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

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,082
Santiago de Chile
Voted undecided because I can accept individual honors but not as a collective. The war was brutal on a scale the nation had never seen before or after, a true calamity that changed the face forever of a country in many ways unimaginable. At the end of the day it dosen't really matter what johnny reb thought he was fighting for, his master made it clear it was about slavery from the start. At every turn, at every chance it got the soon to be confederate states did everything in their power to not only retain slavery but to force it upon territories and even non slave states forgoing what they would later shamelessly call 'state rights'. Bleeding Kansas was essentially the result of a massive electoral fraud done by pro-slavery missourians who hopped the border to change the results ilegally to try to make kansas a pro slave state when the voting seemed to make it legitimately an anti-slave state. The north did everything they could to mantain the union, the south is at fault, no sense in honoring that in my opinion.
As to the honor of the confederacy, I recall in Ken Burns civil war documentary a scene where a southern congressman or senator from south carolina went up to a northern abolotionist representative and beat him badly with his cane, the souths reaction? they congratulated their representative for his brutal and wanton attack against his colleague merely for saying somthing he didn't like or agree with and he even recieved more canes as gifts from other southerners over the passing days, Gentlemen indeed!
 

Zhang LaoYong

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
5,123
On the prowl.
Well said, mark87. I don't have a problem with honoring one's ancestors, but not the group as a whole.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,641
San Antonio, Tx
I don't typically get on board with whatever is thrown forward by the Lost Cause, but I can honestly understand that Confederate soldiers were mostly fighting not to defend slavery, since the institution held little stake to the average white southerner, but rather because "they" (northern soldiers) were there. Plus, much of the average southerner's support of slavery was over them being manipulated by slaveholders saying that slaves going free would be a literal danger to society. They played on the populace's fears, not on their ability to profit.

Call this hogwash if you want, but I do really believe that the vast majority of blame for the war should simply go to the slaveholders who manipulated most of the populace and secession polls in the first place.

I also can't get on board with putting the CSA in a row with Nazi Germany (like you did a couple of posts back). The latter was worse by the standards of the 20th Century than the former was by 19th Century standards.
Maybe not, but I can say that I am pretty much as offended by the Confederate stars and bars as I am by the Nazi flag. To me, both are hateful symbols.
 

nuclearguy165

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
4,775
Ohio, USA
Maybe not, but I can say that I am pretty much as offended by the Confederate stars and bars as I am by the Nazi flag. To me, both are hateful symbols.
They are both symbols from bygone eras. To me, it's just that one bygone era is more bygone than the other.
 

Fiver

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,765
I don't typically get on board with whatever is thrown forward by the Lost Cause, but I can honestly understand that Confederate soldiers were mostly fighting not to defend slavery, since the institution held little stake to the average white southerner, but rather because "they" (northern soldiers) were there. Plus, much of the average southerner's support of slavery was over them being manipulated by slaveholders saying that slaves going free would be a literal danger to society. They played on the populace's fears, not on their ability to profit.
Here's a good article entitled "Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought".
 
Apr 2013
644
Maryland
They are both symbols from bygone eras. To me, it's just that one bygone era is more bygone than the other.
The "eras" may be gone, but the drumbeats linger on by the true believers in our society. Both "causes" were based upon white/aryan supremacy and both seem to maintain a lowlife cadre of neonazi, KKK dregs who still use those well-recognized international symbols of hatred.

With the confederate flag, we hear from descendants and alleged descendants of confederates that they feel its necessary to flaunt the flag to honor their ancestors. They allege that the flag represents courage and devotion to a cause and thus, they need to flaunt it in order to "honor" those ancestors. They either deny that it is also a symbol of racism and hatred or simply suggest critics look the other way.

First, the battle flag is not a legitimate representation of the Confederacy. Its the battle flag of the armies, which suggests an ongoing battle is still on. Many if not most of these folks wouldn't recognize the 1st or 2nd national confederate flag and wouldn't know Ft Sumter from Ft Apache. Second, they insist that criticism of the confederacy is criticism of their dear ancestors, whom they allegedly hold above criticism.

