Confederate Soldiers - American casualties or not?

[Rain Man]

In honor of Memorial Day, I have a question.

When examining casualties among American soldiers in various battles and wars, should Confederate soldiers in the U.S. Civil War be counted as American casualties or not?

[Crush]

Yes, because the CSA was never formally recognized as an independent state.

[Rain Man]

We're seeing a strong "yes" vote so far. Anyone care to elaborate?

I voted no. While those people were born Americans, they were fighting against America under a different flag, and were killing American soldiers. Were they really doing anything different than that terrorist at Fort Hood?

[Rain Man]

Yes, because the CSA was never formally recognized as an independent state.

So is the army guy who shot the soldiers at Fort Hood an American casualty?

[SPATCH]

Holy shit dude... how is this even a question?

It's YES.

[Rain Man]

Holy shit dude... how is this even a question?

It's YES.


But they were fighting American troops, and flying a non-American flag. Shouldn't the definition be based on how they viewed themselves? They weren't fighting as Americans.

[Frazod]

We're seeing a strong "yes" vote so far. Anyone care to elaborate?

I voted no. While those people were born Americans, they were fighting against America under a different flag, and were killing American soldiers. Were they really doing anything different than that terrorist at Fort Hood?

A no vote is foolish. You are judging men who lived in another time by modern standards. You or I can fly across the country in a matter of hours - such a trip taken 150 years ago would take months. Most of these people had never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. To a man born and raised in Georgia, an abolitionist politician from Boston might as well have been a martian. And remember, most of the fighting men weren't wealthy slave owners - just poor people who were defending their home.

Imagine the United Nations declared war on America and attacked. How would you view a Kenyan soldier marching down the streets of Denver under a U.N. flag?

[SPATCH]

But they were fighting American troops, and flying a non-American flag. Shouldn't the definition be based on how they viewed themselves? They weren't fighting as Americans.

It was a different time. A whole myriad of political differences came to a head and resulted in war.

However, a lot was accomplished as a result of the civil war and our country is much better off because of it.

Morale of the story is... the war was inevitable and, in many ways, it was necessary. I'm not going to fault the individual for being born into it. The confederate soldier is a part of our nation's growth and history.

[Bane]

A no vote is foolish. You are judging men who lived in another time by modern standards. You or I can fly across the country in a matter of hours - such a trip taken 150 years ago would take months. Most of these people had never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. To a man born and raised in Georgia, an abolitionist politician from Boston might as well have been a martian. And remember, most of the fighting men weren't wealthy slave owners - just poor people who were defending their home.

Imagine the United Nations declared war on America and attacked. How would you view a Kenyan soldier marching down the streets of Denver under a U.N. flag?

FUKK YEAH!!!:thumb:

[Pants]

Since it was a civil war, which by definition is war between sides in single nation, I would have to say 'yes'.

[Phobia]

That Rainman guy sure is funny but he's equally dumb. To really get a sense of the torn feelings from this war you'd have to ask somebody who was there, which is why it was stupid to run Skip Towne off...

[patteeu]

Since it was a civil war, which by definition is war between sides in single nation, I would have to say 'yes'.

I'm going to go with this.

[Bane]

That Rainman guy sure is funny but he's equally dumb. To really get a sense of the torn feelings from this war you'd have to ask somebody who was there, which is why it was stupid to run Skip Towne off...

There were several of us that didn't give 2 shits about that whole thing anyway.He could have came back from day 1 IMO.

[listopencil]

We're seeing a strong "yes" vote so far. Anyone care to elaborate?

I voted no. While those people were born Americans, they were fighting against America under a different flag, and were killing American soldiers. Were they really doing anything different than that terrorist at Fort Hood?

They were fighting to change the very nature of what "America" was, and doing so in a way that was very much American. To question their loyalties is incredibly disrespectful, and disgusts me on a very personal level. To your second point: Only if you also typify our Founding Fathers as terrorists could you liken the Confederate soldiers to them as well.

[Pants]

They were fighting to change the very nature of what "America" was, and doing so in a way that was very much American. To question their loyalties is incredibly disrespectful, and disgusts me on a very personal level. To your second point: Only if you also typify our Founding Fathers as terrorists could you liken the Confederate soldiers to them as well.

Do you have a Confederate flag sticker on your bumper? LOL

[GoHuge]

A no vote is foolish. You are judging men who lived in another time by modern standards. You or I can fly across the country in a matter of hours - such a trip taken 150 years ago would take months. Most of these people had never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. To a man born and raised in Georgia, an abolitionist politician from Boston might as well have been a martian. And remember, most of the fighting men weren't wealthy slave owners - just poor people who were defending their home.

Imagine the United Nations declared war on America and attacked. How would you view a Kenyan soldier marching down the streets of Denver under a U.N. flag?I voted no because these people were fighting to keep slavery legal and considered themselves a different government than that of the United States of America. They attacked the government that we are today to enjoy their way of life.............keeping slaves in bondage and greed. They didn't want to pay anyone to do the work because that would lower their profit margin. They found a solution to that which was to go to other people's homeland, kidnap them, and then put them to work in America for the remainder of their natural lives.

The Civil War was about profit margin. Yes the work would get done and the plantation owners (along with all the others that profited from slave labor) would get their money......just not enough because they would actually have to pay someone. So what do they do? Go about trying to tear this country in half over money. It also gives you a look into the soul of a person that will go to war to keep people bonded into slavery. Obviously no conscience, no compassion, just profit margin. I honor every soldier that has ever served in the United States armed forces, but will not honor those that fought against those same soldiers I honor so they can continue to work slaves to their death. Sorry not that nostalgic today. Those greedy ****ers in the South started a war that cost this country 620,000 lives. To put it into a little better perspective The Civil War accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.

So no........won't be honoring them. It wasn't about Uncle Jed defending his back 20 from the Yanks. It was a war over morality and money. Not self defense. JFC read a book or go to Wiki.

[AndChiefs]

I voted no because these people in the slave states had a decloration of secession and considered themselves a different government than that of the United States of America. They attacked the government that we are today to enjoy their way of life.............keeping slaves in bondage and greed. They didn't want to pay anyone to do the work because that would lower their profit margin. They found a solution to that which was to go to other people's homeland, kidnap them, and then put them to work in America for the remainder of their natural lives.

The Civil War was about profit margin. Yes the work would get done and the plantation owners (along with all the others that profited from slave labor) would get their money......just not enough because they would actually have to pay someone. So what do they do? Go about trying to tear this country in half over money. It also gives you a look into the soul of a person that will go to war to keep people bonded into slavery. Obviously no conscience, no compassion, just profit margin. I honor every soldier that has ever served in the United States armed forces, but will not honor those that fought against those same soldiers I honor so they can continue to work slaves to their death. Sorry not that nostalgic today. Those greedy ****ers in the South started a war that cost this country 620,000 lives. To put it into a little better perspective The Civil War accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.

So no........won't be honoring them. It wasn't about Uncle Jed defending his back 20 from the Yanks. It was a war over morality and money. Not self defense. JFC read a book or go to Wiki.

If I'm not mistaken it's primarily believed that the war was mostly over state's rights and slavery was just the main issue that brought it all to a head. To call the entire war to be over profit margin is a bit shallow IMO.

[Frazod]

I voted no because these people in the slave states had a decloration of secession and considered themselves a different government than that of the United States of America. They attacked the government that we are today to enjoy their way of life.............keeping slaves in bondage and greed. They didn't want to pay anyone to do the work because that would lower their profit margin. They found a solution to that which was to go to other people's homeland, kidnap them, and then put them to work in America for the remainder of their natural lives.

The Civil War was about profit margin. Yes the work would get done and the plantation owners (along with all the others that profited from slave labor) would get their money......just not enough because they would actually have to pay someone. So what do they do? Go about trying to tear this country in half over money. It also gives you a look into the soul of a person that will go to war to keep people bonded into slavery. Obviously no conscience, no compassion, just profit margin. I honor every soldier that has ever served in the United States armed forces, but will not honor those that fought against those same soldiers I honor so they can continue to work slaves to their death. Sorry not that nostalgic today. Those greedy ****ers in the South started a war that cost this country 620,000 lives. To put it into a little better perspective The Civil War accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.

So no........won't be honoring them. It wasn't about Uncle Jed defending his back 20 from the Yanks. It was a war over morality and money. Not self defense. JFC read a book or go to Wiki.

I've read plenty of books on the subject you stupid fuck. And unlike you, I actually UNDERSTOOD THEM.

[Zebedee DuBois]

I appreciate the nuance of the 3/5ths option.

