• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Whether or not certain Southern States choose to honour the dead who fought in the Confederate Armies is for those States to decide.
I would point out that Germany and Russia both honour the dead from their wars, including the Second World War, and no reasonable person sees in that any question of honouring or whitewashing the atrocious nature of the regimes for which those soldiers died.
 
and the North won, ergo internal conflict.

We should memorialize Americans killed in conflict. there is no reason to marginalize over half a million dead and pretend nothing ever happened. honoring killed confederate soldiers is not honoring the political cause. you're probably the same person who would've been spitting on Vietnam veterans 40 years ago with that attitude. it is sometimes appropriate to separate politics from people.

remember, the south was brought back, slavery was abolished, and also we chose not to prosecute people for treason as a result of the war, and allowed each of the states to return.

That's a fair point, outside of the meaningless and unnecessary Vietnam shot.
 
Whether or not certain Southern States choose to honour the dead who fought in the Confederate Armies is for those States to decide.
I would point out that Germany and Russia both honour the dead from their wars, including the Second World War, and no reasonable person sees in that any question of honouring or whitewashing the atrocious nature of the regimes for which those soldiers died.

Also a fair point.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the South can honor whoever they feel they have to. No skin off my ass.

That said, and this is obviously way before any of us were ever born, but it really pisses me off when those "the south will rise again" racist jerkoffs refer to the Civil War as the "War Of Northern Aggression" when THEY fired the first shots.
 
That's a fair point, outside of the meaningless and unnecessary Vietnam shot.

it is relevant though, people seem to think they're being morally superior by taking political displeasure out on the troops. by the time bullets are flying in a war the decisions have already been made at a much higher level then some 17 year old sharecropper toting a musket in Anteitam.

so to say that it's absolutely evil to honor the troops because the Souths position (which was at the time a mainstream political opinion) is unpalatable in modern politics is wrong.

it's like people who hated the war yelled at and spit on Vietnam vets and called them baby killers and yada yada yada. you can honor the person while opposing the politics, many americans came to Admiral Karl Doeniz's funeral in the 80s.
 
and the North won, ergo internal conflict.

That's great, we still don't celebrate soldiers from another nation. Which the South saw itself as. End of story?

We should memorialize Americans killed in conflict.

Sure. IF they were part of the United States of America. If they fought to overthrow the US government in their states, and put in place a new one? They're traitors. :shrug:

there is no reason to marginalize over half a million dead and pretend nothing ever happened. honoring killed confederate soldiers is not honoring the political cause. you're probably the same person who would've been spitting on Vietnam veterans 40 years ago with that attitude. it is sometimes appropriate to separate politics from people.

Save the emotional arguments. Nobody cares for them. Also, you know the whole 'spitting' thing never really happened. Right?

remember, the south was brought back, slavery was abolished, and also we chose not to prosecute people for treason as a result of the war, and allowed each of the states to return.

Yep, you're not an American if you fight against the US government under the flag of another. That's treason and should not be celebrated. :shrug:
 
Also a fair point.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, the South can honor whoever they feel they have to. No skin off my ass.

That said, and this is obviously way before any of us were ever born, but it really pisses me off when those "the south will rise again" racist jerkoffs refer to the Civil War as the "War Of Northern Aggression" when THEY fired the first shots.

Some people like to live in the past and others never get over the rancour of a defeat.
The South has "risen" (economically, socially and politically), thanks to the fact that it remained part of the Union.
 
That's great, we still don't celebrate soldiers from another nation. Which the saw saw itself as. End of story?

we celebrates vets of Foreign countries all the time.

Sure. IF they were part of the United States of America. If they fought to overthrow the US government in their states, and put in place a new one? They're traitors. :shrug:
The South never fought to overthrow the Northern Government. that's historical fact.



Save the emotional arguments. Nobody cares for them. Also, you know the whole 'spitting' thing never really happened. Right?

I've heard first hand accounts of it.



Yep, you're not an American if you fight against the US government under the flag of another. That's treason and should not be celebrated. :shrug:

and what was in the better interests of the country? hangings all around, or working out the problems?
 
That's great, we still don't celebrate soldiers from another nation. Which the South saw itself as. End of story?

So you tend to agree with those that see this as a war between two different nations and the US "conquered" and "annexed" another country in this conflict? You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe relatively few really serious people want to endorse the Southern cause in such an explicit way.
 
we celebrates vets of Foreign countries all the time.

