Confederate soldiers, can they be celebrated

[john5746]

Confederate History Exchange

 

I think the link provides an interesting point of discussion in regards to cultural heritage. I find myself agreeing with both the reader and editor, except the part regarding Nazi Germany. I actually think the comparison of German soldiers to Confederate soldiers is valid, different times and different goals, but they both fought on losing sides both morally and in history.

 

My question is more general than the civil war, since most cultures can find instances where they fought on the wrong side. Can we celebrate our ancestors without celebrating the cause that they fought for? Should we?

[Mr Skeptic]

But why celebrate a bloody war, for a bad cause, that they lost? I mean, sure, honor the dead soldiers, celebrate yer ancestry. But I don't think such a war should be celebrated. I'm sure there's a more appropriate date for a celebration.

[toastywombel]

Even though they were morally wrong, were the confederate solder's any less American? I think you can celebrate their service without celebrating their cause.

 

Plus it is somewhat unfair to imply that Confederate solders were on the wrong side of the fight, or fighting for slavery. Sure it was pro-slavery state governments that seceded from the union, but many of the 'boys in gray' were fighting against the North because the North invaded the South.

 

Just an interesting tidbit, to inform the reader, when Abraham Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, he only freed the slaves south of the Mason Dixon line. This was to an appeal to the border states that were still sided with the union, but in reality had huge slave based economies. This was to make sure they didn't secede as well.

[Charles2010]

Even though they were morally wrong, were the confederate solder's any less American? I think you can celebrate their service without celebrating their cause.

 

Plus it is somewhat unfair to imply that Confederate solders were on the wrong side of the fight, or fighting for slavery. Sure it was pro-slavery state governments that seceded from the union, but many of the 'boys in gray' were fighting against the North because the North invaded the South.

 

Just an interesting tidbit, to inform the reader, when Abraham Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation, he only freed the slaves south of the Mason Dixon line. This was to an appeal to the border states that were still sided with the union, but in reality had huge slave based economies. This was to make sure they didn't secede as well.

In addition, they were in shock by John Brown's raid. They were afraid "other John Browns" would attack them.

[Moontanman]

Hey, John Brown was a relative of mine! Hero in some circles, yes I think we can celebrate those soldiers, the fought for what they believed in it's easy to stand back so far in the future and say how wrong they were but they had no way of really understanding what the future held.

[ParanoiA]

Can we be celebrated 200 years from now when owning pets is morally equivalent to owning humans?

 

Actually, the whole confederacy thing is complicated. On the one hand, the moral deficiency of fighting for the right to own people and calling it "personal liberty" is clearly not something to be celebrated. On the other hand, those that fought over the right to secede or as toastywombel pointed out, because the north invaded, is absolutely worth celebrating.

 

It's difficult to separate the two though. If you're fighting over the right of self determination, then you must be simultaneously fighting for the emancipation of the slaves - or else you're still morally deficient and on the wrong side, even if your secession beliefs are noble.

 

I guess in the end I think it's ok, as long as the muddy partitions between slavery, state's rights and personal preservation is realized and we don't lump them all together and indict the whole. The worst thing we can with history is simplify it.

[Pangloss]

Yes, Americans can celebrate the positive aspects of the history of the southeastern quadrant of the country.

[jackson33]

ParinioA, is correct, IMO; For Lincoln and maybe the movement of the day, was to free the Slaves, but to the those that permitted Slavery and I have to add "Indentured Servants", which was prevalent in most every State, the argument was one or more of several rights, including the right to succeed from the Union. Remember Virginia, with such names as Jefferson, Washington, Harrison, Richard Henry Lee (two large plantation owners), led the fight for independence, the Constitution and all that is/was the US, 70-80years earlier, then the MAJOR user of slave labor/indentured servants (tobacco farms)...

 

In addition to slaves (who were mostly from Africa), Europeans, including Irish,[3] Scottish,[4] English, and Germans,[5] immigrated to North America in substantial numbers as indentured servants,[6] particularly to the British Thirteen Colonies.[7] Over half of all white emigrants that arrived in the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries may have been indentured servants.[8] In the 18th and early 19th century numerous Europeans traveled to the colonies as redemptioners, a form of indenture.[9] [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

 

The Southern States had a better idea, before the war;

 

Many Southern landholders knew that technology would eventually lead to a replacement of slavery. There had been several referendums to abolish slavery brought to the legislatures. Nearly 30 years before the war one of these failed to pass by a handful of votes in Virginia. The movement was tabled for a revote, which was to occur in the 1860s. It is very likely that in Virginia at least, slavery would have been abolished without the war to do so.

