Yes, but “the United States” then did not mean what it is supposed to mean in our lifetime. It was an entity invading their lands, killing their neighbors; they responded as I expect patriotic Americans of any time would.
By fighting for slavery? :rolleyes:
This sort of argument by the way helps demonstrate a major reason why I oppose honoring Confederate soldiers; it inevitably leads to attempts to ignore, downplay or justify the whole reason the Confederacy existed: slavery.
I disagree, but even if this were true, you keep citing the “modern” notion of it as reason to include the Confederacy in our honored dead.
You have a different notion of patriotism than I do. I’d prefer yours, actually; it seems to be enormously flexible and up to any job it might encounter. Mine is the weaker variety, and it only seems to have any energy in support of the country of its origin.
Well, I dispute that fighting regular combat can be an atrocity, so there’s that.
Anyone who believes that the average Confederate soldier was motivated by a love of slavery, or that the average Union soldier was motivated by the desire to end slavery, would do well to read Civil War Soldiers by Reid Mitchell.
It doesn’t matter if they were or not. They were fighting for slavery, whatever lies they may have told themselves. And fighting for slavery is an atrocity.
If an army attacked a town just because they wanted to round up all the women and rape them, would you consider that an atrocity? Because rape and worse is what the South was fighting for, what the Confederacy existed for.
Different people can come to the same decision based on very different beliefs, ideals, and motives.
No (assuming you mean a regular, duly-constituted army and not a band of brigands). The rape would be, certainly, but not the combat.
Yes, they were answering the call of their country, which was not the United States of America. Why should the United States honor them or their efforts? The notion is ridiculous.
Yes, it’s part of our country because the traitors lost. Are you suggesting that we honor them for losing? WTF kind of thinking is that?
Really? The United States federal government has done this? We have? There’s a Fort Robert E. Lee? A USS Jefferson Davis? A Stonewall Jackson Memorial Platoon in the US Army? 
:roll eyes:
My (lesser) point is that they–North and South–had a ‘different’ notion. A narrower one, in a sense.
The greater point is that, if you are a patriotic modern American, your country includes the Confederates. And the Union. And the Indian nations (some of whose warriors who fought against “the United States” are also incorporated into our country’s military lore). And… the Hawaiians, the Puerto Ricans, the immigrants from everywhere.
Our country is made of all that past. They are all Americans.
I’ll try again, using caps for emphasis: THEY WERE NOT AMERICANS WHEN THEY WERE BEING INVADED; THEY WERE TRAITORS WHO HAD RESOLVED TO FORM A NEW COUNTRY FROM ASSETS BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES. THEY WERE THIEVES AND VILLIANS AND EVIL SCUM, NOT “PATRIOTIC AMERICANS”.
Yes, there is a Fort Lee. You may have also heard about Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning. Pretty much every army post south of the Mason-Dixon Line was named after a Confederate general.
Lee, Hood, Benning, A.P. Hill, Rucker, Polk, Pickett, Gordon and Beauregard. I think thats all of them
For a start…
USS Robert E. Lee, launched 18 December 1959.
USS Stonewall Jackson, launched 30 November 1963.
They are all Americans now. At that point, the Confederacy, by choice, seceded and directed their allegiance elsewhere. This is your ongoing non sequitur. I am saying that during that period, they traitorously took up arms against their country and killed American soldiers. Had you asked a Confederate soldier if he was a citizen of the U.S., he would have told you hell no. As a result, I don’t honor the dead who sacrificed their lives for an evil cause, in support of another government, and in doing so killed American soldiers.
“But we’re all Americans!” Yes, now we are. So a soldier from Georgia who died in WWII or Korea or Iraq deserves my respect and gratitude. That does not at all change the fact that Georgians in the Civil War had a bit of a different perspective and loyalty, and those sensibilities led them to kill American soldiers.
SCOTUS held in Texas v. White that the rebel states remained part of the Union for the duration of the conflict. Legally, the Confederates never stopped being Americans.
Screw legally, let’s go with morally. We could have Treason Day to “honor” the confederate soldiers.
Missed edit. I forgot Fort Stewart.
FTR I went with option one. Simply for the fact that the holiday was started as a way to honor the dead on both sides of the Civil War in order to help with the healing. I see no reason to retroactively go back and change that.
If’n you don’t know why a particular dude fought in the war, how do you know whether they should be honored?
Maybe he was fighting to defend his homeland from the dirty Yankees.
Maybe he was fighting to get his rapin’ and pillagin’ on.
Or maybe he was fighting for a new-fangled constitution that would ensure his right of dominion over another race of people forever and ever.
Admittedly, I’m not into ancestor worship–especially when it comes to war. I’m all for giving veterans their due for their service. But honoring dead people irrespective of why they’re dead? Seems pretty ridiculous to me.
It really doesn’t matter. What matter is if they died in the service of the United States or not. The Confederates didn’t. Personally, I have nothing more to discuss, though I’m sure the discussion will continue.
But the perspective of those that lived at the time and went to battle against those Georgians led to the start of the holiday to honor the dead of both sides. If you want to look at the perspective and sensibilities of the time you need to look at it all.
No, I don’t. Their logic was screwy then, and the same logic is screwy now. IMO, that is. This is nationally recognized as “The Stratocaster Doctrine,” and it’s binding on no one. But seriously, I don’t care who thought it was a good idea to honor people who traitorously killed American soldiers. Sounds like it was a political move, and maybe it served its purpose. Still makes no sense to me, and I don’t honor them, whoever else does (or did).