Happy Star of the West Day

Why do the Yankees insist on attacking are southern culture? The Civil War was fought by poor white men from both sides of the mason dixon line. Poor southern men couldn't afford slaves so why would they fight to keep them? It was all about state rights and people like Abraham Lincoln who used the slaves as a political tool to undermine southern diplomacy in Europe. This crap about southern men staying on the yankees side is bologna. Because not many men will go over to the enemies side to kill their family members.

Well, the contemporary opinion of most of world is that the advancement of humankind benefitted from the defeat of the Confederacy. Doesn't make 'em all "Yankees". Kind of an outdated term, actually.

And the part about Southerners remaining loyal to the Union is clearly not "crap", but fact.

General George Thomas (Virginia) & Admiral David Farragut (Tennessee) are probably two of the most well known. Not to mention US Vice President Andrew Johnson (Tennessee).

In the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee) it was truly a civil war, neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, in many instances.

West Virginia only exists as a state because it's citizens favored remaining with the Union, seceding (!) from Confederate Virginia.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/d...-union-supporters-below-the-mason-dixon-line/

"Pro-Union Southerners who organized guerrilla bands had a variety of objectives. Among them were controlling their community politically and economically; harassing and defending themselves from representatives of the Confederacy; assisting the Union Army; and resisting attacks from neighbors who supported the Confederacy. Vicious, neighbor-against-neighbor guerrilla activity was worst in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia/West Virginia."
 
the citizens of the states referred to their country as their home states.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Those that resigned from the United States Army/Navy/ect.. recognized that they were turning against their country. They are by definition traitors. It's a shame that some in this country feel the need to glorify and memorialize them.

There are lots of examples of Southerners that stayed loyal to the United States and fought against the Confederacy. Infact around 40% of Virginians in the Army stayed in the Army instead of joining the Confederacy.
Nemo, before you call someone a liar, you should really do your research. I have done mine, I know of what I speak; I have written scholarly papers on this subject. It takes a bit of research, but you can find what I said.

And when you say "traitor" I'm assuming you're using the legal definition that is contained in Article 3 of the US Constitution?

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


Now that seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it. But it's not open and shut, and why not? Ever wonder why Confederate President Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason? Or his cabinet? Or the varied generals that had served in the US army? It's simple: the Confederate States succeeded from the Union; they LEFT the United States to form their own country. FYI...there's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits that, in writing (I'll get to that later). And by leaving the Union, their citizens were not US citizens and therefore, not subject to the US Constitution and its definition of treason. After the war, the US Government determined they did not want this question to arise and possibly reach the Supreme Court because had the court ruled in favor of President Davis...it would have said that the Union war was illegal, and that would NOT have gone over well.

Now...that being said, there's argument that while the Constitution delineates what it takes to become a state, there's no such clarity on leaving the Union. Some say you can't; some say you can, but nobody has really taken it to task, recently. In 1869 there was a case argued before the Supreme Court: Texas v White. In that case, the Supreme's ruled that the US Constitution "...Is an indestructible union from which no state can secede." The court further went on to state "...that the federal Constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." In essence, Chief Justice Chase declared that because the Union had succeeded in defeating the secessionist Confederate States in battle, they had affected by action what would now be law: no state may secede.

So...now you see why I don't call anyone a traitor; that's a highly perjorative term and remember, a criminal act requires intent. At that time, these gentlemen were acting honorably for the time in following their state into a new nation. Right or wrong; we have the benefit of 150+ years of hindsight to debate and discuss this.

But please...don't go saying something isn't true without backing it up. Read some of the books written by Confederate veterans in the 1800's...many will talk about how they were fighting for their home country, and then they'll name their state. They don't name the CSA, or the USA, but their state. There was more loyalty to your state than the federal government then.

Steve
(Private Member, not MOD for this)
 
the citizens of the states referred to their country as their home states.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Those that resigned from the United States Army/Navy/ect.. recognized that they were turning against their country. They are by definition traitors. It's a shame that some in this country feel the need to glorify and memorialize them.

There are lots of examples of Southerners that stayed loyal to the United States and fought against the Confederacy. Infact around 40% of Virginians in the Army stayed in the Army instead of joining the Confederacy.
Nemo, before you call someone a liar, you should really do your research. I have done mine, I know of what I speak; I have written scholarly papers on this subject. It takes a bit of research, but you can find what I said.

And when you say "traitor" I'm assuming you're using the legal definition that is contained in Article 3 of the US Constitution?

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


Now that seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it. But it's not open and shut, and why not? Ever wonder why Confederate President Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason? Or his cabinet? Or the varied generals that had served in the US army? It's simple: the Confederate States succeeded from the Union; they LEFT the United States to form their own country. FYI...there's nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits that, in writing (I'll get to that later). And by leaving the Union, their citizens were not US citizens and therefore, not subject to the US Constitution and its definition of treason. After the war, the US Government determined they did not want this question to arise and possibly reach the Supreme Court because had the court ruled in favor of President Davis...it would have said that the Union war was illegal, and that would NOT have gone over well.

Now...that being said, there's argument that while the Constitution delineates what it takes to become a state, there's no such clarity on leaving the Union. Some say you can't; some say you can, but nobody has really taken it to task, recently. In 1869 there was a case argued before the Supreme Court: Texas v White. In that case, the Supreme's ruled that the US Constitution "...Is an indestructible union from which no state can secede." The court further went on to state "...that the federal Constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." In essence, Chief Justice Chase declared that because the Union had succeeded in defeating the secessionist Confederate States in battle, they had affected by action what would now be law: no state may secede.

So...now you see why I don't call anyone a traitor; that's a highly perjorative term and remember, a criminal act requires intent. At that time, these gentlemen were acting honorably for the time in following their state into a new nation. Right or wrong; we have the benefit of 150+ years of hindsight to debate and discuss this.

But please...don't go saying something isn't true without backing it up. Read some of the books written by Confederate veterans in the 1800's...many will talk about how they were fighting for their home country, and then they'll name their state. They don't name the CSA, or the USA, but their state. There was more loyalty to your state than the federal government then.

Steve
(Private Member, not MOD for this)


I believe it was Adolf Hitler himself who said (and I paraphrase), "History is written by the winners." He was a bad man, but he was right.

Thus, Confederates were traitors. They lost. If they won, they'd have been "founding fathers".

In the same manner that the Republicans in Spain, the Whites in Russia, the South Vietnamese, Poland's Home Army, the Filipino Huks, Che's guerillas in Bolivia, etc.

The Irish had wonderfully romantic rebels fighting for a great cause (in my Boston Irish opinion) for hundreds of years, but always lost. And were ruled by the Crown. Less than 100 years ago anyone born in Dublin or Cork or Limerick was considered to be "British".

What the people of the Southern states had going for them circa 1865 was a reasonably benevolent conquest. The US didn't hang Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis or George Pickett for treason. Only the Austrian who ran Andersonville prison camp.

CSA General James Longstreet later became a US Marshal.

Joseph Wheeler of Georgia ended the Civil War as a Confederate general, but later ended his career as a US general, commanding troops in the Spanish-American War.

Hardly what Lenin's Reds would have allowed from a defeated White general. Or Franco. Or Castro. Or the Tutsis. I doubt Syria's Bashar al-Assad will afford the loser's of his civil war anything like this form of amnesty and rehabilitation.

What other civil war in history had such tolerance from the victors towards the vanquished?
 
Pretty amazing that they celebrate the time they were traitors to their country.

Cadets fought with valor and honor in that terrible struggle

No one doubts that the Confederate Army fought with distinction and were more than capably led.

So did the Wehrmacht from 1939-1945. But I'm glad they lost, too.

The world is better off that both the Confederacy & the Third Reich were militarily defeated.

you're not really that ignorant are you?

Is the world not better off that the Confederacy & the Third Reich were defeated? What would have been better on Planet Earth if the regimes of Jeff Davis & Adolf Hitler been victorious? Name me one thing.

Waiting for a rebuttal on bated breath.

Please gimme something better than "are you ignorant"?

I'm begging.

Seriously.
 
One of the most interesting letters from the war is from U.S. Grant to Lincoln, imploring him to intervene and stop northern textile factory owners from bootlegging cotton and violating the Union embargo of southern cotton.
 
One of the most interesting letters from the war is from U.S. Grant to Lincoln, imploring him to intervene and stop northern textile factory owners from bootlegging cotton and violating the Union embargo of southern cotton.

Another interesting letter was from the London-based International Working Men's Association congratulating Abraham Lincoln on his re-election. " If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery."

One of the signatories of the letter and its author was a fellow named Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany. Charles Francis Adams, United States Minister to the United Kingdom, wrote a gracious though measured response acknowledging the letter had been received by Lincoln. So Abe was a Commie - who knew?
 
Last edited:
Holy Cow! The war is still on! And absolutely EVERYONE knows the FACTS.

I had ancestors who fought on both sides, and no one owned slaves.

Now, let's move on to how American Indians (or PC Native Americans) were treated. The Trail of Tears is still covered in tears.
 
How about we don’t and pretend we did, skip all the yelling, banning of folks and get back to helping young men and women achieve their dreams of being military officers via the various commissioning sources.
 
+1 Hoops.

I cannot tell you how much time and energy these types of threads diverts from the mission of this website when a thread "goes off the rails."
I serve as a volunteer moderator to promote the mission of helping young people seek a military commission, and NOT to play referee to disrespectful name-calling and abuse.

Off-topic is a forum for building our community, not breaking it apart.
 
Just to be clear I am all for open debate on topics that are several levels removed from SA and ROTC as long as they relate to the military somehow. We can learn a lot from our past and looking at our past battles and wars. I think healthy debate is a great thing, but if we can’t have civil discourse it’s pointless. The way I look at it, debate, conflict, and learning how to have civil discourse is a critical skill young men and women need to have going down this path. They will be challenged taking on this career whether it’s 5 years or 30. They will disapprove of certain outcomes and orders, they will be challenged to come up with unique solutions to problems and a variety of other items. Learning how to critically think, have a crucial conversation with leadership and subordinates, and provide a recommendation to something they disagree with is what their reality will be. Let’s set the example.
 
Back
Top