 

This was the argument of the Southern states - to be left alone to determine on a state by state basis when and how to abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery. The argument of many in the Northern states was slavery is immoral and should be abolished immediately. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the Southern states saw this as the tipping point. [/Quote]

 

http://www.civilwar.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-130.html

 

These were different times and those times lasted well into the 1950's and early 60's, where former slaves, turned share croppers and land owners depended on each other.

 

Now to make it perfectly clear, I am not trying to argue Lincoln's objective, the need for a civil war or the Emancipation Proclamation, only to suggest there was a great deal more to the Civil War, than Slavery. Now we seem to be at it again, at least here, when a States as a State wants to honor those that fought and died for a cause (not necessarily slavery) no less equal to their history, than anything else celebrated by all States or what many States celebrate independently.

 

I think the link provides an interesting point of discussion in regards to cultural heritage. I find myself agreeing with both the reader and editor, except the part regarding Nazi Germany. I actually think the comparison of German soldiers to Confederate soldiers is valid, different times and different goals, but they both fought on losing sides both morally and in history.[/Quote]

 

john; I'd certainly disagree that the leaders of the Confederacy and the leaders of Nazi Germany, had anything in common. If I felt the German Army, was aware of what their Government was doing in total (don't feel they did) then I'd have to add the German Military and/or Society.

 

There was as much fear by slaves, of being "so called" set free and the reality of what that meant. Where were they going and it's long been my feeling, most all land owners, were compassionate in caring for both the young and old, that could do little or no actual work. A good many, probably most, never left those plantation or did the owners throw them off their property, for some well into the 20th Century.

[toastywombel]

ParinioA, is correct, IMO; For Lincoln and maybe the movement of the day, was to free the Slaves, but to the those that permitted Slavery and I have to add "Indentured Servants", which was prevalent in most every State, the argument was one or more of several rights, including the right to succeed from the Union. Remember Virginia, with such names as Jefferson, Washington, Harrison, Richard Henry Lee (two large plantation owners), led the fight for independence, the Constitution and all that is/was the US, 70-80years earlier, then the MAJOR user of slave labor/indentured servants (tobacco farms)...

 

It is good to point out that Jefferson initially wanted to abolish slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#On_slavery

 

And in all reality indentured servitude is just as bad as slavery. In a sense it is practically slavery through economic restraints. So I am not quite understanding what your pointing out. That outlawing of indentured servitude was not as justified as outlawing slavery? (in the 13th amendment)

 

The Southern States had a better idea, before the war;

 

http://www.civilwar.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-130.html

 

Well some would argue that the south did not have a better idea, because the legislation for the abolishment of slavery failing over and over again in all these southern states, and in Virginia as you pointed out. Plus it is good to note that this made the United States appear as somewhat a brutish country to other comparable countries such as Great Britain. They abolished slavery in 1833, without a war, and started a movement to outlaw slavery worldwide called Anti-Slavery International a few years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

 

There were many other countries, which abolished slavery long before the United States did, and many without wars like Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, Prussia, Russia, and more.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

 

The point is the Southern States were a long way off from abolishing slavery and were already far behind much of the civilized world in doing so.

 

I also like to point out that I followed your link and I just wanted to let you know you quoted a guy from a civil war forum, named kevin. Who, by the way, showed no credible links to back up his claims. I'm not saying all of what he says is wrong, what I am saying is maybe its best to only quote forums when really necessary, and not using that as proof of a historical event, as you did.

 

Now to make it perfectly clear, I am not trying to argue Lincoln's objective, the need for a civil war or the Emancipation Proclamation, only to suggest there was a great deal more to the Civil War, than Slavery. Now we seem to be at it again, at least here, when a States as a State wants to honor those that fought and died for a cause (not necessarily slavery) no less equal to their history, than anything else celebrated by all States or what many States celebrate independently.

 

I will agree the religious differences, cultural differences, and political differences were all on heightened alert. The differences between the North and the South certainly did extend beyond slavery. Good points to make.

 

Now to make it perfectly clear, I am not trying to argue Lincoln's objective, the need for a civil war or the Emancipation Proclamation, only to suggest there was a great deal more to the Civil War, than Slavery. Now we seem to be at it again, at least here, when a States as a State wants to honor those that fought and died for a cause (not necessarily slavery) no less equal to their history, than anything else celebrated by all States or what many States celebrate independently.

 

john; I'd certainly disagree that the leaders of the Confederacy and the leaders of Nazi Germany, had anything in common. If I felt the German Army, was aware of what their Government was doing in total (don't feel they did) then I'd have to add the German Military and/or Society.