[lostcause]

Did the rebels who fought against Britain in 1776 that died count as American or British casualties?

[Rain Man]

A no vote is foolish. You are judging men who lived in another time by modern standards. You or I can fly across the country in a matter of hours - such a trip taken 150 years ago would take months. Most of these people had never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. To a man born and raised in Georgia, an abolitionist politician from Boston might as well have been a martian. And remember, most of the fighting men weren't wealthy slave owners - just poor people who were defending their home.

Imagine the United Nations declared war on America and attacked. How would you view a Kenyan soldier marching down the streets of Denver under a U.N. flag?


But I don't think of myself as a citizen of the United Nations. I'm a citizen of America. Are you saying that southerners didn't ever view themselves as Americans?

I know that Lee decided that he was more loyal to the state of Virginia than to the United States of America. His was a conscious choice. Maybe Johnny Reb's was, too. Would they even want to be recognized as American casualties?

And if they were American casualties, shouldn't they be eligible for American medals? Would a rebel who killed 50 American troops get the Medal of Honor? Or should they at least get an asterisk like Roger Maris got?

[Rain Man]

I appreciate the nuance of the 3/5ths option.

Thanks. I was kind of proud of that.

[lostcause]

Thanks. I was kind of proud of that.

i voted for it.

[Rain Man]

Did the rebels who fought against Britain in 1776 that died count as American or British casualties?

Good question. Do the British count them? I bet not. Is that because they won?

If the Americans hadn't won, maybe Britain would count them.

[lostcause]

Good question. Do the British count them? I bet not. Is that because they won?

If the Americans hadn't won, maybe Britain would count them.

There you have it. The Confederacy lost, so their casualties are American. If they had won, their casualties would be Confederate casualties.

[Rain Man]

There you have it. The Confederacy lost, so their casualties are American. If they had won, their casualties would be Confederate casualties.

Maybe that's it.

It nonetheless seems disrespectful to those who defended the American flag to count those who killed them as being of equal honor.

[lostcause]

Maybe that's it.

It nonetheless seems disrespectful to those who defended the American flag to count those who killed them as being of equal honor.

It is an interesting slope. Assuming the Confederate deaths are considered American casualties. Was Nat Turner also an American casualty?

[Frazod]

But I don't think of myself as a citizen of the United Nations. I'm a citizen of America. Are you saying that southerners didn't ever view themselves as Americans?

Again, you're thinking about this in 2010, not 1865. Northerners would be looked upon as foreigners by people who had never interacted with them, who lived their entire lives hundreds of miles away. Especially when these strangers were trying to impose their will upon them. In my scenario, later generations could argue that Americans fighting against U.N. occupiers were scumbag rebels who should have embraced being citizens of the world.

Despite what many people have been indoctrinated to believe, most Southerners didn't own slaves, live in giant mansions with four pillars on the porch or worship the devil. Was the war about money? Certainly. But as with all wars, it was started by the rich and mostly fought by the poor. You can bet your ass the average northern soldier wasn't fighting to abolish slavery.

I know that Lee decided that he was more loyal to the state of Virginia than to the United States of America. His was a conscious choice. Maybe Johnny Reb's was, too. Would they even want to be recognized as American casualties?

This is a situation none of us has been in. Some had no trouble with it, stuck with the Union despite their southern origins. Lee (who was offered command of the Union army) couldn't bring himself to lead the attack against his homeland and his family. Doesn't make him evil. Lee spent most of his life as a dedicated soldier in the U.S. Army.

And if they were American casualties, shouldn't they be eligible for American medals? Would a rebel who killed 50 American troops get the Medal of Honor? Or should they at least get an asterisk like Roger Maris got?

I'm sure Southerners had their own medals, just like Northerners did. I've actually never thought much about it before. Like the entire war, it's just kind of sad.

[Rain Man]

It is an interesting slope. Assuming the Confederate deaths are considered American casualties. Was Nat Turner also an American casualty?

Yeah. I'm trying to figure out if there's a judgment call involved. You can attack the United States from within if your cause is just. Was the Confederate cause just? Was it in part because they got together and drew up a Constitution of their own and formal secession papers? What the Confederates did doesn't really seem any different than what some modern folks have done where they declare their farm or trailer to be a sovereign state. It was just done on a bigger scale.

All you yes voters out there, is your yes vote in part or in whole because you think the South seceded over a constitutional issue that the Founders wanted and the North was overrunning? Or is it a technicality vote that the U.S. government formally recognized the South as Americans? (I think they did so all through the war and Reconstruction, didn't they? I don't know my Civil War history very well.)

[Rain Man]

Again, you're thinking about this in 2010, not 1865. Northerners would be looked upon as foreigners by people who had never interacted with them, who lived their entire lives hundreds of miles away. Especially when these strangers were trying to impose their will upon them. In my scenario, later generations could argue that Americans fighting against U.N. occupiers were scumbag rebels who should have embraced being citizens of the world.

Despite what many people have been indoctrinated to believe, most Southerners didn't own slaves, live in giant mansions with four pillars on the porch or worship the devil. Was the war about money? Certainly. But as with all wars, it was started by the rich and mostly fought by the poor. You can bet your ass the average northern soldier wasn't fighting to abolish slavery.




So you fall into a third camp beyond the two I've described, which is that most southern soldiers were really apolitical and were motivated to fight because they believed the Northern troops were going to destroy their homes. (Sherman may not have helped in that regard...)

To some extent, it was really a xenophobic war, then. If the Southerners had had more interaction with the North, they would have burned their draft cards and said, "This isn't my fight". Like you said, they didn't own slaves. So it would kind of make sense that perhaps they had no economic incentive to fight and instead were afraid of the Northern soldiers.

And in that case, does that make the Southern leadership particularly traitorous for feeding this perception? Or were the Northerners equally xenophobic and truly enthusiastic about destroying Southerners' homes and occupying the region as a conquering force? That would kind of go against the whole "brother against brother" theme that we hear a lot.

Like I said, I'm no expert on this time period. I'm truly curious.

[Frazod]

Look at it this way, Kevin - if ordered to do so, would you attack your home town? Could you fire a mortar round into the house of a childhood friend whose parents are inside because an enemy sniper is firing from an upstairs window? Would you have a problem gunning down your brother, or father, or son, because they've volunteered to defend the town?

[patteeu]

All you yes voters out there, is your yes vote in part or in whole because you think the South seceded over a constitutional issue that the Founders wanted and the North was overrunning?

Yes. If nothing else, they had a reasonable argument that the states should be able to withdraw peacefully from the union at any time, IMO. GoHuge was worried about the greed of the South earlier in the thread, but it seems to me that the North's greed kept them from letting the South go their own way without bloodshed.

[lostcause]

Yeah. I'm trying to figure out if there's a judgment call involved. You can attack the United States from within if your cause is just. Was the Confederate cause just? Was it in part because they got together and drew up a Constitution of their own and formal secession papers? What the Confederates did doesn't really seem any different than what some modern folks have done where they declare their farm or trailer to be a sovereign state. It was just done on a bigger scale.

All you yes voters out there, is your yes vote in part or in whole because you think the South seceded over a constitutional issue that the Founders wanted and the North was overrunning? Or is it a technicality vote that the U.S. government formally recognized the South as Americans? (I think they did so all through the war and Reconstruction, didn't they? I don't know my Civil War history very well.)

A couple points to this... I believe Lincoln viewed the Confederacy as United States citizens - which is why he viewed this as a war of keeping the nation whole. Second, I don't think the founders neccessarily wanted slavery. Granted they didn't abolish it in the constitution - but did set forth provisions to end the international trade of slaves as a provision of ratification. They couldn't have gotten enough votes to pass the constitution if the abolition of slavery was included and they knew it.

[Rain Man]

Look at it this way, Kevin - if ordered to do so, would you attack your home town? Could you fire a mortar round into the house of a childhood friend whose parents are inside because an enemy sniper is firing from an upstairs window? Would you have a problem gunning down your brother, or father, or son, because they've volunteered to defend the town?

I understand that, but at some point some southerners had to pick up the first guns to start that cycle. Maybe 10 percent of them were really riled up enough to do that, and then the others had to join because it became a Hatfield-McCoy thing.

Maybe that's it. It became a tribal thing of sorts. It didn't matter who was right or wrong to most foot soldiers. It was about turf, which again makes me wonder if they would truly want to be called American casualties. Now that I think about it, calling them American casualties may actually be a final insult cast upon them. It kind of invalidates the whole premise of their venture.

