Blogs and Stories
Obama's Confederate Compromise
Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images
UPDATE: Following this Daily Beast report on whether the president should continue a Confederate Memorial Day wreath tradition, Obama started a new one this morning, honoring African-American soldiers.
Even Memorial Day offers a minefield for Barack Obama: The White House sends wreaths to Arlington National Cemetery every year, but more than 60 academics, including the celebrated Civil War historian James McPherson, urged the nation’s first black president to leave out one particular monument this time: the Confederate Memorial.
“I don’t think it appropriate for a president to send a wreath honoring a group that tried to break up the United States.”
McPherson, a professor at Princeton University, is the author of the classic Civil War history Battle Cry of Freedom. He told me in an email this week that he signed the petition, sent to the White House last week, because “I don’t think it appropriate for a president to send a wreath honoring a group that tried to break up the United States—especially a president who sees himself in many ways as an heir to Abraham Lincoln.”
But for a president who also casts himself as a conciliator, the issue could be more complicated.
Arlington is better known for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier—where presidents lay a wreath before a battery of television cameras on Memorial Day—and for the eternal flame marking John F. Kennedy’s grave. A handful of more obscure homages to veterans scatter the hallowed square mile where more than 300,000 troops who served their country are buried. One sculpture honors those who died in the Spanish-American War. Another honors nurses.
The cemetery’s history, though, is most intimately linked to the bloody conflict that ripped the country apart over slavery and secession. Arlington was carved in 1864 from the confiscated estate of the Confederate commander, Robert E. Lee, while the war was still raging and the Union’s injured and dead were streaming into the capital city of Washington. According to military historian Rick Atkinson, the burial ground was placed there, on the banks of the Potomac just south of the city, to prevent Lee’s family from ever occupying the stately home there again, and to punish the general for his treason in leading rebels against the United States. The Union had a more practical reason, too: There was really nowhere else to put the bodies. Hospitals and graveyards had simply run out of room.
Bitter feelings ran high for decades afterward. It wasn’t until 1900 that Congress allowed the remains of Confederate veterans to receive the honor of burial at Arlington, and even then—here’s an irony—they were segregated in their own section of the property. The United Daughters of the Confederacy raised the money for a monument for the Confederate section, and in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson dedicated the memorial by sculptor Moses Ezekiel on the 106th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis—who was, of course, the president of the Confederacy.
From then on, the White House marked Davis’ birthday with a wreath for the memorial each year. During the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the date was changed to Memorial Day.
James Loewen, a sociologist at the University of Vermont who is spending the year at Catholic University of America, and Edward Sebesta, an engineer who has spent years writing about modern-day white supremacy and “neo-Confederate” politics, decided that Obama might be the one to end the practice.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
babsbtw
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 -
DavidBarron
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?
lordastral
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.
jdmdetroit
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.
thankulord13
Let's get something straight using Wikipedia as a source is not credible. So please try again.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--LordVaderThis user is no longer registered.
n--Y--LordVaderPAcollegegirl
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!
Redhead5050
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.
logicwhore
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
troublemonkey
Wow. A fact-based, edifying post. Nice job, lordastral.
troublemonkey
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.
Ritarita
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.
n--Y--LordVaderThis user is no longer registered.
n--Y--LordVaderBasPos
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.
allonfla
one more thing for libs to cry foul about.
troublemonkey
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...
Issywise
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."
Jen821
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.
Issywise
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.
Redhead5050
Where do you think black slaves came from? Do you think that they were born in Georgia? Africa...duh.
AlanD2
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...
troublemonkey
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.
troublemonkey
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.
Issywise
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?
AiriqS
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.
Issywise
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.
n--Y--LordVaderIssywise
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.
theoPitt
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
reggilbert
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.
cbeenthere
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.
cbeenthere
eg. Those involved and tried in the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib and on and on...
BasPos
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.
Issywise
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.
finderj
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.
Munodi
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.
tzeigler
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.
cbeenthere
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.
lordastral
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.
cbeenthere
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.
Munodi
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!
troublemonkey
As opposed to the complete LACK of honor now?
Please let us not DEMONIZE the past based on current mores.
vi-lontano
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.
BasPos
Lincoln wanted to repatriate black slaves to Africa.That he did not is a measure of his greatness. NEITHER Bush exhibited any of this.
Issywise
"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.
Issywise
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.
AlanD2
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.
troublemonkey
EXCELLENT post, finderj. Lucid, fact-based, and well-thought-out.
Ritarita
finderj-
That attitude
Is alive and well
In modern times.
There's nothing to
Honor there.
We call them yahoos
Now.
hthierry
The "Causus Belli" is irrelevant, we honor all fallen. Confederate soldiers are part of our history. Are they less honorable?
Chuckv
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.
cbeenthere
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.
cbeenthere
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
Munodi
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.
n--Y--LordVadercbeenthere
Owning slaves did not turn out to be a right.
cbeenthere
Did it?
Munodi
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.
n--Y--LordVaderYogiBarrister
"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.
Redhead5050
This practice should be stopped. There is no sensible reason to carry on with this repulsive "honoring".
SethBa
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.
YogiBarrister
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?
quinwithey
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
theoPitt
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.
bma1983
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.
RedFredIL
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.
Uberjeff
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.
troublemonkey
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?
AlanD2
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.
judyjetson
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!
bma1983
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.
Munodi
Unbelievable that you would think that your relatives didn't "know that much about the slavery issue".
cmarsh
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.
Ritarita
cmarsh-
And yet they
Fought to keep
People enslaved.
Does it make it
More acceptable if
You don't actually
Own any human beings?
troublemonkey
Very nicely said, Judy...
And tell me, besides PERHAPS WWII, what war has NOT been stupid...?
BasPos
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.
ChanRobt
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."
Issywise
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.
troublemonkey
Seven score decades is 1,400 years, you twit.
elcid07connlaw11
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.
troublemonkey
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.
BasPos
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.
YogiBarrister
"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?
troublemonkey
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...
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.