 

Totally agree, the South believed in States rights, and although that may have implied slavery to some degree, they did not gas millions of people and they also didn't attempt to invade any other countries. Robert E. Lee for example is no where comparable to anyone in the SS.

 

Also the Nazi's did what they did in the 1930's and 1940's, the Confederate States have the argument of 'different times' on their side somewhat, but if it was known throughout the world that what the Nazi's were doing to many of their own citizens (Jews, Homosexuals, and other minority groups) it would have been completely unjustified even at that time.

Edited April 10, 2010 by toastywombel

[JohnB]

Not to derail but this couldn't pass without comment.

The point is the Southern States were a long way off from abolishing slavery and were already far behind much of the civilized world in doing so.

 

Much like the current US with regard to Capital Punishment? Or Universal Health Care?

[toastywombel]

Not to derail but this couldn't pass without comment.

 

 

Much like the current US with regard to Capital Punishment? Or Universal Health Care?

 

I think capital punishment is a different issue. Slaves had no choice in becoming slaves. People on death row are convicted in a court of law because they have committed crimes of the worst form. (Not always, but it is what we hope from our justice system)

 

Universal Healthcare is a somewhat comparable issue. However I don't think we should comment on it here, maybe a new thread?

[John Cuthber]

"I think capital punishment is a different issue. Slaves had no choice in becoming slaves. People on death row are convicted in a court of law because they have committed crimes of the worst form."

and the best plan you can think of is to be a killer too.

Incidentally about 5 or 10 % of the people on death row have mental health problems. Their capacity to make a choice may be debatable.

 

 

 

Anyway, back to the original question.

Yes, it makes perfectly good sense to me to commemorate the deaths of the confederates' soldiers. Then again, I'm from the other side of the pond.

[jackson33]

It is good to point out that Jefferson initially wanted to abolish slavery.[/Quote]

 

toasty; Jefferson, wanted independence from England, more than anything, but yes he CLAIMED to be an abolitionist, although married a lady with many slaves. Most were sold long after his wife's death, shortly after his own, then to settle debt (think he did free 4, while alive, some historians claiming 2 were his children). He however represented the 'Slave State' Virginia and no doubt the one State that dependent on slave labor the most, all during the formation of US Government, no less than he himself. Virginia and others, would never have ratified the 'Confederation' or the 'Constitution', without strict State Rights or with abolition in the agreement. Remember, Virginia at the time included what today is West Virginia, which split for the CW 1860's....

 

And in all reality indentured servitude is just as bad as slavery. In a sense it is practically slavery through economic restraints. So I am not quite understanding what your pointing out. [/Quote]

 

Because it was practiced throughout the colonies and most the States in 1865. Importing Slaves was banned by the US, think in 1808 and sufficient cheap labor turned to IS, which were being addressed by the various States. The issue later turned to 'share cropping', the 'Company Store Policy' and today it's called 'migrant workers'. Those that opposed slavery, also opposed IS....

 

Well some would argue that the south did not have a better idea, because the legislation for the abolishment of slavery failing over and over again in all these southern states, and in Virginia as you pointed out. [/Quote]

 

About 630,000 people died fighting the Civil War, millions were injured and no one escaped being harmed in some way. Virginia, would probably have outlawed Slavery, the others having followed their lead and no doubt the Nation would have been better off. Factually the war, the 13th A or the idea slavery no longer existed in the US, meant very little to the people involved and as pointed out, many generations of Slaves, stayed in slavery under a different name.

 

Great Britain. They abolished slavery in 1833, without a war, and started a movement to outlaw slavery worldwide called Anti-Slavery International a few years later. [/Quote]

and

The point is the Southern States were a long way off from abolishing slavery and were already far behind much of the civilized world in doing so.[/Quote]

 

Most colonial America, abolished Slavery in the 18th Century (1700's) and as mentioned, the US outlawed importation of Slaves in 1808. We're talking a very few land owners, in a very few States, that were very aware of what was heading there way. Do you really think, it was all worth a few years.....

 

You might like to read this article, those wanting to celebrate their heritage, may not be who you think they are...

 

Americans of African Ancestry

 

This article was contributed by Hollis R. Lynch, Professor of History and Director of the Institute of African Studies, Columbia University. Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it. [/Quote]

[pippo]

Slavery was wrong, especially the particularly cruel type which pervaded Americas especially in the Caribbean. It made slavery in the Anciant world (Rome, for example) look gentile.

 

Still, when one talks of the greatest modern military minds/strategists in history, countries like Germany, France, America, England come up at the top, and you cant earn that place without including the feats of the great Confederate Generals. Likewise, Italy, for example. comes at the bottom, not considering Ancient Rome.

