Southern Discomfort: U.S. Army seeks removal of Lee, ‘Stonewall’ Jackson honors

This is a good discussion, at least for me. Blind loyalty is dangerous. I was just following orders don't work. We can't defend a document, I don't think. We should defend the ideas associated with the document. Not a Constitutional scholar, but I don't think the Constitution prohibited secession?

What do we do when the executive branch ignores the Constitution? Should military officers arrest folks?

The Constitution actually says nothing about secession. One can legitimately argue either way. Once a state joined the union they were always in, or alternatively, since they joined the union freely (at least the 13 original colonies did) they could freely leave.

It would have to be a pretty big and clear breach of the Constitution for the military to get involved. In fact, I would submit it would never happen that way and that people could legitimately argue either way about the particular circumstances at the time. But if enough people had enough, then you might see something like secession again. In fact, as I recall, a current governor sorta threatened it within the past 10 years, perhaps flippantly, but it was mentioned.
 
It is interesting how the Confederacy is completely villified these days. The Stars and Bars flags have been removed from State Capital buildings. Names changed for schools and parks. History is taught from a different perspective these days. Quite different than just some years ago.

I do think the individual Confederate soldier was caught up in something more than States Rights or Slavery. I think they fought on a personal level against an invasion of their homes, towns and farms. They really had little choice. So much destruction and loss in the South. I think that is what should be remembered.

The Southern Generals now are somewhat villified for extending the war and the slaughter through their brilliance. The Northern Generals should be considered equally guilty for their own incompetence.
 
Fortunately, our system of government works (albeit slowly, oftentimes). We don't need a military that tries to be judge-jury-and-executioner, because our Judicial system still functions, Congress still makes laws, and the Executive still executes the law. Sure, there are exceptions, delays, and abuses, but it isn't to the point of a failure of civil society. Thank God!

Your reply reminded about the current administration's position on Egypt.
 
It is interesting how the Confederacy is completely villified these days. The Stars and Bars flags have been removed from State Capital buildings. Names changed for schools and parks. History is taught from a different perspective these days. Quite different than just some years ago.

I do think the individual Confederate soldier was caught up in something more than States Rights or Slavery. I think they fought on a personal level against an invasion of their homes, towns and farms. They really had little choice. So much destruction and loss in the South. I think that is what should be remembered.

The Southern Generals now are somewhat villified for extending the war and the slaughter through their brilliance. The Northern Generals should be considered equally guilty for their own incompetence.

Couldn't have said it better myself. :thumb:
 
It is interesting how the Confederacy is completely villified these days. The Stars and Bars flags have been removed from State Capital buildings. Names changed for schools and parks. History is taught from a different perspective these days. Quite different than just some years ago.

Looks like I get to be in the very small minority here and play the role of contrarian. Not picking on your specific post per se, norwichdad, but it seems a good as place as any to repsond to.

The Confederacy is villified for a perfectly good reason -- they decided it was better to go to war against their countrymen than give up the backbone of their economic system, which was to enslave nealry 4 million people. Folks can argue about "states' rights" all they want, but the ONLY "right" they were fighting for was their right not to have to follow the Federal Government when it insisted that their system of slavery would not be allowed as this country expanded west-ward, and eventually this horrendous human tragedy should in fact be abolished though-out the land.

Yes, this is quite the differnce from only a generation or so ago. And that is also a part of this country's shame; a shame that it is taking this long to see that they should be vilified for thier actions, as oppossed to "glorified" for thier "Southern Heritage" (which was only made possible on the backs of millions of innocents forced into slavery).

These portraits of the "brave men of the south and thier heroic actions in battle" are just that: glorifying them. And frankly, it's past time they should be removed. TEACH the tactical and strategic lessons of the South's successful campaigns? Certainly. No need to dress up like "Southern Gentelmen Soldiers" and glorify their "cause" while you're doing it. Like it has been said here before, might as well have portraits up in the AWC depicting the Nazi Blitzkrieg of Poland, or the Japanese capture of the Phillipines because "well, they were VERY successful campaigns as well and should be proudly displayed as examples of such".

