Blogs and Stories
Obama's Confederate Compromise
They drafted a letter, which reads in part: “It isn’t just a remembrance of the dead. The speeches at its ground-breaking and dedication defended and held up as glorious the Confederacy and the ideas behind it and stated that the monument was to these ideals as well as the dead. It was also intended as a symbol of white nationalism, portrayed in opposition to the multiracial democracy of Reconstruction, and a celebration of the re-establishment of white supremacy in the former slave states by former Confederate soldiers.”
They had collected 49 signatures, including those of McPherson, William Lee Miller of the University of Virginia, and Roger G. Kennedy, director emeritus of the National Museum of American History, by the time they mailed it to the White House last Saturday. More than 60 have now signed, said Loewen.
Calls to the White House and to the president general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy were not returned.
The petition has caused a stir in historians’ circles. One Virginia high-school history teacher, Kevin Levin, wrote in his Civil War history blog: “While I am sympathetic with their view of this matter, I think it would be a bad idea for Obama to end this practice. While I do not agree with all of Obama’s policies, the one thing that I have come to appreciate is his willingness to engage constructively with those he disagrees. The president’s visit to Notre Dame this weekend is a case in point and reflects his enthusiasm for taking on extremely complex and emotionally charged issues in a mature and honest manner…This man cares what others believe.”
Ending the practice, Levin wrote, would exacerbate racial tensions rather than calm them.
There is room for interpretation on the monument itself. A poem on the north side appears to call for a hero’s status and understanding for the vanquished:
Not lured by ambition / Or goaded by necessity / But in simple / Obedience to duty / As they understood it / These men suffered all / Sacrificed all / Dared all—and died.
A Latin motto is also inscribed on the sculpture: Victrix causa diis placuit, sed victa Catoni.” The translation: “The victorius cause was pleasing to the Gods, but the lost cause to Cato.” Sebesta says the implication is that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and the Union unjust, while Cato, who loved freedom, would have chosen the side of the South.
Certainly the commander in chief of the United Confederate Veterans, who spoke at the memorial’s dedication, hewed to that point of view. According to the historians’ letter, he declared: “The sword said the South was wrong, but the sword is not necessarily guided by conscience or reason. The power of numbers and the longest guns cannot destroy principle nor obliterate truth.”
Judy Pasternak is a Washington-based journalist. She is writing a book, Yellow Dirt: The Betrayal of the Navajos, which recently won the J. Anthony Lukas Work-in-Progress Award. It will be published by Free Press.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Obama hangs out with William Ayers and people are concerned about him honoring the Confederate dead? Contrary to revisionist history, the civil war was not fought over slavery alone. Of course, it is easier for liberals to justify the war and the slaughter of citizens by the government on moral grounds than to call it what it was -
I didn't know that this was done, but now that I do I strongly advocate that it be stopped. I see no reason to especially celebrate those who felt that armed insurrection was preferable to adhering to peaceful democratic principles. When you add that they fought for continuation of slavery and white nationalism, I close the case. Counterargument?
My counter is this. They are the fallen dead of our country. They are our grandfathers, great uncles, and they fought according to their beliefs.
Contrary to popular opinion, the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery. The Confederacy called it the War of Northern Aggression, and although slavery was an important issue that raised the emotional heat of the issues, it wasn't the reason they broke away. They seceded in reaction to what they saw as an unconscionable gathering of power by the federal government.
Much like many people complain about the federal government exceeding the authority granted to it by the Constitution. I of course talk about warrantless wiretapping, torture, secret trials, and the wholesale abuse of authority.
My great great grandfather fought with the Union army, and he had a cousin that fought with the Confederate army. They both picked a side according to their belief systems, and my ancestors cousin died for it. Should I not honor the bravery of my ancestors?
Why don't we blame the blacks for slavery in America. The first person to own a "slave for live" in the United States was a black man, after all. The first slaveowner was named Anthony Johnson, and the first slave for live was named John Casor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor
The issue is not slavery but how we honor our war dead.
Wrong. Despite all attempts to re-write history the Civil War really was primarily about slavery. Secondarily, it was about the ambitions of glory-seeking Southern leaders to conquer large parts of Latin America.
Let's get something straight using Wikipedia as a source is not credible. So please try again.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
They are a HATE group drapped in a flag that represents a time in American History that MOST would like to forget, that is, of course when it's told by the good ole' white folk all else is irrevelent! How can we ever (as you put it) "blame the blacks" for slavery? Most blacks that owned slaves were half white or at least looked more white than black. And the slaves they bought were one thought to be their family members! As a "white girl" I find that flag to utterly repulsive...Just BURN IT the way Sarah Palin and her American Haten' husband (Todd) use to burn the American Flag!
I agree with PAcollegegirl. She said it well. I hope she is a college girl, she reaffirms my faith in the next generation of leaders.
WHOA.....take it easy on the history lesson. The respect of your ancestors is heart felt and honorable, but to insist the first slave owner in America was black, that's just incomprehensible, not to mention your sited source is wikipedia....wow. In fact the slave trade is older than black folks respectively. Slavery started with white indentured servants, but how long could that last, they simply had to walk away to be free. Next your ancestors tried the native American, but that guy knew the land and could not be kept in bondage. Then they came up with what I feel is the most brilliant evil genius plan in all of modern history, go get some Africans. And, if you truly believe the Civil War was over anything other than slavery and the loss of revenue for the south your kidding yourself. Now to Obama, he's a hyper intelligent man, he knows damn well that the ink over sending a wreath would be far less than not sending one, further more, to distinguish the Confederate fallen amongst all the others in this tradition would be ridiculous
Wow. A fact-based, edifying post. Nice job, lordastral.
jdmdetroit and LordVader... you are dead wrong, and any COMPETENT historian would tell you so. Airing your armchair-historian misperceptions of fact does nothing to change the truth. There were slave-owning states on both sides of the original controversy. Slavery was not the major issue. It was just an easy one to trumpet.