[Frazod]

So you fall into a third camp beyond the two I've described, which is that most southern soldiers were really apolitical and were motivated to fight because they believed the Northern troops were going to destroy their homes. (Sherman may not have helped in that regard...)

To some extent, it was really a xenophobic war, then. If the Southerners had had more interaction with the North, they would have burned their draft cards and said, "This isn't my fight". Like you said, they didn't own slaves.

And in that case, does that make the Southern leadership particularly traitorous for feeding this perception? Or were the Northerners equally xenophobic and truly enthusiastic about destroying Southerners' homes and occupying the region as a conquering force? That would kind of go against the whole "brother against brother" theme that we hear a lot.

Like I said, I'm no expert on this time period. I'm truly curious.

Xenophobia was definitely a factor.

Think about how ignorant and easily-led the general populace is today. Now imagine a time when most had only a rudimentary education at best.

As for burning draft cards, read up on the New York City draft riots. It's not like every Northerner was chomping at the bit to march into battle and free the slaves. Far, far from it.

[Frazod]

I understand that, but at some point some southerners had to pick up the first guns to start that cycle. Maybe 10 percent of them were really riled up enough to do that, and then the others had to join because it became a Hatfield-McCoy thing.

Maybe that's it. It became a tribal thing of sorts. It didn't matter who was right or wrong to most foot soldiers. It was about turf, which again makes me wonder if they would truly want to be called American casualties. Now that I think about it, calling them American casualties may actually be a final insult cast upon them. It kind of invalidates the whole premise of their venture.

I think it's safe to say that your average dying Confederate soldier wouldn't give two shits what descendants of Yankees would think about him 150 years after the fact one way or another.

[Rain Man]

Yes. If nothing else, they had a reasonable argument that the states should be able to withdraw peacefully from the union at any time, IMO. GoHuge was worried about the greed of the South earlier in the thread, but it seems to me that the North's greed kept them from letting the South go their own way without bloodshed.

I'll probably send this to DC and don't intend to, but if the American Government invalidates rights under the Constitution, I would support secession because it means the America of the Founding Fathers no longer exists and needs to be recreated. Does the State's Rights thing rise to that level? Or was there a belief that the nation as a whole was doing something in the nation's best interests at the disproportionate cost of some states, which in my mind does not rise to the level of a justified secession.

I keep thinking of Arizona and the immigration law now. If the feds override something that Arizonans want, does that justify secession? It seems like every state gets screwed over some and wins some, so you wouldn't want states leaving willy-nilly just because of one issue.

[lostcause]

I'll probably send this to DC and don't intend to, but if the American Government invalidates rights under the Constitution, I would support secession because it means the America of the Founding Fathers no longer exists and needs to be recreated. Does the State's Rights thing rise to that level? Or was there a belief that the nation as a whole was doing something in the nation's best interests at the disproportionate cost of some states, which in my mind does not rise to the level of a justified secession.

I keep thinking of Arizona and the immigration law now. If the feds override something that Arizonans want, does that justify secession? It seems like every state gets screwed over some and wins some, so you wouldn't want states leaving willy-nilly just because of one issue.

Keep in mind that the 13th (and subsequently 14th) amendment was intended to indicate that the bill of rights applied to everyone. The Federal Government leading up to the Civil War did not act outside of its framework - it clarified it and enumerated it to include people of african descent.

[boogblaster]

In truth the Civil War wasn't about slavery .. it was about taxes .. northern rich owned slaves too .....

[lostcause]

In truth the Civil War wasn't about slavery .. it was about taxes .. northern rich owned slaves too .....

?

slavery was illegal in northern states.

[patteeu]

I'll probably send this to DC and don't intend to, but if the American Government invalidates rights under the Constitution, I would support secession because it means the America of the Founding Fathers no longer exists and needs to be recreated. Does the State's Rights thing rise to that level? Or was there a belief that the nation as a whole was doing something in the nation's best interests at the disproportionate cost of some states, which in my mind does not rise to the level of a justified secession.

I keep thinking of Arizona and the immigration law now. If the feds override something that Arizonans want, does that justify secession? It seems like every state gets screwed over some and wins some, so you wouldn't want states leaving willy-nilly just because of one issue.

I think the civil war was a major turning point for our country in terms of how power was shared between the states and the federal government. Before that point, state governments were supreme with the exception of the power they delegated to the feds via the constitution and the states were voluntary members of the union. The war proved, in a practical sense at least, that regardless of the constitution, the federal government had the last say and the states were not free to leave when the union no longer served their purposes.

IMO, the Lincoln years and FDR's New Deal (when the courts dramatically increased the scope of the federal government by broadly construing the commerce clause, for instance) were the two major turning points that transformed our country from a collection of sovereign states joined in a voluntary union (something like the EU today) to a unified country. In many ways, this has benefited us, but it seems pretty clear to me that it's not what the people who ratified the constitution intended (and therefore hard to justify on constitutional grounds, IMO).

[lostcause]

I think the civil war was a major turning point for our country in terms of how power was shared between the states and the federal government. Before that point, state governments were supreme with the exception of the power they delegated to the feds via the constitution and the states were voluntary members of the union. The war proved, in a practical sense at least, that regardless of the constitution, the federal government had the last say and the states were not free to leave when the union no longer served their purposes.

IMO, the Lincoln years and FDR's New Deal (when the courts dramatically increased the scope of the federal government by broadly construing the commerce clause, for instance) were the two major turning points that transformed our country from a collection of sovereign states joined in a voluntary union (something like the EU today) to a unified country. In many ways, this has benefited us, but it seems pretty clear to me that it's not what the people who ratified the constitution intended (and therefore hard to justify on constitutional grounds, IMO).

I agree with your points on the New Deal and the Civil War as turning points for State's rights versus Federal Rights. But I disagree that the EU is what the Constitutional Convention was aiming for - they were actually shifting away from the Articles of Confederation (much more similar to the EU with the exception of currency) to a more centralized power. The constitution is very very vague in many ways and it has always been up to further generations to flesh it out. I mean, the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights was radically changed just two years ago. It's an adaptable piece of legislative work and was IMO intended to be so.

[patteeu]

Keep in mind that the 13th (and subsequently 14th) amendment was intended to indicate that the bill of rights applied to everyone. The Federal Government leading up to the Civil War did not act outside of its framework - it clarified it and enumerated it to include people of african descent.

This isn't really true. The 13th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and 14th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) amendments were ratified in the mid to late1860s. Incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights) of *some* parts of the bill of rights didn't happen for decades after that. It's a fine example of a court sweeping away the commonly understood meaning of a constitutional provision long after it's been ratified and substituting their own policy choices for that of those who wrote and ratified the document.

[patteeu]

I agree with your points on the New Deal and the Civil War as turning points for State's rights versus Federal Rights. But I disagree that the EU is what the Constitutional Convention was aiming for - they were actually shifting away from the Articles of Confederation (much more similar to the EU with the exception of currency) to a more centralized power. The constitution is very very vague in many ways and it has always been up to further generations to flesh it out. I mean, the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights was radically changed just two years ago. It's an adaptable piece of legislative work and was IMO intended to be so.

I was unclear. I don't mean to suggest that our founders were aiming for something like the EU. I just meant that they seemed to intend that the states were voluntary members of the union like the countries of the EU today.

If the constitution were intended to be adaptable like you suggest, it wouldn't need an amendment process. The kind of adaptability that you accept (and you're not alone), effectively makes the document meaningless over time.

[lostcause]

I was unclear. I don't mean to suggest that our founders were aiming for something like the EU. I just meant that they seemed to intend that the states were voluntary members of the union like the countries of the EU today.

If the constitution were intended to be adaptable like you suggest, it wouldn't need an amendment process. The kind of adaptability that you accept (and you're not alone), effectively makes the document meaningless over time.

It's a framework. The language in the constitution is expressly vague and it was intended to be maleable over time - which is why it has worked so well. I do agree with you that the Civil War was the first and only test of your proposition that states were voluntary members that could leave at any time and in a sense the argument that the Civil War was financially based is valid. However, I do believe that the founders realized that a collection of autonomous states was suicide to a sovereign America - which is why the Articles were rejected in the first place and a stronger federal government was put in place. Abraham Lincoln also really shaped the facet of the presidency into a strong executive leader. I think if anything, the power the president has now, more than anything else is what the shapers of the constitution would be appalled by.

[lostcause]

This isn't really true. The 13th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and 14th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) amendments were ratified in the mid to late1860s. Incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights) of *some* parts of the bill of rights didn't happen for decades after that. It's a fine example of a court sweeping away the commonly understood meaning of a constitutional provision long after it's been ratified and substituting their own policy choices for that of those who wrote and ratified the document.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The 13th and 14th amendments were put into place to nationalize legislation that was already predominant in northern states. Mississippi may have waited until 15 years ago to ratify the abolition of slavery, but state power has been held to be secondary to the Constitution since its inception.

