No, Confederates were not traitors. Their monuments must stand. (Vanity)

9/5/17

[DoodleDawg]

Lincoln was a racist and thought blacks were just one step above monkeys.

So did all your Confederate leaders, yet you don't criticize them.

[Pelham]

I’m trying to recall if you take King George’s side in suppressing the ‘traitors’ of 1776...

[BroJoeK]

central_va: " Lincoln was a racist and thought blacks were just one step above monkeys."

In fact, Lincoln held blacks in much higher regard than any previous president.
John Adams is the only possible exception, however Lincoln did something no other president did -- he asked a group of black leaders what they thought of recolonization to Africa or the Caribbean.
After they said "no" Lincoln dropped the idea.

So it's fair to say that by war's end Lincoln was beginning to think of freed blacks as potential voters.
And that's a far cry from slaves.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: “trying to recall if you take King George’s side in suppressing the ‘traitors’ of 1776.”

No, the opposite — imho 1861 Fire Eaters played the same role as King George in 1776.

[Davy Crocket]

You make me sick.

Why do I make you sicky?

[fieldmarshaldj]

No doubt. I’ve yet to see any productive comments from him.

[x]

You've apparently mistaken me for the other guy you originally posted to. I didn't spit on anybody's grave. I didn't insult anybody.

I just pointed out that Confederate soldiers really weren't considered US veterans except in regard to graves and pensions -- and that was according to a law passed after all verifiable Confederate veterans were dead.

There were real differences involved in the Civil War that the "they were all Americans" approach doesn't address. For that matter, there were real differences in the Second World War that just saying they were all brave and honorable on both sides doesn't begin to answer.

But I can see that you are very emotionally worked up about all this, so I'm going to drop it.

[central_va]

So did all your Confederate leaders, yet you don't criticize them.

But they are not the ones being mis represented as patron saints of all things blackness.

[DoodleDawg]

But they are not the ones being mis represented as patron saints of all things blackness.

No, they have been misrepresented as other things.

[central_va]

Their own words, writings an actions speak for their racist views.

[DoodleDawg]

Their own words, writings an actions speak for their racist views.

North and south. When you judge people by 21st century standards of racism then nobody from the period comes off looking very good.

[rockrr]

If it wasn’t the Little General I would have asked who might be foolish enough to advance such a stupid argument.

[Pelham]

“imho 1861 Fire Eaters played the same role as King George in 1776.”

If that isn’t proof that opinions can be logic-free nothing is. Thanks for playing.

[zipper]

I was just saying that the fact that their graves are maintained doesn't make them US veterans. The fact that many of them were brave men doesn't mean the Civil War was about nothing. The fact that we are all Americans now, doesn't mean that the Rebellion was justified.

They have all the protections of any US veteran under law, even though your contempt is evident.

You've apparently mistaken me for the other guy you originally posted to. I didn't spit on anybody's grave. I didn't insult anybody.

The 'guy I posted to' didn't come to your rescue, despite your pinging him in one of your responses to me. He never bailed you out, though you wanted him to shore up your statements.

For that matter, there were real differences in the Second World War that just saying they were all brave and honorable on both sides doesn't begin to answer.

Go ahead, name the "real differences". Tell me what "honor" is. Tell me which veterans of which countries are dishonorable even if they served honorably. Tell me which graves deserve protection from the cultural purges, tell me which monuments deserve protection and which don't. Tell me how it is, tell me why you sought help from the other Freeper, the one I responded to in my post before you decided to tell me the law was only about grave maintenance.

But I can see that you are very emotionally worked up about all this, so I'm going to drop it.

LOL -- I am sure of my position. I understand the Code of Conduct and the Oath. I don't judge veterans who served honorably regardless of their combatant status. It's you that has problems with Congress's restoration of full US Veteran status to former Confederates -- veterans you view as traitors, as did the poster I responded to, which is why you sought a lifeline from him.

[Bull Snipe]

Field Marshal Rommel did not “try to kill Hitler”. He was not an active member of the group of German Army officers that was actively plotting to assassinate the German leader.
He along with several other senior officers of the German Army had knowledge of the plot and did nothing to either support it or to condemn it. The fact that Rommel knew of the plot and did not rat the plotters out was the reason that he was offered the option of suicide or public trial and execution.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "If that isn’t proof that opinions can be logic-free nothing is."

Plenty of logic, so will repeat what I've posted before -- the correct analogy of 1776 and 1861 is British = Confederates because:

1. Both Brits & Confederates unilaterally abrogated the Americans' charter of self government , replacing it with their own rule.
   
   • Brits' Massachusetts Government Act May 20 1774
     
   • =Confederate Declarations of Secession, 1861.

2. Both Brits & Confederates provoked war with Americans, started war, formally declared war against Americans and waged war in American states.
   
   • Brits' Proclamation of Rebellion, August 23, 1775.
     
   • =Confederate Declaration of War, May 6, 1861.

3. Both Brits & Confederates started their war by assaulting American/Union military at an American/Union military facility.
   
   • Brits' assaults at Lexington & Concord.
     
   • =Confederate assault & seizure of Fort Sumter.

4. In one significant difference, both sides used slaves in the Revolutionary War, and both sides promised slaves freedom in exchange for their service.
   But in the Civil War Confederates not only used slaves without promising freedom but also grabbed Northern freed-blacks whenever they could to return them to slavery in the South.
   So, in that sense at least, the old Brits were more civilized than the new Confederates.

   African-American soldiers Revolutionary & Civil War eras:
   

5. Both Brits & Confederates refused to stop their war on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

Yorktown, 1781 = Appomattox Court House, 1865:

[Pelham]

Posting your nonsense “before” doesn’t make it any better.

American Colonials were British subjects, a fact acknowledged in their own letter to King George seeking a peaceful resolution after fighting had erupted.

King George wasn’t having any of it and sent his army to suppress the “traitors” and “rebels”. Words and actions that are surely very familiar to every student of Lincoln.

Both 1776 and 1861 were rebellions with the intent to secede from the parent government. King George’s letter to Parliament calling for suppression of the Colonials reads the same as Lincoln’s request for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellious states.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "King George’s letter to Parliament calling for suppression of the Colonials reads the same as Lincoln’s request for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellious states."

Not in the least, but the key differences include:

1. The British unilateral abrogation of the Massachusetts charter of self government came two years before July 4, 1776, just as Fire Eaters' unilateral abrogations of the US Constitution started five months before Lincoln's April 1861 response.

2. The British, in effect, declaration of war against Americans came one year before July 4, 1776 just as the Confederates' declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861, came weeks before the first major battle with Union troops.

Pelham: "American Colonials were British subjects, a fact acknowledged in their own letter to King George seeking a peaceful resolution after fighting had erupted."

By the Brits own Proclamation of Rebellion (August 23, 1775) American patriots were, in effect, no longer British subjects.

Pelham: "Posting your nonsense “before” doesn’t make it any better."

Logic, not "nonsense", posted on numerous previous threads, FRiend.