ERASE HISTORY

[nrotcmid23]

I'll let you research Braxton Bragg. Even if he were the most brilliant military tactician in history--which he was not--he was a traitor and in the elite leadership of a rebellion against the United States. And he lost, as did all of his other colleagues. How many soldiers passed through the gates of Ft. Bragg and died on the battlefield during its history, which didn't even begin until 50 years after the Civil War. They were fighting for not against the United States. There is no one more deserving of the honour?

One Braxton Bragg story that seems to sum up his service particularly well is when he served as both a company commander and quartermaster at a frontier post in the Army. As company commander he submitted a request for supplies. As quartermaster he subsequently denied his own request. He then repeated this back and forth, eventually bringing this impasse he found himself at to the post commander, who promptly responded, "My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!"

 

[flieger83]

***NOT SPEAKING AS A MODERATOR***

I have lots of "conflicting emotions" with this topic and movement. On one hand, I "get" the populist movement and the "we're woke" progressive stand. However, it really does seem, to me, to be like Orwell's "1984" and Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451." I look to the actual history of our country and the times back then. Did you know that until AFTER the Civil War, almost the entire population of the United States did NOT refer to themselves as US Citizens? They were loyal to their states, not the federal government. They feared a federal government's power. Heck, while the USA started minting its first circulating money in 1793, it wasn't mandatory for use in the USA until 1857! Until then...foreign coins were more common than USA in local commerce. States issued paper currency for decades before the USA issued their first ones during the civil war (the backs were green, hence the term: greenbacks).

So many people speak of the confederate soldiers/sailors as "traitors to their country." I would ask that you look at Robert E. Lee's comments about the agonizing decision he had to make when offered command of all the Union armies; two quotes I have known since I was young:

1. "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?" (Blair was asked by President Lincoln to offer command to Robert E. Lee after the fall of Fort Sumter)

2. "Save for defense of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword." (To General Winfield Scott in his resignation from the army after turning down the President's offer).

The Constitution of the United States defines treason: " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article III, Section 3.) Clearly, this would label anyone that fought for the CSA as a traitor. What falls by the wayside though is the question: what if your state leaves the union and then you are allegiant to another country? Can you then be a traitor? Of course, the US Supreme Court decided this in a 5-3 decision against Texas in 1869 by saying, in essence, that "once you join the union you can not leave it as the Constitution doesn't say you can" thereby nullifying secession. Of course, this was AFTER the war was fought so when they "left" the union, there was no legal determination that they couldn't.

And it goes on and on...as said earlier, a "slippery slope" indeed.

I'm going to stop...because if I keep going it'll just be more and more disjointed. As I said, I really have a lot of conflicting thoughts, beliefs, and feelings on this topic.

end of rant.

***MOD HAT BACK ON***

I applaud the members for the discussion so far. It is a very "touchy" topic and as AROTC-dad said, as long as we keep it civil, it could be a great learning discussion.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[OldRetSWO]

I have no stake in the game and see both sides.

My question would be when will it stop? Will Washington DC be changed?

Neither Washington nor Columbia will not pass muster with the zampolits!

 

[AF6872]

Highjack Alert!!!!!! SIL just came back from an extra long long deployment thanks to Covid. Gave DD a bracelet made with old copper from the Chapel Dome. Both 2011. Never would have thought of that,

 

[raimius]

I am wary of trying to get rid of inconvenient history, although there are plenty of great leaders we could rename bases after...ones who fought for us, in particular!
Ft Novosel instead of Rucker? (Although, I would miss all the wordplay...) Ft Bradley?

 

[Devil Doc]

One of the Virginians with his name on buildings is Matthew Maury. He is known as Pathfinder of the Seas and literally wrote the book on oceanography. He was the superintendent of the Naval Observatory when it was at D and 23rd Street NW in DC. A personal story first. I was stationed at BUMED when it was also at that address and my office was also the office of Commander Maury. In fact, he was sitting in that room when he wrote his letter of resignation to President Lincoln.