Every one in the colonies
Knew it would come
To war and they knew it
For generations.
The Civil War was
About slavery.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
As the great-great grandson of an Indianan who went south, I'd like to point out that the moneyed, slaveholding upperclass of the South propagandized the dirt-poor, uneducated lower class to fight for the right to be able to look down on somebody, i.e., the black slave. Most owned no slaves and never would, but they believed themselves to be bettered because of a DNA accident of skin color. Oddly, they sound just like the social conservatives that are the cannon fodder of thr republican Party.
one more thing for libs to cry foul about.
The civil war was not as much about slavery as our high-school history texts led us to believe.
And, should we also stop honoring our Vietnam dead because they were duped into an unjust, ill-conceived, and fraudulently-initiated war?
This was brother against brother, father against son...
Honoring those who fought to dissolve the nation is nuts.
What principle that these people fought for should be honored? Slavery? Interposition? State supremacy?
Racial superiority?
What civic good would their victory have vindicated? What civic goods would have been thwarted had they succeeded. If they had won we'd have fought for decades over the extension of slavery beyond the Confederacy into all the unorganized territories on the continent. Cuba and Mexico would have faced threats of invasion for no reason other than expansion of American slavery.
Obama himself might be somebody's property.
Instead of honoring these insurrectionists, pass a law requiring that every military statute include a plaque that says, "They gave all for the dispute their leaders fed their lives to. May God make our leaders worthy of the youth they send in harms way."
You said, "Obama himself might be somebody's property." However, I am not sure how he could have been someone's property when the only African side of his family was not born in America, but in Africa, so he probably wouldn't have been someone's property...
Further, while I disagree with the Confederacy and of course think slavery is disgusting and shameful, most of the boys who fought for the South were not plantation owners. In fact, numerically, most of the South did not own slaves, and were peasants themselves. So, sure, slavery was part of the reason for the Civil War, and it was a huge spark, but the Civil War in brief summary was about States' Rights. I may be wrong, but it seems that many people today still are fighting for States' Rights, which I'm sure was more of what the boys who died were fighting for. I suppose I'm just playing Devil's advocate, but I know for sure the Civil War wasn't solely about slavery and the boys fighting for the Confederacy were rarely slave owners, and thanks to the sly tactics Abe Lincoln used, they never were technically their own nation, and therefore were always Americans.
Good points. I'd only add that without slavery there would have been no war. Any other issue would have been accommodated in the constitutional political process. The language that broke-up the last national democratic institution--the Democratic Party, had nothing to do with state's rights but concerned expansion of slavery into the territories. The South's leaders had dominated the national government (aided by the 3/5th counting of slaves for electoral purposes) since the founding and was unwilling to face a majority of non-slave holding state's congressmen and senators controlling the government. The rebellion was essentially anti-democratic.
But as for the boys who died: Their leaders may have mis-defined patriotism, but it was patriotism for which they died. In that they're pretty indistinguishable: North or South; WWII or Iraq.
Where do you think black slaves came from? Do you think that they were born in Georgia? Africa...duh.
States' rights was just a political ploy used by the wealthy slave-owing (and newspaper owning) elite to energize their southern base.
The parallel today is the wealthy Republican elite, whose primary concern is lowering their own taxes and eliminating the "death" tax, but who use issues like abortion to energize their base and get elected. Virtually all of the tea-party protesters who objected to Obama's tax policy were getting their taxes reduced under this policy. Go figure...
Um, slavery was well-established in Africa, and most slaves were bought from other Africans. So, don't think just because it wasn't America, there was no slavery.
I think it's like the pusher and the user... pity the user, and maybe you can lay some blame on him, but blame the pusher more.
Hey, we fought a war of revolution against England for similar reasons (the slavery thing was secondary to Northern aggression) less than a hundred years previously, but you don't see England still holding a grudge two hundred years later.
They fought for what they believed in. They were Americans. They were unsuccessful, and history is written by the winners. But we're talking about people who died for patriotism here... perhaps misguided, but I think so were our Vietnam dead. There were blacks that fought on the side of the South, too. Were they racists?
Rewriting history based on current political correctness is a fad that is going way too far these days.
The "political correctness" that is relevant emerged after the war was lost and the South began romanticizing its motives away from what they actually were--and their leaders said they were: extending the duration and geographic reach of slavery.
Unfortunately for those who've bought the romanticized version, historians are looking into the glorification of the South's motives and finding it a deceit: a deceit Southerners of the defeated generation might have needed to maintain the facade of their "honor," and a deceit we should no longer buy into.
Facts are facts: What Davis, Stephen and Toombs said is there in black and white to be read today.
If being an American and believing yourself doing good by your violence is all that is necessary to warrant national honors, do not the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers deserve the same honor the Confederacy deserves?
With malice toward none, with charity for all, ...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, ...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
A. Lincoln
There seems to be a great deal of malice in these comments.
What malace? Should we celebrate al-queida's war dead too? They fought to dissolve the nation to preserve slavery.
This user is no longer registered.
LordVader:
Oh! I see, you personally get to decide who is and who is not an American. I'm sorry but the Black Panthers--deplorable as they were, were just as American as you are no matter what self-important and impulsive criteria you might apply to deny their citizenship.
You can choose to honor who you wish, but the nation as a whole should apply some responsible standards in honoring or not honoring those who resort to violence to bring political change.
I think that I remember that the Civil War was fought over States Rights to some extent, which encompassed slavery. And of course slavery was and is a horrible affront to humanity. So the South looked at it economically, which meant having to actually pay someone to work for them would kill them economically and what right does the federal government have in telling them how it was going to be. Please dont think I in anyway support slavery!
We did start as a union of States working together, and perhaps part of the southern feeling of being told what to do by the federal government was justified. We still hear about States Rights and how President Obama is actually going to strenghten States Rights.
Again, this does not excuse slavery.
