Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

Confederate solders are indeed American veterans and their monuments should be respected as such. The Confederacy was forced back into the Union, and illegally so, after all, so yes, they were mad American veterans by the very act of forcing them to remain in the Union.

Secession was neither illegal nor was it treason. Lincoln acted completely illegally and suspended the Constitution entirely by executive fiat. That made his blockade of Charleston and refusal to give up Sumter to its rightful government an act of war, an act recognized as such by every basis of international law.

There is a reason why there is no clause allowing Federal military force against a state; it was rejected by the Constitutional Convention when such a clause was proposed. They didn't even bother to vote on one when it was proposed, such was the opposition to such a clause, and there is certainly no clause allowing unilateral executive branch actions in that regard either. It was Lincoln blatantly breaking the law, not the secessionists.

Claiming there is an article anywhere in the Constitution that allows such rights to the executive or any other branch to use force against a state or states is false, and those spreading that argument are lying. See also Jefferson and Madison re the Kentucky and the Virgina Resolutions later, and the fact that Madison didn't consider the New England secessionists to be committing treason even as they convened in the midst of a war against England.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057

 

The secessionist states were neither in insurrection nor conducting an invasion, so that reasoning doesn't apply. As already posted, such a clause allowing the use of Federal force against a state government was proposed and pointedly excluded. Secession is not insurrection nor is it an invasion by a foreign power. There is no Constitutional prohibition against secession. Lincoln however was indeed committing an act of war by blockading Charleston and continuing to occupy Sumter, with the express intent to conduct piracy and extorting tariffs from shipping into and out of the port.

 

Treason?

Yes.

Both deserved the hanging tree.

 

Not true.

The overwhelming bulk of the Union soldiers were volunteers.

Of the 2,100,000 Union soldiers, about 2% were draftees.

6% were substitutes paid by draftees - and that was part of what made some so upset and ignited those riots when a draft was instituted for a period . That you could pay someone to fight if you were well off, leading to the oft used phrase then: Rich mans war, poor man's battle.

The percentage of Confederate soldiers who were draftees was about 12%.

They too could pay substitutes.

And, as was noted earlier, there was the 20 slaves owned - get out of war card for the southerners.

 

As to the OP,

Confederate vets are not "U.S. Veterans."

They were fighting *against* the U.S. They took up arms against the US.

That 1958 Act you cite is falls under under the "VETERANS’ BENEFITS" and is related to US pensions.

Not one Confederate soldier ever received a pension from the Federal government.

 

This is the Act - It is entitled:



This is the meat of it.

They very specifically note how and clarify it is pertinent only to the Pension Act.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg133-2.pdf

"For the purposes of this section —"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

More, from a serious Civil War blogger and US Air Force Officer:

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/veterans-day-2014/

Perhaps they’ll try to palm off the lie that confederate veterans are American veterans.


They aren’t.

Some confederate heritage advocates will make the absurd claim that confederate veterans are American veterans by act of Congress. They aren’t. No act of Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans. They were declared to be Civil War veterans.

38 US Code 1501 (3) says, “The term ‘Civil War veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.” It includes confederate veterans as Civil War veterans, not as American veterans.

Congress has authorized government-paid headstones for graves of confederate veterans, and in 1958 authorized payments to widows of confederate veterans as well as a pension to any surviving confederate veterans [there were none].

Here’s that legislation:




It modified a law passed the year before for payments to widows. Here are the relevant parts of that bill.





As we can see, it talks about “Civil War veterans.”

The definition of a “Civil War veteran” was expanded in 1958 to include confederate veterans. The US was magnanimous thanks to Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Texas) and Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (D-Texas). The Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs was Representative Olin E. Teague (D-Texas).

The Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs wasn’t created until 1970.

Prior to that, veterans legislation was handled by the Senate Committees on Finance and Labor and Public Welfare [see here]. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and the Public Welfare was Senator Joseph Lister Hill, (D-Alabama). Anyone see any trends in this?

They voted pensions to widows of confederate veterans and that worthy effort has today been perverted to a lie that the Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans when in fact instead of serving our country they were traitors to the United States of America."

 

As long as we clarify that they're not United States military veterans and they were traitors to the United States then I don't have much of a problem with calling them "American" veterans if it makes them feel good. The fact that they were traitors to the United States is beyond dispute because they took up arms against the government of the United States.

They are rightfully condemned for being traitors, the Confderate flag is the symbol of the traitor, and the historical treachery of traitors to the United States is certainly a part of American heritage. So are the lynchings of blacks by the KKK. It's not something to be proud of but it certainly did occur and is a part of our history.

 

Equating those who fought for this country with those who fought against it - is insane.

 

They ARE all dead, so I doubt they FEEL anything.

 

That is true but those that display the Confederate flag today are displaying the symbol of the traitor to the United States.

 

More bull(*)(*)(*)(*). What is beyond dispute is that they weren't 'traitors' to anything. That's just gibberish spouted by narcissists trying to pat themselves on the back for something they never had a thing to do with and assuming a moral stance based on nothing of substance. Unless of course they can prove they would have the same morals and principles if they were born back then that they have now, which is both highly unlikely, and would require a time machine and some decades of actually growing up then and proving it. Otherwise it's just hypocritical posturing and fantasy.and nonsense fable.

