703

The illegal ruling forcing the change of schools named for Jackson, Lee, and Ashby is being challenged. Click below to donate. Even schools named for Sherman could be changed by these standards. Every American should donate if possible. thecoalitionforbetterschools…

#Onthisday (11/10/1953) President Eisenhower praises the UDC for its new memorial to Lee and Jackson in DC. It was removed. Why? Because nobody would show the President's words.

The only body authorized to determine whether Lee committed treason is a VA jury—the same people who took Virginia out of the Union. Allen Guelzo’s insistence on labeling Lee a traitor sounds like the reasoning of a child who has never read the Constitution. Article III requires a trial in the state where the alleged offense occurred, before a jury of peers; no such conviction ever occurred because a Virginia jury of the period would have rejected the charge. If the Confederacy was merely a rebellion, then Lincoln’s violations of the Constitution were orders of magnitude worse: the blockade without congressional declaration, the arbitrary arrests of dissenters, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the suppression of free speech in the North. Both Lincoln and Lee supported colonization to send free blacks to Africa or the Caribbean; Lincoln pursued this policy actively during the war—yet only mentions it reference to Lee! Guelzo also recycles the disputed Arlington whipping story, treating contested secondary accounts as settled fact. Guelzo is advancing a claim that the major Northern historians of the past century rejected. James Ford Rhodes, Edward Channing, Samuel Eliot Morison, and Allan Nevins treated the war as a profound national tragedy rooted in unresolved constitutional questions about secession and federal power, not as a simple case of individual treason by Southern officers. When historians discard the constitutional definition of treason and the practical reality that no Confederate leader was successfully convicted, they reduce themselves to the level of a random moron repeating slogans. This selective moralizing is precisely why public respect for professional historians has collapsed: the public can see that the same standards are not applied to Lincoln’s wartime measures or to the Union’s own violations of rights. Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, John Pershing, and Calvin Coolidge all expressed respect for Lee as a soldier and a man who accepted defeat and worked for reconciliation. Eisenhower in particular called him one of the supremely gifted men produced by the nation and displayed his portrait. These figures did not honor traitors; they recognized that the constitutional status of secession remained an open question until 1865 and that Lee’s decision reflected loyalty to his state amid that ambiguity. PragerU’s decision to platform Guelzo’s one-word verdict of “treason” places the organization in a more thoroughly disloyal position than Lee ever occupied, because it discards the historical and legal context that earlier generations of Americans—including Union leaders—understood. By reducing a complex constitutional conflict to a cartoonish accusation of treason while ignoring Lincoln’s parallel departures from the Constitution, PragerU has abandoned any pretense of serious historical education. The video does not clarify the past; it substitutes moral posturing for the documentary record that once commanded respect.