Finally, it is to honor fallen soldiers, that died following their leaders. We honor Vietnam's fallen, and those who say we should not have even been there may be right, but we still honor the fallen servicemen and women of our country
The South was never "being told what to do by the federal government." The civil war was not fought over states rights, although that subject was much talked about before and during the Civil War (the practice of extreme states rights ideology actually reduced the ability of the Confederacy to win the war). There was no federal threat to slavery in the the states where it existed, as it was clear the Constitution protected slavery there. The most powerful southern grievance in the 1850s was restriction of the spread of slavery to new lands, but the 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision said Congress had no right to restrict slavery in the territories (and suggested that in the future it could rule that even individual states might not be able to restrict slavery either -- that slavery might have to be legalized in the North). Southern interests dominated the Supreme Court, had easy veto power over legislation in the Senate, substantial power in the House, and more often than not determined who was president. There is no rational (issue- or power-related) explanation for secession. South Carolina and several other states of the South seceded purely and simply because the election of Abraham Lincoln and the northern public opinion it reflected was an affront to their honor. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but even more forcefully clear that slavery could not be challenged where it already existed. The depth of Lincoln's opinion on this constitutional point was proven int he issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in late 1862, in which even during wartime Lincoln left slavery untouched in places not in rebellion as of January 1, 1863. But the states of the Deep South did not wait for any actions that might belie Lincoln's words, seceding before Lincoln was inaugurated. It really was a question of honor -- the South did not feel it could honorably remain in a union in which several fellow states and the president considered a central southern institution, and by extension southerners defending that institution, immoral. It is, of course, strange to speak of the honor of men who held slaves, beat slaves, sold off slave families in parts, and killed slaves. Of course, three-quarters of southerners did not own slaves. But they shared in the white supremacy of the slave owners and proved willing to defend the new Confederacy with their lives for similar reasons. Individually, they were brave men and strong, sacrificing women. But they served a dishonorable cause and surely therefore deserve no remembrance for having done so.
We certainly do not "honor" those who have taken the fall for their superiors do we? They will never gain admittance to Arlington National Cemetery.
eg. Those involved and tried in the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib and on and on...
Obama must pardon the NG Mps who took the fall for Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sadly, he will not as he would have to indict them.
What part of the "southern feeling" do you propose was justified?
Nothing Lincoln proposed to do in the election touched their states--just the territories. Should slavery have been extended to the territories?
Your last paragraph is astute and wise.
Read some history, folks. Some relatively unbiased history.
Like it or not, the US Constitution protected the practice of slavery in 1860.
The founding fathers, who had taken up arms against their lawful government, a government they had sworn to uphold, were fresh in the memories of the Confederacy.
The Confederacy was, in fact, based on an earlier version of the agreements between the former colonies that boiund them into one union.
Southern states believed in state's rights over a federal government's rights.
They therefore believed that each state had the right to decide everything that went on in that state's borders.
In other words, the Confederates believed that they had both moral and Constitutional rights to withdraw from the Union for any cause, and to defend their decision with arms if necessary.
They believed they were acting with honor.
The fact that slavery was repugnant and evil was secondary to their belief that they and they alone had the right to decide whether slavery would be allowed in their states.
They believed that their honor requqired their decision to leave the Union.
I am not sure they should be honored, but respect for their integrity, which cost many of them everything, including their lives, is not out of line.
The fact that you try and excuse slavery by saying that Confederates were moral and had integrity makes YOU repugnant and evil.
And do tell me how many black slaves lost their lives and everything they didn't have.
Anyone who would die for the right to own slaves NEVER had any morals to begin with.
Wow. Yeah.. You totally did not read the comment to which you are replying. No one is trying to excuse slavery. The point is that, unlike what many think, slavery was not the chief issue of the civil war.
(As an aside, owning slaves was not unique to the south, so the north does not get excused as cleanly as some would like.)
Personally, I am neutral about this practice. I can see both sides of the argument. However, ending this practice would be a hugely divisive act to take right now and Pres. Obama would be wise to avoid that.
It is not like "this practice" in question as an exclusive to The Daily Beast started right after the Civil War. It was instituted by the elder Geo. Bush. What was the problem with Davis' birthday. After the Civil War Section 27 at Arlington was established. Read the history of that Section and you get a real feel for the intended honorees of this cemetery. African Americans and slavery did figure very much into the establishment of this burial ground.
Is GOD evil? Because he specified in Exodus 20:17 -
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his bondservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
- I guess telling people it is a sin to want other peoples slaves in your mind is proof that God is evil, for even he condoned the practiced of the ownership of another person.
They were acting in the own self interest. Had nothing to do with honor. Southern gentlemen thought everything even their "women" involved their honor. Please let us not romanticize the past.
tzeigler, if you're not trying to excuse slavery why do you try and blame the North for doing it also? Oh that' right you're neural about the issue! Yeah right!
As opposed to the complete LACK of honor now?
Please let us not DEMONIZE the past based on current mores.
First no one here, including me, is defending slavery.
That the Southern "rebels" being honored may be hateful to
the descendants of those enslaved (lawfully or not !)
is understandable...but
I can understand that
their descendants, biologic and otherwise, might want their memory honored...
I think Lincoln himself tried to advocate
a "healing" at the end of so terrible a conflict...and he acknowledged,
wrong as they may have been, that many Southerners were acting
out of deeply held beliefs...and died for them.
Lincoln wanted to repatriate black slaves to Africa.That he did not is a measure of his greatness. NEITHER Bush exhibited any of this.
"In other words, the Confederates believed that they had both moral and Constitutional rights to withdraw from the Union for any cause, and to defend their decision with arms if necessary."
