Civil War Statues?

[Kevin]

The fact that Congress recognized them in 1958 IN 1958 as veterans for the sole purpose of awarding pensions to veterans and their widows does not change history. It was done not only nearly a century after the surrender, but was only done for the limited purpose of awarding pensions by conferring status for that purpose. There is not a whisper of the word "pardon" in the statute and it certainly doesn't make them the same as veterans of the United States (for anything but a limited purpose).

Further, these statues were almost all built well before the 1958 statute was passed. Federal law does not protect Confederate monuments or the graves of Confederate soldiers.

These men were traitors to their country and they lost the war. It is pretty typical for winners of wars to tear down the monuments of their enemies the moment they are able to do so.

For example...



I think a good argument can be made that these things need to be preserved and kept somewhere for historical purposes. But they don't belong in the public square. There's no good argument for that.

Hell.. there are a few of these things in my State and Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War although the last Confederate General to surrender was Stand Watie, who not coincidentally owned hundreds of slaves.

[JonInKC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The fact that Congress recognized them in 1958 IN 1958 as veterans for the sole purpose of awarding pensions to veterans and their widows does not change history. It was done not only nearly a century after the surrender, but was only done for the limited purpose of awarding pensions by conferring status for that purpose. There is not a whisper of the word "pardon" in the statute and it certainly doesn't make them the same as veterans of the United States (for anything but a limited purpose).

Further, these statues were almost all built well before the 1958 statute was passed. Federal law does not protect Confederate monuments or the graves of Confederate soldiers.

These men were traitors to their country and they lost the war. It is pretty typical for winners of wars to tear down the monuments of their enemies the moment they are able to do so.

For example...



I think a good argument can be made that these things need to be preserved and kept somewhere for historical purposes. But they don't belong in the public square. There's no good argument for that.

Hell.. there are a few of these things in my State and Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War although the last Confederate General to surrender was Stand Watie, who not coincidentally owned hundreds of slaves.

Interesting. So how do you feel about traitors like George Washington?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonInKC

Interesting. So how do you feel about traitors like George Washington?

Just fine. I've never been a subject of the Queen.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The fact that Congress recognized them in 1958 IN 1958 as veterans for the sole purpose of awarding pensions to veterans and their widows does not change history. It was done not only nearly a century after the surrender, but was only done for the limited purpose of awarding pensions by conferring status for that purpose. There is not a whisper of the word "pardon" in the statute and it certainly doesn't make them the same as veterans of the United States (for anything but a limited purpose).

There is likely not a whisper of the word "pardon" in a 1958 law because the vast majority of Confederate soldiers and officers were pardoned and granted amnesty by the end of 1868 as part of Reconstruction.

That said, I agree that nothing made them veterans of the United States military, unless they separately served in the United States military.

Originally Posted by Kevin

To be a slave owner who thought it was moral must have required some pretty serious internal moral jujitsu.

Yes, but that internal jujitsu wasn't nearly as complicated when the society in which you had always lived told you that it was moral, and when you considered that slavery in some form has always existed.

I'm not excusing anyone, believe me. But there is some danger in simply applying contemporary moral understandings to any situation in the past. I have little doubt that there are things widely considered normal or near normal now that our great-great-great grandchildren will say required pretty serious internal moral jujitsu on our parts.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There is likely not a whisper of the word "pardon" in a 1958 law because the vast majority of Confederate soldiers and officers were pardoned and granted amnesty by the end of 1868 as part of Reconstruction.

That said, I agree that nothing made them veterans of the United States military, unless they separately served in the United States military.

Anyone know what the veterans status is of those (like Robert E. Lee) who did serve in the US Military prior to the war? (And I would imagine there are also those who were the other way around. The US Military probably would have been willing to take a confederate veteran in the various Indian Wars.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by naraht

Anyone know what the veterans status is of those (like Robert E. Lee) who did serve in the US Military prior to the war? (And I would imagine there are also those who were the other way around. The US Military probably would have been willing to take a confederate veteran in the various Indian Wars.

With Lees' surrender to Grant, Grant told lee he could keep his sword and all of his troops could keep their horses and guns if they never used them against the North again. Lee and Grant had served together before and respected each other with trust and honor.

Many of the Southern Leading Officers were men from West Point and were members of the Union Army and fought together in the Mexican wars. BTW, more battles were fought in Mo. than any other state, LOL! Battle of Westpert was called the Gettysburg of the West. Indian wars were mainly fought by black troops ergo the Nick Name Buffalo Soldiers came from because of dark skin and curly hair. Last major battle was in Pea Ridge Ark. South lost that the CSA troops they then headed to Texas. Just a few trivia facts. I do not care when the Statues were built, but they were built to honor the Soldiers who fought even if they did not win.

Now another snake raises its head in K C. If any know of K C there is a beautiful fountain on the Country Club Plaza which renowned in K C called J C Nichols Fountain. Google it to see how pretty it is. But since J C laid out by laws, it designated where blacks could not live there. Now some little twit wants to change the name. God, when will this shit ever end?

Don't we have many more problems today than fighting over crap like this?

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

With Lees' surrender to Grant, Grant told lee he could keep his sword and all of his troops could keep their horses and guns if they never used them against the North again. Lee and Grant had served together before and respected each other with trust and honor.

Many of the Southern Leading Officers were men from West Point and were members of the Union Army and fought together in the Mexican wars. BTW, more battles were fought in Mo. than any other state, LOL! Battle of Westpert was called the Gettysburg of the West. Indian wars were mainly fought by black troops ergo the Nick Name Buffalo Soldiers came from because of dark skin and curly hair. Last major battle was in Pea Ridge Ark. South lost that the CSA troops they then headed to Texas. Just a few trivia facts. I do not care when the Statues were built, but they were built to honor the Soldiers who fought even if they did not win.

Now another snake raises its head in K C. If any know of K C there is a beautiful fountain on the Country Club Plaza which renowned in K C called J C Nichols Fountain. Google it to see how pretty it is. But since J C laid out by laws, it designated where blacks could not live there. Now some little twit wants to change the name. God, when will this shit ever end?

Don't we have many more problems today than fighting over crap like this?

NO THEY WERE NOT. READ WHAT KEVIN WROTE TO YOU SINCE YOU IGNORE ME.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Yes, but that internal jujitsu wasn't nearly as complicated when the society in which you had always lived told you that it was moral, and when you considered that slavery in some form has always existed.

Lots of people still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, so that doesn't seem to be a stretch. Back to the topic though, while we may be able to rationalize the mindset, that still doesn't help me understand why we need statues of the losing generals in a civil war to be standing in the public square.