Maury’s contributions to navigation and shipping paths are immense and were accomplished prior to his resignation in 1861. He was also instrumental in the establishment of the Naval Academy. Another thing he did “was to send his cousin, Lieutenant William Lewis Herndon, and another former coworker at the United States Naval Observatory, Lieutenant Lardner Gibbon, to explore the valley of the Amazon, while gathering as much information as possible for both trade and slavery in the area. Maury thought the Amazon might serve as a "safety valve" by allowing Southern slaveowners to resettle or sell their slaves there. (Maury's plan was basically following the idea of northern slave traders and slaveholders who had sold their slaves to the Southern states.) The expedition aimed to map the area for the day when slave owners would go "with their goods and chattels to settle and to trade goods from South American countries along the river highways of the Amazon valley.” -from Wikipedia

Maury’s name will probably be stricken from all buildings, tablets, and parchment due to his defection to the south and no amount of good for the world he did previously will help. I find interesting though the role his cousin LT Herndon played in searching for a place for southerners to offload their slaves, much like the northern slave holders did in the southern US. If William Lewis Herndon’s name sounds familiar, he’s the namesake of the Herndon Monument on the grounds of the Naval Academy.

 

[LurkingQuietly]

Tear Down Military Monuments....Rename Military Bases....final stop on this train "Defund the Military". We better pull our heads out of our posteriors, or this is going to to "south" (no pun intended).

 

[AF6872]

Judge not lest you be judged. I want reperations from Italy (Romans in northern Europe) and the British Empire for stealing my ancestors lands. History may not repeat itself but it sometimes comes close and can only be learned from not condemmed.

 

[cb7893]

***NOT SPEAKING AS A MODERATOR***

I have lots of "conflicting emotions" with this topic and movement. On one hand, I "get" the populist movement and the "we're woke" progressive stand. However, it really does seem, to me, to be like Orwell's "1984" and Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451." I look to the actual history of our country and the times back then. Did you know that until AFTER the Civil War, almost the entire population of the United States did NOT refer to themselves as US Citizens? They were loyal to their states, not the federal government. They feared a federal government's power. Heck, while the USA started minting its first circulating money in 1793, it wasn't mandatory for use in the USA until 1857! Until then...foreign coins were more common than USA in local commerce. States issued paper currency for decades before the USA issued their first ones during the civil war (the backs were green, hence the term: greenbacks).

So many people speak of the confederate soldiers/sailors as "traitors to their country." I would ask that you look at Robert E. Lee's comments about the agonizing decision he had to make when offered command of all the Union armies; two quotes I have known since I was young:

1. "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?" (Blair was asked by President Lincoln to offer command to Robert E. Lee after the fall of Fort Sumter)

2. "Save for defense of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword." (To General Winfield Scott in his resignation from the army after turning down the President's offer).

The Constitution of the United States defines treason: " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article III, Section 3.) Clearly, this would label anyone that fought for the CSA as a traitor. What falls by the wayside though is the question: what if your state leaves the union and then you are allegiant to another country? Can you then be a traitor? Of course, the US Supreme Court decided this in a 5-3 decision against Texas in 1869 by saying, in essence, that "once you join the union you can not leave it as the Constitution doesn't say you can" thereby nullifying secession. Of course, this was AFTER the war was fought so when they "left" the union, there was no legal determination that they couldn't.

And it goes on and on...as said earlier, a "slippery slope" indeed.

I'm going to stop...because if I keep going it'll just be more and more disjointed. As I said, I really have a lot of conflicting thoughts, beliefs, and feelings on this topic.

end of rant.

***MOD HAT BACK ON***

I applaud the members for the discussion so far. It is a very "touchy" topic and as AROTC-dad said, as long as we keep it civil, it could be a great learning discussion.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

So many interesting points. I encourage you to take off your mod hat more often, if for no other reason than to keep a thread on track.

The identification of oneself with a state was stronger in Virginia than anywhere else, given the number of native sons who rose to prominence at the nation’s birth. There was also a strong identification with one’s region. Have you ever heard the term “the three states of Tennessee?” The mountain men, like three of my G-Great Grandfathers only recognized a TN/NC border insofar as some state institutions attempted to assert their authority. The debate over the proper role of the federal government is older than the Articles of Confederation. The Civil War brought this, among other issues, into sharp relief.

 

[Day-Tripper]

It has been "recently" discovered that two buildings on USNA have names associated with Confederate Naval Officers. Franklin Buchanan, first superintendent and founder of the Naval Academy and Admiral CSAN "The Supes House". Also Commander Mathew Fontaine Maury, Captain of the Virginia in another building. As George Santayana stated in "The Life Of Reason" those who forget are condemned to repeat it.

