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
3,886
Caribbean
Ive felt a little under the weather today but you have brought a smile to my face! :) You sound rather like my geography teacher of old...
Rest if you can. Work if you have to. The immune system has a way of trying to stop you from moving and burning up the same energy it wants to fight whatever ails you.

I actually borrowed that term from our friends in the real estate business who use it for people working too far from home where they don't know the local market. I thought that is what he was suggesting, that I am too far away from Mississippi to know.
 
Feb 2011
1,056
Scotland
Because a person wasn't convicted of treason doesn't mean he was not, in fact, a traitor. The definition of traitor is based on actions not being convicted of those actions. Some things are simply evident; there was a southern rebellion, after all. And people took part in it.
Of course. There are plenty of criminals who never get caught or convicted. There are traitors who are never convicted for so acting. It simply means that in the absence of a conviction (and in a state governed by law) , the state loses the option of inflicting a penalty for the action.

Nevertheless, criminal actions must be a matter of individual legal determination. Responsibility is personal. You cannot generalise an entire population into responsibility for criminal acts.
 
Feb 2011
1,056
Scotland
Rest if you can. Work if you have to. The immune system has a way of trying to stop you from moving and burning up the same energy it wants to fight whatever ails you.

I actually borrowed that term from our friends in the real estate business who use it for people working too far from home where they don't know the local market. I thought that is what he was suggesting, that I am too far away from Mississippi to know.
Ate something that disagreed with me- moral- dont leave it too long in the fridge! Today has been rest day .. :)
 
Feb 2011
1,056
Scotland
While informally, they accepted the label of rebels, but only so far as they were rebelling against illegal tyranny.

The main reason this argument survives is the Constitution. There is no clause in which the state surrendered the rights they declared in the Declaration. IMO, if not for that, there'd be no argument.

There was no legal obstacle. They could have put Davis in front of a military commission and by the end of the week, he would have been at the end of a rope. There was a "legal obstacle" to a civilian trial. His defense that secession was legal would have gotten him acquitted. Where you said "politics," now you have something. He was pardoned (after three years in jail), because that was the best way to smooth things over.

I notice you didn't address the original inquiry when I said you post was inaccurate and asked how you quantify that the south dominated the government. Have you reconsidered that.
I agree, Johnney Reb was an informal designation. Whether it was illegal or not was a matter for the lawyers; so far as I could see they could not agree and the matter by settled by passage of arms. As you say, the Constitution was silent upon the matter, which could be interpreted either way.

Prof Allan Guelzo was of the opinion that it was not at all easy to gain a conviction. Any action would need to have taken place in his own state before local jurors. He had his defense, but the fact of 'playing at home' would laso have gone a long way toward aquittal. As you say, the decision not to proceed was political also.

Re your original enquiry, I couldnt see this but 'm quite capable of missing it! My unqualified apologies if I have done so. The matter of Southern domination was covered by MacPherson in his book in depth covering the pre-war period, demonstrating how the Southern aristocrats were able to maintain their views over time. This included repeated threats to secede and even misbehaviour on the floor of the House. Once the Republican Party gained sufficiently universal grip over the North to imperil Southern domination, they seceded. I have seen it also demonstrated in a book on the 1812 war (I can look it up) where Southern imposition of a hawklike policy caused the Northeast states to consider secession themselves.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,886
Caribbean
I agree, Johnney Reb was an informal designation. Whether it was illegal or not was a matter for the lawyers; so far as I could see they could not agree and the matter by settled by passage of arms. As you say, the Constitution was silent upon the matter, which could be interpreted either way.

Prof Allan Guelzo was of the opinion that it was not at all easy to gain a conviction. Any action would need to have taken place in his own state before local jurors. He had his defense, but the fact of 'playing at home' would laso have gone a long way toward aquittal. As you say, the decision not to proceed was political also.

