1) show me where it was proven that any common confederate soldier was party to a treasonous plot
Remember? All soldiers in a war fully support the ideals of the architects behind the war! All German soldiers in WWII hated Jews. All American soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts had an undying love of Capitalism. All American soldiers in Iraq believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was linked to Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11. And, even though they didn't actually benefit from slavery or actually owned slaves, the majority of the poor, dirt farming, Confederate Soldiers hated black people and threw themselves in the line of fire and into horrible war conditions to make sure they can keep the black man down.
All Confederate soldiers levied war against the United States. That by definition makes them party to treason.
Also, all the soldiers who signed up to fight in Iraq wanted to depose Saddam. Given that the Confederacy attacked the Union immediately after its creation, and conscription was only introduced in the final days of the war, all the soldiers who died signed up to fight in the Civil War. All the soldiers who signed up to fight for the Confederacy wanted to create a state created for the purpose of and only differed from the Union in the preservation of slavery. Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
If the Confederacy was invalid: They were part of a treasonous plot and thus not American soldiers.
1) show me where it was proven that any common confederate soldier was party to a treasonous plot
2) show me where the penalty for that treason was loss of citizenship or recognition as having been soldiers.
the confederacy was already shown to be invalid so i'm not gonna even worry about the other side.
it's absolute insanity to try and argue that a confederate soldier was not a part and party to treason.
it's also insane to try and argue that a soldier who takes arms against its elected government and nation is still a soldier of that nation.
it's like saying we were still british soldiers when we took arms against britain.
i mean grasping at straws is one thing, but this is becoming absurd, almost surreal. first someone argues that lincoln didn't consider confederate soldiers traitors, despite his own recorded speeches. now someone is trying to argue that a person taking arms against the elected government is not treason and that he is still a part of that elected government's army.
are you seriously trying to argue that a confederate soldier was a part of the united states of america's army? seriously? i bet if a confederate soldier were alive today, he himself would vehemently disagree with you.
i bet a confederate soldier would also say that the confederate states of america was a legitimate government.
you don't get the arguement because you are using the wrong tense. 'still are' is not the same as 'were'.
they should be honored because they were americans who were soldiers. nothing you said changes that or even challenges it.
If the Confederacy was invalid: They were part of a treasonous plot and thus not American soldiers.
1) show me where it was proven that any common confederate soldier was party to a treasonous plot
2) show me where the penalty for that treason was loss of citizenship or recognition as having been soldiers.
the confederacy was already shown to be invalid so i'm not gonna even worry about the other side.
it's absolute insanity to try and argue that a confederate soldier was not a part and party to treason.
it's also insane to try and argue that a soldier who takes arms against its elected government and nation is still a soldier of that nation.
it's like saying we were still british soldiers when we took arms against britain.
i mean grasping at straws is one thing, but this is becoming absurd, almost surreal. first someone argues that lincoln didn't consider confederate soldiers traitors, despite his own recorded speeches. now someone is trying to argue that a person taking arms against the elected government is not treason and that he is still a part of that elected government's army.
are you seriously trying to argue that a confederate soldier was a part of the united states of america's army? seriously? i bet if a confederate soldier were alive today, he himself would vehemently disagree with you.
i bet a confederate soldier would also say that the confederate states of america was a legitimate government.
you don't get the arguement because you are using the wrong tense. 'still are' is not the same as 'were'.
they should be honored because they were americans who were soldiers. nothing you said changes that or even challenges it.
They were part of the rebel alliance and a traitor... take them away!
No, but seriously, they were traitors. The fact that they believed in their cause really, really strongly, or that we can be magnanimous in victory doesn't change the fact.
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?'
Ignoring all of the issues of treason and morality, I'm not entirely convinced that the Confederacy wasn't a legitimate government that seized half of the territory in the U.S. and got the shit kicked out of it for it for doing so.
I, Abraham Lincoln... do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath
I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and except in cases where legal proceedings under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion have been instituted;
For instance, CSA Lt. General Joseph Wheeler became a US Maj. General and served in the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
I, Abraham Lincoln... do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath
I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and except in cases where legal proceedings under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion have been instituted;
For instance, CSA Lt. General Joseph Wheeler became a US Maj. General and served in the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
But they died before the citizenship was restored.
I, Abraham Lincoln... do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath
I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and except in cases where legal proceedings under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion have been instituted;
For instance, CSA Lt. General Joseph Wheeler became a US Maj. General and served in the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
But they died before the citizenship was restored.
You can be pardoned posthumously. I remember Brian Schweitzer pardoning some Montana-ans who had been convicted of sedition during WWI.
Also - Johnson pardoned all Confederates unconditionally on December 25, 1868.
Given that the Confederacy attacked the Union immediately after its creation, and conscription was only introduced in the final days of the war, all the soldiers who died signed up to fight in the Civil War.
You can't have it both ways. If they aren't Americans, if you insist that a distiction exist between them, then the Confederacy did not attack first. By your logic, Fort Sumter was not property of the Union, and it being reinforced was a declaration of war by the Union, as assumed by Alexander Stephens.
Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
But they didn't. Because all soldiers in Iraq didn't necessarily support the reason we were there. Just like every Confederate soldier didn't enlist to perserve an institution that they didn't benefit from. It's highly more likely that a large portion volunteered to support what they deemed their homes. Robert E Lee is a good example of this.
All the soldiers who signed up to fight for the Confederacy wanted to create a state created for the purpose of and only differed from the Union in the preservation of slavery. Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
Given that the Confederacy attacked the Union immediately after its creation, and conscription was only introduced in the final days of the war, all the soldiers who died signed up to fight in the Civil War.
You can't have it both ways. If they aren't Americans, if you insist that a distiction exist between them, then the Confederacy did not attack first. By your logic, Fort Sumter was not property of the Union, and it being reinforced was a declaration of war by the Union, as assumed by Alexander Stephens.
Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
But they didn't. Because all soldiers in Iraq didn't necessarily support the reason we were there. Just like every Confederate soldier didn't enlist to perserve an institution that they didn't benefit from. It's highly more likely that a large portion volunteered to support what they deemed their homes. Robert E Lee is a good example of this.
All the soldiers who signed up to fight for the Confederacy wanted to create a state created for the purpose of and only differed from the Union in the preservation of slavery. Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
[/QUOTE]
Fort Sumter was federal property, meaning that it doesn't matter who the area around it swears allegiance to. Similarly, we are not allowed to invade the consulate of another country, not prevent them from sending food.
Also, look at what I was responding to.
All the soldiers who signed up to fight for the Confederacy wanted to create a state created for the purpose of and only differed from the Union in the preservation of slavery. Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
All the soldiers who signed up to fight for the Confederacy wanted to create a state created for the purpose of and only differed from the Union in the preservation of slavery. Hence, all the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy wanted to preserve slavery.
This is complete crap.
Did Confederate soldiers want to win?