Where they burn books they will also ultimately burn people. "Heinrich Heinie"

"There's more than one way to burn a book, and the world is full of people running about with lit matches." Ray Bradbury

The generals of the Confederacy commanded armies that killed more US Army soldiers than in any other war in US history & should not have statues on public land & US military bases later named after them.

Just as status of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, et al came down when their evil systems died, so should those (which should never have been erected, something Robert E Lee agreed with prior to his death) celebrating the cause of the Southern Confederacy, the cause of human bondage, the cause of economic exploitation based on skin pigmentation.

I doubt the Hungarians & Poles & Iraqis who tore down statues of Stalin & Saddam were trying to "erase history".

The history of the American Civil War can be studied in boks, classrooms, museums & movies. Celebrating the cult of the "Lost Cause" using US taxpayer dollars has been a crime.

I doubt the hundreds of thousands of US troops going to fight in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. left Forts Bragg, Benning, Hood, etc. with the glorious images of defending slaveholding plantation owners in mind. For the African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Jewish-Americans who wore khaki uniforms with the insignia "US" on their collars, the idea of being trained at bases named for Confederate traitors must have been less than comforting.

Change the names.

Remove the statues.

 

[Day-Tripper]

I am wary of trying to get rid of inconvenient history, although there are plenty of great leaders we could rename bases after...ones who fought for us, in particular!
Ft Novosel instead of Rucker? (Although, I would miss all the wordplay...) Ft Bradley?

How about naming an Army base for Maurice Rose? Immigrant son of a Polish rabbi. Lied about his age to enlist, as a 16 year old private. Served in WW1 & WW2. Rose to the rank of general based on incredible merit in an age & society riddled with xenophobia & anti-semitism. Saw tons of combat.

Though by 1945 he was a general, he commanded from the front. KIA just a month before Hitler, in the last weeks of the war in Europe.

Never turned traitor against his country or commanded soldiers who killed US troops.

Certainly a better man to name a US military base after than Confederates.

How about Audie Murphy? A Texan who never fired his weapon against fellow Americans? Never owned slaves? Highest decorated soldier in American history before he was 21 years old.

How about Ira Hayes? Pima tribe member, celebrated hero of Mount Suribachi (Iwo Jima) flag raising?

How about Sam Houston? As proud as Texas as there ever was. A great military man. An enemy of the Confederate cause. Died despised by his fellow Texans for his support of the United States.

How about Admiral David Farragut? US Naval officer, from Tennessee. Remained loyal to his nation. In fact, more Tennesseans, Kentuckians & Missourians served under the flag of the US than under that of the rebels.....but history kind of forgets that. Read some Shelby Foote & Bruce Catton for more details on that.

How about the late Senator John McCain? US Naval aviator of A-4 Skyhawk with numerous combat missions over North Vietnam. Shot down, tortured, imprisoned for nearly 6 years as a POW, returned to US a badly injured man. Elected congressman, then senator. Had a son serve in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Ran for president. Then viciously denounced by the current Oval Office occupant as someone who "got captured".

 

[Day-Tripper]

So many interesting points. I encourage you to take off your mod hat more often, if for no other reason than to keep a thread on track.

The identification of oneself with a state was stronger in Virginia than anywhere else, given the number of native sons who rose to prominence at the nation’s birth. There was also a strong identification with one’s region. Have you ever heard the term “the three states of Tennessee?” The mountain men, like three of my G-Great Grandfathers only recognized a TN/NC border insofar as some state institutions attempted to assert their authority. The debate over the proper role of the federal government is older than the Articles of Confederation. The Civil War brought this, among other issues, into sharp relief.

Well a certain section of Virginia wa so opposed to secession that they broke off and became the state of West Virginia. Not a lot of unity there.

And about 50,000 Virginians in all served in Union armies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War).

 

[Chockstock]

***NOT SPEAKING AS A MODERATOR***

I have lots of "conflicting emotions" with this topic and movement. On one hand, I "get" the populist movement and the "we're woke" progressive stand. However, it really does seem, to me, to be like Orwell's "1984" and Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451." I look to the actual history of our country and the times back then. Did you know that until AFTER the Civil War, almost the entire population of the United States did NOT refer to themselves as US Citizens? They were loyal to their states, not the federal government. They feared a federal government's power. Heck, while the USA started minting its first circulating money in 1793, it wasn't mandatory for use in the USA until 1857! Until then...foreign coins were more common than USA in local commerce. States issued paper currency for decades before the USA issued their first ones during the civil war (the backs were green, hence the term: greenbacks).