[patteeu]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The 13th and 14th amendments were put into place to nationalize legislation that was already predominant in northern states. Mississippi may have waited until 15 years ago to ratify the abolition of slavery, but state power has been held to be secondary to the Constitution since its inception.

I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were talking about the bill of rights being applied as a restraint on the states, which didn't happen until much later. I agree with what you're actually saying.

[patteeu]

It's a framework. The language in the constitution is expressly vague and it was intended to be maleable over time - which is why it has worked so well. I do agree with you that the Civil War was the first and only test of your proposition that states were voluntary members that could leave at any time and in a sense the argument that the Civil War was financially based is valid. However, I do believe that the founders realized that a collection of autonomous states was suicide to a sovereign America - which is why the Articles were rejected in the first place and a stronger federal government was put in place. Abraham Lincoln also really shaped the facet of the presidency into a strong executive leader. I think if anything, the power the president has now, more than anything else is what the shapers of the constitution would be appalled by.

I don't think there's much evidence of that in the writings of those who drafted the document or of those who ratified it. I agree that the document is not hyper-specific, but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that anyone intended for the language to be so flexible that it could mean one thing when written and the opposite 100 years later. The amendment process was included for a reason.

[JD10367]

They seceded. They flew their own flag. They shot at Union soldiers and killed them. So, no, they can go fuck themselves. If the state of Texas suddenly decided it wanted to be independent, and began shooting at U.S. soldiers in a Texas-American War, should we count the rebels as Americans? Fuck no. The day you pick up a gun and declare yourself something other than a United States citizen, and fly your own flag, and shoot at U.S. soldiers, by definition you are no longer entitled to be treated as a U.S. citizen IMO.

[Pioli Zombie]

This is what cracks me up about Southern Red Necks. Its America this and America that. And then they choose as their symbol the Confederate flag,a flag representing the South trying to break away from the United States, an act as traitorous as it gets.
Right, take pride in trying to NOT be Americans so you can keep slaves. Brilliant.

[Pioli Zombie]

All good Germans should take pride in the Swastika I guess. Same logic.

[-King-]

If the CSA soldiers that died are considered American casualties, shouldn't the people that died fighting Britain in the Revolutionary war be considered British casualties?
Posted via Mobile Device

[ThaVirus]

If you can't at least field the argument on either side of the spectrum, you're crazy. Good points on both sides..

[Spott]

They were all Americans. I don't think anyone alive today can relate to what was going on back then.

[Bambi]

Wow, I'm kinda ashamed to be a Chiefs fan with all the "yes" votes in this poll.

Missouri, what's wrong with you? Are you still into slavery?

[Bambi]

In truth the Civil War wasn't about slavery .. it was about taxes .. northern rich owned slaves too .....

unbelievable...

:shake:

[-King-]

They were all Americans. I don't think anyone alive today can relate to what was going on back then.

No, they were confederates. They were fighting America.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Spott]

No, they were confederates. They were fighting America.


No, the only real Americans were either killed or sent to live on reservations.

[Bambi]

No, the only real Americans were either killed or sent to live on reservations.

fair point

[Frazod]

Wow, I'm kinda ashamed to be a Chiefs fan with all the "yes" votes in this poll.

Missouri, what's wrong with you? Are you still into slavery?

Mainly, they're just not fucking idiots.

[-King-]

Mainly, they're just not fucking idiots.

Jeez, calm down. I think this is a good argument and I understand both sides.


I really want to see the "yes" people answer the analogy about the colonial people that died in the revolutionary. Do you consider them British casualties?

[boogblaster]

You're all missing the point .. rich southerners didn't want northern business running their prices ... the slavery issue was just a ploy to draft northern men and any other fresh man who just arrived from Europe .....

[Frazod]

Jeez, calm down. I think this is a good argument and I understand both sides.

There's only so much beaker idiocy I can deal with in one day.

[wazu]

I voted "no". I would wager that most of the Confederate soldiers would only want to be counted as casualties for their particular states, or at most, the Confederacy. They were fighting like hell to NOT be forced to be counted among American citizens. To count them because their side ultimately lost seems like the greater dishonor to their memory.

This is not a judgment of them in any way, and has nothing to do with any political issues, including slavery, that existed at the time. They were clearly patriotic for their states, to the point that they were willing to pick up arms and fight for their state rights. But I can't reconcile any way that translates to being an American casualty when they were fighting specifically to not be under the American banner.

[Valiant]

But they were fighting American troops, and flying a non-American flag. Shouldn't the definition be based on how they viewed themselves? They weren't fighting as Americans.

It was a civil war, personally I think we need another one.. The CSA had every right to do what they did against the oppressive northern states..

[Valiant]

I voted no because these people were fighting to keep slavery legal and considered themselves a different government than that of the United States of America. They attacked the government that we are today to enjoy their way of life.............keeping slaves in bondage and greed. They didn't want to pay anyone to do the work because that would lower their profit margin. They found a solution to that which was to go to other people's homeland, kidnap them, and then put them to work in America for the remainder of their natural lives.

The Civil War was about profit margin. Yes the work would get done and the plantation owners (along with all the others that profited from slave labor) would get their money......just not enough because they would actually have to pay someone. So what do they do? Go about trying to tear this country in half over money. It also gives you a look into the soul of a person that will go to war to keep people bonded into slavery. Obviously no conscience, no compassion, just profit margin. I honor every soldier that has ever served in the United States armed forces, but will not honor those that fought against those same soldiers I honor so they can continue to work slaves to their death. Sorry not that nostalgic today. Those greedy ****ers in the South started a war that cost this country 620,000 lives. To put it into a little better perspective The Civil War accounted for roughly as many American deaths as all American deaths in other U.S. wars combined.

So no........won't be honoring them. It wasn't about Uncle Jed defending his back 20 from the Yanks. It was a war over morality and money. Not self defense. JFC read a book or go to Wiki.

Sorry, but it is easy to see who got their history lessons from high school and Wikipedia..

[Rain Man]

It was a civil war, personally I think we need another one.. The CSA had every right to do what they did against the oppressive northern states..

Well, I hope I'm in a rebel state then, because I look horrible in blue.

[Valiant]

A couple points to this... I believe Lincoln viewed the Confederacy as United States citizens - which is why he viewed this as a war of keeping the nation whole. Second, I don't think the founders neccessarily wanted slavery. Granted they didn't abolish it in the constitution - but did set forth provisions to end the international trade of slaves as a provision of ratification. They couldn't have gotten enough votes to pass the constitution if the abolition of slavery was included and they knew it.

No, the North viewed the southern states as where most of their agriculture came from.. Also a good portion of the northern manufactured goods went south, the South did not need the North, this was not true the other way..

[Valiant]

Well, I hope I'm in a rebel state then, because I look horrible in blue.

lol, I do not think we will be wearing gray or blue.. I am going with citizens vs. our corrupt federal government..

Or maybe the midwestern states vs. the coastal states for fun..

[Valiant]

No, the only real Americans were either killed or sent to live on reservations.

Will not argue against that..

What we and Europeans did to the America's is the closest thing to a total victory.. Hell the Holocaust does not even come close to the eradication we wrought back in the day..

[RedNFeisty]

I voted "no". I would wager that most of the Confederate soldiers would only want to be counted as casualties for their particular states, or at most, the Confederacy. They were fighting like hell to NOT be forced to be counted among American citizens. To count them because their side ultimately lost seems like the greater dishonor to their memory.

This is not a judgment of them in any way, and has nothing to do with any political issues, including slavery, that existed at the time. They were clearly patriotic for their states, to the point that they were willing to pick up arms and fight for their state rights. But I can't reconcile any way that translates to being an American casualty when they were fighting specifically to not be under the American banner.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!!!! All politics aside, the Confederates were fighting to become independent from the United States, so no, they should not be counted as American Soldiers which should be honored.

BTW, any one that believes the civil war was not over slavery and greed, is are delusional, imo. Oppression my have been the war cry. If it wasn't over slavery, then why is Kansas known through out the history books as Bleeding Kansas??

[lostcause]

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!!!! All politics aside, the Confederates were fighting to become independent from the United States, so no, they should not be counted as American Soldiers which should be honored.

BTW, any one that believes the civil war was not over slavery and greed, is are delusional, imo. Oppression my have been the war cry. If it wasn't over slavery, then why is Kansas known through out the history books as Bleeding Kansas??