Who knows? I'd be willing to bet most of them wanted to survive. While I don't buy the whole "War of Aggression" line the modern day Confederate apologists spout, really once the war itself started it didn't matter (at least to the average guy) whether it was a war of aggression or a necessary curtailing of an illegal rebellion or whatever; it was still a war and they were probably fighting because their families and home were directly being impacted. I mean, I'm sure that there were tons (maybe the vast majority) of Confederate soldiers who really believed in the divine right of slavery and were really into States rights over the federal government, but there had to be quite a few who were thinking, "Gee, the powers that be have decided to secede and now we are at fucking war, shit. Well, I could just sit around and look like a Jackass to all my friends neighbors and families while every other able bodied male I know goes off to die protecting the area I call home, or I could man up and ignore all of this politics crap and go fight the scary blue shirt guys who are, according to everything I hear, coming to rape pillage destroy and generally fuck my entire life up. Tough choice, there."
Why am I not suprised that there are people willing to defend the Confederacy even today?
Because the idea of rebellion has been romanticized since forever: the little guy vs. the big guy.
But the whole human slavery thing really sullies that romantic notion, when it comes to the Confederacy. So people who want to cling to their romanticized vision of the Confederacy (I think they call this 'The Lost Cause') convince themselves that it wasn't about slavery so they can continue to embrace the Confederacy without having to confront the slavery issue.
Apparently better than your actual reply, since you obviously don't understand the ambiguous nature of "it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service" and "include American casualties of any war or military action".
Basically, with this relatively neutral definition, you'll either have to contradict yourself and claim that Confederate soldiers were American soldiers and fall under the meaning of Memorial Day, or that the Confederacy was legit, they were not Americans but Confederates, and that what transpired at the beginning of the Civil War was an invasion by the Union.
You're not making any sense.
If the Confederacy was valid, then the soldiers who fought under its banner were no longer American. American in this context clearly means of the United States. That is made clear elsewhere, for instance in federal law
"(1) it is essential to remember and renew the legacy of Memorial Day, which was established in 1868 to pay tribute to individuals who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the United States and their families;
If they were fighting for a valid country called the Confederacy they weren't American. Indeed, part of the enlistment process was denouncing American citizenship
If the Confederacy was invalid and they retained "American" status (despite renouncing their citizenship), then they were not soldiers. Holding a gun doesn't make you a soldier.
1) show me where it was proven that any common confederate soldier was party to a treasonous plot
Remember? All soldiers in a war fully support the ideals of the architects behind the war! All German soldiers in WWII hated Jews. All American soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts had an undying love of Capitalism. All American soldiers in Iraq believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was linked to Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11. And, even though they didn't actually benefit from slavery or actually owned slaves, the majority of the poor, dirt farming, Confederate Soldiers hated black people and threw themselves in the line of fire and into horrible war conditions to make sure they can keep the black man down.
Show me where in the Constitution ideology has anything to do with treason.
You can't because it plainly says treason is levying war against the United States (or giving aid and comfort to its enemies). Your own desire to produce some kind of moral equivalency, protestations aside, make you push away what is plain fact.
Also - Johnson pardoned all Confederates unconditionally on December 25, 1868.
Bullshit. When you have to lie to support your argument you know you're on the wrong side. You either lied or didn't have basic reading abilities. Read your own link
To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and freedom may be established, I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except in cases where legal proceedings, under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion, have been instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath, (or affirmation,) and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:
I, _______ _______, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by, and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God.
Dead men can't take oaths. And pardons don't make someone not guilty.
It wasn't a legitimate government. The constitution doesn't have a provision for secession.
Nor did the British government at that time of the American Revolution, I would assume. Rebellions don't retroactively become legitimized or delegitimized depending on who wins. If the Confederacy had won, then it would be considered a legitimate government, even by those who the Confederacy would have had no power over. Since it is unlikely that they would undergo any massive structural changes immediately after the war, I'd say that it had to have been a legitimate government.
Whether it had any right to claim its territory, on the other hand...
I'd call that an attempted annexation of territory from the U.S, and a just cause of war. The Civil War was the U.S. taking back territory that had just been taken from it by a foreign power.
As far as the issue of treason on an individual level goes, how difficult is it to renounce one's citizenship? Do you need to already have another country that is willing to take you, or can you exist in a state where you aren't a citizen of anything, and thus completely incapable of treason? Or do we generally feel that renouncing citizenship shouldn't be done at all? Whether the Confederacy was legitimate or not, everyone in its army clearly felt that they were not citizens of the U.S., and if that actually was the case, I couldn't see how treason could be applied.
The whole situation was handled pretty oddly politically at the time. The status of the southern states after the war seemed like politically expedient unconstitutional bullcrap to me. Either they stopped being states completely and would have needed to go through the statehood process again, or they were states this whole time that just didn't bother sending elected officials to Washington. Since the southern states could have just turned down statehood and restoring them to normality would have resulting in giving up the control that they wanted, the Republicans resorted to violating the constitution just about as heavily as the south did when they seceded, if not worse.
There's a difference between forgiving someone for past actions and celebrating them
There's a difference between honoring a warrior and celebrating their war.
Can you give me a single reason to honor Confederate soldiers, whose families have been dead for over a century and whose institutions existed only during and for the express purpose of the Confederate cause, that doesn't have something to do with their war?
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the soldiers in this kind of war young men and boys barely getting out of their teens? Even if they were a bit older, they really had no choice but to fight for the side they lived on.
Sure there were probably loads of them who fought with less than honorable intentions, but none the less everyone who was in the war was American. I mean of course it sounds wrong when you say it's "honoring slave owners, etc." but it's really the idea that you are honoring the dead, people who died fighting for their land, etc. that seems right.
Maybe I am completely backwards, just thought I would post my opinion.
There's a difference between forgiving someone for past actions and celebrating them
There's a difference between honoring a warrior and celebrating their war.
Can you give me a single reason to honor Confederate soldiers, whose families have been dead for over a century and whose institutions existed only during and for the express purpose of the Confederate cause, that doesn't have something to do with their war?
He was my enemy and in his death, my nation was allowed to prosper. He was sacrificed for my future, for my existence, and though he may hate me and everything my skin color stands for, though he may be damned for his sins, I will still say a prayer.
It wasn't a legitimate government. The constitution doesn't have a provision for secession.
Nor did the British government at that time of the American Revolution, I would assume. Rebellions don't retroactively become legitimized or delegitimized depending on who wins. If the Confederacy had won, then it would be considered a legitimate government, even by those who the Confederacy would have had no power over. Since it is unlikely that they would undergo any massive structural changes immediately after the war, I'd say that it had to have been a legitimate government.
Whether it had any right to claim its territory, on the other hand...
I'd call that an attempted annexation of territory from the U.S, and a just cause of war. The Civil War was the U.S. taking back territory that had just been taken from it by a foreign power.
