Political correctness has taken many forms of late resulting in the destruction of symbols of our history, both good and bad.

Author George Orwell lived through the tragic era of Josef Stalin in Russia and Adolf Hitler in Germany, and he observed the steps that led to the destruction of those countries.

In 1949, Orwell wrote a novel, set in Russia under Stalin, entitled “1984.” The novel was meant as a warning to all future readers.

A startling quote from Part Two, Chapter 5 should cause us concern:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture repainted, every statue and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day-by-day and minute-by-minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless Present in which the Party is always right.”

In the preface of the 1981 edition, Walter Cronkite said: “It has been said that ‘1984’ fails as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning ... Orwell’s terrible vision has been averted.”

Maybe the warning didn’t arrive on time, but has finally arrived in 2017.

In the appendix of the same 1981 edition, Erich Fromm, a German psychologist and sociologist, said: “Orwell wants to warn us, so ‘1984’ teaches us, the danger with which all men are confronted today, the danger of a society of automatons who will have lost every trace of individuality, of love, of critical thought, and yet who will not be aware of it …”

The 2016 edition of Orwell’s “1984” is on the required reading list in many Texas schools today indicating the high caliber of his writing.

Books like Orwell’s are powerful warnings and it would be most unfortunate if the reader smugly interpreted “1984” as another description of Stalinism and does not see that it means the United States, too.

Loretta Roberts, a high school counselor, lives in Kemah.

Locations

(51) comments

Emile Pope

The notion that removing monuments that were placed there not to inform about history, but to make a statement to some of its citizens that they had no constitutional rights whatsoever, is "erasing history" borders on laughable. The Germans removed all monuments to the Nazis and still people seem to remember them. You have monuments to the victors. You have monuments to the victims to remind people of what was done. But you never have monuments to the criminals that committed the acts. And who would want monuments of people rebelled against this country and fought to preserve an abomination?

Interesting how some people who call kneeling during the national anthem disrespectful to the flag and anthem have no problem with keeping a monument dedicated to people who fought against this country, fought against this flag, and murdered thousands of American citizens...

Carlos Ponce

"The Germans removed all monuments to the Nazis ..."
Not all.
"Nazi Memorial Embarrasses German Community"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/for-whom-the-bell-tolls-nazi-memorial-embarrasses-german-community-a-800003.html
And busts of Hitler are held in private collections:
"This is one of the first bronze art pieces that we managed to purchase from stock that was maintained by a German company in Gleiwitz, on the outskirts of Berlin."
http://germaniainternational.com/hitler20.html
And reproductions are readily available.
"PzG is dedicated to preserving the history of the largest war in human history by selling reproduction WW2 war stock without "politically correct" distortions for anyone interested in Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, WWII and Third Reich."
http://www.pzg.biz/bust_ww2_adolf_hitler.html
And you can buy authentic NAZI era coins bearing Hitler's likeness on eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=adolf+hitler+statue
And concentration camps still remain as a reminder of what occurred there:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/visiting-the-concentration-camps
http://auschwitz.org/en/visiting/
I suggest you re-read Orwell's 1984 to gain the full aspect of the futility of removing, rewriting history.
"Arlington House is the nation’s memorial to Robert E. Lee. It honors him for specific reasons, including his role in promoting peace and reunion after the Civil War. In a larger sense it exists as a place of study and contemplation of the meaning of some of the most difficult aspects of American History: military service; sacrifice; citizenship; duty; loyalty; slavery and freedom. "
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/a-national-memorial-to-robert-e-lee-gets-a-rewrite/537237/
Does a monument to Benedict Arnold exist in this country? Yes. "The Boot" -"an American Revolutionary War memorial located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga in the Continental Army." But his name isn't on the monument. But the inscription reads, "In memory of the most brilliant soldier of the Continental army, who was desperately wounded on this spot, winning for his countrymen the decisive battle of the American Revolution, and for himself the rank of Major General." But his name does appear on the "Benedict Arnold Expedition Memorial" in Anson, Maine:
http://maineanencyclopedia.com/anson/

Emile Pope

First of all, the Galveston statue isn't history. And no one has explained how removing those statues is "removing history". And in Germany, displaying a swastika or even giving a Nazi salute is illegal. Second, in 1984, the Ministry of Truth was responsible with changing the facts and printing lies. Now we have Fox doing that. The writer implies that correcting the false information with the truth is somehow Orwellian when it is in fact the opposite. The sad fact is that the people who want to keep the statue do so for the same reason that the people then wanted it put up in the first place...