Your analysis ignores three facts: 1) Nothing about the 1860 election gave rise to any threat to their state autonomy. The language that broke-up the national democratic party was about expansion of slavery into the territories--places outside their state borders. Slavery--expansion of it was the animating concern. 2) The Confederate states had entered the union which had a provision for withdrawal through amendment. Instead of pursuing the lawful means, they took to arms---as shown by the taking of federal facilities including Fort Sumter. 3) The Constitution entered in 1789 was a concession of powers to a national government by the states: The autonomy you claim Southerners believed they had hadn't realistically existed for "four score" years. Your ideological justification for the South is, excuse my directness, historical nonsense.
The south's individual soldiers may have been indistinguishable in motive from the North's, but the cause was by no means honorable. But for slavery, no war. If the South had won the war, it would have used arms to impose slavery in new territories on this continent.
National celebrations, like funerals, are not for the dead--they are beyond caring about any celebration here. National celebrations are about who we are now. Honoring the Confederate dead has the effect of making their cause more "noble" in contemporary eyes and confounding historical understanding, as you post shows.
tzeigler
You say "The point is that, unlike what many think, slavery was not the chief issue of the civil war."
Slavery was THE CAUSE. Without slavery--no war. North wins--no slavery; South wins--slavery in the Confederacy and it is extended by force of arms.
In my own lifetime, segregationist claimed they resisted integration for the honorable doctrines of interposition and "state's rights," Bullshit. Both the Civil War and Jim Crow were about racial superiority and economic exploitation of some races of Americans.
Dress it up as you will, but the bottom line is: No slavery--no war. What else can you put in that formula? Tariff's--the South won that battle ten years earlier: State's right,"--Lincoln had no intention of touching slavery where it existed--within the boundaries of states, he only wanted to forestall its expansion to new territory. Did Georgia have a state right that Kansas be slave?
I agree with Mundodi: it is repugnant for modern Americans to glorify Confederates, especially since it requires (purposeful?) historical ignorance to do it.
The northern states were not trying to force southern states to change their internal policies prior to the start of the Civil War (although many individuals in both the north and the south were doing this).
The north objected to the south trying to force slavery on new states such as Kansas. Like the Republican party today, the south made a very selective - and self-serving - use of the states' rights issue.
EXCELLENT post, finderj. Lucid, fact-based, and well-thought-out.
finderj-
That attitude
Is alive and well
In modern times.
There's nothing to
Honor there.
We call them yahoos
Now.
The "Causus Belli" is irrelevant, we honor all fallen. Confederate soldiers are part of our history. Are they less honorable?
I was born in the Land of Lincoln and would have gladly fought to preserve the Union, but I believe we should honor the Confederate war dead. But we should be clear why we are doing it. We should honor them because they were brave honorable Americans who died fighting for--they thought--their rights and liberty.
But we should also realize they were wrong. We would do well to remember that even great and good men can be catastrophically wrong. We should honor them and let the memory of their deeds inspire courage and humility in all of us.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Owning slaves was not and will never will be a principal. It is you who would rewrite history.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Don't call me silly. Throughout history these bounds have been fought. You are twisting the worst of humanity to make it appear as the norm. BS
Sarastro3, they were not "brave Americans" they were NOT even Americans. Remember they seceded from the United States of America. They were Confederates. And Confedrates should NEVER be honored.
This user is no longer registered.
Owning slaves did not turn out to be a right.
Did it?
The fact that southern slave owners were all self described "Christians" negates the argument that they were acting on their moral beliefs. They KNEW the bible said that slavery was wrong.
So please stop with this crap that southerners were in anyway honorable.
This user is no longer registered.
"We should honor them because they were brave honorable Americans who died fighting for--they thought--their rights and liberty."
What a crock! They felt they had the right to own other people. Liberty indeed! Timothy McVeigh falls into the same category I suppose. Let the rednecks honor the traitors. The US government should only honor the soldiers who fought to preserve the union.
This practice should be stopped. There is no sensible reason to carry on with this repulsive "honoring".
In addition to the points already made...
1. The overall theme of the the monument is peace and restoration.
2. There are Americans with ancestors honored by the memorial.
3. We honor slave-holders all the time (the dollar bill), but not for their sins.
4. We can choose how to honor in the present day-It would be difficult to present a convincing argument as to why we would honor racial supremacy or slavery, and I don't think any president in recent history has presented a wreath in such a spirit.
You learn something new everyday. I had no idea the US government honors confederate soldiers. Why not send wreaths to the Japanese on Dec 7th? Build a memorial to Timothy McVeigh?
i'm for this actually.. i don't really honor the blood of mine that fought on both sides of the civil war.. they were all of them pretty damn mean from every report i've had.. but i would superstitiosly suggest that ceremonies of remembrance and propitiation of the evil dead have time honored place in the ritual practices of peaceful people.. i don't think any sensitive souls would honor or mourn geronimo.. that old man was wack murderous.. but if those yalees messed with his bones i think that was really really stupid
Some of you people, the haters, really live in a bubble that does not expand beyond this exact moment in time, does it? Not a single person here is saying that slavery was a good thing, did they? But in 1860 Slavery was still a legal act.
BTW, slavery still goes on today in backward ass places in the world.
The Civil War was about states rights over a centralized government telling them what to do. And yes, it was less than 90 years after we seperated from the British Empire. So try to look at it through those historical lenses.
Yogi, try and make a logical statement. Pleae explain why Japanese soldiers are to be likened to Confederate soldiers. Did Japan try to succeed from the Union because Washington was trying to override their National laws?
Our founding fathers didnt let women vote. It was not their right to vote in the thinking of the time. Well, we are more enlightened now, and know that women, men of all races are given the same basic freedoms in this great country.
Anyway, we are honoring fallen soldiers. Not slavery. Try to understand the distinction.
Otherwise start finding flaws as to why we shouldnt celebrate Presidents day, or 4th of July or Thanksgiving, etc. Because you can find fault with the way those being celebrated lived their lives when you look only through the lens of today.
Are you really this ignorant? Japanese soldiers are likened to Confederate soldiers because they both were fighting against the US. And honoring Confederate soldiers is honoring a group of men that fought for a side that would have kept slavery (regardless of the fact that the Civil War was about state rights). These men should not be held at any esteem. What about that don't you understand?