Re your original enquiry, I couldnt see this but 'm quite capable of missing it! My unqualified apologies if I have done so. The matter of Southern domination was covered by MacPherson in his book in depth covering the pre-war period, demonstrating how the Southern aristocrats were able to maintain their views over time. This included repeated threats to secede and even misbehaviour on the floor of the House. Once the Republican Party gained sufficiently universal grip over the North to imperil Southern domination, they seceded. I have seen it also demonstrated in a book on the 1812 war (I can look it up) where Southern imposition of a hawklike policy caused the Northeast states to consider secession themselves.
Re Davis,
Yes, they knew they needed a win that didn't look like victor's justice, and could not get him in a civil trial, which had to be in Virginia (and probably not in any jurisdiction). There were plenty in the North who though secession was legal, that it was what the Founders did, and that these rights were still intact. There is a book called Northern Editorials, where you can find plenty of this:
"We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute – that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay. This we suppose to be the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence..."
--Cincinnati Daily Press, November 21, 1860
I don't know if that is among the papers Lincoln shut down. There is new book number 1 right now, called "Unfreedom of the Press" says Lincoln shut down 300 newspapers. Editors were jailed.

As to the War Hawks, I know the calls for secession in New England started no later than 1796. There is a publication in Hartford called the Pelham Press. Along the way, there were people calling for secession, because they just didn't like the Constitution and that form of government. Some call them Hamiltonians? It's amazing to me that the Revolutionary started in Massachusetts. It amps up during the Jefferson Presidency by the Embargo Acts crushing the New England economy. It peaks during the War of 1812 with governors outright refusing to let President Madison commandeer the state militias, and the Hartford Convention where secession options are discussed (and Madison has a messenger there to keep him abreast. Point being, during this 20 year period, you cannot find Southerners screaming that New England has no right to secede. Madison and Jefferson are on record accepting the idea.

Did MacPherson tell you all of that?



Of course that the trail would be in Virginia, the jury would likely be 0-12. Even in states, with jurors whose sons died in the war
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,536
Since all of this is following my posts - let's clear out the straw men . What I actually wrote is that the the motives of the soldiers on any battlefield.are fighting, first of all, to survive. Their motivations are often completely disconnected to those of the politicians who put them there.

Since, you probably can't quote any southern soldier saying he is so happy to be defending slavery, you probably should be so quick to assume who it is doing the assuming.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and not be so quick to make assumptions. Quote one? How about several...

"I am fighting for you all and for our Negroes and country."

---Isaac Hall to wife and children, June 13, 1862, Garnie W. McGinty, ed., “The Human Side of War: Letters between a Bienville Parish Civil War Soldier and his Wife,”
North Louisiana Historical Association Journal
, Vol. 13, Nos. 2-3 (Spring and Summer 1982), p. 76.

"The equal with a niger(sic) I had rather never come home, better me fall in the struggle for it.”

---Will to Elizabeth McKee, September 1861, Hugh McKee, ed.,
The McKee Letters 1859-1880: Correspondence of a Georgia Family during the Civil War and Reconstruction
(Milledgeville, GA: Boyd,2000), 32.

"We are ruined if we do not put forth all our energies & drive back the invaders of our slavery South."
---
Pvt. Thomas Taylor, 6th Ala., to his parents, March 4, 1862
Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War Was Over, p. 66

"We must never despair, for death is preferable to a life spent under the gaulling [sic] yoke of abolition rule."
---
Pvt. Jonathan Doyle, 4th La., to Maggie, May 27, 1863
Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War Was Over, p. 108

My previous post was not directed at you. If it was, I would have quoted you and not another poster. I was merely making a comment on popular misconceptions that do exist about the extent to which slavery was practiced in the south, and to the extent of which threats to slavery (real or imagined) motivated not just the wealthy planter class to support the Confederacy, but average white Southerners as well.

If my suggestion that the average Confederate soldier was not in disagreement with the political leadership of the Confederacy, and both understood that secession was driven by the sectional divide over the slavery issue and thought slavery a just cause for which to fight... then I'm not quite sure why we are having this exchange.

If you do disagree with that assertion than I'd ask that you provide just one letter from a Confederate soldier, written during the war, that expresses anti-slavery sentiments combined with a pro-secessionist viewpoint.

