Uh what. Given that Lincoln said the secession was null and void, they weren't "foreign soldiers".
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
Wasn't that the same bullshit reasoning though that lead to the premature end of reconstruction and set the stage for Jim Crow to hold sway for the next 80 years or so?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Uh what. Given that Lincoln said the secession was null and void, they weren't "foreign soldiers".
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
Wasn't that the same bullshit reasoning though that lead to the premature end of reconstruction and set the stage for Jim Crow to hold sway for the next 80 years or so?
No, that was the election of 1876, which was actually even more of a clusterfuck than 2000. Results were disputed, the Democrats gave the Presidency to Hayes in exchange for Reconstruction ending.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Uh what. Given that Lincoln said the secession was null and void, they weren't "foreign soldiers".
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
Wasn't that the same bullshit reasoning though that lead to the premature end of reconstruction and set the stage for Jim Crow to hold sway for the next 80 years or so?
No, that was the election of 1876, which was actually even more of a clusterfuck than 2000. Results were disputed, the Democrats gave the Presidency to Hayes in exchange for Reconstruction ending.
Hmm... why did I think Johnson used the reasoning that since the south never actually succeeded, there was no further need for reconstruction? Maybe I made that up? Or maybe some half thought piece of garbage from an intro history class.... nevermind. I'm woefully uneducated in this area.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Johnson wanted to be even more lenient than Lincoln, because he was a (border) southern Democrat, but the radical Republicans wanted to be really really harsh and got their way because Johnson was an ineffectual asshole and Republicans had massive majorities. And then they impeached him for being an ineffectual asshole, basically.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
As for the actual topic, I think he handled this pretty much right. Don't piss off non-racist Southerners needlessly while poking the racist ones in the eye by starting (presumably) a new tradition of making it a point to honor the African American Civil War vets.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
The claim was still made, though.
And I believe that it is dangerous to simply let revisionist claims stand unchallenged, because it leads others to accept them as fact (since no one said otherwise.)
In my experience, a decent portion of what many ascribe as racism is actually honest ignorance about a topic, and simple acceptance of what little information one has heard as being the facts.
Wait what, are you accussing me of racism? If not, learn how to choose your words more carefully in the future. Even if you're not your point is ridiculous but whatever.
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
The claim was still made, though.
And I believe that it is dangerous to simply let revisionist claims stand unchallenged, because it leads others to accept them as fact (since no one said otherwise.)
In my experience, a decent portion of what many ascribe as racism is actually honest ignorance about a topic, and simple acceptance of what little information one has heard as being the facts.
Wait what, are you accussing me of racism? If not, learn how to choose your words more carefully in the future. Even if you're not your point is ridiculous but whatever.
No, I think he's saying that the "pro-confederate troops arguement" isn't necessarily racist.
Uh what. Given that Lincoln said the secession was null and void, they weren't "foreign soldiers".
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
You should read more than the first half of a sentence.
They were foreign soldiers attacking the US at best and traitors at worst.
Either you agree with their argument and they were foreign soldiers or you don't and they were traitors. Either way they shouldn't be honored as if they were soldiers who died to protect the United States. They were soldiers that attacked the United States and who killed United States soldiers.
There were wars the US fought that weren't particularly just. Hell, the Iraq War wasn't particularly just. The fact that the Confederate cause was not only unjust but monstrous is not the point. The point is the "Confederate States of America" fought against the United States of America and the soldiers who rallied to its banner killed those very soldiers for whom the holiday was created.
One can make excuses that the Confederates had no choice (even though Southerners fought for the Union), that they missed the point of secession (but they didn't) or they were pawns in a rich man's war. But for this situation those (incorrect IMO) arguments are irrelevant. They made war on the USA. They are no more United States soldiers than John Walker Lindh.
Uh what. Given that Lincoln said the secession was null and void, they weren't "foreign soldiers".
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
You should read more than the first half of a sentence.
They were foreign soldiers attacking the US at best and traitors at worst.
Either you agree with their argument and they were foreign soldiers or you don't and they were traitors. Either way they shouldn't be honored as if they were soldiers who died to protect the United States. They were soldiers that attacked the United States and who killed United States soldiers.