As far as the issue of treason on an individual level goes, how difficult is it to renounce one's citizenship? Do you need to already have another country that is willing to take you, or can you exist in a state where you aren't a citizen of anything, and thus completely incapable of treason? Or do we generally feel that renouncing citizenship shouldn't be done at all? Whether the Confederacy was legitimate or not, everyone in its army clearly felt that they were not citizens of the U.S., and if that actually was the case, I couldn't see how treason could be applied.
The whole situation was handled pretty oddly politically at the time. The status of the southern states after the war seemed like politically expedient unconstitutional bullcrap to me. Either they stopped being states completely and would have needed to go through the statehood process again, or they were states this whole time that just didn't bother sending elected officials to Washington. Since the southern states could have just turned down statehood and restoring them to normality would have resulting in giving up the control that they wanted, the Republicans resorted to violating the constitution just about as heavily as the south did when they seceded, if not worse.
The confederacy was still part of the Union, they just didn't want to admit it. The citizens, on the other hand, had renounced their citizenship, and so were foreign nationals. The funny thing about foreign nationals is that they still have to recognize a country's sovereignty while in that country.
There's a difference between forgiving someone for past actions and celebrating them
There's a difference between honoring a warrior and celebrating their war.
Can you give me a single reason to honor Confederate soldiers, whose families have been dead for over a century and whose institutions existed only during and for the express purpose of the Confederate cause, that doesn't have something to do with their war?
He was my enemy and in his death, my nation was allowed to prosper. He was sacrificed for my future, for my existence, and though he may hate me and everything my skin color stands for, though he may be damned for his sins, I will still say a prayer.
First, I don't see how he sacrificed for your future or existence. He sacrificed everything in the hope that the exact opposite would happen and failed.
But OK so you believe that Confederates should be honored in the same way, say al Qaeda or the Nazis should be honored, enemies who fought for a morally reprehensible cause but were still human. I just don't think it has anything to do with honoring US soldiers who died for this country.
It wasn't a legitimate government. The constitution doesn't have a provision for secession.
Immaterial. A sovereign state's legitimacy is not predicated on the prior laws of the society from which it emerges. Had independence resulted, they would have been an independent state, with full legitimacy and rights.
The citizens, on the other hand, had renounced their citizenship, and so were foreign nationals. The funny thing about foreign nationals is that they still have to recognize a country's sovereignty while in that country.
These declarations are... sort of irrelevant when they don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the power of the state you're proposing existed.
It wasn't a legitimate government. The constitution doesn't have a provision for secession.
Immaterial. A sovereign state's legitimacy is not predicated on the prior laws of the society from which it emerges. Had independence resulted, they would have been an independent state, with full legitimacy and rights.
The citizens, on the other hand, had renounced their citizenship, and so were foreign nationals. The funny thing about foreign nationals is that they still have to recognize a country's sovereignty while in that country.
These declarations are... sort of irrelevant when they don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the power of the state you're proposing existed.
All the states had ratified the constitution of the United States, which was the document that defined the nation (hence the name "constitution"). Given that the constitution has no clause for leaving the union, membership is permanent, and the entirety of the United States is under United States sovereignty. That means the only way to leave the sovereignty of the United States is to make the United States government forfeit its claim.
Eh, honor the Confederates just because. Just do it. Most of them didn't own slaves. Most of them got thrown into something they didn't understand. Also, that was a good war. Very entertaining, thanks History Channel.
All the states had ratified the constitution of the United States, which was the document that defined the nation (hence the name "constitution"). Given that the constitution has no clause for leaving the union, membership is permanent, and the entirety of the United States is under United States sovereignty. That means the only way to leave the sovereignty of the United States is to make the United States government forfeit its claim.
I am aware of what a constitution is. Consider, however, conquest - this invalidates the constitutional tradition of the conquered entity, whether the government of the conquered state agrees or not. So we know that the constitution of a country is not tied to ground, or to blood, but rather to the continuous state apparatus. And, ultimately, a constitutional tradition has power only because it is accepted to - the power of dissolution cannot be signed away, for instance, and authoritarian regimes can be entirely legitimate despite ignoring the laws on which they are founded. The laws of the land don't matter to the state when it chooses not to consider them.
All the states had ratified the constitution of the United States, which was the document that defined the nation (hence the name "constitution"). Given that the constitution has no clause for leaving the union, membership is permanent, and the entirety of the United States is under United States sovereignty. That means the only way to leave the sovereignty of the United States is to make the United States government forfeit its claim.
I am aware of what a constitution is. Consider, however, conquest - this invalidates the constitutional tradition of the conquered entity, whether the government of the conquered state agrees or not. So we know that the constitution of a country is not tied to ground, or to blood, but rather to the continuous state apparatus. And, ultimately, a constitutional tradition has power only because it is accepted to - the power of dissolution cannot be signed away, for instance, and authoritarian regimes can be entirely legitimate despite ignoring the laws on which they are founded. The laws of the land don't matter to the state when it chooses not to consider them.
The legitimacy of a rebellion lies entirely in the legitimacy of their grievances. As it says in the Declaration:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
The right of rebellion is contingent on actual legitimate grievances, of actual Despotism. Only when the tyranny of the government becomes illegitimate does rebellion become legitimate. The South was not oppressed. They didn't like that they would likely lose their control over the federal government when they lost an election. Even if their complaints about Lincoln were accurate and their cause just - and they weren't and it wasn't - it was hypothetical, and surely not sufficient to qualify as an absolute Tyranny or Despotism or anything resembling that. Thus the rebellion was illegitimate.
If the Confederacy was valid, then the soldiers who fought under its banner were no longer American. American in this context clearly means of the United States. That is made clear elsewhere, for instance in federal law
If they were fighting for a valid country called the Confederacy they weren't American. Indeed, part of the enlistment process was denouncing American citizenship
If the Confederacy was invalid and they retained "American" status (despite renouncing their citizenship), then they were not soldiers. Holding a gun doesn't make you a soldier.
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not necessarily making an argument, just pointing out your logical fallacy. Mainly, that the South were the entire instigators of the entire affair. If you believe the Confederacy to be invalid, then they are still American citizens, something you seem to not want to acknowledge. If the Confederacy was valid, then South Carolina had a legitimate reason to want Union troops out of Fort Sumter, something else you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Your entire argument is based on assumptions (All southerners fully supported the war effort based on slavery) and ideology (The South started the war because they were the unjust side) without any regard for what actually happened or actual human condition.
As for holding a gun not making you a soldier in 1866... Holding a gun and being a part of a militia, in 1866, largely meant you were a soldier.
Show me where in the Constitution ideology has anything to do with treason.
You can't because it plainly says treason is levying war against the United States (or giving aid and comfort to its enemies). Your own desire to produce some kind of moral equivalency, protestations aside, make you push away what is plain fact.
I didn't say anything about treason. I'm not making a moral equivalency. I'm just pointing out, in simple terms, why the idea that a soldier in a war inherently shares the exact same goals as their politicians is an absolute retarded assumption.
Can you give me a single reason to honor Confederate soldiers
Because they died in a horrible battle protecting their homeland.
Every culture shows reverence for it in some fashion.
But OK so you believe that Confederates should be honored in the same way, say al Qaeda or the Nazis should be honored, enemies who fought for a morally reprehensible cause but were still human. I just don't think it has anything to do with honoring US soldiers who died for this country.
I thought you were against making moral equivalencies in this thread? The Confederates, as reprehensible as it's values were, are not remotely on par with Al Qaeda or Nazi Germany's world wide fascistic ideals.
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the soldiers in this kind of war young men and boys barely getting out of their teens?
Yes. And in 1866 there were strong social obligations to join the war effort. And even then, if you refused, I can't see a young man sitting by while Sherman stole his live stock and raised his farm.
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not necessarily making an argument, just pointing out your logical fallacy. Mainly, that the South were the entire instigators of the entire affair. If you believe the Confederacy to be invalid, then they are still American citizens, something you seem to not want to acknowledge. If the Confederacy was valid, then South Carolina had a legitimate reason to want Union troops out of Fort Sumter, something else you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Your entire argument is based on assumptions (All southerners fully supported the war effort based on slavery) and ideology (The South started the war because they were the unjust side) without any regard for what actually happened or actual human condition.
As for holding a gun not making you a soldier in 1866... Holding a gun and being a part of a militia, in 1866, largely meant you were a soldier.
Except they weren't a militia. An American militia ultimately falls under the command of the President of the United States.
Memorial Day is for those US soldiers who paid the ultimate price in defense of the United States and its ideals. Confederates weren't American Soldiers, they were either Confederate soldiers and thus not American or traitors levying war against the United States and thus not soldiers. Therefore they shouldn't be honored. There is no logical fallacy there.
Show me where in the Constitution ideology has anything to do with treason.
You can't because it plainly says treason is levying war against the United States (or giving aid and comfort to its enemies). Your own desire to produce some kind of moral equivalency, protestations aside, make you push away what is plain fact.
I didn't say anything about treason. I'm not making a moral equivalency. I'm just pointing out, in simple terms, why the idea that a soldier in a war inherently shares the exact same goals as their politicians is an absolute retarded assumption.
Funny how you cut out the part of the quote where you did say something about treason.
1) show me where it was proven that any common confederate soldier was party to a treasonous plot
Remember? All soldiers in a war fully support the ideals of the architects behind the war! All German soldiers in WWII hated Jews. All American soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts had an undying love of Capitalism. All American soldiers in Iraq believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was linked to Al Qaeda, and was behind 9/11. And, even though they didn't actually benefit from slavery or actually owned slaves, the majority of the poor, dirt farming, Confederate Soldiers hated black people and threw themselves in the line of fire and into horrible war conditions to make sure they can keep the black man down.
See there where you took a statement indicating the Confederate soldiers weren't guilty of treason and then tacked on additional information in agreement with it?
Also if you don't believe the majority of Confederate soldiers hated black people and threw themselves in the line of fire and into horrible war conditions to make sure they can keep the black man down you've been swallowing all that propaganda I've been mentioning. That was the rallying cry. Slavery was portrayed for generations to poor white Southerners as a if not the defining aspect of Southern society and as the one rung of society that they could assure themselves that no matter how put upon they were that they were better than. Portraying them as innocent and mindless pawns as you seem intent to do is apologetic bullshit.
Can you give me a single reason to honor Confederate soldiers
Because they died in a horrible battle protecting their homeland.
Every culture shows reverence for it in some fashion.
Except they didn't. They died trying to overthrow their government. And a country generally doesn't honor those who died to defend some other homeland, especially when they fought against that country. And even if we granted that it doesn't follow that such honor should be bestowed on Memorial Day.
But OK so you believe that Confederates should be honored in the same way, say al Qaeda or the Nazis should be honored, enemies who fought for a morally reprehensible cause but were still human. I just don't think it has anything to do with honoring US soldiers who died for this country.
I thought you were against making moral equivalencies in this thread? The Confederates, as reprehensible as it's values were, are not remotely on par with Al Qaeda or Nazi Germany's world wide fascistic ideals.
I disagree. To me the desire to create a country whose cornerstone was "founded upon exactly the opposite idea [that all men are created equal]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" is certainly on par with the Nazis or al Qaeda regardless of the imperialistic ambitions or lack-thereof of said government.
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the soldiers in this kind of war young men and boys barely getting out of their teens?
Yes. And in 1866 there were strong social obligations to join the war effort. And even then, if you refused, I can't see a young man sitting by while Sherman stole his live stock and raised his farm.
Sherman only destroyed civilian resources when the locals fired upon him. The portrayal of Sherman's march to the sea as something monstrous or brutal is part of that Confederate mythology.
Except they weren't a militia. An American militia ultimately falls under the command of the President of the United States.
Uh, no. Go look up the definition of Militia and then come back.
Memorial Day is for those US soldiers who paid the ultimate price in defense of the United States and its ideals. Confederates weren't American Soldiers, they were either Confederate soldiers and thus not American or traitors levying war against the United States and thus not soldiers. Therefore they shouldn't be honored. There is no logical fallacy there.
No definition of Memorial Day that I've read is that specific, but merely "Any American that died in any war".
See there where you took a statement indicating the Confederate soldiers weren't guilty of treason and then tacked on additional information in agreement with it?
You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying that a soldier in a war doesn't inherently believe, 100%, the ideologies behind the architects of the war. The only way I'd be guilty of what you're trying to pin on me is if you believe treason to be some type of ideology of the Confederacy.
You can believe the Confederates to be guilty of treason.
Also if you don't believe the majority of Confederate soldiers hated black people and threw themselves in the line of fire and into horrible war conditions to make sure they can keep the black man down you've been swallowing all that propaganda I've been mentioning.
No.
You're just as guilty of stereotyping and revising in the favor of the Union as those that romanticized the South and ignored what was wrong with the Confederacy.
That was the rallying cry. Slavery was portrayed for generations to poor white Southerners as a if not the defining aspect of Southern society and as the one rung of society that they could assure themselves that no matter how put upon they were that they were better than. Portraying them as innocent and mindless pawns as you seem intent to do is apologetic bullshit.
I never said they were innocent, just that we shouldn't forget what was roughly half of the country because of a misguided war for reasons they didn't benefit from. A large portion of Confederates, and the South, shouldn't be vilified over the actions of the Aristocracy. Your hissy fit over an entire course of US history and how society has yet to completely brush it under the rug and forget about it is hilarious.
The rallying cry was that the Union was going to dismantle the Southern way of life, the Southern economy, the Southern political force, and destroy Southern farm lands. Which is largely what happened.
You can't expect anyone, especially in that era, to not take arms.
