Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone

[xyz]

Lately, it has become fashionable in the minds of some, to go about proposing bills to removed statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers. Currently in Florida 2 bills have been introduced to do this. These are Florida SB 1360 and SCR 760.

The high horse proposers of these bills are intending to set new standards for all of us in America, about who we can honor, and who we may not. Looks like they’ve got soldiers of the old Confederacy on the don’t honor list.

This is more than stupid. It is disgraceful to DIShonor these people who wore their military uniforms, and put their lives on the line, to follow the orders they were given.

As far as what cause the Confederate soldiers fought for, I’d say that since their homelands were being attacked by outside forces (buildings burned, bridges blown up, etc.), they fought primarily a defensive war. This is more just and legitimate than the Vietnam War, in which US soil and people were not being attacked by any Vietnamese people. And do we ask for Vietnam veterans’ statues or monuments to be removed ? Last time I looked, there were more of them being installed.

I don’t think ANY veterans of any state of the current USA (including Florida), should have their statues or monuments removed. This is a disgrace, and it disgraces those who propose and support such stupid laws.

The comparison doesn't seem right. Vietnam veterans' memorials are non-political; they are not pro-war or anti-war.

Confederate memorials are very politicized at the present time.

 

[protectionist]

Those 3 items of slavery are now museums. Why cant we create Confederate States of America Museum and honor the warriors the same way, if those who want to honor them want to show up?

So you're OK with statues of Confederate soldiers in museums but not outside somewhere ?

I'm off the computer now/

the SB1360 statue is in a museum.

The National Statuary Hall Collection

 

[Pogo]

You should be ashamed of yourself for not continuing your education to open your eyes on how the liberal party has been subtly altering history, for their attempt at power. See my previous link about how the south wanted slavery to spread to the new territories. Just love Southern dipshits who want to challenge me on history.

I don't give a rat's ass about your history, or anyone else's. As I said, he Vietnam War veterans fought a war less just and legitimate than the Confederates who fought essentially a self-defense war, but I still wouldn't support dishonoring them by removing their statues.

They should be honored just for being soldiers who put their lives on the line, and went through the hardship of war and military service.

What you're talking about pertains to politicians. and is >>>

View attachment 122337

You ought to be also ashamed of yourself for engaging in name-calling, and talking like a fool.

PS - I don't need coaching about the tactics of liberals. Anytime you want an education on it, feel free to review my OPs.

Maybe I can put it simply enough for you to understand.

Unless you fought as a member of the US Armed Forces, you are NOT a US veteran.

Well there were two sides of military members who fought in the Civil War, those that fought for freedom for everyone , and those stupid enough to fight for those who supported slavery. So just like with the British who fought in the Revolutionary War, should we have status of their soldiers here also?

Vietnam was a war that was "Supposed" to stop the spread of Communism. JFK, got US involved by supporting France and their problem with the Vietcong. When France withdrew, then LBJ, the Southern White Democrat, saw a way to get US involved, has friends of his war machine get very rich and many young US soldiers sent to die for the liberal cause(just like in the Civil War) of making war. I didn't say destroy the status of confederate soldiers, I said give them a Museum, but tell the history of why the South annexed from the Union, and why those young soldiers died for the liberal cause of slavery.

Again your history gap is showing, skipping an entire decade as inconvenient. And a spelling note, "John Foster Dulles" is not abbreviated "LBJ".

SMH

/offtopic

 

[paperview]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Those 3 items of slavery are now museums. Why cant we create Confederate States of America Museum and honor the warriors the same way, if those who want to honor them want to show up?

So you're OK with statues of Confederate soldiers in museums but not outside somewhere ?

I'm off the computer now/

the SB1360 statue is in a museum.

The National Statuary Hall Collection

Okay here is one that I find quite humorous and that is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Everyday, millions of people cross it from Maryland to Virginia and back again, many of those crossing are blacks. Not knowing that Woodrow Wilson, who after 40 years of Reconstruction and black people being treated quite well(except for the Southern White Democrats, SWD's) brought segregation back not only into the Government, but the bathrooms and water fountains, and businesses. He set back 40 years of unification, by his deeds to the Southern Whites, yet today, blacks obliviously drive over that racists named bridge. That bridge is in honor of Woodrow, but should we be honoring a racist for what he did?

Woodrow Wilson - Wikipedia

By 1916, Du Bois opposed Wilson, charging that his first term had seen "the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that [blacks] had experienced since the Civil War."