Carlos Ponce

Emile posts, "First of all, the Galveston statue isn't history."
It displays a historical aspect of Galveston 1861-1865.
The statue portrays the soldiers of the Confederacy who were defeated, a broken sword in hand. How does not portray history? Isn't that the way you would want them portrayed - defeated? Now, if he was portrayed as triumphant that would be inaccurate.
The statue was erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy. They were happy to see their husbands, fathers, brothers returned home from the war.

Comments from other posters:
"People need to be reasonable and consider that the South, through the Confederate Army, was defending its people, land, homes, & possessions. "
Paula Flinn Jul 22, 2015 8:24am

"I did not advocate taking the statue down. It rightly honors the soldiers."
Gerhard Meinecke Aug 3, 2015 3:18pm

Emile Pope

It was put there to commemorate Jim Crow and oppression. It was put there after the Supreme Court legalized segregation and eliminated all protections for Black people living in the South. That's why they made it of a person that fought to do exactly that. Not only does that statue honor traitors but despicable human beings who fought to preserve the worst abomination in the history of man...

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "It displays a historical aspect of Galveston 1861-1865.
The statue portrays the soldiers of the Confederacy who were defeated, a broken sword in hand. How does not portray history?"

There you go again, Carlos, lying by omission. Why don't you tell everyone what is says on that statue?

Carlos Ponce

Emile post, " It was put there to commemorate Jim Crow and oppression." No. If you read the Galveston Daily News articles from 1911-1912 you would find this isn't so. I have already posted excerpts from these articles in previous posts. Go to the Rosenberg Library and pick up a free library card. With the library card number you can access newspaper archives free. I suggest starting with Galveston Daily News June 4, 1912 page 12.

Emile Pope

The reason stated is irrelevant since they weren't going to put down the real reason in print. Notice how you fail to mention that Black people who objected to the statue being put up were powerless to prevent it from being erected. You also fail to mention that there were two times in American history when there were numerous statues erected. The first was after the Plessy decision legalizing segregation and stripping away the rights of Black southerners and the second was during the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's, I'm sure it was just a coincidence...

Carlos Ponce

Unless Emile was actually there you really don't know if the statement "Notice how you fail to mention that Black people who objected to the statue being put up were powerless to prevent it from being erected, " is true or not. Pure speculation based on.........NOTHING.
Did all actually object? The Galveston monument was erected to honor all who fought for the Confederacy and that includes many men of African descent.
http://blackconfederatesoldiers.com/

Emile Pope

"that includes many men of African descent". Garbage. Slaves brought along with their confederate owners weren't soldiers. And how many were these "many men"? False statements meant to support ridiculous positions are laughable...

Carlos Ponce

Emile "'that includes many men of African descent'. Garbage." Look it up yourself. You cannot change history. Oh, that's your goal: rewrite history. Very Orwellian!

Carlos Ponce

Emile, the men who fought for the Confederacy and buried in Galveston Cemeteries won't come out of their graves to get you. The statue in front of the old County Courthouse won't come down off his pedestal to get you.
When my parents were still alive I gave them a life size statue of a Golden Retreiver bought at Hallmark in Baybrook Mall. Mom named him "Happy". They kept him next to the television in the family room of their house. One day an elderly man visited them. As he sat in the family room he kept looking at "Happy". Finally he said, " I think that dog wants to bite me!" My parents explained that it was only a statue. The man reached out and touched it. It was only a statue.
How old were you when you discovered the statue in front of the courthouse was dedicated to the memory of Confederates? Until then it was only a statue that you had no fear of, no desire to remove it. Those men fought to protect their homes, their families, ie "the purest of motives". Think of what General Sherman did to Georgia. The thought of preserving slavery probably never crossed the minds of most.
Emile, it's only a statue, considered a work of art by many.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "The Galveston monument was erected to honor all who fought for the Confederacy and that includes many men of African descent."