There were wars the US fought that weren't particularly just. Hell, the Iraq War wasn't particularly just. The fact that the Confederate cause was not only unjust but monstrous is not the point. The point is the "Confederate States of America" fought against the United States of America and the soldiers who rallied to its banner killed those very soldiers for whom the holiday was created.
One can make excuses that the Confederates had no choice (even though Southerners fought for the Union), that they missed the point of secession (but they didn't) or they were pawns in a rich man's war. But for this situation those (incorrect IMO) arguments are irrelevant. They made war on the USA. They are no more United States soldiers than John Walker Lindh.
Yeah, because the United States has no history of insurgency against an oppressive government.
Uh what. Given that Lincoln said the secession was null and void, they weren't "foreign soldiers".
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
You should read more than the first half of a sentence.
They were foreign soldiers attacking the US at best and traitors at worst.
Either you agree with their argument and they were foreign soldiers or you don't and they were traitors. Either way they shouldn't be honored as if they were soldiers who died to protect the United States. They were soldiers that attacked the United States and who killed United States soldiers.
There were wars the US fought that weren't particularly just. Hell, the Iraq War wasn't particularly just. The fact that the Confederate cause was not only unjust but monstrous is not the point. The point is the "Confederate States of America" fought against the United States of America and the soldiers who rallied to its banner killed those very soldiers for whom the holiday was created.
One can make excuses that the Confederates had no choice (even though Southerners fought for the Union), that they missed the point of secession (but they didn't) or they were pawns in a rich man's war. But for this situation those (incorrect IMO) arguments are irrelevant. They made war on the USA. They are no more United States soldiers than John Walker Lindh.
Yeah, because the United States has no history of insurgency against an oppressive government.
1 - The Confederate states were not oppressed.
2- And more relevantly -
It's like you don't understand the basic concept of a civil war.
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
The daughters of the Confederacy is a pretty awful group, seeking to whitewash the slavery issues in the Civil War. I've had to do some layouts for some of their publications and they go so far as to imply slaves were treated nicely by slaveowner and that justifies the practice.
But we shouldn't forget that the average confederate soldier was most likely not personally invested in slavery. Slaves were predominately owned by a select few wealthy landowners. Your average southern soldier was most likely about as racist as your northern soldier of the time. And while we shouldn't glorify or condone the reasons for the war, we shouldn't just say "oh well you fought for the wrong side, your a horrible person and deserve no respect".
The confederacy was a pile of poor people fighting against their own interests because a few rich white folks wanted to keep their workforce.
The poor in the South were screwed regardless of what happened.
So honest question, how does this differ from doing the same for say the Nazis? Is there a certain cut off when we go 'alright, that is just too fucked up a cause'? I mean it's not like the average german soldier at the time fought because they god damn hated those filthy jews, or were even aware of the camps.
It doesn't. Honoring Hitler in Germany doesn't happen. Honoring the poor farmboy that got drafted into Germany's army to "fight for his homeland" does.
If there's gonna be a distinct line about how to treat a soldier based on the wars he fought, then let's go ahead and tear down our Vietnam and Korea war memorials and let every returning Iraq vet know that they're a bunch of jackasses.
At least today, though, assuming that the majority of troops are fully aware of what they're fighting for feels just a little too optimistic.
You would be wrong and our recent excursions into Iraq is proof.
Do we send wreaths to people who fought on the side of the British?
Dunno.
It would be a nice gesture.
These civil war threads are always fun. You rarely get to see such seething contempt for America that some people display in these threads.
Soldiers ARE murdered in war. It just turns out, disgustingly I should say, that people think that murder during war is justified murder. It is still murder, though.
Well, obviously that was a matter of interpretation, given that the whole reason for the Confederacy was the conflict between the federal government's exercise of power and the states' desire for self-determination (in terms of the South's slave-based economy).
That's why it was called the War of Northern Aggression. That's why Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis". That's why the Daughters of the Confederacy put that moronic inscription on all of the memorials.
Do we send wreaths to people who fought on the side of the British?
We do not, nor do to the British lay wreaths to the fallen American soldiers from the Revolutionary War on Remembrance Day.
Maybe we should. Maybe we should remember that the people fighting on the other side aren't weird distant "others" but are human beings like us fighting with roughly the same motivations as us to defend their home and loved ones, fighting with the same courage and bravery as us, and risking the same suffering and death as us. That they are not foreign and distant but can be our very neighbours and countrymen. Maybe then, we wouldn't be so eager to rush blindly from war to war as soon as someone cries havoc.
