@Darryl (a.) MLK Day is a National holiday, not a state one (b.) MLK did work in the State of Mississippi and fostered others to do the same.

And celebrating MLK day is not any form of racism nor does it "revise" anything; your own lens for viewing these things, friend, is cloudy.

*This [letter] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled.*

Two points. (1.) On the merits of the "prevailing view" -- this is a rather convenient way to look at slavery given the circumstances, eh? One could argue that there was plenty of convincing arguments outside of the South and border states in the post-Enlightenment period that intelligent people could have paid attention to in order to change their opinion. This wasn't the height of slavery on the planet, and there's a certain amount of fingers-in-your-ears justification in the "God-rules-it-righteous-specifically-here-on-this-Planatation-where-it's-making-me-money" argument that rings a bit hollow.

(2.) But, if that's really the prevailing wisdom that surrounds Lee, then he, therefore, fails any test that suggest he transcended his "class" or education, and doesn't deserve credit for being anything more. One could even judge him more harshly, given the exposure he apparently had to other places and ideas; the resulting fervor he put into arguing against and blaming abolitionists suggests he doubled-down on the received wisdom instead of somehow deeply questioning it. (I also think you could question the prominent historian's characterization of Lee's household, as there appears to be evidence that slavery under and around Lee was not nearly as pleasant as it's made out to be.)

*Why can't we celebrate Robert E. Lee for the values he represented rather than the minutiae of his life: that he represented a military leader who yearned for peace and was a strong proponent for reconciliation and reconstruction after the war, the president of what is now Washington and Lee University, and as a man who represented duty without ambition.*

You can, if you must. But why can't it be done without a state holiday? Lee wasn't a Mississippian, he didn't do anything particularly transcendent or powerful in the service of Mississippi, except insofar as he lead an army elsewhere in the unconstitutional rebellion that Mississippi also participated in... one which Mississippi undertook primarily to defend and further the institution of slavery.

The answer, in my opinion, is that Lee was the squeaky-cleanest symbol that the South could find when it was crafting the legend of the Lost Cause and we continue to deal with that fallout to this day. Lee may have been a great solider, but he fought on the wrong side and for the wrong reasons, and his "values" suggest nothing that made him more than middle-of-the-pack in nobility. So remember him gently, if you so desire, but I'd still think there's an argument against a state holiday.

*Robert E. Lee was a great man who was deeply troubled by the institution of slavery and the war. However, he put his belief in the democratic process and his duty to his state (his state voted to secede and called on him to be the general) before his own personal beliefs.*

and...

*Todd, I would suggest that you read more about Robert E. Lee before you make such a false comment that Lee would have a problem with MLK because he was black.*

The notion that Lee held strident anti-slavery opinions is... charitably... revisionism.

Lee seems clearly to have been held sway by the not-at-all unique "necessary evil" argument that had inherent in it an assumption of absolute white supremacy, and a call against any action (other than prayer) to change the institution:

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. <b>I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.</b> How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.” {emphasis mine}

Lee was a slaveholder himself, by some accounts ruthless in tracking down escaped slaves, and personally responsible for the discipline of the slaves owned both by himself and by his wealthy wife, including the lashings, the transactions, the buying and selling of people as chattel. When his wife's father's death freed his slaves in his will, Lee fought in court to make sure they remained in his service for five additional years.

He had harsh words for abolitionists and others who thought that slavery should be ended by somehow actually freeing the slaves and outlawing the practice. His preferred approach was... to wait.

"Considering the relation of master and slave, **controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country**, I would depreciate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." - Robert E. Lee, 1865 {emphasis mine}

So there's no reason to pretend that Lee was somehow transcendent in his view of slavery; he professed what was essentially the intellectual Southerner's religion-and-race justified viewpoint at the time, rooted in his version of Christianity and racial supremacy.