Again, I stress to you, the Civil War was a war of political control, nationalism, and money and the complexities within.
The Civil War was a war over political power. The North faced a crisis post Civil War and did not want to allow black people to vote. Post Civil War, blacks were counted as full citizens, which would increase the amount of Representatives from the South do to the Electoral College. This scared the hell out of Northern politicians who feared that the only recourse for the South's attempts to secede would be to regain their political power through the North's unintended consequences.
They died trying to overthrow their government.
Again, you're wrong on a fundamental level. The Confederacy wasn't a coup. The Confederacy was a secession to form a separate country on the continent.
And a country generally doesn't honor those who died to defend some other homeland, especially when they fought against that country. And even if we granted that it doesn't follow that such honor should be bestowed on Memorial Day.
Me, and apparently the President, think the opposite. So I'm happy with that.
I disagree. To me the desire to create a country whose cornerstone was "founded upon exactly the opposite idea [that all men are created equal]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" is certainly on par with the Nazis or al Qaeda regardless of the imperialistic ambitions or lack-thereof of said government.
Then don't whine about moral equivalences.
Sherman only destroyed civilian resources when the locals fired upon him.
Sherman had a scorched earth policy.
The portrayal of Sherman's march to the sea as something monstrous or brutal is part of that Confederate mythology.
Sherman himself estimated that he caused 100 million dollars worth of damage.
How is that mythological?
Look Pants, there's not much left for us to argue because we're gonna go around in circles, so I'll try to leave it there. No hard feelings, I appreciate the conversation as any excuse to discuss history and learn is good. We both agree that the institutions of the South were wrong and that the outcome was the best given the situation.
Also - Johnson pardoned all Confederates unconditionally on December 25, 1868.
Bullshit. When you have to lie to support your argument you know you're on the wrong side. You either lied or didn't have basic reading abilities. Read your own link
To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and freedom may be established, I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except in cases where legal proceedings, under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion, have been instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath, (or affirmation,) and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:
I, _______ _______, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by, and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God.
Dead men can't take oaths. And pardons don't make someone not guilty.
That link is about the 1865 conditional pardon. Later, in 1868, is when the much broader near-unconditional (it excluded persons under then-active indictment for treason in federal courts) pardon was given to Confederates.
After the war, Lincoln issued a proclamation of amnesty for those who had participated in the rebellion. Though Congress protested the leniency of the plan, it was helpless to alter or halt it. Lincoln's amnesty was limited, requiring a loyalty oath and excluding high-ranking Confederate officers and political leaders. Lincoln hinted at but never offered a broader amnesty. It was not until President Andrew Johnson's Christmas amnesty proclamation of 1868 that an unconditional amnesty was granted to all participants in the Civil War.
Obviously the post-war federal government was not at all interested in arresting tens of thousands of ex-Confederates and essentially de-populating half the country. Such a plan would be as stupid as than the modern day idea of "Let's round up all the Mexicans."
This wasn't an unprecedented move either, as the Civil War was not the first insurrection against the US government. The first Presidential pardon ever granted was by George Washington to participants of the Whiskey Rebellion.
John Adams pardoned members of the Fries Rebellion.
James Buchanan pardoned Brigham Young and other members of the Utah Rebellion.
Obama should just come and post in this thread about why he did this, and end it once and for all.
He didn't start it, Presidents have been doing it since Woodrow Wilson.
And it's a bit after the fact to say "we shouldn't honor X" when X is already buried in Arlington National Cemetery. It's like saying "We shouldn't honor those who persecuted Indians. Got change for a $20 bill?"
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Memorial Day is for those US soldiers who paid the ultimate price in defense of the United States and its ideals. Confederates weren't American Soldiers, they were either Confederate soldiers and thus not American or traitors levying war against the United States and thus not soldiers. Therefore they shouldn't be honored. There is no logical fallacy there.
No definition of Memorial Day that I've read is that specific, but merely "Any American that died in any war".
No that's not what Memorial Day is. Its a day for fallen soldiers, not all war dead.
For over two centuries, Americans have defended our Nation's security and protected our founding principles of democracy and equal justice under law. On Memorial Day, we honor those who have paid the ultimate price in defense of these freedoms.
Members of the United States Armed Forces have placed our Nation's safety before their own for generations. From the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, these brave patriots have taken on great risks to keep us safe, and they have served with honor and distinction. All Americans who have enjoyed the blessings of peace and liberty remain in their debt.
I never said they were innocent, just that we shouldn't forget what was roughly half of the country because of a misguided war for reasons they didn't benefit from. A large portion of Confederates, and the South, shouldn't be vilified over the actions of the Aristocracy. Your hissy fit over an entire course of US history and how society has yet to completely brush it under the rug and forget about it is hilarious.
The rallying cry was that the Union was going to dismantle the Southern way of life, the Southern economy, the Southern political force, and destroy Southern farm lands. Which is largely what happened.
You can't expect anyone, especially in that era, to not take arms.
No we shouldn't forget them. But neither should we whitewash them as you seem intent on doing. The actions of the Confederacy can't be blamed on "the Aristocracy." Popular support for secession was extremely high, as you yourself subsequently attest. Yet you would have us place all the blame at the feet of an easy-to-tar leadership.
"The Southern Way of Life" is a euphemism for slavery. At the time "peculiar institution" was at least as common but that's what it was. The "Southern economy" meant the slave economy. The talk of taking away their political force was clearly sour grapes and again meant slavery. There was no rhetoric of the US taking away people's farms, only in removing the "property rights" of Southerners who wanted to move to territories or Free States and retain their slaves.
And plenty of Southerners did refuse to fight. Sherman in his March to the Sea was personally escorted by a unit of Southerners who had remained loyal to the Union. Thousands of Southerners remained loyal and thousands of those born in the North went to fight for the South.
Again, I stress to you, the Civil War was a war of political control, nationalism, and money and the complexities within.
And all those things are so vague as to be true of any war and no war and completely meaningless. More specifically and relevantly the Civil War was about the South's insistence on the unchecked expansion of slavery and unwillingness to adhere to the law and the results of an election when it did not select their preferred candidate.
Sherman only destroyed civilian resources when the locals fired upon him.
Sherman had a scorched earth policy.
The portrayal of Sherman's march to the sea as something monstrous or brutal is part of that Confederate mythology.
Sherman himself estimated that he caused 100 million dollars worth of damage.
How is that mythological?
Because Sherman didn't, not as you mean it. Sherman's march is one of those things Confederate sympathizers have revised to make the North the bad guy.
IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
ed- And in most areas he was unmolested by the way.
Memorial Day is for those US soldiers who paid the ultimate price in defense of the United States and its ideals. Confederates weren't American Soldiers, they were either Confederate soldiers and thus not American or traitors levying war against the United States and thus not soldiers. Therefore they shouldn't be honored. There is no logical fallacy there.