It is this. I don't really understand why people would defend the South's actions as anything other than a response to the demise of slavery. Slavery was entrenched so deeply, politically, psychologically and financially that civil war was inevitable if it was to end in the United States.

[rad]

They seceded. They flew their own flag. They shot at Union soldiers and killed them. So, no, they can go **** themselves. If the state of Texas suddenly decided it wanted to be independent, and began shooting at U.S. soldiers in a Texas-American War, should we count the rebels as Americans? **** no. The day you pick up a gun and declare yourself something other than a United States citizen, and fly your own flag, and shoot at U.S. soldiers, by definition you are no longer entitled to be treated as a U.S. citizen IMO.

This.........I'm amazed at some of the "yes" arguments.

[oldandslow]

I doubt those that died for the south WANT to be counted as Northern soldiers. In South Carolina they still don't recognize memorial day as a holiday.

By the way, my people (Choctaws) fought with the south...they trusted the confederates more than they did the feds...Had my wife's people (the Lakota) taken it to the North in 1862 - like the Yankton Sioux wanted too -instead of waiting until 1875, history might be different.

It always seemed to me that Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were born about a decade too late.

[Amnorix]

A no vote is foolish. You are judging men who lived in another time by modern standards. You or I can fly across the country in a matter of hours - such a trip taken 150 years ago would take months. Most of these people had never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. To a man born and raised in Georgia, an abolitionist politician from Boston might as well have been a martian. And remember, most of the fighting men weren't wealthy slave owners - just poor people who were defending their home.

Imagine the United Nations declared war on America and attacked. How would you view a Kenyan soldier marching down the streets of Denver under a U.N. flag?

Your analogy makes no sense. It's not at all analogous.

Keep in mind that if the Confederacy was successful, then you wouldn't have the same view, right?

Or do you view the American wounded/killed in the American Revolution as British casualties?

It's not nearly so straightforward a question as may here seem to think. These were soldiers fighting in open rebellion against their country under what was purportedly separate political leadership and under a different flag. They were, if nothing else, clearly NOT United States troops.

I guess it really depends on how the question is phrased, exactly.

[Amnorix]

Since it was a civil war, which by definition is war between sides in single nation, I would have to say 'yes'.

Without having read through the rest of the thread yet, and never having given it much thought, I'll join Patteu and go with this also.

The phrase you used was "American casualties". As they were at all times Americans (becuase the result of the war is determinative), then they are "American battle casualties."

I would not count them as US troops, or US military casualties, however. Whatever records the US Army has or whatever for its wounded, those I would not have include CSA casualties.

For the question you were probably driving at -- should the CSA troops be honored on Memorial Day -- I suspect the answer to that rests primarily on what state or what allegiances one lives in or has.

[Amnorix]

So you fall into a third camp beyond the two I've described, which is that most southern soldiers were really apolitical and were motivated to fight because they believed the Northern troops were going to destroy their homes. (Sherman may not have helped in that regard...)

This is, as a general statement, absolutely correct. Most of those in the CSA army fought merely because "y'all are down here", to paraphrase one reb's response when asked why he was fighting.

To some extent, it was really a xenophobic war, then. If the Southerners had had more interaction with the North, they would have burned their draft cards and said, "This isn't my fight". Like you said, they didn't own slaves. So it would kind of make sense that perhaps they had no economic incentive to fight and instead were afraid of the Northern soldiers.

And in that case, does that make the Southern leadership particularly traitorous for feeding this perception? Or were the Northerners equally xenophobic and truly enthusiastic about destroying Southerners' homes and occupying the region as a conquering force? That would kind of go against the whole "brother against brother" theme that we hear a lot.

Like I said, I'm no expert on this time period. I'm truly curious.

To be VERY broad about it, the North fought to preserve the Union. The South fought because they believed their economic and social structure was going to be subjected to ever-increasing pressure by a national government that they clearly has ceased to control. (note that in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the South effectively did control Washington to a very large extent.

[Amnorix]

As for burning draft cards, read up on the New York City draft riots. It's not like every Northerner was chomping at the bit to march into battle and free the slaves. Far, far from it.


The NYC draft riots are kind of an isolated and unusual circumstance, and I wouldn't describe it as indicative of the situation in the North generally.

However, it is certainly fair to say that most Union soldiers were absolutely NOT fighting to end slavery and, of course, the ending of slavery wasn't even a stated goal until the Emancipation Proclamation which came about 18 months into the war IIRC.

[Amnorix]

In truth the Civil War wasn't about slavery .. it was about taxes .. northern rich owned slaves too .....

Yeah, no.

[Amnorix]

I think the civil war was a major turning point for our country in terms of how power was shared between the states and the federal government. Before that point, state governments were supreme with the exception of the power they delegated to the feds via the constitution and the states were voluntary members of the union. The war proved, in a practical sense at least, that regardless of the constitution, the federal government had the last say and the states were not free to leave when the union no longer served their purposes.

IMO, the Lincoln years and FDR's New Deal (when the courts dramatically increased the scope of the federal government by broadly construing the commerce clause, for instance) were the two major turning points that transformed our country from a collection of sovereign states joined in a voluntary union (something like the EU today) to a unified country. In many ways, this has benefited us, but it seems pretty clear to me that it's not what the people who ratified the constitution intended (and therefore hard to justify on constitutional grounds, IMO).

Note that James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", denied the right of secession existed.

And indeed, logic alone suggests that it doesn't, and didn't. Governments can't be self-defeating. That was the ultimate weakness of the governmental structure we had before the Constitution was put into place.

[Amnorix]

You're all missing the point .. rich southerners didn't want northern business running their prices ... the slavery issue was just a ploy to draft northern men and any other fresh man who just arrived from Europe .....


:doh!:

[Amnorix]

Sorry, but it is easy to see who got their history lessons from high school and Wikipedia..


Sorry, but I get my from original sources and extensive reading. Spare me the snide condescension. It's very wide of the mark.

[Amnorix]

No, the North viewed the southern states as where most of their agriculture came from.. Also a good portion of the northern manufactured goods went south, the South did not need the North, this was not true the other way..

Seemed like the North did fine without the South during the war. Keep in mind that the mid-Western states (Union) grew plenty of food, and other Northern states that are not now very agricultural were much more so then.

[Amnorix]

lol, I do not think we will be wearing gray or blue.. I am going with citizens vs. our corrupt federal government..

Or maybe the midwestern states vs. the coastal states for fun..

I love the view that Midwesterners and the Midwest are "true" Americans and the rest of us are practically traitors.

It's a view that grew up during the New Deal out of frustration with Roosevelt and the Democrats, and being too many years out of power, and came to its ultimate head with the radical lunacy of the McCarthyism. And it continues to this day, as exemplified by your post. I regret to inform you that America isn't what you think it is. Never has been really...

[Amnorix]

Sorry for probably helping ot send this thread into DC btw. :D

[JD10367]

By the way, my people (Choctaws) fought with the south...they trusted the confederates more than they did the feds...Had my wife's people (the Lakota) taken it to the North in 1862 - like the Yankton Sioux wanted too -instead of waiting until 1875, history might be different.

It always seemed to me that Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were born about a decade too late.

This is a totally different topic, but I'd have to disagree, sadly. Throughout human history, no native minority with inferior weaponry has ever managed to stave off conquering. Pick a continent and an era. Africans, South Americans, Native Americans, the indigenous people of Australia, China, northern Europe, whatever. The bottom line is, the Native Americans had bows and arrows, the U.S. government had modern guns and cannons. The result, while detestable, was unchangeable given the prevailing attitudes of the time. I'm sure if, had the South won the war, they would've treated the Native Americans no differently than the North did.

[Amnorix]

This is a totally different topic, but I'd have to disagree, sadly. Throughout human history, no native minority with inferior weaponry has ever managed to stave off conquering. Pick a continent and an era. Africans, South Americans, Native Americans, the indigenous people of Australia, China, northern Europe, whatever. The bottom line is, the Native Americans had bows and arrows, the U.S. government had modern guns and cannons. The result, while detestable, was unchangeable given the prevailing attitudes of the time. I'm sure if, had the South won the war, they would've treated the Native Americans no differently than the North did.

This.

Keep in mind that it was the South that thwarted the early Founder's (including Washington's) efforts for a rational Native American Indian policy.

[Lex Luthor]

I think a lot of the "Yes" voters are answering a question that is completely different from what is asked in the OP.

Did the Confederate soldiers feel morally justified to fight against the Union? Yes. Can we sympathize with them and perhaps even feel that they acted properly? Yes.