Are you still trying to palm off that pernicious lie Carlos? I have previously shown you that your claim was a lie, but still you keep telling it.

_ It was not until March 1865—after a contentious debate that took place throughout the Confederacy—that the Confederate Congress passed legislation authorizing the enlistment of slaves who were first freed by their masters. Even those who finally came to support the legislation as the only alternative to defeat would have agreed with Howell Cobb: “If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” Other than a small number that briefly trained in Richmond, Virginia, no black men served openly and there is no evidence that the Richmond recruits saw the battlefield in the final weeks of the war. Throughout the postwar period and much of the 20th century, stories of loyal black Confederate soldiers were decidedly absent. _
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-myth-of-the-black-confederate-soldier

From an archived Houston Chronicle article:

_...when black Union soldiers rode into Richmond on April 3, they found two companies of black men beginning to train as potential soldiers. (When those black men had marched down the street in Confederate uniforms, local whites had pelted them with mud.) None got into the war, and Lee surrendered on April 9. Yes, thousands of African-American men did fight in the Civil War - about 179,000. About 37,000 of them died in uniform. But they were all in the Army (or Navy) of the United States of America. The Confederate veterans who were still alive in the generations after the war all knew that and said so. _
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/trclark.htm

From Civil War Memory:

_In recent years, Internet stories, textbooks, and even a Harvard professor have insisted that thousands of slaves took up arms and fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. And yet, after close to ten years of research, I have yet to find a single wartime account from a Confederate soldier or civilian demonstrating the presence of black Confederate soldiers in the army before the final weeks of the war in March 1865. Few people appear to be aware of the discrepancy between their own claims about the racial profile of the Confederate soldier and what actual Confederates experienced during the war and remembered long after the war ended. In short, the war that many Americans remember today would be unrecognizable by the very people who fought it._
http://cwmemory.com/searching-for-black-confederate-soldiers-the-civil-wars-most-persistent-myth/

Mark Aaron

Here is what Carlos omits telling you about the Civil War monument in Galveston titled "GLORY TO THE DEFEATED" which includes this inscription:

"There has never been an armed force
which in purity of motives intensity of
courage and heroism has equaled the
Army and Navy of the Confederate
States of America 1861-65"

The "Purity of Motive," of course, was the defense of slavery.

Mark Aaron

Emile: "False statements meant to support ridiculous positions are laughable..."

Carlos has an extensive history here of posting easily refuted lies to buttress his rightwing propaganda.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "Arlington House is the nation’s memorial to Robert E. Lee."

There you go again, Carlos, trying to pretend that a house is equivalent to a statue while defending treason and slavery.

Carlos Ponce

May I add, "The Party" is proud of your efforts, Emile.

Kelly Naschke

Emile really should educate himself before coming here to be corrected. Your opinions would carry far more weight if they were actually factual and not based on leftist propaganda, narrative, and rhetoric. And....any moment now Mark Aaron will show up and start the insults and name calling based on his inability to contribute anything constructive or substantive.

Mark Aaron

Kelly: " Your opinions would carry far more weight if they were actually factual and not based on leftist propaganda, narrative, and rhetoric. And....any moment now Mark Aaron will show up and start the insults and name calling based on his inability to contribute anything constructive or substantive."

I have yet to see you post a single link to any of your arguments Kelly. You just show up for any opportunity to impugn or vilify minorities or immigrants, or to pile on with the rest of the usual suspects. Or to bad mouth Liberals.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "May I add, "The Party" is proud of your efforts, Emile. "

While the KKK thanks you for the help and support, Carlos. They know they can always count on you to defend treason and White Supremacy.

PD Hyatt

The party "demon-crats" are the party of the KKK.... They are the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and then their crowning achievement is the enslavement of the masses back getting them to be totally dependent upon the government through welfare, SNAP and many other programs. that way they will vote the way of the party.... Yes you progressives should be proud of yourselves as the destruction party of the USA....

Josh Butler

The irony is that this fascist movement within the Democrat party likes to accuse people of being Nazis.

Mark Aaron

Josh: "The irony is that this fascist movement within the Democrat party likes to accuse people of being Nazis."

Same old GOP tactic of accusing others of what they are clearly guilty of to try to make it a "he said, she said" argument. So explain why your party leader Trump is the most reviled president in modern history Josh. Explain why a majority of Americans believe he is unfit to lead the nation.

Willis Briggs

[sleeping][sleeping][sleeping]

Josh Butler

Oh, man. I make a simple statement and somehow you twist it into diatribe about Trump. You really ought to see someone about that Trump derangement. He said, she said? What are you even talking about?

Mark Aaron

Josh: "You really ought to see someone about that Trump derangement."

Tell that to the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe Trump is unfit to serve. After that you might want to talk to someone about your serious case of delusion and denial as you pretend Trump isn't the most reviled president in modern US history. Don't believe me? Just check any poll.

http://www.pollingreport.com/djt_job.htm

PD Hyatt

Powerful article.... What a shame that a few who have tried to sound like they know history have no clue about what they are talking about.... The progressive leftist demon-crats have done such a good job in trying to rewrite our nations history. The truth is out there, but so many have been so deceived about the party who fought for slavery, who started the KKK and the Jim Crow laws and let us not forget that they are the ones who fought against de-segregation.... They are the same ones who have re-enslaved the masses to make them dependent upon the government for the food and shelter.... What many do not understand is that a government that is that big is big enough to take everything that they gave away and then some.... The progressive left has done such a wonderful job in dividing this nation and their sheep can not seem to see the truth nor hear it.... The Bible even tries to teach that my people perish for the lack of knowledge. Of course deception is on the rise just as it has been predicted from the beginning of time, and the progressive leftists have become grand masters in the art of deception!!!!

Mark Aaron

PD: "The progressive leftist demon-crats have done such a good job in trying to rewrite our nations history. "

"Demon-crats?" LOL, how old are you PD, fourteen?

"The progressive left has done such a wonderful job in dividing this nation and their sheep can not seem to see the truth nor hear it."

Last time I looked the Republican P arty was still a party of almost exclusively White people, while The Democratic party reflected the diversity of America. Gee, hope I didn't trigger you using the "D" word, ...diversity.

Jim Forsythe

Knowing that  " war is peace ,freedom is slavery,ignorance is strength"  helped by  
"A cage full of rats", torture me so much that "2 + 2 = 5" becomes true.   

Robert Braeking

The sticking point in ending slavery was not that it was an abomination. It was that the planters had a financial investment that the north just wanted to take completely away without concession or compensation. If today the north wanted to outlaw pickup trucks.....or better yet, pistols and require all pistols to be taken from the owners but offered no buy back or compensation then there would be a lot of pistol owners who would be mighty ticked off. THAT my friends, is what the civil war was all about......not to mention the lawlessness of Lincoln in getting it done.

Sharon Stratman

People = pickups or pistols. Interesting theory.

Emile Pope

Certain people...

Raymond Lewis

Mr. Pope, you are smack on point.

Carlos Ponce

Sharon Sratman, you have to remember while drafting the Constitution representatives from the non-slave states, the North, equated slaves with cattle, oxen, horses, chickens. It was the slave holding states that wanted each slave counted for enumeration and the allotment of Representatives. The compromise was the three-fifths rule which lessened the political presence of slave owning states in the House of Representatives.

Emile Pope

Which proves the hypocrisy of the South. If slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, that means that every five slaves counted as three people. Were these three people allowed to vote, own property, have rights? No. The South wanted them counted as people so they could increase their political power to pass laws and appoint judges to deny rights to the very individuals they wanted counted as persons. So not only were they traitors and murderers, but hypocrites.