No definition of Memorial Day that I've read is that specific, but merely "Any American that died in any war".
No that's not what Memorial Day is. Its a day for fallen soldiers, not all war dead.
But from the beginning, those soldiers included Confederate soldiers.
The first large observance was held that year at Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.
The ceremonies centered around the mourning-draped veranda of the Arlington mansion, once the home of Gen. Robert E. Lee. Various Washington officials, including Gen. and Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant, presided over the ceremonies. After speeches, children from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Home and members of the GAR made their way through the cemetery, strewing flowers on both Union and Confederate graves, reciting prayers and singing hymns.
Local Observances Claim To Be First
Local springtime tributes to the Civil War dead already had been held in various places. One of the first occurred in Columbus, Miss., April 25, 1866, when a group of women visited a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers who had fallen in battle at Shiloh. Nearby were the graves of Union soldiers, neglected because they were the enemy. Disturbed at the sight of the bare graves, the women placed some of their flowers on those graves, as well.
The thing is, Memorial Day isn't supposed to be about holding grudges from 150 years ago. "With malice toward none, with charity for all," and all that.
As for Sherman, he perhaps more than any ACW commander understood the monstrosity and brutality of war, famously describing it as "all hell" and "at its best, barbarism." I doubt he meant to include "except for the battles and sieges I wage." Part of the point of the Georgia campaign was to impress upon the Southern non-military population exactly what kind of calamity they had gotten into.
Memorial Day is for those US soldiers who paid the ultimate price in defense of the United States and its ideals. Confederates weren't American Soldiers, they were either Confederate soldiers and thus not American or traitors levying war against the United States and thus not soldiers. Therefore they shouldn't be honored. There is no logical fallacy there.
No definition of Memorial Day that I've read is that specific, but merely "Any American that died in any war".
No that's not what Memorial Day is. Its a day for fallen soldiers, not all war dead.
But from the beginning, those soldiers included Confederate soldiers.
For over 50 years Memorial Day was explicitly for Union soldiers! Confederate families were not allowed to visit Arlington to place flowers on the graves of Confederate soldiers into the 20th century. That account is just factually wrong, including placing Grant at Arlington in 1868, when the headline speaker was General James Garfield(before he was President), not Grant.
I know of nothing more appropriate on this occasion, than to inquire what brought these men here. What high motive led them to condense life into an hour, and to crown that hour by joyfully welcoming death? Let us consider.
Eight years ago this was the most unwarlike nation of the earth. For nearly fifty years, no spot, in апУ Â°f these States, had been the scene of battle. Thirty millions of people had an army of less than ten thousand men. The faith of our people in the stability and permanence of their institutions, was like their faith in the eternal course of nature. Peace, liberty, and personal security, were blessings as common and universal as sunshine, and showers, and fruitful seasons ; and all sprang from a single source—the principle declared in the Pilgrim covenant of 1620—that all owed due submission and obedience to the lawfully expressed will of the majority. This is not one of the doctrines of our political system—it is the system itself. It is our political firmament, in which all other truths are set, as stars in heaven. It is the encasing air; the breath of the nation's life. Against this principle the whole weight of the rebellion was thrown. Its overthrow would have brought snch ruin as might follow in the physical universe, if the power of gravitation were destroyed, and—
" Nature's concord broke,
Amorig the constellations war were sprung,
And planets, rushing from aspect malign
Of fiercest opposition, iu mid-sky
Should combat, and their jarring spheres confound."
The nation was summoned to arms, by every high motive which can inspire men. Two centuries of freedom had made its people unfit for despotism. They must save their Government, or miserably perish.
As a flash of lightning, in a midnight tempest, reveals the abysmal horrors of the sea, so did the flash of the first gun disclose the awful abyss into which rebellion was ready to plunge us. In a moment, the fire was lighted in twenty million hearts. In a moment, we were the most warlike nation on the earth. In a moment, we were not merely a people with an army—we were a people in arms. The nation was in column—not all at the front, but all in the array.
Another lesson which we review to-day is the oft-told tale of history, that no nation can live that is founded upon wrong.
There was a time when we refused to heed this warning. 'We stilled the voice of conscience, and defied the voice of God; we sought in the virtues of our fathers to find excuse for their errors: we put the Union before right, and with the memory of dead compromises sought to shut out the knowledge of living wrongs. We failed. Not until we stood squarely upon right and liberty did success follow our banners. Repenting of our sin, we live; while our foe, who clung to it, has perished.
That claim that Confederate dead were among the honored is baseless.
Posts
i bet a confederate soldier would also say that the confederate states of america was a legitimate government.
you don't get the arguement because you are using the wrong tense. 'still are' is not the same as 'were'.
they should be honored because they were americans who were soldiers. nothing you said changes that or even challenges it.
They were part of the rebel alliance and a traitor... take them away!
No, but seriously, they were traitors. The fact that they believed in their cause really, really strongly, or that we can be magnanimous in victory doesn't change the fact.
Except several thousand Confederates were pardoned, and thus restored to full American citizenship.
http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalEssays/PardonsII.html
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/AndrewJ.html
For instance, CSA Lt. General Joseph Wheeler became a US Maj. General and served in the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
But they died before the citizenship was restored.
You can be pardoned posthumously. I remember Brian Schweitzer pardoning some Montana-ans who had been convicted of sedition during WWI.
Also - Johnson pardoned all Confederates unconditionally on December 25, 1868.
You can't have it both ways. If they aren't Americans, if you insist that a distiction exist between them, then the Confederacy did not attack first. By your logic, Fort Sumter was not property of the Union, and it being reinforced was a declaration of war by the Union, as assumed by Alexander Stephens.
But they didn't. Because all soldiers in Iraq didn't necessarily support the reason we were there. Just like every Confederate soldier didn't enlist to perserve an institution that they didn't benefit from. It's highly more likely that a large portion volunteered to support what they deemed their homes. Robert E Lee is a good example of this.
Fort Sumter was federal property, meaning that it doesn't matter who the area around it swears allegiance to. Similarly, we are not allowed to invade the consulate of another country, not prevent them from sending food.
Also, look at what I was responding to.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Did Confederate soldiers want to win?
Who knows? I'd be willing to bet most of them wanted to survive. While I don't buy the whole "War of Aggression" line the modern day Confederate apologists spout, really once the war itself started it didn't matter (at least to the average guy) whether it was a war of aggression or a necessary curtailing of an illegal rebellion or whatever; it was still a war and they were probably fighting because their families and home were directly being impacted. I mean, I'm sure that there were tons (maybe the vast majority) of Confederate soldiers who really believed in the divine right of slavery and were really into States rights over the federal government, but there had to be quite a few who were thinking, "Gee, the powers that be have decided to secede and now we are at fucking war, shit. Well, I could just sit around and look like a Jackass to all my friends neighbors and families while every other able bodied male I know goes off to die protecting the area I call home, or I could man up and ignore all of this politics crap and go fight the scary blue shirt guys who are, according to everything I hear, coming to rape pillage destroy and generally fuck my entire life up. Tough choice, there."