Third, most of them don't really have a clue how their non-slaveholder ancestors/confederates really felt about the confederacy, if they were unwillingly conscripted, if they deserted, if they evaded conscription, fought for the Union or were otherwise strong unionists. But they seem utterly certain that their ancestors proudly fought for independence and not for slavery. And thus, they also manage to honor the "cause" by displaying the confederate battle flag wherever and whenever they do so. I suppose the american flag isn't good enough, even 150 years after Appomattox.

And thus, while the confederate flag and swastika are symbols of bygone eras, they have relevance as cover for latter day true believers. Even as some folks still maintain the sham that slavery had little or nothing to do with the confederacy, its important to distinguish between honoring people and honoring the causes for which they were involved. I'm sure Grant would have included Nazism in his list of the worst causes for which men ever fought.

IMHO, if folks want to to honor their ancestors, go ahead. But they should be able to say with certainty that their ancestors were true believers and not just unwilling victims of their utterly oppressive government. And they should be able to "honor" them without including the battle flag of the confederate army.
 

nuclearguy165

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
4,775
Ohio, USA
The "eras" may be gone, but the drumbeats linger on by the true believers in our society. Both "causes" were based upon white/aryan supremacy and both seem to maintain a lowlife cadre of neonazi, KKK dregs who still use those well-recognized international symbols of hatred.

With the confederate flag, we hear from descendants and alleged descendants of confederates that they feel its necessary to flaunt the flag to honor their ancestors. They allege that the flag represents courage and devotion to a cause and thus, they need to flaunt it in order to "honor" those ancestors. They either deny that it is also a symbol of racism and hatred or simply suggest critics look the other way.

First, the battle flag is not a legitimate representation of the Confederacy. Its the battle flag of the armies, which suggests an ongoing battle is still on. Many if not most of these folks wouldn't recognize the 1st or 2nd national confederate flag and wouldn't know Ft Sumter from Ft Apache. Second, they insist that criticism of the confederacy is criticism of their dear ancestors, whom they allegedly hold above criticism.

Third, most of them don't really have a clue how their non-slaveholder ancestors/confederates really felt about the confederacy, if they were unwillingly conscripted, if they deserted, if they evaded conscription, fought for the Union or were otherwise strong unionists. But they seem utterly certain that their ancestors proudly fought for independence and not for slavery. And thus, they also manage to honor the "cause" by displaying the confederate battle flag wherever and whenever they do so. I suppose the american flag isn't good enough, even 150 years after Appomattox.

And thus, while the confederate flag and swastika are symbols of bygone eras, they have relevance as cover for latter day true believers. Even as some folks still maintain the sham that slavery had little or nothing to do with the confederacy, its important to distinguish between honoring people and honoring the causes for which they were involved. I'm sure Grant would have included Nazism in his list of the worst causes for which men ever fought.

IMHO, if folks want to to honor their ancestors, go ahead. But they should be able to say with certainty that their ancestors were true believers and not just unwilling victims of their utterly oppressive government. And they should be able to "honor" them without including the battle flag of the confederate army.
What I'm saying is that the past is different from the present and that people today need to consider that before judging the former too harshly. Who knows what you and I personally would have been like or believed 150+ years ago.
 
Apr 2013
644
Maryland
What I'm saying is that the past is different from the present and that people today need to consider that before judging the former too harshly. Who knows what you and I personally would have been like or believed 150+ years ago.
We do have some writings, which need to be taken with grains of salt. We see patterns of behavior - desertion, conscription evasion, union soldiers, civilian resisting confederate authority, and of course, those who willfully remained in the ranks.

In past conversations, I've discovered that some descendants don't know much at all about their ancestors' actual behavior or attitudes. So, I don't believe its truly honoring an ancestor if the ancestor may well have despised the confederacy or was victimized by the confederate government. I'd think it would be insulting to their ancestors' memory to "celebrate" their confederate captivity. I've often wondered how many average confederate southerners would have supported the confederacy again. I'd bet not many.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,641
San Antonio, Tx
I’m glad the South lost the Civil War. Imagine an America where the South had won the ACW. Horrible...
 
Status
Closed