I do think the individual Confederate soldier was caught up in something more than States Rights or Slavery. I think they fought on a personal level against an invasion of their homes, towns and farms. They really had little choice. So much destruction and loss in the South. I think that is what should be remembered.

Understandable. But to me this smacks a little to close to the "I was just following orders" or the "I was just protecting the fatherland" excuses we've seen (unsuccessfully) used before. I agree with you 1000% that the common citizenry of the South probably had little say in policy and causes, and was just their fighting for their state and neighbors. But again, you don't see us putting up portraits of the common German or Japanese soldier in battle, glorifying their deeds. In fact, you don't see the Germans or Japanese putting up those portraits in the halls of their OWN military complexes either. To them, this is a shameful period not worthy of being glorified.

The Southern Generals now are somewhat villified for extending the war and the slaughter through their brilliance. The Northern Generals should be considered equally guilty for their own incompetence.

Now, THESE "Gentlemen" are 100% the ones we need to shun. These were the land-owners, the educated, the leadership of the Old South. They were fighting for one thing and one thing only: the slaves they owned and the right to keep them. Lee? Military genius. And today's students of military history SHOULD study his military genius. The shame is too many of them ignore the fact that he fought for a vile cause, and instead put him on a pedestal of virtue, honor, and glory in their hero worship.

Simply stated: Our Military Academies and PME schools should learn from the military susscesses (and failures) of the past. But we need to be a little more selective in our criteria of whom to emulate and glorify, and having portraits on the walls of our institutions that depict these individuals and actions does in fact glorify them. They should be removed, and it should have happened a LONG time ago.
 
Just curious on people's thoughts on Confederate officers?

Were they traitors?

Only traitors if they were serving in the Federal Army, but they resigned their commission when they switched over.

They were traitors in my book.
 
Just curious on people's thoughts on Confederate officers?

Were they traitors?

Only traitors if they were serving in the Federal Army, but they resigned their commission when they switched over.

I don't think they were traitors. They thought the US government was going against the founder's wishes and the Contsitution, so they took action. Even if what they did was wrong, I admire the Confederacy for at least having the guts to stand up for what it believed in. You wouldn't see a civil war now because people are too afraid to right the wrongs they see.
 
They should not be honored and glorified for the simple reason that they committed TREASON against their country.
Also, the Confederate flag is a symbol of bigotry and hate to many minorities, myself included. I don't care for the argument that it is a symbol of southern heritage. It is a symbol of Southern hatred for African Americans in particular, and if minorities find it offensive and as repulsive as I do, then it should not be flown to symbolize the states.
 
I don't think they were traitors. They thought the US government was going against the founder's wishes and the Contsitution, so they took action. Even if what they did was wrong, I admire the Confederacy for at least having the guts to stand up for what it believed in. You wouldn't see a civil war now because people are too afraid to right the wrongs they see.

Please, don't confuse "having the guts to stand up for what they believed in" with "worried about the bottom dollar". The South didn't show "guts", they showed "greed"; their majority of their economic power was directly tied to the exploitation of cheap slave labor. That goes away, and all those nice plantation estates that made such pretty back-drops in "Gone With the Wind" would have ceased to exist almost as quickly as Sherman was able to make them disappear in his march to Atlanta.

It wasn't "guts" that made them want to seceed from the Union. It was greed, plain and simple. A morally reprehensible motivation that overpowered common decency and gave them the ability (but not the justification) to look past a morally reprehensible way of life.
 
The Confederacy is villified for a perfectly good reason -- they decided it was better to go to war against their countrymen than give up the backbone of their economic system, which was to enslave nealry 4 million people. Folks can argue about "states' rights" all they want, but the ONLY "right" they were fighting for was their right not to have to follow the Federal Government when it insisted that their system of slavery would not be allowed as this country expanded west-ward, and eventually this horrendous human tragedy should in fact be abolished though-out the land.


What's important is our ability to make a choice. We don't live in a free country if we take away freedom from other folks because they are making wrong choices. Wrong choices have corresponding consequences. I see people making wrong choices every day, but we don't and can't stop them.