 

And those that display the American flag today are displaying the flag of lynchings, segregation, the oppression of women and gays, and countless other oppression and victimization acts at home and abroad. When the people who bellyache about the confederate flag call for a new US flag, I will agree that they have conviction. Otherwise, not so much. It is a piece of decor no different than a Mexican restaurant having a Mexican flag, a pub having an Irish flag, or garden club people having a tulip flag on their front porch.

 

As for the claim that there was some great wave of patriotism For 'The Cause', there are several other factors that make those percentages pretty much junk, like the professional paid substitutes who made a living 'volunteering' for some rich northerners and then deserting, moving to another town and getting paid to 'volunteer' over and over again, and those who volunteered in order to save another relative from having to go; many sons 'volunteered' so the father could stay on and keep the family farms, or their businesses from failing, so those stats don't mean much as evidence of how grand everybody thought the war was.Some examples:

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1994/winter/civil-war-draft-records.html

http://www.katzenhausbooks.com/blog/2012/05/14/Hired-Soldiers-Substitutes-During-the-Civil-War.aspx

As far as the confederate flag representing 'racism n stuff', then so would have the Star and Stripes, so that is a stupid argument as well. Just because some alienated idiots wave it around means nothing, it's just an strawman opportunity for other idiots to snivel and complain about.

 

Yes, pretty much. It's just the usual runaway pop sociology running amuck. My favorite observation about the nonsense that hides under 'history' as practiced by astroturfers and assorted cranks and loons:

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiasties and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

It's obvious the only option there for most of the snivelers is Prozac.

 

Thank god we live in a country where you have the right to live the way you want to live, and display whatever flag you want to display. That being said the Union had the right to hang every leader of the confederacy if they so choose to do so. That being said. Wasn't 600,000 dead enough? How many more needed to die? I fell pretty strongly that after the war people were just plain tired of death and most likely just wanted to move on. All this arm chair quarterbacking 150 years later is pointless. They did what they did and the people of that time choose to forgive them for it. Who are we to now go back and judge them? We were not on those battlefields.

 

The 1958 legislation made Confederate veterans eligible for the same VA benefits as Union soldiers. It did not make them U.S. veterans, make any other official change in their status, or extend any particular protections to graves or monuments.

"For the purpose of this section" is referring to Section 432 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957, which set pensions for widows of U.S. veterans of the Civil War; Section 433 of that act pertains to pensions of Civil War veterans' children.

There is nothing in U.S. Public Law 85-425 or the law it amends that says anything about making Confederate veterans U.S. veterans or "pardoning" them.

 

To add: Not one Confederate soldier ever received a pension from the Federal government.

 

The Peanut Gallery can refer to the actions of those actually at the Constitutional Convention re the issue of of the use of force against a state or states that secede and see for themselves Lincoln was breaking the law and nullifying the Constitution, establishing a dictatorship, and instigating an illegal war against states that had left the Union entirely legally, there being no law or Constitutional prohibition for seceding. A state that secedes is no longer a member of the union and not bound by the Articles any longer.

“It was then moved and seconded to proceed to the consideration of the following resolution (being the sixth submitted by Mr Randolph)
Resolved “that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts:”
[47]
“That the national legislature ought to be empowered”
“to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confederation; and moreover
To legislate in all cases, to which the separate States are incompetent: [Ayes — 9; noes — 0; divided — 1.]7 or
in which the harmony of the united States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation
To negative all laws, passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union: (the following words were added to this clause on motion of Mr Franklin, “or any Treaties subsisting under the authority of the union⚓✪
Questions being taken separately on the foregoing clauses of the sixth resolution they were agreed to.
It was then moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last clause of the sixth resolution, namely,
“to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil it’s duty under the articles thereof.”
on the question to postpone the consideration of the said clause ...”

-----------------------------------------------------------

“On the question for giving powers, in cases to which the States are not competent,
[54]
Massts. ay. Cont. divd. (Sharman no Elseworth ay) N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay, S. Carolina ay. Georga. ay. [Ayes — 9; noes — 0; divided — 1.]
The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States 〈to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat Leg the articles of Union down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union”, being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union”; on motion of Dr. Franklin,〉19 were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.
The 〈last〉 clause 〈of Resolution 6. authorizing〉 an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.
Mr. 〈Madison〉, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States 〈containing such an ingredient〉 seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed.20⚓✪ This motion was agreed to nem. con.
〈The Committee then rose & the House
Adjourned〉21

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[61]
“Motioned vz.
That each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts.

agreed.

That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confedn. and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the seperate States are incompetent.

agreed.

or in which the harmony of the U. S. may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation.
agreed.

To negative all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the national legislature the articles of union, (or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the union, added by Dr. Franklin).

agreed.

And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.⚓✪
postponed.

Mr. E. Gery thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.
This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself.”