Because the idea of rebellion has been romanticized since forever: the little guy vs. the big guy.
But the whole human slavery thing really sullies that romantic notion, when it comes to the Confederacy. So people who want to cling to their romanticized vision of the Confederacy (I think they call this 'The Lost Cause') convince themselves that it wasn't about slavery so they can continue to embrace the Confederacy without having to confront the slavery issue.
Just human nature.
If the Confederacy was valid, then the soldiers who fought under its banner were no longer American. American in this context clearly means of the United States. That is made clear elsewhere, for instance in federal law If they were fighting for a valid country called the Confederacy they weren't American. Indeed, part of the enlistment process was denouncing American citizenship
If the Confederacy was invalid and they retained "American" status (despite renouncing their citizenship), then they were not soldiers. Holding a gun doesn't make you a soldier.
Show me where in the Constitution ideology has anything to do with treason.
You can't because it plainly says treason is levying war against the United States (or giving aid and comfort to its enemies). Your own desire to produce some kind of moral equivalency, protestations aside, make you push away what is plain fact.
Bullshit. When you have to lie to support your argument you know you're on the wrong side. You either lied or didn't have basic reading abilities. Read your own link Dead men can't take oaths. And pardons don't make someone not guilty.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Nor did the British government at that time of the American Revolution, I would assume. Rebellions don't retroactively become legitimized or delegitimized depending on who wins. If the Confederacy had won, then it would be considered a legitimate government, even by those who the Confederacy would have had no power over. Since it is unlikely that they would undergo any massive structural changes immediately after the war, I'd say that it had to have been a legitimate government.
Whether it had any right to claim its territory, on the other hand...
I'd call that an attempted annexation of territory from the U.S, and a just cause of war. The Civil War was the U.S. taking back territory that had just been taken from it by a foreign power.
As far as the issue of treason on an individual level goes, how difficult is it to renounce one's citizenship? Do you need to already have another country that is willing to take you, or can you exist in a state where you aren't a citizen of anything, and thus completely incapable of treason? Or do we generally feel that renouncing citizenship shouldn't be done at all? Whether the Confederacy was legitimate or not, everyone in its army clearly felt that they were not citizens of the U.S., and if that actually was the case, I couldn't see how treason could be applied.
The whole situation was handled pretty oddly politically at the time. The status of the southern states after the war seemed like politically expedient unconstitutional bullcrap to me. Either they stopped being states completely and would have needed to go through the statehood process again, or they were states this whole time that just didn't bother sending elected officials to Washington. Since the southern states could have just turned down statehood and restoring them to normality would have resulting in giving up the control that they wanted, the Republicans resorted to violating the constitution just about as heavily as the south did when they seceded, if not worse.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Again, take a look at the monument sometime.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Can you give me a single reason to honor Confederate soldiers, whose families have been dead for over a century and whose institutions existed only during and for the express purpose of the Confederate cause, that doesn't have something to do with their war?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sure there were probably loads of them who fought with less than honorable intentions, but none the less everyone who was in the war was American. I mean of course it sounds wrong when you say it's "honoring slave owners, etc." but it's really the idea that you are honoring the dead, people who died fighting for their land, etc. that seems right.
Maybe I am completely backwards, just thought I would post my opinion.
He was my enemy and in his death, my nation was allowed to prosper. He was sacrificed for my future, for my existence, and though he may hate me and everything my skin color stands for, though he may be damned for his sins, I will still say a prayer.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
The confederacy was still part of the Union, they just didn't want to admit it. The citizens, on the other hand, had renounced their citizenship, and so were foreign nationals. The funny thing about foreign nationals is that they still have to recognize a country's sovereignty while in that country.
First, I don't see how he sacrificed for your future or existence. He sacrificed everything in the hope that the exact opposite would happen and failed.
But OK so you believe that Confederates should be honored in the same way, say al Qaeda or the Nazis should be honored, enemies who fought for a morally reprehensible cause but were still human. I just don't think it has anything to do with honoring US soldiers who died for this country.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Immaterial. A sovereign state's legitimacy is not predicated on the prior laws of the society from which it emerges. Had independence resulted, they would have been an independent state, with full legitimacy and rights.
And the difference between this and de jure separation is what, exactly?
These declarations are... sort of irrelevant when they don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the power of the state you're proposing existed.
All the states had ratified the constitution of the United States, which was the document that defined the nation (hence the name "constitution"). Given that the constitution has no clause for leaving the union, membership is permanent, and the entirety of the United States is under United States sovereignty. That means the only way to leave the sovereignty of the United States is to make the United States government forfeit its claim.
I am aware of what a constitution is. Consider, however, conquest - this invalidates the constitutional tradition of the conquered entity, whether the government of the conquered state agrees or not. So we know that the constitution of a country is not tied to ground, or to blood, but rather to the continuous state apparatus. And, ultimately, a constitutional tradition has power only because it is accepted to - the power of dissolution cannot be signed away, for instance, and authoritarian regimes can be entirely legitimate despite ignoring the laws on which they are founded. The laws of the land don't matter to the state when it chooses not to consider them.
The legitimacy of a rebellion lies entirely in the legitimacy of their grievances. As it says in the Declaration: The right of rebellion is contingent on actual legitimate grievances, of actual Despotism. Only when the tyranny of the government becomes illegitimate does rebellion become legitimate. The South was not oppressed. They didn't like that they would likely lose their control over the federal government when they lost an election. Even if their complaints about Lincoln were accurate and their cause just - and they weren't and it wasn't - it was hypothetical, and surely not sufficient to qualify as an absolute Tyranny or Despotism or anything resembling that. Thus the rebellion was illegitimate.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sure I am.
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not necessarily making an argument, just pointing out your logical fallacy. Mainly, that the South were the entire instigators of the entire affair. If you believe the Confederacy to be invalid, then they are still American citizens, something you seem to not want to acknowledge. If the Confederacy was valid, then South Carolina had a legitimate reason to want Union troops out of Fort Sumter, something else you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Your entire argument is based on assumptions (All southerners fully supported the war effort based on slavery) and ideology (The South started the war because they were the unjust side) without any regard for what actually happened or actual human condition.
As for holding a gun not making you a soldier in 1866... Holding a gun and being a part of a militia, in 1866, largely meant you were a soldier.
I didn't say anything about treason. I'm not making a moral equivalency. I'm just pointing out, in simple terms, why the idea that a soldier in a war inherently shares the exact same goals as their politicians is an absolute retarded assumption.
Because they died in a horrible battle protecting their homeland.
Every culture shows reverence for it in some fashion.
I thought you were against making moral equivalencies in this thread? The Confederates, as reprehensible as it's values were, are not remotely on par with Al Qaeda or Nazi Germany's world wide fascistic ideals.