Vets... who fought against the US? WHO? WHEN? What holiday? Let me know when it's "Empire of Japan's Veterans Day" or "Nazi Germany's Veterans Days". I'd like to see who the hell is there other than you.

The South never fought to overthrow the Northern Government. that's historical fact.

If they decided to secede and put a new government in a place, then they did in fact fight to overthrow the US government. Unless of course you find the creation of a new government as anything other than an overthrow.

I've heard first hand accounts of it.

That's great. I've also heard first hand accounts of alien abductions. It's still a myth. :shrug:

and what was in the better interests of the country? hangings all around, or working out the problems?

... What... was in the best interest of the country? That's a personal perspective. What I do know is that it's treason to fight against the armed forces of the US government. If you find differently, may I suggest you refer your arguments to all of the American Jidahis we've bombed over in Yemen and Pakistan? I'm sure they'd love to use your arguments. If you feel differently, may I suggest you try and incite your own personal rebellion against the United States and its territories? Tell us how it works out and what the charges are. :shrug:
 
Did Union troops ever occupy Texas? No. They tried, and tried, and tried, and Texas whooped Union butt every single time.

Texas in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Really? From your own cite:

The U.S. Navy blockaded the principal seaport, Galveston, for four years, and federal infantry occupied the city for three months in late 1862.

and

A few other cities also fell to Union troops at times during the war, including Port Lavaca, Indianola, and Brownsville.

Granted, there were few battles and fewer Union victories in Texas. Nevertheless, the state still surrendered after wholesale desertion and looting by its troops (also detailed in your cite).

So...Texas wins some battles and loses the war. Nope, it's Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) with the butthurt.
 
So you tend to agree with those that see this as a war between two different nations and the US "conquered" and "annexed" another country in this conflict?

Nope. I'm saying that it's their perspective on the issue which should stop anyone within the United States from celebrating it. We don't celebrate traitors, or people who wage fights against the US government.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I believe relatively few really serious people want to endorse the Southern cause in such an explicit way.

You're welcome to try and read through the thread so you don't take my words out of context. :)
 
Vets... who fought against the US? WHO? WHEN? What holiday? Let me know when it's "Empire of Japan's Veterans Day" or "Nazi Germany's Veterans Days". I'd like to see who the hell is there other than you.

we don't have holidays, but we frequently send dignitaries to foreign veterans events in official capacities (with your federal dollars) until recently (due to a very bad decision by Obama) we sent ambassadors to Russia's V-E day celebrations (which honors their WW2 vets, and the regime they fought for cannot in anyway be compared to the south) we sent officials, as did the British Royal Navy to the funeral of Admiral Donitz (commander of the Kreigsmarine, and second Fuhrer of the Third Reich after Hitlers suicide) etc etc etc. to the best of my knowledge our ambassador to japan goes to that silly peacenik thing they do in Hiroshima every year.

If they decided to secede and put a new government in a place, then they did in fact fight to overthrow the US government. Unless of course you find the creation of a new government as anything other than an overthrow.

not really, unless you call our country the product of an overthrow, in which case we can sympathize.



That's great. I've also heard first hand accounts of alien abductions. It's still a myth. :shrug:

:roll:



... What... was in the best interest of the country? That's a personal perspective. What I do know is that it's treason to fight against the armed forces of the US government. If you find differently, may I suggest you refer your arguments to all of the American Jidahis we've bombed over in Yemen and Pakistan? I'm sure they'd love to use your arguments. If you feel differently, may I suggest you try and incite your own personal rebellion against the United States and its territories? Tell us how it works out and what the charges are. :shrug:
I never advocated such. all of my distant relatives in the civil war fought for the North. not a huge fan of neo confederatism either, but the reality is, there is nothing wrong with honoring war dead.
 
Nope. I'm saying that it's their perspective on the issue which should stop anyone within the United States from celebrating it. We don't celebrate traitors, or people who wage fights against the US government.



You're welcome to try and read through the thread so you don't take my words out of context. :)

You should try to think through what you write.
 
we don't have holidays,

So we don't celebrate veterans who have fought against the US? Good.

but we frequently send dignitaries to foreign veterans events in official capacities (with your federal dollars) until recently (due to a very bad decision by Obama) we sent ambassadors to Russia's V-E day celebrations (which honors their WW2 vets, and the regime they fought for cannot in anyway be compared to the south) we sent officials, as did the British Royal Navy to the funeral of Admiral Donitz (commander of the Kreigsmarine, and second Fuhrer of the Third Reich after Hitlers suicide) etc etc etc.