Under Wilson, racial segregation was quickly implemented at the Post Office Department. Many African American employees were downgraded and even fired. Employees who were downgraded were transferred to the dead letter office, where they did not interact with the public. The few African Americans who remained at the main post offices were put to work behind screens, out of customers' sight

 

[my2¢]

I imagine as time passes holding those that fought for right to keep other people as personal property is viewed less and less as an honorable endeavor.

Off topic, how so? The legislatures of these states are comprised of citizens removed several generations from those that erected these monuments. Burying one's head in the sand in regard to changed attitudes isn't a reasonable approach to maintain the status quo.

 

[koshergrl]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

The "why" doesn't really matter, though of course you are wrong about that, as well.
They also paid American confederate soldiers.

Poor entitlement rubes think that entitlements dictate existence and reality. They are so focused on what they get from the government, that they think that government handouts are the alpha and omega.

The fact that you are mentally ill and incapable of reading the truth, which is that confederate veterans ARE American veterans, and were paid veterans' benefits by our federal government (and whose widows and children also received those benefits) has nothing to do with the reality..which is (again) that confederate soldiers were American veterans, just as Union soldiers were.

BTW, the federal government is not our master. It is our servant. But SSI recipients don't get that, because their whole world hinges on the feds forcing others to support them.

 

[koshergrl]

Lately, it has become fashionable in the minds of some, to go about proposing bills to removed statues and monuments of Confederate soldiers. Currently in Florida 2 bills have been introduced to do this. These are Florida SB 1360 and SCR 760.

The high horse proposers of these bills are intending to set new standards for all of us in America, about who we can honor, and who we may not. Looks like they’ve got soldiers of the old Confederacy on the don’t honor list.

This is more than stupid. It is disgraceful to DIShonor these people who wore their military uniforms, and put their lives on the line, to follow the orders they were given.

As far as what cause the Confederate soldiers fought for, I’d say that since their homelands were being attacked by outside forces (buildings burned, bridges blown up, etc.), they fought primarily a defensive war. This is more just and legitimate than the Vietnam War, in which US soil and people were not being attacked by any Vietnamese people. And do we ask for Vietnam veterans’ statues or monuments to be removed ? Last time I looked, there were more of them being installed.

I don’t think ANY veterans of any state of the current USA (including Florida), should have their statues or monuments removed. This is a disgrace, and it disgraces those who propose and support such stupid laws.

I was born in Florida and moved out to Ohio State, and have been around the world since. Today, I agree that these Confederate Soldiers who fought to keep slavery alive in America, should be taken down from a place of honor and put in a museum telling about their TRUE history. Just like we don't want Germany going around and having statues of Hitler all over the place, when the bad guys lose(and the confederates were bad) they shouldn't be put in an honorable place.

I was born in Florida and moved out to Ohio State, and have been around the world since. Today, I agree that these Confederate Soldiers who fought to keep slavery alive in America, should be taken down from a place of honor and put in a museum telling about their TRUE history. Just like we don't want Germany going around and having statues of Hitler all over the place, when the bad guys lose(and the confederates were bad) they shouldn't be put in an honorable place.

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not continuing your education to open your eyes on how the liberal party has been subtly altering history, for their attempt at power. See my previous link about how the south wanted slavery to spread to the new territories. Just love Southern dipshits who want to challenge me on history.

That's dumb. You may as well argue that we should have left Saddam Hussein statues up.

An incredibly dimwitted view of history. As if the lessons of the Civil War should be forgotten. Only very stupid, shallow, unsubstantial, authoritarian types want to expunge history for the purpose of satisfying transitory contemporary rhetorical needs. In other words: You've got to be stupid.

No you don't expunge the statues, you put them in a Museum where people can learn how some people of the US got so stupid, they left it for a Slave Holding government run by whacko liberals who wanted to keep people enslaved to them. It took the Republicans of the North to put down that rebellion and stop the spread of liberalism and slavery to future states.

Hey liberal regressive lying gas bags, while your at it, remove these symbols of slavery as well.

Those 3 items of slavery are now museums. Why cant we create Confederate States of America Museum and honor the warriors the same way, if those who want to honor them want to show up?

We can, and should.

 

[Correll]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

Based on your comparison then, please link to where soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans were designated "veterans" so that their widows could receive US military pensions.


Link please.

 

[paperview]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

The "why" doesn't really matter, though of course you are wrong about that, as well.
They also paid American confederate soldiers.

Poor entitlement rubes think that entitlements dictate existence and reality. They are so focused on what they get from the government, that they think that government handouts are the alpha and omega.