Yes. And in 1866 there were strong social obligations to join the war effort. And even then, if you refused, I can't see a young man sitting by while Sherman stole his live stock and raised his farm.
Memorial Day is for those US soldiers who paid the ultimate price in defense of the United States and its ideals. Confederates weren't American Soldiers, they were either Confederate soldiers and thus not American or traitors levying war against the United States and thus not soldiers. Therefore they shouldn't be honored. There is no logical fallacy there.
Funny how you cut out the part of the quote where you did say something about treason. See there where you took a statement indicating the Confederate soldiers weren't guilty of treason and then tacked on additional information in agreement with it?
Also if you don't believe the majority of Confederate soldiers hated black people and threw themselves in the line of fire and into horrible war conditions to make sure they can keep the black man down you've been swallowing all that propaganda I've been mentioning. That was the rallying cry. Slavery was portrayed for generations to poor white Southerners as a if not the defining aspect of Southern society and as the one rung of society that they could assure themselves that no matter how put upon they were that they were better than. Portraying them as innocent and mindless pawns as you seem intent to do is apologetic bullshit.
Except they didn't. They died trying to overthrow their government. And a country generally doesn't honor those who died to defend some other homeland, especially when they fought against that country. And even if we granted that it doesn't follow that such honor should be bestowed on Memorial Day.
I disagree. To me the desire to create a country whose cornerstone was "founded upon exactly the opposite idea [that all men are created equal]; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" is certainly on par with the Nazis or al Qaeda regardless of the imperialistic ambitions or lack-thereof of said government.
Sherman only destroyed civilian resources when the locals fired upon him. The portrayal of Sherman's march to the sea as something monstrous or brutal is part of that Confederate mythology.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Uh, no. Go look up the definition of Militia and then come back.
No definition of Memorial Day that I've read is that specific, but merely "Any American that died in any war".
You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying that a soldier in a war doesn't inherently believe, 100%, the ideologies behind the architects of the war. The only way I'd be guilty of what you're trying to pin on me is if you believe treason to be some type of ideology of the Confederacy.
You can believe the Confederates to be guilty of treason.
No.
You're just as guilty of stereotyping and revising in the favor of the Union as those that romanticized the South and ignored what was wrong with the Confederacy.
I never said they were innocent, just that we shouldn't forget what was roughly half of the country because of a misguided war for reasons they didn't benefit from. A large portion of Confederates, and the South, shouldn't be vilified over the actions of the Aristocracy. Your hissy fit over an entire course of US history and how society has yet to completely brush it under the rug and forget about it is hilarious.
The rallying cry was that the Union was going to dismantle the Southern way of life, the Southern economy, the Southern political force, and destroy Southern farm lands. Which is largely what happened.
You can't expect anyone, especially in that era, to not take arms.
Again, I stress to you, the Civil War was a war of political control, nationalism, and money and the complexities within.
The Civil War was a war over political power. The North faced a crisis post Civil War and did not want to allow black people to vote. Post Civil War, blacks were counted as full citizens, which would increase the amount of Representatives from the South do to the Electoral College. This scared the hell out of Northern politicians who feared that the only recourse for the South's attempts to secede would be to regain their political power through the North's unintended consequences.
Again, you're wrong on a fundamental level. The Confederacy wasn't a coup. The Confederacy was a secession to form a separate country on the continent.
Me, and apparently the President, think the opposite. So I'm happy with that.
Then don't whine about moral equivalences.
Sherman had a scorched earth policy.
Sherman himself estimated that he caused 100 million dollars worth of damage.
How is that mythological?
Look Pants, there's not much left for us to argue because we're gonna go around in circles, so I'll try to leave it there. No hard feelings, I appreciate the conversation as any excuse to discuss history and learn is good. We both agree that the institutions of the South were wrong and that the outcome was the best given the situation.
That link is about the 1865 conditional pardon. Later, in 1868, is when the much broader near-unconditional (it excluded persons under then-active indictment for treason in federal courts) pardon was given to Confederates.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/4320/Amnesty.html
Obviously the post-war federal government was not at all interested in arresting tens of thousands of ex-Confederates and essentially de-populating half the country. Such a plan would be as stupid as than the modern day idea of "Let's round up all the Mexicans."
This wasn't an unprecedented move either, as the Civil War was not the first insurrection against the US government. The first Presidential pardon ever granted was by George Washington to participants of the Whiskey Rebellion.
John Adams pardoned members of the Fries Rebellion.
James Buchanan pardoned Brigham Young and other members of the Utah Rebellion.
He didn't start it, Presidents have been doing it since Woodrow Wilson.
And it's a bit after the fact to say "we shouldn't honor X" when X is already buried in Arlington National Cemetery. It's like saying "We shouldn't honor those who persecuted Indians. Got change for a $20 bill?"
No that's not what Memorial Day is. Its a day for fallen soldiers, not all war dead. No we shouldn't forget them. But neither should we whitewash them as you seem intent on doing. The actions of the Confederacy can't be blamed on "the Aristocracy." Popular support for secession was extremely high, as you yourself subsequently attest. Yet you would have us place all the blame at the feet of an easy-to-tar leadership.
"The Southern Way of Life" is a euphemism for slavery. At the time "peculiar institution" was at least as common but that's what it was. The "Southern economy" meant the slave economy. The talk of taking away their political force was clearly sour grapes and again meant slavery. There was no rhetoric of the US taking away people's farms, only in removing the "property rights" of Southerners who wanted to move to territories or Free States and retain their slaves.
And plenty of Southerners did refuse to fight. Sherman in his March to the Sea was personally escorted by a unit of Southerners who had remained loyal to the Union. Thousands of Southerners remained loyal and thousands of those born in the North went to fight for the South.
And all those things are so vague as to be true of any war and no war and completely meaningless. More specifically and relevantly the Civil War was about the South's insistence on the unchecked expansion of slavery and unwillingness to adhere to the law and the results of an election when it did not select their preferred candidate.
Because Sherman didn't, not as you mean it. Sherman's march is one of those things Confederate sympathizers have revised to make the North the bad guy.
ed- And in most areas he was unmolested by the way.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But from the beginning, those soldiers included Confederate soldiers.
http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=10411060
The thing is, Memorial Day isn't supposed to be about holding grudges from 150 years ago. "With malice toward none, with charity for all," and all that.
As for Sherman, he perhaps more than any ACW commander understood the monstrosity and brutality of war, famously describing it as "all hell" and "at its best, barbarism." I doubt he meant to include "except for the battles and sieges I wage." Part of the point of the Georgia campaign was to impress upon the Southern non-military population exactly what kind of calamity they had gotten into.
Was the March to the Sea a monstrosity? Yes, but no more than Shiloh or Antietam or Gettysburg.
From the second Memorial Day celebration, or Decoration Day as it was then called
That claim that Confederate dead were among the honored is baseless.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+