It doesn't. Honoring Hitler in Germany doesn't happen. Honoring the poor farmboy that got drafted into Germany's army to "fight for his homeland" does.
If there's gonna be a distinct line about how to treat a soldier based on the wars he fought, then let's go ahead and tear down our Vietnam and Korea war memorials and let every returning Iraq vet know that they're a bunch of jackasses.
You sure about that? Didn't you know in Germany everyone's grandfather drove an ambulance in the war? German's tend to be somewhere between embarrassed and ashamed when WWII comes up and they don't really honor their dead Nazis that way. They have no equivalent to Memorial/Remembrance Day. The closest thing they have is Volkstrauertag which honors all war dead (civilian and military) and all victims of violence regimes. Can you guess why Germany would have that holiday instead of one celebrating its fallen soldiers? Part of it is they used to have a similar holiday under the Nazi regime, but part of it is that the Nazi regime was evil. Indeed, linking Volkstrauertag to the Nazi dead is highly controversial there as I understand it.
It's like you don't understand the basic concept of a civil war.
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
No, technically, the Union Army made war on the Confederacy. Lincoln considered the secession unlawful and ordered the Confederacy put down.
Reading through this thread has reignited a sense of US national pride in me. We might not have a very long history, but boy did a lot of shit happen. And not undisputed events either. Things that are debated at every step of the way. Like episodes of Lost or something. I'm not just talking about the Civil War obviously. I've slowly lost my grasp on why history textbooks were so thick.
It doesn't. Honoring Hitler in Germany doesn't happen. Honoring the poor farmboy that got drafted into Germany's army to "fight for his homeland" does.
If there's gonna be a distinct line about how to treat a soldier based on the wars he fought, then let's go ahead and tear down our Vietnam and Korea war memorials and let every returning Iraq vet know that they're a bunch of jackasses.
You sure about that? Didn't you know in Germany everyone's grandfather drove an ambulance in the war? German's tend to be somewhere between embarrassed and ashamed when WWII comes up and they don't really honor their dead Nazis that way. They have no equivalent to Memorial/Remembrance Day. The closest thing they have is Volkstrauertag which honors all war dead (civilian and military) and all victims of violence regimes. Can you guess why Germany would have that holiday instead of one celebrating its fallen soldiers? Part of it is they used to have a similar holiday under the Nazi regime, but part of it is that the Nazi regime was evil. Indeed, linking Volkstrauertag to the Nazi dead is highly controversial there as I understand it.
You're several pages late to this particular party.
It doesn't. Honoring Hitler in Germany doesn't happen. Honoring the poor farmboy that got drafted into Germany's army to "fight for his homeland" does.
If there's gonna be a distinct line about how to treat a soldier based on the wars he fought, then let's go ahead and tear down our Vietnam and Korea war memorials and let every returning Iraq vet know that they're a bunch of jackasses.
You sure about that? Didn't you know in Germany everyone's grandfather drove an ambulance in the war? German's tend to be somewhere between embarrassed and ashamed when WWII comes up and they don't really honor their dead Nazis that way. They have no equivalent to Memorial/Remembrance Day. The closest thing they have is Volkstrauertag which honors all war dead (civilian and military) and all victims of violence regimes. Can you guess why Germany would have that holiday instead of one celebrating its fallen soldiers? Part of it is they used to have a similar holiday under the Nazi regime, but part of it is that the Nazi regime was evil. Indeed, linking Volkstrauertag to the Nazi dead is highly controversial there as I understand it.
I'd imagine the Germans more than anyone can understand that you can't always be right, and that war is horrible for everyone, not just the guys on the same side of the line as you are. In that sense they're probably more enlightened about this than we are.
Well, obviously that was a matter of interpretation, given that the whole reason for the Confederacy was the conflict between the federal government's exercise of power and the states' desire for self-determination (in terms of the South's slave-based economy).
That's why it was called the War of Northern Aggression. That's why Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis". That's why the Daughters of the Confederacy put that moronic inscription on all of the memorials.
No its called that way because of revisionist history, largely generated by segregationists and racists who wanted to romanticize the bigoted treason of their forefathers.