But should they be counted as American casualties? No way in hell. They were fighting against the established government of this country. No matter how morally just they felt their cause was, and no matter how much you may sympathize with them, that is the bottom line. They were not American casualties.

[Frazod]

I see this thread has been bombarded by the SLAVERY IS EVIL AMERICA FUCK YEAH! crowd.

Those mean ol' Southerners. If only they'd googled slavery and realized how wrong they were, everybody would still be alive.

[lostcause]

I see this thread has been bombarded by the SLAVERY IS EVIL AMERICA **** YEAH! crowd.

Those mean ol' Southerners. If only they'd googled slavery and realized how wrong they were, everybody would still be alive.

Slavery is immoral.

[Frazod]

Slavery is immoral.

Really? Oh shit, I guess you're right! Wow, I'm glad you're here to enlighten me. I guess I'll stop circulating that petition to get Jefferson Davis put on Mount Rushmore now.

Thanks, dude!

[Bane]

Really? Oh shit, I guess you're right! Wow, I'm glad you're here to enlighten me. I guess I'll stop circulating that petition to get Jefferson Davis put on Mount Rushmore now.

Thanks, dude!


Those crazy evil white devils.Lmao
Posted via Mobile Device

[Frazod]

Those crazy evil white devils.Lmao
Posted via Mobile Device

If only they'd lived in the North. Every laborer had a wonderful little house with indoor plumbing! They all lived in harmony with their black neighbors, and worked for wonderful bosses who provided them with 401(k) plans and free dental. It was paradise, I tell you!

[BigChiefFan]

They are/were Americans. To suggest otherwise is foolish. Brothers fighting brothers. Just because one side saw differently, doesn't mean they weren't Americans. Anti-Union...yes. Non-American ...hardly. I can't believe this is even debated.

[Bane]

They are/were Americans. To suggest otherwise is foolish. Brothers fighting brothers. Just because one side saw differently, doesn't mean they weren't Americans. Anti-Union...yes. Non-American ...hardly. I can't believe this is even debated.

Yep,I guess if North Carolina decides to attack South Carolina only the fighters from the north are still Americans.Wait....So does that mean if you get attacked at the bar by someone that lives further north than you,you are no longer American if you get your ass kicked,or does it only work like that if you die?bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa!
Posted via Mobile Device

[RedNFeisty]

I see this thread has been bombarded by the SLAVERY IS EVIL AMERICA **** YEAH! crowd.

Those mean ol' Southerners. If only they'd googled slavery and realized how wrong they were, everybody would still be alive.

Let me guess, you sport the Confederate flag in the back window of your truck??

I was raised with southern morals, but, not once did I hear the south was in the right when fighting the north. I understand state pride, but there is also state ignorance. I still deal with people who think slavery was a good thing, I say to them, here is your bullet and gun, use it on yourself.

[RedNFeisty]

They are/were Americans. To suggest otherwise is foolish. Brothers fighting brothers. Just because one side saw differently, doesn't mean they weren't Americans. Anti-Union...yes. Non-American ...hardly. I can't believe this is even debated.

But, the Confederates did not want to be considered American's. Yes, by all accounts they were American, but they did not want to be. If the South had their way we would be two nations now, not one. I say respect their wishes and not count them as American soldiers.

[RedNFeisty]

Yep,I guess if North Carolina decides to attack South Carolina only the fighters from the north are still Americans.Wait....So does that mean if you get attacked at the bar by someone that lives further north than you,you are no longer American if you get your ass kicked,or does it only work like that if you die?bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa!
Posted via Mobile Device

Go hang your flag and hush!!!ROFL

[Bane]

Go hang your flag and hush!!!ROFL

I don't fly that flag my lady.I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.My family never owned slaves,so there's that also.To me it doesn't matter if they wanted to be considered Americans or not,they were Americans and that's that.If not someone should produce the documentation proving their American citizenship had been revoked and then we have a discussion.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Frazod]

Let me guess, you sport the Confederate flag in the back window of your truck??

I was raised with southern morals, but, not once did I hear the south was in the right when fighting the north. I understand state pride, but there is also state ignorance. I still deal with people who think slavery was a good thing, I say to them, here is your bullet and gun, use it on yourself.

Yes, and it has the naked lady mud flaps, too. They love that sort of thing up here in Chicago.

I also have a family of slaves in the basement. They wash it for me every day.

[Bane]

Yes, and it has the naked lady mud flaps, too. They love that sort of thing up here in Chicago.

I also have a family of slaves in the basement. They wash it for me every day.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Goddamn I wish I wasn't on my mobile!!!!!!!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[Amnorix]

I see this thread has been bombarded by the SLAVERY IS EVIL AMERICA FUCK YEAH! crowd.

Those mean ol' Southerners. If only they'd googled slavery and realized how wrong they were, everybody would still be alive.

Way to ignore everything I and everyone else said.

[RedNFeisty]

Yes, and it has the naked lady mud flaps, too. They love that sort of thing up here in Chicago.

I also have a family of slaves in the basement. They wash it for me every day.

ROFLROFLROFL

Okay, you got me there!!

[RedNFeisty]

I don't fly that flag my lady.I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.My family never owned slaves,so there's that also.To me it doesn't matter if they wanted to be considered Americans or not,they were Americans and that's that.If not someone should produce the documentation proving their American citizenship had been revoked and then we have a discussion.
Posted via Mobile Device

I just say, respect their wishes. They wanted to be abolished from the Union, so let them be. I do agree they were American's. I'm not stupid! :)

[Frazod]

Way to ignore everything I and everyone else said.

That's because we've had this discussion before, and I have long ago concluded that you are an idiot.

[ModSocks]

Yes, and it has the naked lady mud flaps, too. They love that sort of thing up here in Chicago.

I also have a family of slaves in the basement. They wash it for me every day.

You see, that's how I know you're a redneck. Only Rednecks still use slaves. Us big city folk prefer to use immigrants. Get with the times dude. Little Ling-lings work twice as hard, twice as fast for only half the rice.

Thank God the south didn't win. We'd still have to feed the big black people.

[Frazod]

You see, that's how I know you're a redneck. Only Rednecks still use slaves. Us big city folk prefer to use immigrants. Get with the times dude. Little Ling-lings work twice as hard, twice as fast for only half the rice.

Thank God the south didn't win. We'd still have to feed the big black people.

Thanks, I'll look into that. Whatever's cost effective! :D

[Bane]

I just say, respect their wishes. They wanted to be abolished from the Union, so let them be. I do agree they were American's. I'm not stupid! :)

Its all good,we can agree to disagree without in fighting...Oh wait...Then that would make me un american since you live north of me!!!!Fukk!!!!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[-King-]

I would still like to see the people who voted yes explain why colonial soldiers don't count as British casualties.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Amnorix]

That's because we've had this discussion before, and I have long ago concluded that you are an idiot.

Your conclusions reflect more about you than me.

[Frazod]

I would still like to see the people who voted yes explain why colonial soldiers don't count as British casualties.
Posted via Mobile Device

You do realize that the British Empire lost the Revolutionary War, right?

[Bane]

You do realize that the British Empire lost the Revolutionary War, right?

Just keeps getting better and better.ROFL

[Frazod]

Your conclusions reflect more about you than me.

No, they don't, you arrogant piece of crap. I really don't care how many books you've read. You just don't get it. I could go downstairs and thumb through the tax code and have about the same understanding of it that you do of history. I know you like to vomit forth dates and names, pat yourself on the back for being sooooooooooooooooooooooo smart, and brag about how great your credentials are, but your lack of comprehension beyond the written text continues to be staggering, as is your flippant disrespect for the people who fought in this war.

This thread isn't about the rich cowards in Charleston and Boston who started everything in motion - it's about the poor slobs who actually did the dirty work.

[RedNFeisty]

Its all good,we can agree to disagree without in fighting...Oh wait...Then that would make me un american since you live north of me!!!!Fukk!!!!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

Good boy, know your place!! LMAO

[Old Dog]

I just say, respect their wishes. They wanted to be abolished from the Union, so let them be. I do agree they were American's. I'm not stupid! :)

Had they done that, there would have been no need for the war.

[Lex Luthor]

They are/were Americans. To suggest otherwise is foolish. Brothers fighting brothers. Just because one side saw differently, doesn't mean they weren't Americans. Anti-Union...yes. Non-American ...hardly. I can't believe this is even debated.

Yep,I guess if North Carolina decides to attack South Carolina only the fighters from the north are still Americans.Wait....So does that mean if you get attacked at the bar by someone that lives further north than you,you are no longer American if you get your ass kicked,or does it only work like that if you die?bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa!
Posted via Mobile Device
Who said they aren't Americans?