And you may not be saying slavery is a good thing, but your dismissal of the fact that these traitors were on a side who wanted to keep it (and break up their country) is sad and pathetic.
The haters here don't give a rat's behind for facts. Since those who served and died were on the wrong side, as they dimly perceive it or as someone else has told them, damn them to hell. Just remember that. Blind fools so eager to remake the present, they forget the past and doom our future.
In the end, these are men who fought against not only the Union, but against the bettering of the union. The urging in the constitution to "forma more perfect union" was included with the understanding that the document was itself imperfect and contained a number of concessions made that have been truly detrimental to us over time. The inclusion of slavery and lack equal rights for all in particular, as they expressly disagree with our deceleration of independence, bill of brights and even the preamble to the document itself.
The soldiers of the south fought on the wrong side of justice, the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the heart and intentions of the constitution. The idea that they were brave or honorable because they fought and died is questionable. We are after all fighting people right now who believe they are themselves brave and honorable for their actions and I doubt, even living outside the bubble as you seem to, that you would concede them that point.
Even if they were brave or met a certain definition of honorable, enemies of the union are enemies of the union. Honoring traitors on a day when we honor our fallen is not only absurd, it is disrespectful to to the memory of those who truly fought, bled and died for this country. I certainly wont hold anyone to account for their heritage, I myself am somewhat murky on my own, but it's not something to be proud of to be sure.
So, they shouldn't be honored for fighting in defense of slavery, how about our current army fighting in defense of torture?
Isn't slavery kinder than torture?
The Civil War was NOT about states, rights. States' rights was a wedge issue used by the slave-owning elite to energize their base and justify the war.
Four of my great great grandfathers fought in the Civil War for the Confderacy. None of them owned slaves. None of them were fighting about slavery. They thought they were protecting the rights of their states to determine their own laws. I'm not even sure they knew that much about the slavery issue. Do I approve of the war? No. Do I approve of slavery? Of course not. Am I proud that I had relatives that did what they thought was right for their states? Yes. It took tremendous courage for them. At least two were fighting against their own brothers who fought for the north. Two were taken prisoner, one was seriously wounded, but somehow, they all survived the horror of that war. One of my prized possessions is a third person account of my great great grandfather's service. He wasn't an officer, he wasn't anything special, but he did what he thought was right. That should be honored.
Civil War soldiers were fighting a stupid war, but in their hearts they were trying to protect their homes, families and lives. The majority never owned slaves. Maybe they shouldn't be formally honored, but if they hadn't existed, I wouldn't either!
If your side (I'm sorry, I should say your great great grandfathers side) had won I probably would not exist today. I wonder how much of my family would have been beaten and killed and died in the continued slavery your side-I mean your great great grandfathers side- was fighting for (in the name of state's rights), thus making it impossible for me to be here.
And you think these men should be honored.
Unbelievable that you would think that your relatives didn't "know that much about the slavery issue".
How unbelievable that you are so ignorant of history. Approximately 20% of southerners owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. The vast majority of the soldiers who fought in the war for the south were poor and did not own slaves.
cmarsh-
And yet they
Fought to keep
People enslaved.
Does it make it
More acceptable if
You don't actually
Own any human beings?
Very nicely said, Judy...
And tell me, besides PERHAPS WWII, what war has NOT been stupid...?
They were boobs, smitten with a belief that their state was more important than the nation. My Great-great grandfather was called "the Reb" for the rest of his life by his Indiana neighbors. He would have been a great footsoldier for the modern Republican Party.
Once again our forbears are proving to have been much wiser than we. The hallmark of the Civil War's end was national reconciliation.
Most nations, after a civil war as bitter and bloody as ours, would have hanged the leaders of the losing side, especially as its acts had been clearly treasonous.
But, neither Jefferson Davis, nor Robert E. Lee, nor any other prominent Confederates were either hanged, tried, or even imprisoned for anything but, in Davis' case, a short time.
At Appomatox, Grant was generous in his terms of surrender, allowing the defeated to keep their horses, noting they would be needed when the men returned to their farms. And he allowed the officers to keep their swords and sidearms, a symbolic gesture.
Honoring the Confederate dead is an important gesture of national forgiveness and in the spirit of healing what was our greatest national tragedy.
Remember what Churchill said, ""In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance;" but, "... in victory, magnanimity."
I don't recall Grant or Lincoln honoring the British fallen on American soil who fought to prevent our national existence. Now, these seven score decades later, you think we need to continue making "gestures of national forgiveness" by honoring men who fought to dissolve the union?"
There is nobody alive to forgive. Hasn't been for a very long time. Honoring the Confederate war dead as a nation rite is historically misguided, unnecessary for any contemporary purpose and offensive to those of us who think it was a good thing that the South lost the war and slavery was ended.
Seven score decades is 1,400 years, you twit.
Yes, their acts were clearly treasonous. In most other countries they would have been hanged. Treason is kind of a big deal: Its the sole criminal offense defined in our Constitution by the authors (Art. III sec. 3). Lincoln decided to show mercy, sparing their lives in hope of reconciling the country. It clearly soothed the agitation of all Confederates, one of whom expressed his gratitude for Lincoln's magnanimity by shooting him in the back of the head at Ford's Theater.
Following the Civil War and Reconstruction the former Confederate states continued to show their heartfelt appreciation for this spirit of generosity and forgiveness by enacting laws to heal the wounds caused by the tradgedy and its roots. History cites these various legal codes as paragons of virtue that did more to spread equality under the law than any before or after; these righteous codes became known as the beloved Jim Crow laws. The former Confederates used the Jim Crow laws to advance Lincoln's dream of reconciliation by guaranteeing rights to all former slaves equality towards lynching, trials, voting, owning property, education, transportation and so forth. Their rights were equally worthless.