Mark Aaron

Emile: " So not only were they traitors and murderers, but hypocrites."

Exactly.

Carlos Ponce

Emile posts: "Were these three people allowed to vote, own property, have rights? No".
True. Slaves were not allowed but Free Black men could own property, even their own slaves. Some owned non-family but many bought and owned family members. This does not sit well with today's women who find the idea of a Free Back man legally owning his wife appalling.
In 1860 there were 261,918 free Blacks living in the South,
226,152 free Blacks living in the North according to the 1860 US Census.
"At no time before the Civil War (at least not after the first U.S. Census was taken in 1790 and future states were added) did free Blacks in the North ever outnumber those in the South!"
http://www.theroot.com/free-blacks-lived-in-the-north-right-1790897180
On voting:
"When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor." Even those that didn't exclude blacks debated doing so and had discriminatory ordinances on the local level."
http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm
So Blacks could only vote in 5 states, North and South included.

Robert Braeking

Just my attempt to get you to see the mindset of those proponents of secession. Slavery was already going out of favor and was destined to end....especially after steam power and mechanical gins. Few wanted to continue the practice of slavery but the means of production could not be compromised. The disagreement was not on the end game but the means to that end.

Carlos Ponce

Gerhard Meinecke wrote a letter to the editor dated July 22, 2015
"Inscription on Confederate statue is the real issue"
He wrote: "While the purity of that motive may be in question, let the statue continue to honor our men on those battle fields..."
He later wrote in response on August 3, 2015 on the forum of his letter:
"I did not advocate taking the statue down. It rightly honors the soldiers."
My response to his initial letter:
Jul 22, 2015 6:38am
"Gerhard, if the words 'purity of motives' troubles you then do some research. Go to the time of the statue's unveiling.
From the Galveston Daily News June 4, 1912 Page 12
'Imposing Ceremony Marks Unveiling'
Address by Charles B. Macgill, nephew of Gen. J. E. B. Stuart: 'Because it
was their duty to themselves, their country and their God to defend their homes
against the invasion of those who would usurp that most sacred safeguard of personal liberty, the inherent and cherished constitutional right of a free people to govern themselves, the confederates sacrificed all save honor. For four long years, with an army numbering at the most not 900.000 men.poorly armed and equipped, without resources and without reserve forces, they held in check, and in most battles defeated the best armed, equipped and organized army on earth, numbering: three million men or more, with resources and reserve forces unlimited. From first Mananas to Appomattox were fought the bravest and bloodiest battles the world has known.'
'Purity of motives' meant the defense of their homes, their farms, their cities, their states, their families."
That's the trouble with pseudo-intellectual revisionists. They do not research. They interpret motives and phrases out of context based on a modern day Liberal interpretation. To say "purity of motives" referred to slavery would be wrong based on speeches made at the dedication ceremony and the aim of the Daughters of the Confederacy to honor their fathers, brothers, husbands who fought for the South. Jim Crowe had nothing to do with it either.
And "personal liberty" referred to the 10th Amendment where power not given to the Federal government belongs to the states and the people.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Carlos Ponce

Confederate Soldiers were pardoned by Democratic President Andrew Johnson and Congress officially recognized them as US Veterans. It was a time of healing yet some Liberal pundits today call them "traitors".
Chelsea [nee Bradley] Manning was pardoned by Democratic President Barack Obama and Liberals see her as a champion. But Chelsea was denied entry into Canada because her actions for incarceration amount to treason.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chelsea-manning-canada-border-denied-1.4305670
I find the hypocrisy of Liberals amusing yet keeping in character.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "Confederate Soldiers were pardoned by Democratic President Andrew Johnson and Congress officially recognized them as US Veterans."

More Carlos lies and defense of treason. From Snopes:

_In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers, but did not grant them U.S. veteran status. Public Law 85-425 was passed 23 May 1958, entitling the widows of deceased Confederate soldiers (what few were left by 1958) to military pensions:_

Carlos also fails to mention that acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt.