There's a difference between saying that and saying that they should not be included in the lists of American casualties. Timothy McVeigh was an American too. That doesn't mean he would be included in the list of American casualties if he had been killed by an American soldier.

[Rain Man]

Who said they aren't Americans?

There's a difference between saying that and saying that they should not be included in the lists of American casualties. Timothy McVeigh was an American too. That doesn't mean he would be included in the list of American casualties if he had been killed by an American soldier.


Yeah. In my opinion, you get listed in the casualty count if you were killed or injured in the service of the nation. Confederate soldiers don't meet that criteria.

[Bane]

Who said they aren't Americans?

There's a difference between saying that and saying that they should not be included in the lists of American casualties. Timothy McVeigh was an American too. That doesn't mean he would be included in the list of American casualties if he had been killed by an American soldier.

I don't think he died fighting in a Civil War.

[Frazod]

:facepalm:

[rad]

I guess "seceded from the Union " doesn't mean anything.

Amazing.

[allen_kcCard]

Of course the answer would be yes, it wouldn't be a civil war otherwise.

And on the note of people thinking that we are demeaning ourselves to include them american soldiers when they shot at american soldiers (again, that is what a civil war is), they, just like the union soldiers, just like the signers of the decl. of indep, just liek paul revere, and just like any other figures of our history are part of what made the USA what it is today. Even though I didn't agree with the Southern's stance on the arguments of the time, I wholeheartedly agree with them standing up for what they believed in doing something about it instead of lying down and taking it.

This country, despite the terrible fact that we were fighting our own, would not be the same if not for the civil war and the leaps and bounds that we grew as a nation in that time period and recovery afterwards from what took place.

[DaFace]

Were the soldiers Americans before the war? Were they Americans afterward? Since the answer is yes, they were Americans during the war as well, albeit Americans who had lost their way a bit. That's how I see this as being different from other wars that involved territories that actually seceded.

[-King-]

You do realize that the British Empire lost the Revolutionary War, right?

To me winning or losing should have nothing to do with it. All that matters is the side they were fighting for.

So if we would have lost, you would consider the people that fought for us British casualties? Fuck that..or in the words of Bane58: Fukk that.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Bane]

To me winning or losing should have nothing to do with it. All that matters is the side they were fighting for.

So if we would have lost, you would consider the people that fought for us British casualties? **** that..or in the words of Bane58: Fukk that.
Posted via Mobile Device

I take that as a compliment.:D

[Frazod]

To me winning or losing should have nothing to do with it. All that matters is the side they were fighting for.

So if we would have lost, you would consider the people that fought for us British casualties? Fuck that..or in the words of Bane58: Fukk that.
Posted via Mobile Device

Well, had the British won, they would have certainly put the ringleaders to death, but the surviving rank and file soldiers would have probably been sent on their way, returned to their farms/villages/cities and continued living their lives as British colonists, albeit pissed off and bitter British colonists. These people would have honored the lost lives of their fallen family members/friends/neighbors/countrymen, and in the fullness of time, yes, they probably would have been considered British casualties.

I guess if it were up to you, though, they'd just dump the bodies in a swamp somewhere and forget that they ever existed, right?

[GoHuge]

I think a lot of the "Yes" voters are answering a question that is completely different from what is asked in the OP.

Did the Confederate soldiers feel morally justified to fight against the Union? Yes. Can we sympathize with them and perhaps even feel that they acted properly? Yes.

But should they be counted as American casualties? No way in hell. They were fighting against the established government of this country. No matter how morally just they felt their cause was, and no matter how much you may sympathize with them, that is the bottom line. They were not American casualties.This +1

[-King-]

Well, had the British won, they would have certainly put the ringleaders to death, but the surviving rank and file soldiers would have probably been sent on their way, returned to their farms/villages/cities and continued living their lives as British colonists, albeit pissed off and bitter British colonists. These people would have honored the lost lives of their fallen family members/friends/neighbors/countrymen, and in the fullness of time, yes, they probably would have been considered British casualties.

I guess if it were up to you, though, they'd just dump the bodies in a swamp somewhere and forget that they ever existed, right?

:spock: What now?
Posted via Mobile Device

[bandwagonjumper]

Hell no! There killed thousands and thousands of Americans. The Memorial Day is for honoring Americans who gave there live for the USA and not against them.

[GoHuge]

This thing is far too open-ended. We've heard all the arguements for, against, leftways, rightways, downways, etc.

This thread pretty much sums up why the War happened. Nobody can agree on shit in this country. I looked at the OP a couple times before I posted anything and the reason I said no is because of their intent. They fully intended on starting a new nation seperate from The United States. So they lost and then they're just grandfathered back in to the happy home? Yes state's rights were the main reason for going to war, but the their entire arguement for states rights was based on being able to keep slaves as property.

I keep hearing we don't know what it was like 150 years ago, blah, blah. People could read, write, had telegrams, and even the railroad existed. Still boils down a morality issue. Slavery was as hot, if not hotter than abortion is today. I'd like to think there is an answer that is 100 percent accurate, but there never will be as long as people are allowed to speak and think freely.

So keep argueing about it.

BTW should the US honor an American born terrorists that blow things up and cause the deaths of thousands of people on our soil because he feels like his religion was being attacked? What's the difference? He's an american isn't he?

[Frazod]

Despite some of the rampant idiocy on display in this thread, it's gratifying to see that 71% of us get it. :thumb:

[lostcause]

From a website detailing the history of Memorial Day:

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

[Frazod]

From a website detailing the history of Memorial Day:

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Interesting - I didn't know about this.

Here's a link to a site about the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/csa-mem.htm

[RedNFeisty]

Despite some of the rampant idiocy on display in this thread, it's gratifying to see that 71% of us get it. :thumb:

I am not an idiot just because I disagree...so nlm

:D

[Frazod]

I am not an idiot just because I disagree...so nlm

:D

Yours wasn't "rampant" idiocy.... just more run of the mill idiocy. :p

[OleMissCub]

The Confederates had a separate memorial day of their own for half a century, so it's probably unlikely that they would have considered themselves US casualties.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

It's pretty clear there's a disconnect.

frazod's arguing along the line that Goering used during the Nuremberg trials, that basically any dumb sonofabitch can be made to fight a war via various forces of manipulation. It's akin to individual soldiers in a foxhole. They aren't fighting for the free world, they're fighting for the guy next to them.

Amno seems to be arguing from a holistic view of the conflict.

Neither are incorrect.

[OleMissCub]

I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law. I've seen too many allusions to Nazi things in this thread.

[WV]

I've never replied to any thread on CP, but I think this one would be a good one to start with.

First...I'm not surprised, but truly saddened and amazed at the general lack of knowledge about the Civil War being displayed here. I'm not here to try and educate people about something as complex and daunting as the American Civil War, but I would like to point out a few important things being over looked.

1. The Confederate States wanted to secede from the Union, not the US. The initials CSA did stand for The Confederate States of America after all.
2. Did you know that it was Lincoln that raised an army first against the South?
3. I think it was mentioned, but there were "slave states" in the Union.
4. While it cannot be denied that slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, to think that it was the lone cause or the only reason is narrow minded and uneducated.
5. The comparison's to terrorism is disturbing. You are aware that some families sent all their sons to war and split them between the sides to increase their survival rate correct? Try telling one of those mothers that only one of her sons was an American.

Last to answer the question directly, absolutely Confederate casualties should be considered Americans. While people are discrediting it, the time needs to be factored into the equation. The nation was still developing and more or less in it's infancy with both sides defending their definition of "America". I encourage you to go to Gettysburg or Antietam (two well preserved battlefields), walk the battle fields, see the graves and try to put yourself in those soldiers places and still come away with feeling anyone there wasn't an American.

[OleMissCub]

1. The Confederate States wanted to secede from the Union, not the US. The initials CSA did stand for The Confederate States of America after all.

Interesting point. One of the names of the war used by many southerners at the time was "Our Second War of Independence". You can also see photographs of Confederate soldiers holding signs that say "1776" or "Liberty or Death", etc.

It seems counter-intuitive to us to think that a group of people that would take up arms against the United States didn't actually "dislike" it, but that's the way of it. Considering that most southerners volunteered only after southern states were invaded by Union soldiers, it is plain to see that for the average grunt, a great deal of their motivation stemmed from the gross insult that they felt at having the United States army used in such a way as to actually come into their own homeland.

