither side.

America divided into two groups nationally. The various factor's that prompted the civil war - economics, slavery, and southern states power to overrule any federal authority if they wanted to - led to violence.

   Of course, the pro-slavery side - the south - was sickenly wrong. It was a war fought over how America was to go forward. There was no betrayal of their country - both sides were fighting for their country.

   The south was wrong, of course, but being wrong doesn't make them "traitors".

That is just another ploy by the left to redefine words to be able to use them as emotional "swords".

Great leaders of the south were ***wrong*** - but it doesn't mean that they weren't great leaders - doesn't mean that the history should be hidden.

   the leftwing haters of this forum continue to ignorantly blather words emotionally, ignoring the actual definitions of the words in favor of how they emotionally WANT those words to be defined.

  As with everthing else - how they FEEL is their reality. They betray science, and critical thinking every single time, it seems, on every single issue.

   It's sad.  

 

[nickers]

Cal , fuck it dude.. You're wasting your breath and energy.. Whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen regardless of what any of us feels or thinks.. Here's the bottom line if we're being objective here.. The have played us on both sides of the aisle... The spine has been bought off even... How can one side idly sit by and watch?..... It's too goddamn easy Cal.... I love your passion and I know you're a real patriot... Like you.. My attitude is fuck them... It's their mess now... They created it... Let them suffer the consequences... I'm just gonna continue to live the best I can with whatever time is left remaining in general for life... I just pray to God each day we find our sanity...

[MLD Woody]

4 minutes ago, nickers said:

Cal , fuck it dude.. You're wasting your breath and energy.. Whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen regardless of what any of us feels or thinks.. Here's the bottom line if we're being objective here.. The have played us on both sides of the aisle... The spine has been bought off even... How can one side idly sit by and watch?..... It's too goddamn easy Cal.... I love your passion and I know you're a real patriot... Like you.. My attitude is fuck them... It's their mess now... They created it... Let them suffer the consequences... I'm just gonna continue to live the best I can with whatever time is left remaining in general for life... I just pray to God each day we find our sanity...

Yep, might as well stop voting and let us create our own mess. Thanks 

[Westside Steve]

50 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Yep, might as well stop voting and let us create our own mess. Thanks 

So far so good; well or bad depending on how you see dystopia.

WSS 

[MLD Woody]

1 minute ago, Westside Steve said:

So far so good; well or bad depending on how you see dystopia.

WSS 

Sure. Whatever you say. Just make sure not to vote. 

[cccjwh]

On 4/23/2023 at 7:34 AM, FY56 said:

That is a deflection. Why are the colonists not traitors? 

To what foreign power did the Confederates owe their allegiance to or give secrets to?

"Traitor"  has a broad definition. -a person who gives away or sells secrets of his or her country, or someone who is not loyal to particular beliefs or friends:

By its definition, "traitor" would apply to you liberals who literally shit in the flag or are members of the American Communist party.

You people loosely use the word traitor today as it was used post-Civil War.

Traitor is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Benidict Arnold was a traitor to the Colonists, but a hero to the British.

Treason is defined in the US Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Yes, your traitors levying war against the United States of America. You can jump through loops to tried to justify their treason. But the letters of secession are clear, the traitors didn't want to give up their slaves.

Being a traitor is bad enough, but to committing treason so you can enslave people is even worse. It's slightly worse than defending these traitor's actions.

Traitor is defined simply. A traitor is someone who commits treason. But you keep on trying to defended your heroes. 

 

[FY56]

6 hours ago, cccjwh said:

Treason is defined in the US Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Yes, your traitors levying war against the United States of America. You can jump through loops to tried to justify their treason. But the letters of secession are clear, the traitors didn't want to give up their slaves.

Being a traitor is bad enough, but to committing treason so you can enslave people is even worse. It's slightly worse than defending these traitor's actions.

Traitor is defined simply. A traitor is someone who commits treason. But you keep on trying to defended your heroes. 

 

The  Confederates were pro-slavery, racists, and DEMOCRATS, therefore they are yours more than they are mine. 

The fact is that secession, which was legal, escapes you.

Treason, the only offense defined by the Constitution, is difficult to prove and rarely prosecuted.  One of the elements of treason is that the “defendant owes allegiance to the government,” which is why only U.S. citizens can be charged with it.  At the end of the civil war, it was uncertain as to the legal effect of secession on citizenship.

