Honoring CSA Soliders

Should Confederate Soliders Be Honored?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 59.1%
  • No

    Votes: 27 30.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 9 10.2%

  • Total voters
    88
Status
Closed

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,892
Caribbean
By that logic we should honor SS soldiers because they were "fighting for their country".
Has someone put up a statute? lol

FWIW, when people insist that Davis is guilty, even though he is not, I start to think of the justice system like the one the SS came from. Guilt by connotation? You know the word "connote" is not even in Black's Law Dictionary? Of course, you do. That's why you criticized that weak argument.

But yes, of course one could use that logic, to defend the SS, but it might not fit the fact pattern. Maybe you forgot that part, because it is just so much fun to make Nazi references.
 
Jun 2019
67
Chicago Suburbs
Has someone put up a statute? lol

FWIW, when the tell me Davis is guilty, I start to think of the justice system like the one the SS came from. Guilt by connotation? You know the word "connote" is not even in Black's Law Dictionary? Of course, you do. That's why you criticized that weak argument.

But yes, of course one could use that logic, to defend the SS, but it might not fit the fact pattern. Maybe you forgot that part, because it is just so much fun to make Nazi references.
Be careful. Read my post again. I didn't say the pardon connoted guilt. I said it connoted Johnson declaring that the rebels were traitors. There is a huge difference.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,892
Caribbean
Be careful. Read my post again. I didn't say the pardon connoted guilt. I said it connoted Johnson declaring that the rebels were traitors. There is a huge difference.
Point taken,. I did take some liberties.

But you could acknowledge that between
- guilt by connotation, and
- Presidential proclamation connoting guilt;
is not exactly a "huge" difference. Not nearly as "huge" as the difference between guilty and innocent. Or the difference between what is a legal fact and what is connoted.
 
Jun 2019
67
Chicago Suburbs
Point taken,. I did take some liberties.

But you could acknowledge that between
- guilt by connotation, and
- Presidential proclamation connoting guilt;
is not exactly a "huge" difference. Not nearly as "huge" as the difference between guilty and innocent. Or the difference between what is a legal fact and what is connoted.
Point also taken. But let's take a look. The US Constitution defines treason as 1. Making war on the United States. 2. Giving aid and comfort to those making war on the United States and 3. Adhering to those enemies of the United States. Which one of those 3 offenses did Davis and his minions NOT commit?
 
Likes: Zip
Feb 2011
1,060
Scotland
William Wallace in Edinburgh

I guess you must anticipate where I am going with this. Wallace was declared a traitor, and yet has statutes in his home "state" of Scotland. Not even President Jefferson Davis of the CSA was declared a traitor, no less the average private or corporal. I Should the Americans be any less tolerant of CSA soldiers than England is toward a Scottish traitor in allowing statutes?
Hi,

Yes, there is a Wallace/Bruce gate monument in Edinburgh; there are several statues about Scotland, the principal one being the Wallace Monument at Stirling, site of his major victory.

I'm not convinced the comparison is apposite, for the following reasons-

1. Wallace was a traitor to England, just as the Founding Fathers of the US were traitors to Britain; but as in each instance the rebellion was in the end successful, the fact that they were traitors from England's/Britain's point of view became irrelevant and they are all revered as heroes in the countries to which they helped give birth. This despite the fact that Wallace was actually executed as a traitor (and extremely unpleasantly too. Edward I was not a nice person.). Now that Scotland is a part of the UK, its ancient heritage is respected. Wallace may have been a traitor insofar as England was concerned, but he was not a traitor to Great Britain. Further, Wallace did not represent or attempt to impose any racist or genocidal dogma. He was simply a fighter for Scottish Independence from England.

The Confederate pantheon, by comparison, initiated a rebellion which failed; therefore, the lands in which they led the rebellion remain part of a polity which continues to see them as rebels/traitors (at least in practice) or potentially so. This has not prevented memorials being erected to them.

2. The pardon and amnesty from Andrew Jackson at Xmas 1868 represented an undertaking not to pursue any legal action and in fact to remove any legal memory of any cause for action. Both can relate to actions which have not yet taken place and never will. They do not imply anybody is in fact a traitor- just that no indictment would or could be brought to establish this.

In fact no Confederate was convicted of treachery. This was because significant legal obstacles would have had to be overcome to achieve this; because Grant had given an undertaking in the regard to Lee at Appomattox and he had reacted angrily at an attempt to overrule this in preparing proceedings against Lee (see Prof Allan Guelzo's lecture on the matter); and because politically it was deemed antagonistic to reunification. Lee and Davis lost their citizenship and did not regain this during their lifetimes.

The Confederate leadership were therefore not legally traitors as no Court ruling establishing this was ever obtained.

3. Reasons for the removal of statues of Confederate leaders.
This cannot therefore be a result of those leaders being traitors. On the contrary, their statues stood for 150 years- even that to Roger Taney, author of the infamous Dred Scott decision. The reason for their removal is solely the evaluation of the political cause which they represented, viz the indefinite imposition of slavery and racist philosophy against those of black skin within their territories.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,538
By that logic we should honor SS soldiers because they were "fighting for their country"

The old adage that can justify any cause of mass murder. Also some 40% of Mississippi families owned slaves. So even the poor old bastards fighting to own people didn't know they were fighting to own people they would have had family members who did in fact, own people.
It is a bit of a popular myth that only a tiny percentage of people in the antebellum south owned slaves. Many people wrongly assume that, and based on that incorrect assumption, go on to state that the average Confederate soldier didn't care about slavery.

The statistics of course, paint a different picture. Across the states that would become the Confederacy, an average of one in four households were slaveholding. In the Army of Northern Virginia, 4 out of every 9 soldiers had resided in a slaveholding household. Almost half, in other words. The Army of Northern Virginia had a much higher percentage of people from slaveholding households than the South as a whole.
 
Likes: Spartakus X

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,892
Caribbean
No because the allies made sure the Germans couldn't rehabilitate the SS the same way the south was able to rehabilitate the Confederacy.
It is the Germans who are not building statutes to the SS, not any "allies" stopping them. Germany doesn't want to rehabilitate it.

Nazi analogies? Is that what you have to sink to? They have a way of boomeranging. Yes, the Nazi's engaged in cultural genocide. And your post bemoans not doing the same thing to the South. That's what this thread is about right. Just pulling down southern iconography. Maybe you want to burn the books, too.

I don't see the virtue of hanging on to the same hate that the politicians so assiduously created in ginning up the war efforts in the first place. At some point, you might want to stop allowing yourself to be manipulated and get "woke."

Both fought for White Supremacy of course.
Th North was full of White Supremacists, too - who didn't allow Blacks into their states and didn't want them in the west, either. That is part of how slavery caused the war. The abolition movement in the United States was a political contrivance by rich northern white supremacists who though they were genetically superior to blacks, and culturally superior southern whites.

How many Mississippi families owned slaves again?
How many Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution owned slaves, and protected the institution for States under the Constitution, while reserving the right of States to leave the union in case any domestic institution came under threat?

Don't you understand? The first clash between north and south was at the Constitutional Convention. The short version of the story is - the "south" won. How could they lose? They had George Washington and didn't even have to speak. If you look at a divide that is often referred to as Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian, then you might realize the Constitution is a "southern" document. And then you might realize who was "rebelling" against the system.

Does it ever occur to you that if George Washington were still alive and fit in 1861, he would have been at the head of the Army of Northern Virginia, defending his "country?"
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions