Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I guess this is where we disagree. You refer to the Confederacy as rising up in arms against their nation. Their nation was the Confederacy since they seceded from the Union. They wanted self rule something that up until that time was considered their right as long as their state legislatures voted to. It was the North who took up arms to prevent them.
It required the state legislatures to vote them into the Union and it was understood that those same legislatures could vote them out of it. If the North would not have taken up arms to prevent it there wouldn't have been the death of thousands. In my opinion and many others the North was wrong to do so. All they had to do is let them go.
|
Perhaps it was missed, but I took great pains to explain in detail that I do not disagree that the South had the right to secede. You claim that it was the North, but do not address the fact that the war began with the siezure by force of arms of Federal (Union) property by Southern troops. If that doesn't constitute rising up in arms, I don't know what does!
I agree that if the North had accepted the siezures and relinquished the rights to its property without due process, that there would not have been a war. But can you realistically expect any nation on earth to allow its territory to be violated without response? Do you not feel that the President has the responsibility to act in defense of US territority when it is siezed?
Quote:
|
I'll admit the South wanted to rule themselves including the right to have slaves but that was not what the war was about. We have already discussed what the leaders of the Union thought about slavery including the right to own them in the North even after the Emancipation Proclimation banned it in the South. Do you really think the Union cared one way or another except for political leverage? Don't you think Lincoln would have asked/made Grant free his slaves instead of keeping them till long after the war ended?
|
And I have agreed that the slave issue was merely the spark, and during the war was used by the north as a moral banner, not necessarily representative of what the real aims of the war were, much like the moral banner of liberation we wave in Iraq today. This does not change the fact that the issue was a critical part of the war, the victory by the Union led the the end of slavery much quicker than had the South seceded peacefully or won the war.
Quote:
So that is why we don't see what is wrong with honoring these brave young men and boys for fighting for their homeland. They were not treasonous and criminal. Many people then and now think they were in the right, just outnumbered and ill equipped.
If intelligent folks like yourself do not see the honor in what these soldiers did and why we might want to remember them, then I am going to resist posting much more on the matter. Like ShaniFaye I've said about all I can.
|
I thought I was very clear in separating the honor of the soldiers themselves from the symbology of the nation they fought for. I don't believe there was any lack of honor in fighting for their states. They did their best to sacrifice in the best interest of their homes, families, and communities. There is no dishonor in that.
The fact that the CSA may have acted wrongly in perpetrating the war should not be heaped upon the shoulders of the men who fought in its army. Soldiers fight for their homes. It is on the shoulders of their leaders to use them wisely.
If you can not understand this distinction, I apologize for not making it clear enough. Perhaps it is true that for some the honor of the individual soldier and the symbology and motives of his nation are inseperable. However, if you at all feel I am attempting to dishonor the southern or soldier or say that it is inappropriate to honor them, then you are truly wrong.
Josh