So many people speak of the confederate soldiers/sailors as "traitors to their country." I would ask that you look at Robert E. Lee's comments about the agonizing decision he had to make when offered command of all the Union armies; two quotes I have known since I was young:

1. "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South, I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?" (Blair was asked by President Lincoln to offer command to Robert E. Lee after the fall of Fort Sumter)

2. "Save for defense of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword." (To General Winfield Scott in his resignation from the army after turning down the President's offer).

The Constitution of the United States defines treason: " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article III, Section 3.) Clearly, this would label anyone that fought for the CSA as a traitor. What falls by the wayside though is the question: what if your state leaves the union and then you are allegiant to another country? Can you then be a traitor? Of course, the US Supreme Court decided this in a 5-3 decision against Texas in 1869 by saying, in essence, that "once you join the union you can not leave it as the Constitution doesn't say you can" thereby nullifying secession. Of course, this was AFTER the war was fought so when they "left" the union, there was no legal determination that they couldn't.

And it goes on and on...as said earlier, a "slippery slope" indeed.

I'm going to stop...because if I keep going it'll just be more and more disjointed. As I said, I really have a lot of conflicting thoughts, beliefs, and feelings on this topic.

end of rant.

***MOD HAT BACK ON***

I applaud the members for the discussion so far. It is a very "touchy" topic and as AROTC-dad said, as long as we keep it civil, it could be a great learning discussion.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

So, does Lee's deep struggle over his decision to support Virginia over the U.S. somehow exonerate him and all other Confederate soldiers and officers from having, yes, committed treason? Why do you falsely present Lee's personal quotes as representative of all Confederate soldiers and their beliefs? I really do not understand your logic here. Does his own moral struggle over violating his oath and yes, even over the institution of slavery (commendable as it is), somehow make his indefensible actions defensible....? Does a convicted man who claims he felt remorse and shame while committing a crime excuse him of his responsibility to atone for it?

Your example of Texas v. White is also amusing. Yes, the letter of the law that secession is illegal was established in 1869. Do you believe that just because this legal precedent didn't exist in 1863 that the war waged by the Confederacy somehow wasn't treason, both in spirit and action? Or are you implying that because it was not explicitly illegal to do so, the Confederacy's actions can be partially or wholly excused?

You had Lee, a former superintendent of West Point, and many other officers who had graduated from that institution turn against the government that founded it. They betrayed their oaths. The reasons for the betrayal aren't even important. If you eliminate slavery from the equation and judge by their actions alone, it is impossible to deny that what Confederate officers did was anything but treason. Read the Confederate constitution...it is thoroughly clear what they intended to do; break away from the Union and claim independence as a sovereign nation wholly outside the purview of the U.S. Constitution. They violated the principle of civilian authority over the military. The Confederacy was the first to strike at Ft Sumter and attempt to achieve its political objectives through violence. During the course of the war, the CSA desperately tried to enlist the help of foreign powers, Britain and France, against the U.S. How is any of that not treason?

Let's say Texas v. White was decided 10 years earlier in 1859. And the Confederate states did NOT have the legal justification to secede. Does it make their actions any MORE wrong, just because the law said so?

You can argue that rule of law should prevail and that stare decisis is a critical pillar of our government's separation of powers but who are we really kidding? The U.S. was not even 80 years old (was judicial review even a thing?); like you stated, the majority of Americans identified more strongly with their home state than the Nation itself. The country was only just starting to develop a more mature body of laws, politics, economy, society, and most importantly, a national identity until half the country decided that preserving slavery was more important than preserving the Union.


For the record, I don't necessarily support renaming any Army bases. I believe its an idea worth exploring and I think there is a strong case for renaming them. It is a tough debate and I can think of arguments to support both sides. I'm just a little disturbed that anyone would try to argue that the Confederacy was not treason. It most definitely was.