The winning side writes the history, so the Confederacy is portrayed as fighting for slavery. If the Confederacy won, the Union would have been vilified for deciding that it was better to go to war against their countrymen than give up the backbone of their economic system - natural resources, no tariff, consumer of manufacture goods, and so on.

If the Union fought to free to slaves, they decided it was better to go to war against their countrymen immediately to free slaves than before exhausting all peaceful means.
 
I see my countrymen break laws and go against what I believe in everyday but I am not willing to suceeded from my country because these things are allowed to go on.
 
Please, don't confuse "having the guts to stand up for what they believed in" with "worried about the bottom dollar". The South didn't show "guts", they showed "greed"; their majority of their economic power was directly tied to the exploitation of cheap slave labor. That goes away, and all those nice plantation estates that made such pretty back-drops in "Gone With the Wind" would have ceased to exist almost as quickly as Sherman was able to make them disappear in his march to Atlanta.

It wasn't "guts" that made them want to seceed from the Union. It was greed, plain and simple. A morally reprehensible motivation that overpowered common decency and gave them the ability (but not the justification) to look past a morally reprehensible way of life.

Although I agree with much of what Bullet said earlier, its important not to oversimplify the reasons for the secession. Census figures for 1860 show that only about a quarter of the families in slave states actually owned slaves. The majority had five or fewer while many plantations had substantial populations of slaves.

Notwithstanding the likelihood that many of those who were too poor to own slaves had ambitions to own them in the future, the low percentage of slaveowners suggests that there were other powerful motivations behind the secession. These included fear of domination by the Northern majority and loyalty to individual states over loyalty to the union. When Cadet Delahanty and I toured the Vicksburg battlefield, we noted that the memorials for both sides were organized by state. The same is true at Gettysburg.

Although the majority of the (white) population of the southern states supported secession, there were many Unionists. One of the last states to vote was Virginia, which voted down the proposed ordinance of secession by a two thirds majority in early April 1861. After Fort Sumter, another vote was held with secession winning 88 to 55 (leading to West Virginia's secession from the secession). Another close vote among the individual conventions was in Alabama, where 61 of the 100 delegates voted in January 1861 for secession. The relative closeness of this vote can be misleading, since a number of the 39 who voted against secession were in favor of cooperating with seceding states, and some later changed their votes.

It is also interesting to note that the young Republic of Mexico had abolished slavery by 1829. One of the reasons the Texans revolted in 1835-36 was their rejection of interference with their right to own slaves. It's some time since I read the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, which I suggested on another thread, but I recall reading an arresting phrase along the lines that the Civil War was God's revenge for the Mexican War (of 1848).
 
Last edited:
It has always amazed me that the majority of the confederate soldiers that fought and died during the civil war were from the poor and economically disenfranchised free members of their southern society.
 
It has always amazed me that the majority of the confederate soldiers that fought and died during the civil war were from the poor and economically disenfranchised free members of their southern society.

Why?
 
They had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Economically that is certainly true. But clearly they had reasons of their own to fight, otherwise they would have deserted as many did (heading to the mountains).
 
now. Morsi was popularly elected. Egyptian military took over and arrested Morsi.

Seems to me that the Egyptian military didn't like where the elected government was going, and decided a coup was in order. Generally, that's a bad choice, as you "fix" one problem but create a whole host of instability and other issues!

To the more main discussion, a lot of Southerners were loyal to their state over the federal government. It often meant more to be a Georgian than an American. Also consider that a relatively poor white would not be at the bottom of the economic scale, as long as there was slavery.
 
Seems to me that the Egyptian military didn't like where the elected government was going, and decided a coup was in order. Generally, that's a bad choice, as you "fix" one problem but create a whole host of instability and other issues!

To the more main discussion, a lot of Southerners were loyal to their state over the federal government. It often meant more to be a Georgian than an American. Also consider that a relatively poor white would not be at the bottom of the economic scale, as long as there was slavery.

In many ways poor whites were in worst shape than slaves. Slaves were feed and provided shelter. Poor whites in many cases were left to starve. The only advantage for them was the fact that they were white and free but poor just the same.
 
Back
Top