I think you see what I'm getting at here. The honoring of Confederates (who fought for the cause of treason in defense of slavery, regardless of individual motives) and the spirit of forgiveness and national healing espoused by Lincoln would be much easier if the forgiven former Confederates actually behaved as to be worthy of it. They didn't. They still try to prove the nobility of their "Lost Cause" and cast a cloak of victimhood around its oppressive reality. Quite simply, their cause was not worthy of Lincoln's magnanimous attitude and their subsequent reactions to it prove this.
Full disclosure: I actually graduated from the school that started the whole freaking war and fired the first shots in Charleston (check my name for a hint...). I know a little bit about this neo-Confederate nostalgia crap and how to avoid falling into that trap. Acknowledging that history is one thing (gotta do it to atone and fix things) but glorifying it is quite another; don't do it.
If revolution is treason, we are a treasonous country by definition. There are holes in your logic you could drive a truck (full of slaves) through.
Treason is defined by the winners. Only Lincoln and Lee realized that the South had to be "let up easy." It is one thing to acknowledge their loss, it is altogether different to honor them.
"Pleae explain why Japanese soldiers are to be likened to Confederate soldiers."
They attacked US military bases, they believed they were acting honorably, a lot of Americans died as a result of their actions.
Timothy McVeigh acted just as honorably as the confederates did. I'll give you your counterpoint: John Brown. He was acting way more honorably than McVeigh or any confederate soldier, but he was a domestic terrorist nonetheless. Does the US government lay a wreath on his grave?
The South declared war, as a NATION. McVeigh was a terrorist.
Are you really a lawyer, and if so, how the f**k did you ever pass the bar exam with such a shoddy grasp of basic distinctions?
Or are you really Yogi Berra's ghost? He did tend to spout illogicalities...
It really isn't the dead who are being honored, it is the god who wears combat boots:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/your-god-wears-combat-boots.html< br />
That god is in Dixie and in the mid-east:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/oilah-akbar-oilah-akbar.html
"Yogi, try and make a logical statement. Pleae explain why Japanese soldiers are to be likened to Confederate soldiers."
I hope this isn't a repost. Japanese soldiers and confederate soldiers both attacked US military bases. Both societies glorified war and believed they were acting honorably. Both societies believed that they were racially superior. Japanese soldiers and confederate soldiers both horribly abused POWs.
Please!! Then we should also honor the 9/11 terrorists since they beleived in their minds they were acting for honors sake.
We are talking about American's that were called on by their country, their leaders, answered the call and died in the process.
OK, using your logic, limit the terrorist we honor to Americans who's answered their leader's call and died in the process: By your reasoning, the Black Muslims who killed police thirty years ago died in an "honorable" cause, so too with the Weather Underground bombers.
We shouldn't be just honoring the willingness to "give the last full measure"
to any cause. The cause should matter to a nation committed to some pretty specific ideals: the rule of law, equality and freedom. Which of those values do you think the Confederacy was serving: It sought to dissolved the supreme law of the land: the Constitution, it sought to deny millions of Americans equality and freedom--indeed it fought to deny that some Americans should even be considered humans.
Why honor a horrible cause like that?
ANDERSONVILLE?
Suggest you do a little historic reading, about what the Union did to Confederate Soldiers in Andersonville, or take a trip down to the Mississippi Coast, Biloxi, were thousands of Confederate prisoners died, at the hands of Union troops. Today the Union once again claims that individual states such as the REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, can not leave the union if its citizens vote to once again become a Republic. The Mexican Communities of California La Raza, along with other groups no longer see the need for California and much of the West to remain in the Union. There is a movement in Alaska to once again become an Independent Republic.
There is not only a growing discontent around the world about the (AIE) American Israeli Empire, it is shared by the citizens of the country, many in this nation see "Sphere of Influnce" not only in the international community, but within this nation, The Union, The Confederacy, The Republic of Texas, The Republic of California, The Republic of Alaska, The Republic of Hawaii.
Many feel that the West Coast would be much better in all respects leaving the Union, and forming a New (21st) Century Government, since our economy is tied to the ring of fire, and Mexico, down to South America, and not to the East which tied to Europe. Germany is about the size of Wisconsin, many countries are the size of our states.
The Republic of California is far more an advanced government than the one based in Wahington, D. C. with referendums, (The Peoples Vote), Re-Calls of incompetent elected officials (The immediate stopping) of bad governing, and not letting it have to be reversed at some later date after the damage is done. We haven't got it right yet, but were working on it. We throw our bums out.
Many including myself support the Confederate Idea of leaving the Union, forming a new (21st) Century Government we can and will do better working with our Mexican Neighbors to the South and Canadian to the North, The Alaskan Republic and those nations of the Ring of Fire. While maintaining a seperate relationship with the United States of America as the Republic of California.
Uh, TRIATHLON, Andersonville was a Confederate prison for Union Soldiers. Not as you seem to be saying, the opposite.
The Union prisoners there, if you've seen the photos, looked like some of the worse off Auschwitz survivors.
But, the Confederates were trying to commit genocide or starve these men to death. they simply didn't have the wherewithal in the latter part of the war to feed either themselves or the prisoners adequately.
You are free to support the "Idea of leaving the Union," but if you take steps in pursuit of a conspiracy to do so you will be a traitor, You are no patriot, no grasper of the reality that the rule of law requires subscription to just laws. What unjust law do you think justifies a war to free the West Coast from the US?
That you think California might get a better deal leaving America demonstrates and that would justify dissolving the union shows that you ain't thought things through very well. In that regard you are akin to Jeff Davis and Robert Toombs.
If you take steps in pursuit of a conspiracy to affect your advocated "Idea of leaving the Union" in front of two persons available to witness against you, you will be convicted of treason in federal court and be subject to the death penalty.
It's OK for you to wander in self-aggrandizing fantasies, just don't act on them or expect us to think they justify any real policy in the real world. Flabby thinking practices should not be allowed to give rise to storms of murderous consequences.