The fact that you are mentally ill and incapable of reading the truth, which is that confederate veterans ARE American veterans, and were paid veterans' benefits by our federal government (and whose widows and children also received those benefits) has nothing to do with the reality..which is (again) that confederate soldiers were American veterans, just as Union soldiers were.

BTW, the federal government is not our master. It is our servant. But SSI recipients don't get that, because their whole world hinges on the feds forcing others to support them.

No, I'm not wrong, and NO, The US federal government did not "pay" confederate soldiers.You flaming idiot.

You can't name a single CSA soldier who was. & You won't be able to. Go ahead, try. It's all a matter of public record, mudflaps.

 

[paperview]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

Based on your comparison then, please link to where soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans were designated "veterans" so that their widows could receive US military pensions.


Link please.

:roll eyes:

Not one Confederate ever received a US Pension. That should tell you something.

The 1950's law, introduced by a segregationist southerner, his party in the majority - slipped in a minor change for the few remaining widows (many who were young golddiggers who married these old men for the pension) -- and the verbiage of the bill said specifically -- it was for that purpose ONLY

For anyone to go on calling Confederate veterans = U.S. Veterans is just trolling at this point.

There can be no mistaking the verbiage used for the PENSION PL85 -- which most emphatically states the definition --- was ... specific to *just that purpose* -- to give some old reb widows government handouts.
Nothing more.

===================

Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 | [H. R. 358] 72 Stat. 133

AN ACT To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."
.....

"(e) For the purpose of this section,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and section 433, the term '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 such forces."

"For the purpose of this section" is pretty damn clear.

I posted the US code earlier - of the general definition of a veteran -- and it does not include Confederate Veterans.

To deny these facts, and still go on and on about how in some imaginationland, the US government would make a law calling those who took up arms against the US -- US Veterans, when the only status conferred was for sole purpose of old widows to be moochers and suck off the teat of the US government they fought against.

Strangely, a few conservatives seem to be proud of that moocher status.

 

[paperview]

The Confederates were ENEMIES of the US.

To call them US Veterans for anything other than to give government handouts to a few remaining widows -- especially as the Law states it is

JUST

FOR

THAT

PURPOSE

is wholly disingenuous and a flat-out, Lost cause, neo-confederate, traitor soaked Lie.

 

[Correll]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

Based on your comparison then, please link to where soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans were designated "veterans" so that their widows could receive US military pensions.


Link please.

:roll eyes:

Not one Confederate ever received a US Pension. That should tell you something.

The 1950's law, introduced by a segregationist southerner, his party in the majority - slipped in a minor change for the few remaining widows (many who were young golddiggers who married these old men for the pension) -- and the verbiage of the bill said specifically -- it was for that purpose ONLY

For anyone to go on calling Confederate veterans = U.S. Veterans is just trolling at this point.

There can be no mistaking the verbiage used for the PENSION PL85 -- which most emphatically states the definition --- was ... specific to *just that purpose* -- to give some old reb widows government handouts.
Nothing more.

===================

Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 | [H. R. 358] 72 Stat. 133

AN ACT To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."
.....

"(e) For the purpose of this section,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and section 433, the term '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 such forces."

"For the purpose of this section" is pretty damn clear.

I posted the US code earlier - of the general definition of a veteran -- and it does not include Confederate Veterans.

To deny these facts, and still go on and on about how in some imaginationland, the US government would make a law calling those who took up arms against the US -- US Veterans, when the only status conferred was for sole purpose of old widows to be moochers and suck off the teat of the US government they fought against.

Strangely, a few conservatives seem to be proud of that moocher status.

Sooooo, you're dropping your claim that they were the same as "the soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans "?



Are you sorry that the wounds of the Civil War were healed and that this nation was not torn apart afterwards by sectional strife and hatred?

 

[paperview]

Side note:
Not long ago, some folks wanted Confederate vets to be nominated for the Florida Veterans Hall of Fame.

They were told: NOPE.


"The executive director of the state Department of Veterans Affairs, Mike Prendergast, rejected all three for failing to comply with a requirement to have an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces, which he said does not include the Confederate States of America."

Gov. Rick Scott and Cabinet refuse to honor Confederates

 

[paperview]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

Based on your comparison then, please link to where soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans were designated "veterans" so that their widows could receive US military pensions.


Link please.

:roll eyes:

Not one Confederate ever received a US Pension. That should tell you something.

The 1950's law, introduced by a segregationist southerner, his party in the majority - slipped in a minor change for the few remaining widows (many who were young golddiggers who married these old men for the pension) -- and the verbiage of the bill said specifically -- it was for that purpose ONLY

For anyone to go on calling Confederate veterans = U.S. Veterans is just trolling at this point.