It has to be understood that people back then, both North and South, didn't necessarily view themselves as Americans first and foremost. They were firstly members of their state, then they were Americans second. The notion of supreme patriotism or dying loyalty in a nationalistic sense certainly existed, but it wasn't a fraction of what it is now.

Two examples support this notion. 1st, if you were in Europe in the early 19th century and came across an American and asked him where he was from, he'd likely tell you "I'm a Virginian" rather than "I'm an American".

Second, and most interesting to me is that, grammatically speaking, before the Civil War things were referred to as "the United States are" going to do such and such, and after the war it became "the United States is"..

[Hydrae]

Interesting point. One of the names of the war used by many southerners at the time was "Our Second War of Independence". You can also see photographs of Confederate soldiers holding signs that say "1776" or "Liberty or Death", etc.

It seems counter-intuitive to us to think that a group of people that would take up arms against the United States didn't actually "dislike" it, but that's the way of it. Considering that most southerners volunteered only after southern states were invaded by Union soldiers, it is plain to see that for the average grunt, a great deal of their motivation stemmed from the gross insult that they felt at having the United States army used in such a way as to actually come into their own homeland.

It has to be understood that people back then, both North and South, didn't necessarily view themselves as Americans first and foremost. They were firstly members of their state, then they were Americans second. The notion of supreme patriotism or dying loyalty in a nationalistic sense certainly existed, but it wasn't a fraction of what it is now.

Two examples support this notion. 1st, if you were in Europe in the early 19th century and came across an American and asked him where he was from, he'd likely tell you "I'm a Virginian" rather than "I'm an American".

Second, and most interesting to me is that, grammatically speaking, before the Civil War things were referred to as "the United States are" going to do such and such, and after the war it became "the United States is"..

To continue your thought, I have always liked the line in National Treasure (I think it was the second one actually) about the fact that before the Civil War people referred to the country as "these united states" and afterwards it became "the United States." Those two letters make a big difference in the reference.

Interesting thread with some great discussion. I haven't voted yet but my initial thought is "no" due to the desire to become a seperate nation.

[MOhillbilly]

This is a good read. I read it before i decided books had to many words.

http://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-Walter-Kennedy/dp/1565540247

[OleMissCub]

This is a good read. I read it before i decided books had to many words.

http://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-Walter-Kennedy/dp/1565540247

That book would be a lot better if it didn't have a battle flag on the cover and it was called something differently. My initial reaction to it had always been that it was just a rednecky, white trash book based on the cover and the flag being used. However, I once read about 20 pages of it at a bookstore and they make some pretty educated points, and I certainly don't consider myself a neo-conederate by any stretch.

[MOhillbilly]

That book would be a lot better if it didn't have a battle flag on the cover and it was called something differently. My initial reaction to it had always been that it was just a rednecky, white trash book based on the cover and the flag being used. However, I once read about 20 pages of it at a bookstore and they make some pretty educated points, and I certainly don't consider myself a neo-conederate by any stretch.

white power dude i knew back when let me borrow it. makes some good points but take it for what it is. And to be fair it is kinda rednecky for the simple fact that we are conditioned that way from K-12.

[Rain Man]

Nice discussions here. I really didn't expect this thread to be a 100+er.

And now I'm going to really blow this thread up with a huge coincidence.

My parents' 50th anniversary is coming up, and I'm going back to Missouri to visit them. They don't want a party, but would like (don't laugh) to go see the "Dixie Stampede" in Branson. I know nothing about it, but just looked and apparently I have to pick the Union or the Rebel side of the audience. The legacy of the Civil War lives on, and I must make the same difficult decision that my great-great-great grandparents did.

[MOhillbilly]

Nice discussions here. I really didn't expect this thread to be a 100+er.

And now I'm going to really blow this thread up with a huge coincidence.

My parents' 50th anniversary is coming up, and I'm going back to Missouri to visit them. They don't want a party, but would like (don't laugh) to go see the "Dixie Stampede" in Branson. I know nothing about it, but just looked and apparently I have to pick the Union or the Rebel side of the audience. The legacy of the Civil War lives on, and I must make the same difficult decision that my great-great-great grandparents did.

i dont know how id feel about having to choose a side. Just the thought kinda ticks me off to be honest.
I do know i dont want to eat my dinner in a shitdust filled arena for 20+ dollars a plate.
PS- my aunt and uncle have a very nice B&B.

[CoMoChief]

A no vote is foolish. You are judging men who lived in another time by modern standards. You or I can fly across the country in a matter of hours - such a trip taken 150 years ago would take months. Most of these people had never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. To a man born and raised in Georgia, an abolitionist politician from Boston might as well have been a martian. And remember, most of the fighting men weren't wealthy slave owners - just poor people who were defending their home.

Imagine the United Nations declared war on America and attacked. How would you view a Kenyan soldier marching down the streets of Denver under a U.N. flag?

This is probably the ONLY thing I've ever agreed with you on.

[Frazod]

This is probably the ONLY thing I've ever agreed with you on.

Even you can't be wrong all the time. :D

[Rain Man]

i dont know how id feel about having to choose a side. Just the thought kinda ticks me off to be honest.
I do know i dont want to eat my dinner in a shitdust filled arena for 20+ dollars a plate.
PS- my aunt and uncle have a very nice B&B.


Try $50 a plate. Seriously. This had better be a damn good show and the teaser about ostrich races better be true.

I wish I'd known about the B&B. My sister was in charge of lodging and she already booked some hotel rooms. Oddly, though, my mother refuses to stay at B&Bs because she thinks everyone shares one bathroom. She's skeptical of my claims to have stayed in B&Bs at least a dozen times without doing that, because "they're all different and you never know".

[Gravedigger]

Even though I'm not a fan, I would still say yes myself.

[Bambi]

I wonder what the results would be if this poll was taken amongst Chiefs players.

[-King-]

I wonder what the results would be if this poll was taken amongst Chiefs players.

:spock:
Posted via Mobile Device

[Bwana]

I wonder what the results would be if this poll was taken amongst Chiefs players.

:facepalm:

[OleMissCub]

I wonder what the results would be if this poll was taken amongst Chiefs players.

CUZ THEY'RE BLACK!!

[GoHuge]

My whole arguement was the South's intent.........nothing more. The whole thing is open for interpretation depending on our own individual ideals. That's the reason the thread title was a question and in this case there isn't an answer that is 100% correct to satisfy everyone. Great debate though!

[38yrsfan]

I voted yes because they were all Americans, most unwillingly involved in a historically significant event.

[RNR]

I understand that, but at some point some southerners had to pick up the first guns to start that cycle. Maybe 10 percent of them were really riled up enough to do that, and then the others had to join because it became a Hatfield-McCoy thing.

Maybe that's it. It became a tribal thing of sorts. It didn't matter who was right or wrong to most foot soldiers. It was about turf, which again makes me wonder if they would truly want to be called American casualties. Now that I think about it, calling them American casualties may actually be a final insult cast upon them. It kind of invalidates the whole premise of their venture.

Or it could be the ultimate honor as those who stood against them honor their courage. The south ended up swearing loyalty to the United States and although they fought against the side that won they were out matched in all most every way they gave as good as they got to the end. I have looked at those related to me that fought and they were with the north. I still think those from the south deserve respect politics aside. They are apart of American history~

[patteeu]

I would still like to see the people who voted yes explain why colonial soldiers don't count as British casualties.
Posted via Mobile Device

Because we weren't an equal part of Britain, we were just a colony. Hence the tea party protesting, among other things, a lack of representation. And because we didn't end up an equal part of Britain after the conflict was over.

[patteeu]

This thing is far too open-ended. We've heard all the arguements for, against, leftways, rightways, downways, etc.

This thread pretty much sums up why the War happened. Nobody can agree on shit in this country. I looked at the OP a couple times before I posted anything and the reason I said no is because of their intent. They fully intended on starting a new nation seperate from The United States. So they lost and then they're just grandfathered back in to the happy home? Yes state's rights were the main reason for going to war, but the their entire arguement for states rights was based on being able to keep slaves as property.

I keep hearing we don't know what it was like 150 years ago, blah, blah. People could read, write, had telegrams, and even the railroad existed. Still boils down a morality issue. Slavery was as hot, if not hotter than abortion is today. I'd like to think there is an answer that is 100 percent accurate, but there never will be as long as people are allowed to speak and think freely.

So keep argueing about it.

BTW should the US honor an American born terrorists that blow things up and cause the deaths of thousands of people on our soil because he feels like his religion was being attacked? What's the difference? He's an american isn't he?

The southern soldiers weren't terrorists, they were soldiers serving their states. States that still exist as a part of our country. That's the difference.