Go sit down in a room by yourself and think about what you've become.
ISSYWISE
ISSYWISE: What law justifies California leaving the Union, The Constitution of the United States of Amerca. California was a Republic First, and yes we can do better, without anything East of the Mississippi, and I do support totally California leaving the Union, and yes we have taught this thru, we don't need the Union, as anything more than a neighboring country much as Canada or Mexico.
The former United States Government is gone replaced by;
Family Political Organization, who have established Gerrymander Districts, ensuring that they can never ever be replaced once selected by those in power to be in the government.
These Family Political Organization are totally controlled by AIPAC/AZC) American Israel Public Affairs Committee/American Zionist Council, a (100K) One-hundred membership neo-conservative Jewish lobbyists group, connected to various caucus members of influential members of the Empire's pro-Israel lawmakers making them the (544) Imperial Court.
There are no term limits to force them out.
There is no means of Recall by the States.
They cover each other as Pelosi did by taking Impeachment off the table for (GWB) George Walker Bush.
There is no way to have a national Referendum on any important issues where the public can over-ride a bad decision.
The Government goes over the same ground over and over and over again, correcting the mistakes of one administration after another.
The Branches of Government are no longer seperate and independent, acting as checks and balances against each other.
The (CIA) Central Intelligence Agency and the Israeli Mossad are the same organization.
The Dollar should be replaced as the base International Currency.
The (IMF) International Monitary Fund and World Bank should be opened up to a greater participation of the World Community.
Yes, The Republic of California and others should in fact leave the present Union which is not a government of or for progress in the (21st) Century, or any other.
We need new thinking, in a new Century, not old think, during the last (65) sixty-five years alone The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has become The Russian Federation, Nazis Germany to East and West Germany, to The German Republic, North and South Vietnam become Vietnam, and the list goes on.
The (AIE) American Israeli Empire responds to the needs of Israeli more than it does to the needs of the American people.
The Republic of California is a progressive one, not perfect, but willing to make the changes necessary to forge ahead into the (21st) Centruy, by not retracking mistakes of the past.
Pelosi and Reid are nothing more than simptoms of a much deeper problem with a probmatic Government. The Founding Father knew that governments do outlive there usefullness to the people and need to be replaced, Jefferson felt that after (20) twenty-years of service a new government should replace the one in power.
The present system no longer serves the interests of the governed, and it is time that is be removed, but if that is not to be the case then California should once again with others remove themselves from it if they are to move swiftly into the new World Community of the (21st) Century.
IT IS TIME THE REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA PART WAY WITH WASHINGTON, D. C.
TRIATHLON
Wow! By your laundry list of rationales for dissolving the union, I can see that you have seriously thought through the treason you advocate. I can see why the need to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency justifies dissolution of the Union. I can see the logical nexus between other nations contributing to and thereby assuming proportional control interest in the IMF justifies withdrawal of California from the union. The quality of the thought you've put into this issue is apparent from your post.
Not wanting to walk too deeply into those deep waters, let me deal with only two issues: The Constitution does not justify or allow California removing itself from the Union, except through the Amendment process in Art. V. requiring two thirds votes of both houses of congress and ratification by two thirds of the States. California has no more unilateral right to withdraw than did the Confederate states.
Second, you say, "The Founding Father knew that governments do outlive there usefulness to the people and need to be replaced." That is just factually wrong, historically incorrect and even if it were historically and factually correct, hasn't the existence of the US for 220 years disproved the theory that revolution should come in every generation.
The founders established a system of self government that meant revolutions could come from the political process. And it has for 220 years, not perfectly but to good general effect. That the rationales you suggest for dissolving the Union are so silly is proof that the system has been working on what is important..
Jefferson was a political hobbyist who, along with thinking revolution should occur every generation, also believed democracy could function only if we were all yeomen farmers living on small family farms. There are parts of the world organized like that and they are not California nor are they democratic: they are called the 3d World.
To quote a relevant social critic in response to your advocacy, "De, de, de, de; de, de, de, de; de, de, de, de; de, de, de, de; de, de, de, de; de, de, de, de;
Geeze, what
ISSY WISE
There is a very strong temptation...for government forces to act outside the law, the excuses being that the processes of law are too cumbersome, that the normal safeguards in the law for the individual are not designed for an insurgency and that a terrorist deserves to be treated as an outlaw anyway. Not only is this morally wron, but, over a period, it will create more practical difficulities for a govenment than it solves. A government which does not act in accordance with the law FORGEITS THE RIGHT TO BE CALL A GOVENMENT and cannot expect its people to obey the law. Functioning in accordance with the law is a very small price to pay in return for the advantage of begin the government.(SOURCE: Sir Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, Defeating Comminst Ainsurgency Emperience from Malaya and Vietnam (1966).
The (AIE) American Isreali Empire, long ago forfeited the right to be called a government, and its laws no longer pertain to its governed, this is infact a Rogue organization within the great World Community. Nazis Germany and the (AIE) American Israeli Empire both crossed the lines of what a Government with in its Eras were based.
It has broken its trust with the people, and the greater international community, Revolutions are never about a government saying you have the right to revolt, against oppression, or its not being responsible to its citizens, but in response to lack of or refusal to serve as responsible leaders of the governed citizens. Revolution are not tea parties, they were, and are social upheavals, and reguardless of your interpertation of the Constitution, they rebelled against the crown, and so to must this nation now rebel against an oppressive system of government.
Make no mistake either the citizens of this country takes control of its government or the consequences will be fall worse, we are now within months of a Nuclear Holocaust, the sales of a preemptive strike against a nation that has not engaged in any active military agression Iran, will be met with aggressive response.
Nazis Germany, was just the last in a series of nations that tried to rule the world and felt its laws were morally superior, they fail, and so to shall this illegal farce calling itself a government fail.
It would be better for the former Republics which now form the (AIE) to leave it and bring it down with division, that have mankind be lost do to its continued existance.