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057

 

Add some 300,000-400,000 allegedly 'freed' blacks to the death toll, dead in 'property camps' to prevent them from exercising their 'freedom' and fleeing to the Northern states, who hated them and wanted them dead or deported, and kept out of the North altogether, as did Lincoln. His intent was to keep them on the plantations, not real emancipation; he signed off on his military governors in the occupied states implementing martial laws that forced 'freed' slaves to remain on their plantations, operated by Republican cronies, and working for $3 a month; they were to be shot if found off the plantations without the written permission of the plantation's new owners. Yes, the governors even established their wages for them.

 

Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.

Texas v. White, 1869, explicitly addressed this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Texas secession of 1861 was unconstitutional, and had never been valid.

 

The number cited for Union troops is 6%, but it noted that the threat of the draft caused those anticipated being drafted to sign up for stigma and extra burdens placed on those had refused to volunteer and instead had to be drafted.

The actual number of those drafted into the Confederate army is unknown since the Confederacy destroyed most its records including personnel records for rather obvious reasons.

But even with your stats, declaring those drafted didn't exist to defend a slogan doesn't work.

As for the latter, both militaries has exemptions for those considered in critical positions and in the South slaveowners were both part of supplying war materials and keeping their slaves under control.

 

You said:
Originally Posted by JakeJ
That is outright false. The Confederacy, like the North, had an involuntary draft. Most Confederate soldiers - as most Northern soldiers - were FORCED into military service.

That's not true. A great many were happy and proud to volunteer to serve their country to protect the Union, in the North --

And, in the South, to preserve, protect and defend the stated intentions of the CSA, slavery and White Supremacy - the cornerstone.

Huh?

 

So you figure any American citizens who fought for any of the Axis powers ought to be considered American war veterans?

Hardly any need for that:

A3 §3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. [...]​

Of course it was. Presumably that's why there is nary a hint of such a contention in any of the Declarations of Secession.

Be that as it may, he had no authority to cede Ft. Sumter to SC, which had ceded it to the US pursuant to the enclave clause decades earlier. On the contrary, he was duty bound under the take care clause of A2 to maintain federal control of it.

Yes there is, in A1S8.

and ratified.

Unfortunately, AFAIK, you present no reference to any such clause. The closest you've come is this:

The 〈last〉 clause 〈of Resolution 6. authorizing〉 an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.​

Which prompts the question: since when is "delinquency" a synonym for "insurrection"?

Of course it is, as the seceding state must ipso facto arrogate to itself powers delegated to the US under the Constitution.

There is nothing explicit, of course, but no one with a lick of sense and at least a rudimentary understanding of the circumstances attendant to the Founding would ever believe for a heartbeat that any state had the right to unilateral secession after the final signature was added to the DoI.

I suspect I can be forgiven for believing that SC's failure to turn over the "net Produce" of its operations under A1S10C2 would not have provoked a military response from Lincoln.

 

The Constitution / law sees it differently.

Was it a "civil war" or a "rebellion" ?

If it was a civil war then Lincoln was an international war criminal. If it was a rebellion then the Southern soldier came under the protections of the Constitution.

That's why I searched for what were the American treason laws on the books in 1861, couldn't find it but I was directed by a PF member to Article lll of the Constitution. As you see from Article lll, todays treason laws that are on the books today are different than they are in Article lll. The most infamous treason laws were those from the Woodward Wilson administration.

Most states have their own treason laws written in their state constitutions. Were all of those thugs in Ferguson, Mo. also traitors or all of the rioters during the L.A. riots traitors ? I would say so since they were challenging the government.

Was it a war or a rebellion ? When the North invaded the South, Lincoln called it a war, a civil war and established a naval blockade. England, France and most of Europe pointed out to Lincoln that if it's a war, the naval blockade is in violation of international law. Lincoln becomes a war criminal.

Lincoln grabbed Vattel's and started reading. If you look at the news papers back during the Civil War, in the North it was referred to as the "Great Rebellion." In the South it was called the "Civil War." In the end game it seems history is siding with the South, the ":American Civil War."

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=faculty_scholarship

There were many who were tried for treason and many who never saw a day in court and were convicted for treason during the Civil War, all were Northerners, mostly "Copperheads." Even a Congressman from the North found himself behind bars without ever being convicted in a court room. Remeber most of the Confederate military leaders were the war heroes of the Mexican-American War. Many of the Confederate officers during the Civil war couldn't be commissioned officers in the U.S. Army but went on being the NCO's and SNCO's in the U.S. Army from the late 1860 to the late 1880's.

You have some who weren't even around in the 1860's who look at the American Civil war from the 21st Century who just not call these American military veterans who fought under their sovereign state flags as traitors and even saying they should have been taken to the gallows.

If that were have happened, there never would have been a General Patton, a Chesty Puller or many of the top Generals and Admirals of WW ll, Korea and Vietnam. The Union needed the South back in 1861 just like America needs the South today.

Back in 1848 Lincoln said. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." By 1861 Lincoln discovered that the Union needed the South. And those Southerners who were called "traitors" were the ones that the Union needed more of.