Were the Confederates U.S. citizens?  Consider the case of Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy’s president.

According to a 2017 article in Smithsonian (“The Trial of the Century that Wasn’t”), Davis was imprisoned without trial for two years at Ft. Monroe. (This led “some prominent Northerners,” the Washington Post says, to complain “that Davis was being denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.”)

Why the delay?  According to Smithsonian:

“In 1867, [Davis] was prepared to argue that he did not betray the country because once Mississippi left it, he was no longer a U.S. citizen.  ‘Everybody thought it was going to be the test case on the legality of secession,’ says Cynthia Nicoletti, a University of Virginia legal scholar [who is the author of] Secession on Trial…Serious people believed he had a chance of winning.”

In another article, Professor Nicoletti points out:

Official acts by the Union preceding and during the war, such as allowing for prisoner swaps and observing other rights of foreign governments under the law of nations, might have been used to bolster the argument for secession’s legitimacy.

(Additionally, in his fascinating essay published last summer, “Did Robert E. Lee Commit Treason?,” Princeton University Professor Allen C. Guelzo discusses these and other legal complications that a trial of Lee – who had also been charged with treason – would have raised at the time.)

In any event, experts tell us that the fear Davis “would be able to prove to a jury that the Southern secession of 1860 to 1861 was legal” was a key reason the government released him in May 1867.

[cccjwh]

On 4/24/2023 at 5:36 PM, FY56 said:

The  Confederates were pro-slavery, racists, and DEMOCRATS, therefore they are yours more than they are mine. 

The fact is that secession, which was legal, escapes you.

Treason, the only offense defined by the Constitution, is difficult to prove and rarely prosecuted.  One of the elements of treason is that the “defendant owes allegiance to the government,” which is why only U.S. citizens can be charged with it.  At the end of the civil war, it was uncertain as to the legal effect of secession on citizenship.

Were the Confederates U.S. citizens?  Consider the case of Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy’s president.

According to a 2017 article in Smithsonian (“The Trial of the Century that Wasn’t”), Davis was imprisoned without trial for two years at Ft. Monroe. (This led “some prominent Northerners,” the Washington Post says, to complain “that Davis was being denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.”)

Why the delay?  According to Smithsonian:

“In 1867, [Davis] was prepared to argue that he did not betray the country because once Mississippi left it, he was no longer a U.S. citizen.  ‘Everybody thought it was going to be the test case on the legality of secession,’ says Cynthia Nicoletti, a University of Virginia legal scholar [who is the author of] Secession on Trial…Serious people believed he had a chance of winning.”

In another article, Professor Nicoletti points out:

Official acts by the Union preceding and during the war, such as allowing for prisoner swaps and observing other rights of foreign governments under the law of nations, might have been used to bolster the argument for secession’s legitimacy.

(Additionally, in his fascinating essay published last summer, “Did Robert E. Lee Commit Treason?,” Princeton University Professor Allen C. Guelzo discusses these and other legal complications that a trial of Lee – who had also been charged with treason – would have raised at the time.)

In any event, experts tell us that the fear Davis “would be able to prove to a jury that the Southern secession of 1860 to 1861 was legal” was a key reason the government released him in May 1867.

 

I quoted the US Constitution and you google people that agree with your Lost Cause myth. I quoted the two US Presidents who were alive during the Slaver's Rebellion. The only people who need pardons for treason are traitors.

Oh no they were just democrats, they were also conservatives. 

But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. Lincoln Cooper Union Speech

They were also traitors. Lincoln thought so.

 During his presidency Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

President Johnson thought so.

Proclamation 179

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-179-granting-full-pardon-and-amnesty-for-the-offense-treason-against-the

 

The high level traitors held to request a pardon. They got their names in the paper.

There were 12,652 pardons issued by June 5, 1866. Under Johnson's "thirteenth" exemption the number of pardons was issued in this order: Virginia, 2,070; Alabama, 1,361; Georgia 1,228; Mississippi, 765; South Carolina, 638; North Carolina, 482; Texas, 269; Louisiana, 142; Tennessee, 93; Arkansas, 41; West Virginia, 39; Florida, 22; Kentucky, 11; Missouri, 10.^[6]

 

 

 

Who knows better?

The Presidents alive during the civil war that gave out the pardons for treason vs some asshoIes who was born 100 years after the fact?