And final note, someone already said it, but I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest we as a country "erase history". I am not sure why or where this idea came from. Remembering and studying Robert E Lee and other characters of the Confederacy is different from venerating him. Petraeus said it best. Statues may come down but that doesn't mean their memories and rightful place in history will be erased from textbooks and lessons.

 

[CatDog99]

Generally speaking, naming bases (or ships or submarines or B-2 bombers or FOBs) after real people, battles, cities or states is something I like about the American military. There is history in every one of those names. Camp Valor or USS Courageous don't do much for me, although I was a fan of the USS Intrepid CV-11 in WW2 (appropriately a floating museum in New York harbor).

 

[CatDog99]

Will service academies and military schools continue to teach tactics and history of those who fought against the US and our Allies? It's important to study Lee's victory at Chancellorsville, Germany's early Blitzkrieg tactics, and Mao's foundational primer on Guerilla Warfare. I hope Petraeus is right that we won't stop learning from history.

 

[NorwichDad]

A lot of talk of erasing history. History of the Civil War was hijacked by the Lost Cause. It was institutionalized by the needs of unifying the country and then of WW1 and WW2. History was rewritten to make Noble the Confederate Cause. Generals Grant and Sherman were portrayed in very bad terms. That is why obsolete bases were named after them. The Lost Cause portrayed Sherman as a Madman consumed with Total War. Grant was a drunk, incompetent, butcher who won only because of numbers and supplies. The Lost Cause pushed the narrative. In reality Sherman was brilliant and capturing Atlanta insured that Lincoln would win the 1864 Election. In reality Grant as General set a plan to destroy the Confederacy. Concentration in Time was his plan where multiple US Armies would hit the Confederacy at the same time. He held on to Lee at Petersburg while Sherman and other Armies proved how hollow the Confederacy was. Grant always won where other US Generals had always failed. He saved the country. We are who we are because of Grant. The Lost Cause rewrite of history extended to Reconstruction and Grant's presidency (1868 to 1876). The Lost Cause emphasized Grant was corrupt as President. The reason why is that Grant pursued the Klan with Armies and had his Attorney General lay down indictments against 3,000 Klan Members. He pushed for and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1873. For a time we had full equality under the Law. It was overturned by a racist Supreme Court in 1883. Grant tried to create a country where all men are created equal. African Americans almost attained full equality in the early 1870s. They could have participated fully in the limitless opportunities of the late 1800s. It would have helped them grow collectively and individually. They would have been equal under the Law for generations. It would have made our country stronger. Instead the old wounds of racism persist today. In 1970 I was riding with my grandfather in car and he saw a confederate flag. He cursed at it and I heard choice words for the first time. He told me that when his father did not return(casualty Yellow Fever) after the War of 1898 he had to live with his grandfather. His grandfather served in the Cavalry in the Civil War. He said our family hates that flag.

 

[Wickets]

Beautifully written NorwichDad. I agree.

 

[QA1517]

I have to wonder how much history that is trying to be "erased" is actually still taught in primary and secondary schools. My sons have been out of high school for over 5 years now. I think I (or the history channel) taught them more about history than they learned in school. They still had "slave day" in school where the students of one class were treated like slaves by the upper classmen.

Statues of certain figures should be relegated to museums or places of historical relevance. They should not be in town squares being celebrated.
Naming of forts/buildings or whatever, in my mind should be left alone, as they were named a long time ago. Just don't do it any more.
The confederate flag should not be flown as a sign in any official status in any state. In my mind it's like flying the Nazi flag. It should be banned in all public areas except history museums.

History has to be remembered as it will repeat itself. I brought this point up in the discussion of the Washington riots and use of military on another thread. The key is to recognize it so one can change before it does repeat.

Side note:
I get the #BLM and protests and don't dis-agree. I do dis-agree with the radical behavior of some and the belief that if we tear down history reminders that everything will be wonderful. I also absolutely dis-agree with the kneeling during the national anthem. If you want to show solidarity to the cause and still respect the flag and country as some athletes say they want to, then stand during the anthem and take 15 seconds afterwards and kneel in unity. I don't care what anyone says, kneeling during the anthem is dis-respecting and the country. I would rather it not be played at all than to observe the kneeling during it.