Furthermore if the average Confederate soldier did not care about slavery, why was it used by their commanders as a rallying cry? When James Longstreet addressed his troops during the Seven Days, among his remarks was that, "one of their great leaders attempted to make the negro your equal by declaring his freedom. They care not for the blood of babes nor carnage of innocent women which servile insurrection thus stirred up may bring upon their heads.” Before Shiloh Albert Sidney Johnston called on his men to defend, "your liberties, your property, and your honor." Property of course was a reference to slavery. What property rights were at risk with the election of Lincoln other than the right to keep slaves? P.G.T. Beauregard advocated that "abolitionists" be used to refer to Union military forces in official documents. Shortly after Lincoln's preliminary emancipation proclamation (Sept. 1862 - Lincoln warned that he would order the emancipation of slaves in any state that did not cease hostilities and return to the Union by Jan 1st, 1863 ) the Vidette - the camp newsletter for John Hunt Morgan's brigade - argued that, "Now, any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."

Longstreet and the Vidette were not alone in stoking fears of racial equality or servile insurrection among poor white Southerners as a means of garnering support for the Confederacy or motivating troops. The letter from the governor of Georgia that I quoted from on page 15 of this thread was an open one that was addressed to the people of Georgia. If the average white Southerner - many of whom would go off to fight for the Confederacy - did not care about slavery, why did that letter appeal to the racism of it's readers and argue that abolition would have calamitous effects upon the South, justifying the Georgia secession convention?

That question of course is rhetorical. Longstreet, Johnston, or Governor Brown were not unique. The Confederate leadership made no secret of the fact that slavery was the prime driver of secession, and it was frequently used as a rallying cry in appeals to the common man by military commanders, politicians, editorials in pro-secessionist newspapers, and in sermons from the pulpit.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Spartakus X
Dec 2018
89
Cheyenne
There is a brand new site just getting up and running called jggscivilwartalk.com that you might be interested in.
It is the Germans who are not building statutes to the SS, not any "allies" stopping them. Germany doesn't want to rehabilitate it.
Denazification - Wikipedia

Nazi analogies? Is that what you have to sink to?
The Nazi justification for war was belief in White Supremacy. The Confederacy justification for war was White Supremacy. Perfectly reasonable comparison.

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.
"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."


Source?

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?
Did the founding fathers organize an attack on the United States to maintain human cattle? Did they after losing commit terrorist attacks to maintain a system of white supremacy?

No? Then what is your point?
 
Likes: Scaeva

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,886
Caribbean
"The equal with a niger(sic) I had rather never come home, better me fall in the struggle for it.”
---Will to Elizabeth McKee, September 1861, Hugh McKee, ed.,
The McKee Letters 1859-1880: Correspondence of a Georgia Family during the Civil War and Reconstruction
(Milledgeville, GA: Boyd,2000), 32.
Again, I don't find these quotes on point for you more than for me. Does a quote like this, not express defense of home - driving back invaders of the South?
"We are ruined if we do not put forth all our energies & drive back the invaders of our slavery South."

I can find Northern politicians and editorials and soldiers saying the same thing - that they do not want to live as equals with Negroes in an integrated society. This includes Lincoln, who is as white supremacist as anyone and who during the war meets with Negro leaders about sending the race back to Africa.
A Pvt from Ohio, did not like the Emancipation Proclamation: “we did not enlist to fight for the negro and I can tell you that we never shall…sacrafise [our] lives for the liberty of a miserable black race of beings….Abolitionism is traitorism in its darkest collar.”

The Confederate leadership made no secret of the fact that slavery was the prime driver of secession, and it was frequently used as a rallying cry in appeals to the common man by military commanders, politicians, editorials in pro-secessionist newspapers, and in sermons from the pulpit.
I didn't realize that this was in question.

I agree, the confederate leaders made no secret that they were defending their Constitutional rights to slavery and the Northern leaders made no secret that they were both attacking those rights lawfully and lawlessly. It was defending themselves against the latter that the southern leadership emphasized as causes of secession. But then, everyone knows this.

Back to the solider
I suppose I just have too much malice toward none and charity toward all. I can even find forgiveness in my heart for the Red Army soldiers - driven by Stalin's evil - who raped East German women to death in 1945. Forgiving Stalin is up to the Lord.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions