No, it was one American soldier and two traitors.
That’s right keep fighting the Civil War. Hate goes a long way, doesn’t it.
sheeeesh
Lincoln was willing to forgive the south, it is a shame that you can't.
< grabbing popcorn... >
Live one at #2
About the same way George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were traitors.
When I was a young man, and still full of public education I would have agreed with you. However, as I near my 60th year, and have had time to read, and began to think for myself, I have to wonder what the founding fathers would have thought about the Civil War.
They laid out a case that the PEOPLE have a right to break away from a form of government that they found oppressive.
We viewed the old Soviet Union as evil because they would incorporate other countries into their union, and once in, you were never to be allowed out. And remember, at the time the "states" entered the union, they were all independently. (Note I am not claiming that 1860 United States was the Soviet Union, only the idea once in, you can never get out seems a little dictatorial.)
So while you are safe in your 2007 world and perhaps have little knowledge of the 1800s, I would suggest at the time, they (those in the south) truly believed they had a right to leave the union, as they were still sovereign nations.
Having said that, I have to lean towards Lincoln and his desire to keep the union intact. The history of the world would be a lot different if the south were allowed to leave. Would the remaining states be powerful enough to push across the great plains, over the Rockies, and capture the west coast. At the time there were several other countries looking at what is now California, Oregon and Washington.
So while I agree that we are better off that the southern states were held in the union, I also concede they had a right to leave, and to fight for those rights.
The men of the south were partiots in the trueset sense of the word.
TITLE 38 > PART II > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1501. Next
Sec. 1501. - Definitions (3)
The term ''Civil War veteran'' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ''active military or naval service'' includes active service in those forces.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/38/1501.html
It’s funny you should say that.
Please, give me the definition of an American who *isn’t* willing to fight and die for his own personal freedom.
The Confederates were such people. More concerned about their own freedom than their political ties or even national identities.
You would do well to remember this idea about the Civil War-
“The South did what they did because it was what they had to do. The North did what they did, because it was, also, what they had to do.”
Freedom before nationalism. Isn’t that right Mr. “Libertarian”?
Non-sense, the CSA soldiers owed no allegiance to the US, nor did they receive protection from it. The seceding states simply wanted to be left alone, separate from mindless liberal idiots. What did occur is that Lincoln et al tried to kill all those who had the temerity to recuse themselves from their agreement. I guess it's a yankee thing, kill everybody that has the guts to disassociate themselves from the hyperspiritual, consdescending, elitist snobs.
And folks say that abuse of drugs is a victimless crime.
“Noun
S: (n) civil war (a war between factions in the same country)”
That came from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=civil%20war
Interesting that Princeton is a Northern University. If their definition of the term civil war is correct, and I would hope that such a prestigious school would most likely know what they are talking about; then the remains of three Americans were identified.
There was a composition and reconciliation of great dimensions and august authorship in the 1890's, when the actual veterans of that great war composed their former differences, led by men like Joshua Chamberlain, Joe Johnston, and James Longstreet.
That neo-Marxists are beavering away at overthrowing that reconciliation is a monument to their own smallness and nastiness. You and others who follow them do yourselves no credit, and the country some harm.
That the Southerners of that era were willing to reconcile, after what was done to them in the name of wealth and empire, was a considerable badge of honor. Very few exceptions were made -- Grant and Sheridan were forgiven, but Billy Sherman was not in a lot of places, notwithstanding that old Joe Johnston, who had led the Confederate army that had opposed him, stood out in extending his hand graciously to his conqueror who had laid waste Georgia and the Carolinas as an expedient.
The Clintonista and Marxist politics of dividing conservatives -- or trying to -- by constantly harping on cultural and historical themes to denigrate and vilify the South and its people is understandable as a rational, if scabrous, application of practical politics. It is self-destructive of Midwestern conservatives to fall for it.
All the foregoing aside, it is also historically inaccurate to refer to the Southerners of the Civil War era as traitors. That is because they openly and formally renounced their ties to the rest of the United States, legally and properly withdrew their States from the Union, and thereafter opposed Lincoln's efforts to conquer them openly and in the uniform of a foreign country and opposing military service. That is not treason.
Be careful you don't start slinging around despotic and "constructive" definitions (or pretensions, better) of "treason" out of casual spleen. The Constitution defines treason in its body, and it does so very carefully and precisely, and for damned good reason. The Founders had seen enough of the British use of "constructive treason" to pillory and attaint people for their views alone, and they were having none of that for us. You might take half as much care as the Founders did.
persons who post STUPID, hate-FILLED, ignorant,fact-FREE, nonsense (like your post #2 for example) are simply are too DUMB & clue-LESS to be a FReeper.
to ALL: and you wonder why so many southerners (more every day!) simply want to be separated from HATERS/fools/south-HATERS/bigots/nitwits like this particular DAMNyankee???
free dixie,sw
Let’s not go there, dude! It was different times in the 1860s with different politics and different ideas about what constituted both country and liberty....
You have just labled several of MY ancestors traitors with your post. There was more to the Civil War than slavery, but it sure sounds good and politically correct today to hang the whole conflict on that nail, don’t it.
What would we do without folks like you?
Keep the hate alive brother.
Yeah, because advancing the notion of Federalism was worth the lives of 600,000 Americans.
There was only one Yankee, not two
O God! Another cur bays the moon.
Please stop calling them traitors.
The Men in Blue Uniforms at Appomattox accepting the weapons from Southern soldiers at their surrender had tons of respect for their former foe. It’s a shame that you, after all these years still have none.
With family on both sides of the war, with at least two in the 11th NC Infantry, Bethel Regiment who gallantly fought in Gettysburg, I resent you calling them traitors. Both sides believed strongly they were fighting for the right reasons. For one side it was liberty vs. oppression, the other side it was all about preserving the Union that was in danger of unraveling 30 or 40 years before Fort Sumpter.
I challenge you to search the web for Civil War Reunion pictures and the stories of friendships that developed between these men that lasted until the last of these gray haired bearded gentlemen passed away.
Profound words from a man who probably never served a day in uniform. For a man who calls himself a libertarian, you certainly espouse the opinions of a big goverment...Yankee!