The massively obvious confusion here is that the South is now part of the USA. And so their descendants and hometowns are part of the USA now.
Large parts of the Southwest were part of Mexico before the Mexican-American war. We don't lay wreaths at monuments to the Mexican dead from that war, or from any other Mexican wars either.
It's like you don't understand the basic concept of a civil war.
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
No, technically, the Union Army made war on the Confederacy. Lincoln considered the secession unlawful and ordered the Confederacy put down.
Your grasp of history sucks. The Confederacy firedfirst, the Confederacy was illegal and treasonous, and neither of those things changes the fact that the Confederate soldiers fought against the United States of America. You've swallowed the revisionist line of history invented from whole cloth that was used to justify segregation and whitewash slavery's fundamental and central role in the Civil War.
Well, obviously that was a matter of interpretation, given that the whole reason for the Confederacy was the conflict between the federal government's exercise of power and the states' desire for self-determination (in terms of the South's slave-based economy).
That's why it was called the War of Northern Aggression. That's why Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis". That's why the Daughters of the Confederacy put that moronic inscription on all of the memorials.
No its called that way because of revisionist history, largely generated by segregationists and racists who wanted to romanticize the bigoted treason of their forefathers.
Stop misusing the word treason. It's just eye-wateringly dumb.
The massively obvious confusion here is that the South is now part of the USA. And so their descendants and hometowns are part of the USA now.
Large parts of the Southwest were part of Mexico before the Mexican-American war. We don't lay wreaths at monuments to the Mexican dead from that war, or from any other Mexican wars either.
See if you can spot the difference between his post and yours.
It's like you don't understand the basic concept of a civil war.
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
No, technically, the Union Army made war on the Confederacy. Lincoln considered the secession unlawful and ordered the Confederacy put down.
Your grasp of history sucks. The Confederacy fired first, the Confederacy was illegal and treasonous, and neither of those things changes the fact that the Confederate soldiers fought against the United States of America. You've swallowed the revisionist line of history invented from whole cloth that was used to justify segregation and whitewash slavery's fundamental and central role in the Civil War.
The Confederate soldiers fought against half of the United States of America. They were the other half.
Well, obviously that was a matter of interpretation, given that the whole reason for the Confederacy was the conflict between the federal government's exercise of power and the states' desire for self-determination (in terms of the South's slave-based economy).
That's why it was called the War of Northern Aggression. That's why Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis". That's why the Daughters of the Confederacy put that moronic inscription on all of the memorials.
No its called that way because of revisionist history, largely generated by segregationists and racists who wanted to romanticize the bigoted treason of their forefathers.
Stop misusing the word treason. It's just eye-wateringly dumb.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
It's like you don't understand the basic concept of a civil war.
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
No, technically, the Union Army made war on the Confederacy. Lincoln considered the secession unlawful and ordered the Confederacy put down.
Your grasp of history sucks. The Confederacy firedfirst, the Confederacy was illegal and treasonous, and neither of those things changes the fact that the Confederate soldiers fought against the United States of America. You've swallowed the revisionist line of history invented from whole cloth that was used to justify segregation and whitewash slavery's fundamental and central role in the Civil War.
I'd fire first too if you wouldn't get off my property and your buddy was bringing you guns to shoot me with.
By your methods of picking and choosing history, I could rightfully claim that what South Carolina did was a pre-emptive measure.
It's like you don't understand the basic concept of a civil war.
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
No, technically, the Union Army made war on the Confederacy. Lincoln considered the secession unlawful and ordered the Confederacy put down.
Your grasp of history sucks. The Confederacy fired first, the Confederacy was illegal and treasonous, and neither of those things changes the fact that the Confederate soldiers fought against the United States of America. You've swallowed the revisionist line of history invented from whole cloth that was used to justify segregation and whitewash slavery's fundamental and central role in the Civil War.
No, the shots fired at Fort Sumter came after months of South Carolina telling the Union Army to vacate the state. You can thump your chest and rail about how the Confederacy was unAmerican and treasonous, but it's neither borne out by the facts of history, nor the opinions either of the President at the time nor any historian since.
Well, obviously that was a matter of interpretation, given that the whole reason for the Confederacy was the conflict between the federal government's exercise of power and the states' desire for self-determination (in terms of the South's slave-based economy).
That's why it was called the War of Northern Aggression. That's why Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis". That's why the Daughters of the Confederacy put that moronic inscription on all of the memorials.
No its called that way because of revisionist history, largely generated by segregationists and racists who wanted to romanticize the bigoted treason of their forefathers.
Stop misusing the word treason. It's just eye-wateringly dumb.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors.
Colonist troops took up arms against the United Empire of Britain.
Forget that it was for the cause of taxation. Forget all the BS sympathetic to the colonists, apologetic bullshit that gets taught at the high school level. Forget that people try to pretend the colonist soldiers weren't bigots of the worst kind fighting explicitly for the ability for -them- to tax or that the British were really the aggressors.
The Colonist soldiers took up arms against he United Empire of Britian. They were foreign soldiers attacking the UK at best and traitors at worst. The King shouldn't treat them as if they were british soldiers, equal to those who fought to forge the Kingdom, preserve the Monarchy, or defend the world from fascism.
fixed.
Memorial Day existed originally to honor the Union soldiers who were killed by the Confederate soldiers. It has since been expanded to include all the soldiers who died in service of the United States of America. The Confederate soldiers acted in direct contradiction of those goals and as such should not be treated the same as those who fought honorably in defense of the US.
While the original celeberation may have been Union specific, the ability to heal wounds and start moving on has been around for ages:
Many of the states of the U.S. South refused to celebrate Decoration Day, due to lingering hostility towards the Union Army and also because there were relatively few veterans of the Union Army who were buried in the South. A notable exception was Columbus, Mississippi, which on April 25, 1866 at its Decoration Day commemorated both the Union and Confederate casualties buried in its cemetery.[6]
Right now I'm wondering how many people in this thread that can't even being to forgive Confederate soldiers are from Union war states. As someone who lives in a state that was not in the Civil War, I have learned that what we are taught about the Civil War is the 'neutral' version, whereas Southern States have it as the 'War of Northern Aggression' and northern states it's taught with an equally loaded word.
It still suprises me that the same people that I see rationally shoot down the new wave of red-scare "You're a commie!" bullshit can't use the same ideals to forgive and move forward. Both sides committed treason, however committing treason is practically written into our ideals. The winning side should be compassionate towards the former enemy, not treat them like shit and destroy their existence like the Japanese did to the Koreans. I don't even really care about the saying on the Confederate memorial... what does it really matter? It's an opinion, and either way the Confederacy does not exist anymore. However, it seems some people that were not even alive during the War still want 'revenge' and want to keep it going.
It doesn't matter if you think the states were legally seceded or not. Americans shot and killed americans. Many being forced into combat. Life was hell for the farming families on the border states, as both sides would forcibly recruit their families into the battle. Union soldiers would come and take your sons, and when the Confederate soldiers came by, if they didn't get any sons for themselves they would torch your farm. And vice versa.
Laying a wreath at this godforsaken monument does not legitimize slavery, it does not promote war, it sends a message that people are sorry that it ever had to happen and that we recognize people that went through horrific times and deaths paid for our country's current status with their blood, no matter which side they were on.
Laying a wreath at this godforsaken monument does not legitimize slavery, it does not promote war, it sends a message that people are sorry that it ever had to happen and that we recognize people that went through horrific times and deaths paid for our country's current status with their blood, no matter which side they were on.
I'd fire first too if you wouldn't get off my property and your buddy was bringing you guns to shoot me with.
By your methods of picking and choosing history, I could rightfully claim that what South Carolina did was a pre-emptive measure.
Isn't that a whicked pissah?
Except it wasn't their property, the Confederates acknowledged the land was property of the United States government, they weren't bringing guns and the United States military had the right to travel on its own land you've got a point.
No, the shots fired at Fort Sumter came after months of South Carolina telling the Union Army to vacate the state. You can thump your chest and rail about how the Confederacy was unAmerican and treasonous, but it's neither borne out by the facts of history, nor the opinions either of the President at the time nor any historian since.
I can tell you to go fuck yourself, that doesn't give me the right to shoot you in the head if you don't.
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Or we could just go to Lincoln's address asking for a declaration of war and war funding. Opening paragraph.
It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law.
or later
Great honor is due to those officers who remained true despite the example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor and most important fact of all is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands but an hour before they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic instinct of plain people. They understand without an argument that the destroying the Government which was made by Washington means no good to them.