Carlos Ponce

Some claim men of African descent were not allowed into the Confederate Army until 1865 but this does not account for those who fought for their states prior. An example is the 1st Louisiana Native Guard, a Confederate Louisianan militia that consisted of free persons of color. Formed in 1861 in New Orleans, Louisiana, it was disbanded on April 25, 1862 when Union forces overtook the city of New Orleans.
Black Confederate troops were noted in Frederick Douglass’ Monthly newspaper [August 1861 edition] as fighting at Manassas in July 1861. Douglas used the presence of Black Confederate troops to urge the Union to also incorporate Black troops.
March 13, 1865 was the day the Confederate Congress gave approval but not when Black troops first took up arms in defense of the South. Remember, militias were organized by individual states, not the central Confederate government.

Jim Forsythe

Chelsea was denied entry into Canada because her sentence was commuted, That is not the same as a pardon, which absolves a citizen of a conviction. Manning, served years in confinement before her commutation, and still  has her crime on her record

Carlos Ponce

Ok, Chelsea's sentence was commuted. That makes it even worse when Liberals hold pardoned Confederates with disdain but hold up a commuted sentence Chelsea with esteem.
"a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness"
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions
while
"The President's clemency power includes the authority to commute, or reduce, a sentence imposed upon conviction of a federal offense"
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/commutation-instructions

Mark Aaron

Carlos: ""a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness" "

Funny how you fail to mention that when talking about Confederate traitors, isn't it Carlos?

Jim Forsythe

Most former Confederate soldiers, received amnesty by President Johnson.
This document is a Presidential pardon issued by President Andrew Johnson. It was signed on July 5, 1866 by both President Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward. 
The year before, President Johnson had issued a proclamation on May 29, 1865, extending amnesty to most former Confederate soldiers. Despite the term "amnesty", the move was somewhat punitive on Johnson's part. He wanted to allow the larger portions of the Confederate Army to receive amnesty while punishing those who played a more important and visible role in the Confederacy. 
If they qualified the soldier had to swear a loyalty oath to the United States and free any slaves that he owned. Not all soldiers qualified under this amnesty, as it excluded fourteen "classes" of individuals. The reasons for the exclusion varied and a soldier could be disqualified if they served as a Confederate officer and were educated at the United States Military Academy or Naval Academy. Excluded soldiers could still seek amnesty, but would have to file a petition with the President. John C. Shelton was a minor figure who was excluded from amnesty but filed a successful petition. 
Three years later on Christmas Day 1868 President Johnson granted amnesty to all those former Confederates who did qualify under previous proclamations and who did not receive a formal pardon.

Carlos Ponce

The provisions of the amnesty were inconsequential since many just moved west and took on a new identity. No punishment. Unlike Johnny Yuma they did not wear their Confederate caps after the war.
"Joseph Wheeler, a Confederate cavalry general in the Civil War, went on to serve as a major-general during the Spanish-American war and forgetting himself in the heat of a battle yelled 'Let's go, boys! We've got the damn Yankees on the run again!'.' He also served during the Philippine–American War.

Jim Forsythe

"The provisions of the amnesty were inconsequential since many just moved west and took on a new identity." Then, Liberals can not hold pardoned Confederates with disdain. 

Carlos Ponce

"Then, Liberals can not hold pardoned Confederates with disdain." But they do. I recommend that Confederate haters not look to far into their family tree - there just might be a Confederate in their ancestry.

Jim Forsythe

If most received amnesty and most moved West, how can they hold pardoned Confederates with disdain, if most were not Pardon.
When you say Confederate haters, whom are you speaking of ? If you are speaking of statue removal, you are aware that of Republicans (23%) and of Independents (21%) share this opinion of statue removal. and  Democrat are at 52% for removal.
This is far from a Liberal issue.

Carlos Ponce

"If most received amnesty and most moved West, how can they hold pardoned Confederates with disdain..."
Ask them. Some are on GCDN forums. They call them "traitors", "murderers" and "despicable human beings". Check the posts. The pardoned are long dead and buried. They cannot harm anyone.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.