 

The only reason the north won was they had more industry, people (especially waves of irish immigrants , starving to do anything to eat, including enlisting), and money. The South beat the north strategically by a mile given the limited resources they had to work with.

 

Not siding for the old south, hehe, just giving credit where it belongs, IMO. Im glad they lost, like Nazi Germany.

[JohnB]

Remembering the men, and the honour with which they served in no way approves of the cause for which they fought. It remembers them as soldiers who paid the highest price for their nation.

 

On the 31st May 1942, three Japanese midget submarines attacked Sydney harbour. They were detected and 2 were attacked and scuttled by their crews who then committed suicide. The third sank a converted ferry with the loss of 21 Allied sailors.

 

They were the enemy fighting for a brutal regime. But they were also men who fought with honour and bravery. Every year on the 31st of May, the Royal Australian Navy drops a wreath to remember them. We honour them for their courage and sacrifice, not for the cause in whos name they died.

 

So should it be with the Confederates. (IMO)

[bascule]

"Celebrate" the Civil War? What? Honor the dead... sure. But celebrating?

[toastywombel]

Most colonial America, abolished Slavery in the 18th Century (1700's) and as mentioned, the US outlawed importation of Slaves in 1808. We're talking a very few land owners, in a very few States, that were very aware of what was heading there way. Do you really think, it was all worth a few years.....

 

You might like to read this article, those wanting to celebrate their heritage, may not be who you think they are...

 

Yeah most of colonial America, except every state south of the Mason Dixon Line, Texas and east of.

 

Well I wouldn't say it was a few landowners, considering there were around 3.9 million slaves by 1860, so a few? Each of the landowners controlled 300,000 slaves or what.

 

The truth is there were many slave owners in the south, not just a few.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

 

And I looked up that article, I liked it. But look I don't support everything the North did, but the South wasn't right either. Both sides made the wrong moves and it ended up being the bloodiest war in American History. Although it was a bloody war, I think it was a key part in the History of the United States, cementing the states as part of one Union, indivisible.

[john5746]

Anybody from Germany or know if Germans honor their soldiers in some way?

 

I know the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan always causes a stir for Koreans and Chinese, but they commemorate more than the common foot soldier there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Celebrate" the Civil War? What? Honor the dead... sure. But celebrating?

 

Yes, celebrate is a bad word. Maybe commemorate and all involved should be remembered.

[Sisyphus]

I agree that "celebrate" is definitely the wrong word. Wars in general are not things to be celebrated (though the outcomes can be), and that particular war represented probably the darkest period of American history.

 

That said, I do think that celebrating Union troops as fallen heroes and Confederates as defeated villains is unfair. It was hardly black and white. It was blue and grey. (And that said, I also find the Confederate apologist revisionism kind of disgusting.)

[iNow]

I suppose you CAN celebrate confederate soldiers, but I don't think you should.

 

 

As a general rule, we don't celebrate soldiers, we instead celebrate the cause for which they valiantly fought. In that sense, to celebrate confederate soldiers is to celebrate the defense of slavery and the restriction of human freedoms.

 

We don't celebrate Nazi or Taliban soldiers because we disagree with their cause.

Why should we celebrate confederate soldiers when we disagree with theirs?

 

Let's be honest with each other. Their cause was not freedom. Their cause was not state versus federal governance. Their cause was the continuance of forced unpaid labor of their fellow man and their cause was making as much coin as absolutely possible from this indentured servitude of humans with more melanin in their dermal layer.

[toastywombel]

I suppose you CAN celebrate confederate soldiers, but I don't think you should.

 

I think that in on to four generations this will be a non-issue. Globalization and the growing global community will influence many new generations towards not celebrating the confederacy, because that culture is slowly fading away with time. I don't know really what to think about it, partially because I think it will be a non-issue in not to long from now. So just let them celebrate it while they can I guess.

[john5746]

We don't celebrate Nazi or Taliban soldiers because we disagree with their cause.

Why should we celebrate confederate soldiers when we disagree with theirs?

 

Of course WE don't celebrate German or Japanese soldiers, but should their people honor them? Can they be honored without honoring the cause?

 

Let's be honest with each other. Their cause was not freedom. Their cause was not state versus federal governance. Their cause was the continuance of forced unpaid labor of their fellow man and their cause was making as much coin as absolutely possible from this indentured servitude of humans with more melanin in their dermal layer.

 

Everyone should be glad the North won. But, I don't think those white soldiers made that tremendous sacrifice for the freedom of the black man. I think both sides were fighting for their way of life. And the North relied, just as we do today on the exploitation of cheap labor.

 

They were not completely innocent, but they were on the right side. The war and the aftermath did do great damage to the South, to both white and blacks. We still see the fallout today.