Posts
That's the whole fucking point of a civil war.
Why am I even responding to this stupid at 3 AM
Wasn't that the same bullshit reasoning though that lead to the premature end of reconstruction and set the stage for Jim Crow to hold sway for the next 80 years or so?
No, that was the election of 1876, which was actually even more of a clusterfuck than 2000. Results were disputed, the Democrats gave the Presidency to Hayes in exchange for Reconstruction ending.
Hmm... why did I think Johnson used the reasoning that since the south never actually succeeded, there was no further need for reconstruction? Maybe I made that up? Or maybe some half thought piece of garbage from an intro history class.... nevermind. I'm woefully uneducated in this area.
That's not all of them.
For instance there is no entry for the game based on the movie version of Gettysburg.
Wait what, are you accussing me of racism? If not, learn how to choose your words more carefully in the future. Even if you're not your point is ridiculous but whatever.
No, I think he's saying that the "pro-confederate troops arguement" isn't necessarily racist.
You should read more than the first half of a sentence. Either you agree with their argument and they were foreign soldiers or you don't and they were traitors. Either way they shouldn't be honored as if they were soldiers who died to protect the United States. They were soldiers that attacked the United States and who killed United States soldiers.
There were wars the US fought that weren't particularly just. Hell, the Iraq War wasn't particularly just. The fact that the Confederate cause was not only unjust but monstrous is not the point. The point is the "Confederate States of America" fought against the United States of America and the soldiers who rallied to its banner killed those very soldiers for whom the holiday was created.
One can make excuses that the Confederates had no choice (even though Southerners fought for the Union), that they missed the point of secession (but they didn't) or they were pawns in a rich man's war. But for this situation those (incorrect IMO) arguments are irrelevant. They made war on the USA. They are no more United States soldiers than John Walker Lindh.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah, because the United States has no history of insurgency against an oppressive government.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
1 - The Confederate states were not oppressed.
2- And more relevantly - We do not, nor do to the British lay wreaths to the fallen American soldiers from the Revolutionary War on Remembrance Day.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So what you're saying is that even though the Confederate soldiers did not fight for the United States Armed Forces, themselves explicitly claimed to not be part of the United States of America, made war on the United States of America, committing high treason in the effort, and fought against the very soldiers Memorial Day was intended to honor, they should be treated as if they had fought and died for the United States and not its dissolution?
Bullshit. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country just because they fought and died. They don't deserve to be honored alongside those who fought and died for this country because they fought and died against this country.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
The poor in the South were screwed regardless of what happened.
It doesn't. Honoring Hitler in Germany doesn't happen. Honoring the poor farmboy that got drafted into Germany's army to "fight for his homeland" does.
If there's gonna be a distinct line about how to treat a soldier based on the wars he fought, then let's go ahead and tear down our Vietnam and Korea war memorials and let every returning Iraq vet know that they're a bunch of jackasses.
You would be wrong and our recent excursions into Iraq is proof.
Dunno.
It would be a nice gesture.
These civil war threads are always fun. You rarely get to see such seething contempt for America that some people display in these threads.
Soldiers ARE murdered in war. It just turns out, disgustingly I should say, that people think that murder during war is justified murder. It is still murder, though.
No. They're from the South, a wretched hive of scum and villainy. They should be lucky that no one has unearthed their corpses for display.
That's why it was called the War of Northern Aggression. That's why Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis". That's why the Daughters of the Confederacy put that moronic inscription on all of the memorials.
You sure about that? Didn't you know in Germany everyone's grandfather drove an ambulance in the war? German's tend to be somewhere between embarrassed and ashamed when WWII comes up and they don't really honor their dead Nazis that way. They have no equivalent to Memorial/Remembrance Day. The closest thing they have is Volkstrauertag which honors all war dead (civilian and military) and all victims of violence regimes. Can you guess why Germany would have that holiday instead of one celebrating its fallen soldiers? Part of it is they used to have a similar holiday under the Nazi regime, but part of it is that the Nazi regime was evil. Indeed, linking Volkstrauertag to the Nazi dead is highly controversial there as I understand it.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No, technically, the Union Army made war on the Confederacy. Lincoln considered the secession unlawful and ordered the Confederacy put down.