 

[Devil Doc]

@QA1517 excellent post. I cringe when I hear stories of slave day activities. In this day and time? Really? Surely it will never happen again but I won’t put any money on that. I’m not sure what they teach in history and social studies these days. At the school in which I teach, the social studies department is leading the effort in all subjects adding cultural diversity and equity, etc. to their curriculum.

Since the Floyd murder, we have finished the school year with equity, inclusion, and race related topics, and we will surely start the next year with the same. My principal is an African American woman married to an African American man who is a police officer. She shared with the faculty his disagreement with BLM as an organization with their views and activities, but of course supported Black Lives Matter as a movement.

I agree vigorously with your comments on the flag.

Also, today is Flag Day.

 

[flieger83]

So, does Lee's deep struggle over his decision to support Virginia over the U.S. somehow exonerate him and all other Confederate soldiers and officers from having, yes, committed treason? Why do you falsely present Lee's personal quotes as representative of all Confederate soldiers and their beliefs? I really do not understand your logic here. Does his own moral struggle over violating his oath and yes, even over the institution of slavery (commendable as it is), somehow make his indefensible actions defensible....? Does a convicted man who claims he felt remorse and shame while committing a crime excuse him of his responsibility to atone for it?

Your example of Texas v. White is also amusing. Yes, the letter of the law that secession is illegal was established in 1869. Do you believe that just because this legal precedent didn't exist in 1863 that the war waged by the Confederacy somehow wasn't treason, both in spirit and action? Or are you implying that because it was not explicitly illegal to do so, the Confederacy's actions can be partially or wholly excused?

You had Lee, a former superintendent of West Point, and many other officers who had graduated from that institution turn against the government that founded it. They betrayed their oaths. The reasons for the betrayal aren't even important. If you eliminate slavery from the equation and judge by their actions alone, it is impossible to deny that what Confederate officers did was anything but treason. Read the Confederate constitution...it is thoroughly clear what they intended to do; break away from the Union and claim independence as a sovereign nation wholly outside the purview of the U.S. Constitution. They violated the principle of civilian authority over the military. The Confederacy was the first to strike at Ft Sumter and attempt to achieve its political objectives through violence. During the course of the war, the CSA desperately tried to enlist the help of foreign powers, Britain and France, against the U.S. How is any of that not treason?

Let's say Texas v. White was decided 10 years earlier in 1859. And the Confederate states did NOT have the legal justification to secede. Does it make their actions any MORE wrong, just because the law said so?

You can argue that rule of law should prevail and that stare decisis is a critical pillar of our government's separation of powers but who are we really kidding? The U.S. was not even 80 years old (was judicial review even a thing?); like you stated, the majority of Americans identified more strongly with their home state than the Nation itself. The country was only just starting to develop a more mature body of laws, politics, economy, society, and most importantly, a national identity until half the country decided that preserving slavery was more important than preserving the Union.


For the record, I don't necessarily support renaming any Army bases. I believe its an idea worth exploring and I think there is a strong case for renaming them. It is a tough debate and I can think of arguments to support both sides. I'm just a little disturbed that anyone would try to argue that the Confederacy was not treason. It most definitely was.

And final note, someone already said it, but I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest we as a country "erase history". I am not sure why or where this idea came from. Remembering and studying Robert E Lee and other characters of the Confederacy is different from venerating him. Petraeus said it best. Statues may come down but that doesn't mean their memories and rightful place in history will be erased from textbooks and lessons.

***MOD HAT OFF***

Okay...where to begin? First, let's discuss one statement you made, incorrectly, immediately. "Why do you falsely present Lee's personal quotes as representative of all Confederate soldiers and their beliefs?" First, I presented nothing "falsely" and your statement that I did is tantamount to calling me a liar, which you have no reason to do and no basis in facts to state. I simply described the general populace beliefs of the time as is illustrated in numerous history books, accounts, diaries, books, etc., of how people generally viewed their allegiance, especially in the South and Midwest. With my comments about Lee, I simply presented Lee's own words to show the angst that he suffered in his decision making. As for the "other Confederate soldiers and their beliefs? Neither you nor I can know what was in the heart of the literally hundreds of thousands of Confederate or Union soldiers. I can speak for the "maybe a dozen" diaries I have read (written in their own hand) of some Confederate soldiers and some Union soldiers (these diaries are held by families I know). In them, they don't speak of grandiose philosophical debates of the union, national identity, the Constitution of the USA, or anything so grand. The southern soldiers speak of "northern troops invading our homes, destroying our farms, killing our livestock." Like the majority of soldiers in the Union armies, the Confederate soldiers were, by and large, a simple people. There are some excellent books, now being reprinted, that were written in the late 1800s by former soldiers of both armies. Check them out if you never have; they offer some very interesting perspectives from first-hand narratives.