This user is no longer registered.
And when, exactly, were the Japanese previously part of the US who disagreed with the direction the US was taking?
"Honoring the Confederate dead is an important gesture of national forgiveness and in the spirit of healing what was our greatest national tragedy."
Grant didn't begin the tradition of laying a wreath on the Confederate War Memorial, it was George HW Bush. The purpose wasn't to heal the nation, it was the Republican Party's way of thanking their base.
There it is! The truth under the pseudo-patriotic,code of honor bullshit.
As a descendant of people who fought for the south, who never owned slaves but joined to fight when the fight came to their state, I can appreciate the complexaties of the Civil War. While I detest everything slavery represented, I have an understanding of why my ancestors fought in the war and it had nothing to do with slavery.
I didn't know they were honored on Memorial Day by the President but it would only cause devisions to stop such a practice. They were American Citizens before the war, and for those who lived through it, they were citizens afterward. Their descendants have fought and died in other wars every since and to stop a long held practice now would be a slap in the face to their descendants.
Old wounds are healing, and having a President like Barack Obama is helping heal those wounds. Why in the world would we open them up to fester again? And why would people think that the first black president would be the right choice to do that? You would be asking for him to lose more support in the south.
Wouldn't have a problem if Obama refused to be a part of this ceremony.
How does anyone honor advocates of slavery,
perhaps some of Michelle Obama's ancestors' "owners."
The whole event seems distasteful,
including honoring that vile flag . . . a symbol of backwards booger eaters.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
WILL RODGERS ON ARMISTICE / MEMORIAL DAY
Well, this is Armistice (Memorial) Day and we talk about how terrible nations are and how they are about to fight all the time. But do you know, they have done pretty well, I think, sixteen years is along time for all these hundreds of breeds of cats to live together and not have a fight. ---Notes..
This day, Armistice / Memorial Day, is no doubt the greatest day in all the worlds history. When you think that a half-dozen men could sit down and casually sign a pact to stop millions of men from killing each other. But if they didn't stop these guys making speeches on Armistice Day, why, we are liable to have the same war over again, only worse. -November 11, 1929
If Armistice (Memorial) Day had stopped speeches, it would have done more than to have stopped the war, for speeches is what starts the next war. It's not armament; it's oratory. ---November 11, 1929
COMMENT: Well Will you just can't disagree with a fella when he's right!
While the Confederacy did fought a war in an attempt to break off from the Union, each and every Confederate soldier is as American as each and every Union soldier. The honoring of the Confederate dead is not a sign of support of white supremacy, or slavery, or the sedition of the US government, but rather an honoring our shared history as Americans. This shared history must be remembered for so many have died. I can think of no better day than memorial day to remind us of why these people have died so history doesn't have to repeat itself.
The Weather Underground and the Black Panthers are part of our "shared history as Americans." If you don't base who you honor on how their cause served the national welfare, why not also honor the dead Weathermen and Panthers.
If you think honoring those group's dead would be counterproductive to preventing a recurrence of their depredations, you are starting to get the point about why people who fought to dissolve the union should not be honored.
Sorry, but they were NOT Americans. They chose to secede from America. They were Confederates and I see no reason to honor Confederates who acted dishonorably.
Yes he should honor them. Why? Because Democrats need the South and this will cause even more riff-raff and take away from honoring the fallen.
Oh,please.
Modern terrorists are nothing like the Confederates.
The Confederates believed that what they were doing was legal, and according the the Constitution, IT WAS.
McVeigh and religious terrorists are breaking the law. AND their primary targets are defenesless citizens.
As for slavery: it was the pivotal issue, no doubt. It was so BECAUSE the southern states believed that it was their right, guarenteed by the Constitution, to determine the internal practices of the state. They believed that a centralized federal government would remove the country from a republic to a democracy.
And no, the two are not the same.
They died to preserve the Republic, not the Union.
That slavery was wrong, repugnant, and evil is inarguable.
That many of the southerners were practioners of evil is inarguable.
That many of the southerners were honorable men upholding their understanding of the Constitution is equally inarguable.
Geeze, some people......
Read some unbiased history, will ya?
"The Confederates believed that what they were doing was legal, and according the the Constitution, IT WAS;"
Bullsh*t! What provision in the Constiution provides for states to withdraw from the union other than Article V's Amendment process that requires assent of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 2/3 of the states.
You assert a legal falsity. The "Confederates" were just as lawless and criminal as McVeigh and killed thousands of times more innocents by their insurrection against the Constitution.
The Confederate states faced no threat to their internal slavery by staying in the Union. They succeeded to force territories to become slave. There is no right of Virginians to insist Nebraska be slave. There was no legitimate state's right issue.
You seem to think a republic and a democracy are different animals and mutually exclusive. Your education has failed you in that regard. A republic can be a democracy and a democracy must be a republic. A republic is a government based on consent of the governed. A democracy is a government where the will of the sovereign people is registered in elections. They are not mutually exclusive and their is no political science theory based on them that can in anyway be seen to have justified the armed insurrection against the law that was the Confederacy.
No doubt, many of the people fighting for the Confederacy were doing so out of patriotic feelings. We know some abhorred slavery, but that doesn't make their cause worth honoring, nor does it make them worth honoring. Had they succeeded the Union would have been dissolved and this continent thrown into Balkan-like warfare for decades to determine what territories would be slave or free labor.
The Timothy McVeigh analogy sticks. He too thought he was a patriot. Both he and the confederate insurrectionists kill to serve unjust and illegal causes. Neither deserves to be honored by the nation these 140 years later.
So you're comparing the US to the Mafia... "once you've decided to join, you can't decide to UN-join".
So much for "freedom".
If that suits you, OK. Freedom exists only within boundaries called laws.
As for prisoner abuse, heard of Andersonville, have you?
There were also prisons on the Union side that had prisoner abuse and horrible conditions. Andersonville was not the only one.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.