*But they are federal holidays all the same and, thus, fair game.*

Or they *would be* "fair game" if that's what we're talking about. But it's not. If anything, the suggestion on this thread would be to change the way the State of Mississippi recognizes a state holiday that coincides with a Federal one (that would continue to exist).

And it's only by manufacturing an illogical slippery slope argument that we can make it follow that were we to change the way Mississippi recognizes a particular state holiday, then next in line would be Christmas.

(Or, for that matter, Valentine's Day... if you get time off for Valentine's Day you must have a very unique working situation. :)

*Well, howdy, what other holidays can we get rid of or substitute for a more politically-correct version? Howzabout...oh, let's see... Valentine's Day? We already have to celebrate Black History Month in February so what do we need Valentine's Day for? Or are we just confining our discussion to Federal holidays?*

In fact, we're discussing official state holidays, yes. So... try again?

*Or are we just confining our discussion to Federal holidays? Hmm...we don't really need Christmas, do we? Let's make the some odd days of Kwanzaa the national holiday. Never mind that we've been celebrating Christmas for centuries.*

Who mentioned Christmas? Unless you're equating Robert E. Lee and Jesus Christ then this is non-sensical.

*Todd suggests that putting King and Lee in the same sentence is fraught. I agree. Lee would never willingly submit himself to be in the company of a misogynist.*

Maybe, but, let's face it, Lee's first problem would have been that King was **black**.

Bubba, that's not really an argument. Just because something has been done for a while doesn't mean it's the right thing to continue doing. And yes, people can celebrate or remember whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it needs to be an official state holiday . And putting King and Lee together in the same sentence, much less the same holiday, is fraught, at best.

@Bubba Let's follow the steps. Now you've walked away from your original link, which was debunked by the next one, and now you're embracing some carefully selected quotes in the debunk as evidence, even those the debunk basically tells you not to.

For instance, you seem to have left out of italics the line "it's <strong>impossible</strong> to compute exactly what the British violence crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does..." (emphasis mine) and then you cut off your italicized quote mid-sentence, because that section goes on to show how the murder rate is considerably higher in the U.S. which it seems to me is something we might worry about, along with whether or not easy access to guns plays a role in that.

So why is this gun lobby trope so problematic? From the <a href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio…">British Crime Survey</a> docs:

In the U.K., violent crime "contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim."

That's as opposed to the U.S, where, <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr…">according to the FBI</a>: "In the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."

I'm not sure there's a "there" there, unless its the suggestion that, in the U.S. things have to be *darned violent* before we charge you with a violent crime. That would at least suggest that, culturally, we're a more violent nation by comparison, if only because we literally consider fewer violent crimes "violent" than others do.

(Incidentally, there's also a whole issue with reporting and under-reporting between the U.S. and U.K. that suggests the Brits are much more likely to report crimes that Americans. And that doesn't say anything for a comparsion that would take into account socio-economics, population density, etc.)

More on Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_C…

*Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US.[16]*

and...

*Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[20]*

Bubba: Check out this debunk of more recent reporting based on the 2009 Daily Mail story you're linking...

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/20…

*What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)*

and...

*But he neglects to mention that Britain doesn’t just have fewer gun-related homicides–it has a dramatically lower murder rate all around. In 2010, the US had an average murder rate of 4.8 murders per 100,000 people–4 times higher than the UK’s rate of 1.2 per 100,000, and, coincidentally, the exact opposite of the impression that Swann gives viewers.*

Ironically countries like Britain and Canada seem to have much broader definitions of "violent" crime in the U.S., making your comparisons difficult. Murder rates might be the best comparison, and they're not favorable to your argument.

Robbie: Actually that sounds pretty good to me. A nice way to compromise. Sort of a "fast pass," although I think the sale/re-sale of any weapon designed with the primary function of killing humans should also go through a "title change"-like process.

And since we agree that CCW permitting is a useful process and might have the side benefit of streamlining regulation in the sales of guns, would there be an objection to permitting (perhaps well-regulated training, licensing, etc., as with cars) for any and all gun ownership?