Next..."Does his own moral struggle over violating his oath and yes, even over the institution of slavery (commendable as it is), somehow make his indefensible actions defensible....?" Again, an excellent but questionable statement. You say he "violated his oath." What oath? When he resigned his commission, he was released of any oath of fealty to any prince or potentate. At that point, he was under no obligation, legally, to any federal government. One could argue that "yes, he was obligated to obey local and state laws and any federal laws that applied to all the states as a citizen of the United States." Okay, however at that time there was no law against secession as the Supreme Court decision on this didn't come until 1869. Interesting that you find that amusing, but that's your opinion and that's fine. My opinion is different, and that's fine too. I think that one's actions in such a unique situation and time are a little more "fuzzy" than "black and white" in the matter of law, honor, and integrity. At that time, allegiance to the state was first and foremost in most people's minds/hearts (definitely in the South, but also manifested in New England and the MidWest). Yes, when taking a position with the military they swore an oath to the Federal government. And by all accounts, they (generic all-encompassing) served honorably. However many chose to resign those commissions and to renew their allegiance to their native state in a time of national crisis. And when their state determined that it no longer wanted to be part of the "great experiment" and voted to secede, they offered to serve their state and the new nation. Again, given the times, the beliefs of the peoples of the time, this is understandable from a historical context. There is no statement or declaration in the Constitution of the United States prohibiting secession.

"are you implying that because it was not explicitly illegal to do so, the Confederacy's actions can be partially or wholly excused?" I believe, again based upon studying the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the national "mood" of the times, yes, you can argue that their actions were based upon a belief in legality. I make no "excuse" for the action, I simply understand its cause at that time. Later decisions in law determined that there is no provision in the US Constitution to allow for secession and therefore that action was illegal. Your comment re: stare decisis is telling. You believe (my understanding, based upon your tone) is that we shouldn't have relied upon stare decisis because the country was "not even 80 years old (was judicial review even a thing?" If we're to be consistent in the argument, then yes it should have been applied and the fact that it hadn't been decided prior agrees that no law then on the books, or interpretation of the Constitution, would hold against secession, and therefore, it would be legal.

Putting all that aside (I told you, I go all over on this, it's a topic of great interest, mental debate, and food for thought all at the same time), Isn't it telling though that President Andrew Johnson on Christmas Day, 1868, by Executive Order, pardoned all individuals that had served the CSA in any capacity? Wouldn't it have been grand if people, from that point forward, worked together instead of against each other? However, the times and society being what it was then, that wasn't going to happen. NorwichDad's post above is superb, and speaks to the times and the societal mores...would that it had changed. Think about how much better we might be today.***Side note: NorwichDad mentions Grant...if you missed the three-day mini on Grant recently, I highly recommend it!!***

With the benefit of 160 years of history and social/national change, it's easy for people to label others. "All individuals, regardless of anything, were traitors if they served, fought, or aided the Confederacy." Okay...that can be argued based upon the Constitutional definition of treason and the Supreme Court decision of 1869, and there's little argument to oppose it. However, do we truly need to add vitriol to labeling? How about we just teach history, in all its context, so that todays youth, and tomorrows, know all, not just select bits? Perhaps in 100 years people will be different, but open vitriol against certain people, that but for four years, would be normally revered in US history, is just going to cause more angst. Better to leave the lessons in history.

Lastly...nowhere did you see me argue that the creation of the Confederate States of America wasn't treason. Your comment "I'm just a little disturbed that anyone would try to argue that the Confederacy was not treason. It most definitely was." If you assumed that because I didn't go into more depth, okay, that's fair but incorrect. My comments were directed at the agony of the decision Lee and others had to make and, taken into context of the time, how challenging it had to be. Nothing more. Of course, at the end of the day, it was determined to be treason, and while people may argue that, in my mind with the decision of the Supreme Court, the argument is moot.

A good discussion, you made me think and that's always appreciated!

Steve

***BACK TO MOD WORK***