Reading through this thread has reignited a sense of US national pride in me. We might not have a very long history, but boy did a lot of shit happen. And not undisputed events either. Things that are debated at every step of the way. Like episodes of Lost or something. I'm not just talking about the Civil War obviously. I've slowly lost my grasp on why history textbooks were so thick.
Boobees!
You're several pages late to this particular party.
I'd imagine the Germans more than anyone can understand that you can't always be right, and that war is horrible for everyone, not just the guys on the same side of the line as you are. In that sense they're probably more enlightened about this than we are.
No its called that way because of revisionist history, largely generated by segregationists and racists who wanted to romanticize the bigoted treason of their forefathers.
Large parts of the Southwest were part of Mexico before the Mexican-American war. We don't lay wreaths at monuments to the Mexican dead from that war, or from any other Mexican wars either.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Your grasp of history sucks. The Confederacy fired first, the Confederacy was illegal and treasonous, and neither of those things changes the fact that the Confederate soldiers fought against the United States of America. You've swallowed the revisionist line of history invented from whole cloth that was used to justify segregation and whitewash slavery's fundamental and central role in the Civil War.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
See if you can spot the difference between his post and yours.
The Confederate soldiers fought against half of the United States of America. They were the other half.
edit
No they weren't. They were those state governments who attacked the United States of America in an attempt to secede
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'd fire first too if you wouldn't get off my property and your buddy was bringing you guns to shoot me with.
By your methods of picking and choosing history, I could rightfully claim that what South Carolina did was a pre-emptive measure.
Isn't that a whicked pissah?
No, the shots fired at Fort Sumter came after months of South Carolina telling the Union Army to vacate the state. You can thump your chest and rail about how the Confederacy was unAmerican and treasonous, but it's neither borne out by the facts of history, nor the opinions either of the President at the time nor any historian since.
Only if you take their side of the issue. You can't have it both ways.
You first, jackass.
fixed.
While the original celeberation may have been Union specific, the ability to heal wounds and start moving on has been around for ages:
Right now I'm wondering how many people in this thread that can't even being to forgive Confederate soldiers are from Union war states. As someone who lives in a state that was not in the Civil War, I have learned that what we are taught about the Civil War is the 'neutral' version, whereas Southern States have it as the 'War of Northern Aggression' and northern states it's taught with an equally loaded word.
It still suprises me that the same people that I see rationally shoot down the new wave of red-scare "You're a commie!" bullshit can't use the same ideals to forgive and move forward. Both sides committed treason, however committing treason is practically written into our ideals. The winning side should be compassionate towards the former enemy, not treat them like shit and destroy their existence like the Japanese did to the Koreans. I don't even really care about the saying on the Confederate memorial... what does it really matter? It's an opinion, and either way the Confederacy does not exist anymore. However, it seems some people that were not even alive during the War still want 'revenge' and want to keep it going.
It doesn't matter if you think the states were legally seceded or not. Americans shot and killed americans. Many being forced into combat. Life was hell for the farming families on the border states, as both sides would forcibly recruit their families into the battle. Union soldiers would come and take your sons, and when the Confederate soldiers came by, if they didn't get any sons for themselves they would torch your farm. And vice versa.
Laying a wreath at this godforsaken monument does not legitimize slavery, it does not promote war, it sends a message that people are sorry that it ever had to happen and that we recognize people that went through horrific times and deaths paid for our country's current status with their blood, no matter which side they were on.
Beautifully put.
Except it wasn't their property, the Confederates acknowledged the land was property of the United States government, they weren't bringing guns and the United States military had the right to travel on its own land you've got a point.
I can tell you to go fuck yourself, that doesn't give me the right to shoot you in the head if you don't.
Your knowledge of what historians think is frankly non-existent. Both contemporaneously and generally historians view the attempted secession of the Confederacy as treason. Reconstruction was largely fought around reconciliation and the idea that the "reward of treason will be an increased representation"
Look at this volume
History of the Reconstruction Measures of the Thirty-ninth and Fortieth Congresses. 1865-68 It contains an accounting of the debates regarding what to do with the Confederate states. Over and over the Confederates are correctly named traitors guilty of treason. Go ahead, search it.
Or we could just go to Lincoln's address asking for a declaration of war and war funding. Opening paragraph. or later
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+