There can be no mistaking the verbiage used for the PENSION PL85 -- which most emphatically states the definition --- was ... specific to *just that purpose* -- to give some old reb widows government handouts.
Nothing more.

===================

Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 | [H. R. 358] 72 Stat. 133

AN ACT To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."
.....

"(e) For the purpose of this section,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and section 433, the term '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 such forces."

"For the purpose of this section" is pretty damn clear.

I posted the US code earlier - of the general definition of a veteran -- and it does not include Confederate Veterans.

To deny these facts, and still go on and on about how in some imaginationland, the US government would make a law calling those who took up arms against the US -- US Veterans, when the only status conferred was for sole purpose of old widows to be moochers and suck off the teat of the US government they fought against.

Strangely, a few conservatives seem to be proud of that moocher status.

Sooooo, you're dropping your claim that they were the same as "the soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans "?



Are you sorry that the wounds of the Civil War were healed and that this nation was not torn apart afterwards by sectional strife and hatred?

 

[paperview]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

 

[Correll]

38 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions

US Law that defines Veterans. ^

Let this US Military Officer explain it further:

“American” means of or pertaining to the United States. When the confederate apologist liars claim Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans, that’s what they mean.

By act of Congress, an American [i.e., US] veteran is someone who was honorably discharged or killed in action from the UNITED STATES military. What you still don’t understand is that only for the purposes of awarding pensions to widows and children, and for nothing else, were confederate veterans designated veterans of the Civil War by Public Law 85-425.

That was only so widows and children can be paid money. You know, that government handout type thing you and the rest of the confederate apologists claim to be against. What the confederate apologist liars are doing is trying to inflate that into something it clearly is not.

“Section 432″ covers widows of Civil War veterans and “Section 433″ covers children of Civil War veterans. All Congress did, thanks to key southerners who were no doubt descendants of confederates, was expand the population of who could be paid the government handouts.

Confederates fought against American soldiers, just like the Taliban, just like the Japanese and Nazis in WWII, just like the Vietnamese and the North Koreans, just like the Germans in WWI. Just like all the enemies of America. They weren’t American soldiers."

Veterans Day

Based on your comparison then, please link to where soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans were designated "veterans" so that their widows could receive US military pensions.


Link please.

:roll eyes:

Not one Confederate ever received a US Pension. That should tell you something.

The 1950's law, introduced by a segregationist southerner, his party in the majority - slipped in a minor change for the few remaining widows (many who were young golddiggers who married these old men for the pension) -- and the verbiage of the bill said specifically -- it was for that purpose ONLY

For anyone to go on calling Confederate veterans = U.S. Veterans is just trolling at this point.

There can be no mistaking the verbiage used for the PENSION PL85 -- which most emphatically states the definition --- was ... specific to *just that purpose* -- to give some old reb widows government handouts.
Nothing more.

===================

Public Law 85-425, May 23, 1958 | [H. R. 358] 72 Stat. 133

AN ACT To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War."
.....

"(e) For the purpose of this section,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and section 433, the term '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 such forces."

"For the purpose of this section" is pretty damn clear.

I posted the US code earlier - of the general definition of a veteran -- and it does not include Confederate Veterans.

To deny these facts, and still go on and on about how in some imaginationland, the US government would make a law calling those who took up arms against the US -- US Veterans, when the only status conferred was for sole purpose of old widows to be moochers and suck off the teat of the US government they fought against.

Strangely, a few conservatives seem to be proud of that moocher status.

Sooooo, you're dropping your claim that they were the same as "the soldiers of the Taliban, the Imperial Japanese Army, the Nazis, and the North Vietnamese and Koreans "?



Are you sorry that the wounds of the Civil War were healed and that this nation was not torn apart afterwards by sectional strife and hatred?

I asked you a question.

After the war, policy was forgive, forget and move on.


Do you think that was a mistake? Should we have encouraged hatred among our defeated foes instead?

 

[koshergrl]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Bullshit. The Union veterans embraced their confederate comrades, just as they embraced General Lee.

What the **** is wrong with you? Are you mentally ill? Are you even American yourself?

 

[WinterBorn]

I imagine as time passes holding those that fought for right to keep other people as personal property is viewed less and less as an honorable endeavor.

Very much ON TOPIC. Since this to the subject the statues memorialize and is probably the reason many people want it removed..

 

[Correll]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

The US veterans who fought in that war, put it behind them and respected their fellow Americans.

Blue and Grey reunion, 1913.

If those vets had no problem with the Confederates, who are you to do so?