So your 'evidence' that we celebrate soldiers who fought against the US is... Russia... an Ally in WWII, and a guy who died 35 years ago? Are you trying to waste my time?

to the best of my knowledge our ambassador to japan goes to that silly peacenik thing they do in Hiroshima every year.

Yep, that is his role as an ambassador in an allied nation. It doesn't mean the US government is celebrating their veterans. I'm answering this not knowing what "celebration" you're even referring to just the fact that it's an ambassador in a country that has been an ally of the US for the last 70 years.

not really, unless you call our country the product of an overthrow, in which case we can sympathize.

Ummm... our country is the product of an overthrow. What the hell do you think it was? Do you think we told the British "Hey guys, can you please leave us to our own devices forever? K thanks!". No. We overthrew British rule and established a new government. Pretty sure we had a war on the matter too somewhere in that story.

:roll:

I never advocated such. all of my distant relatives in the civil war fought for the North. not a huge fan of neo confederatism either, but the reality is, there is nothing wrong with honoring war dead.

Nope, nothing wrong with it as long as they weren't trying to overthrow the US government, create a new government in its place, and saw themselves as citizens of a new nation. :shrug:
 
Really? From your own cite:



and



Granted, there were few battles and fewer Union victories in Texas. Nevertheless, the state still surrendered after wholesale desertion and looting by its troops (also detailed in your cite).

So...Texas wins some battles and loses the war. Nope, it's Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) with the butthurt.

Being blockaded means ships were parked outside Galviston preventing any shipments out...not the same as being occupied.

They tried to occupy Galviston, but were given the ole Texas boot.

Texas won nearly every battle it fought. It surrendered because everyone else already had...a confederacy of one isn't really a confederacy per se.
 
Being blockaded means ships were parked outside Galviston preventing any shipments out

Actually, they were more concerned with preventing shipments IN


not the same as being occupied.

Technically, I suppose that's true. But a blockade pretty much controls a port, much the same as an occupation.


They tried to occupy Galviston, but were given the ole Texas boot.

Did you not read your own cite? Here, let me quote it for you AGAIN, this time with emphasis:

The U.S. Navy blockaded the principal seaport, Galveston, for four years, and federal infantry occupied the city for three months in late 1862.


Texas won nearly every battle it fought.

If you mean every battle in which Texas troops were engaged, I'd argue that. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean battles fought on Texas soil. And I acknowledged that:

Granted, there were few battles and fewer Union victories in Texas.

But I'd also remind you of another quote from your Wikipedia cite:

A few other cities also fell to Union troops at times during the war, including Port Lavaca, Indianola, and Brownsville.


It surrendered because everyone else already had...a confederacy of one isn't really a confederacy per se.

Doesn't matter WHY it surrendered, the point is it DID. Texas (and the rest of the Confederacy) did not
win that war and send you running back home with your tails between your legs.
. Quite the reverse, in fact.
 
Slavery was legal in several union states as well, so is it wrong to have memorials to union soldiers? or soldiers of the American Revolution? or the War of 1812 since we had slavery as a nation in those conflicts?

The part you are missing is that the war of 1812 was not about preserving the institution of slavery. The states that seceded from the Union did so to preserve the institution of slavery. The reason the south left the union and thus we had a war was they wanted to keep the institution of slavery.
 
So we should have memorial day for Tories?

No, I mean really, no.

If anything we would observe the French soldiers that died fighting for our independence.
 
Yes

The South had a constitutional and legal right to secede. The Civil War was an illegal act perpetrated upon the South by Lincoln and his troops.

The subsequent federalization of our republic has been equally illegal and unjust, and it continues to this day

Please point to the provision in the Constitution that allows for secession.
 
Please point to the provision in the Constitution that allows for secession.

It's the same place in the Constitution that has a provision for abortion and same sex marriage.
 


The last Monday in May in the US then apparently honors and celebrates people who killed millions of foreigners - using your logic and a yawner of a viewpoint to try to stir up controversy for a thread. :yawn:

As with the US memorial day, Confederate Decoration Day is

Wikipedia said:
Confederate Memorial Day, also known as Confederate Decoration Day (Tennessee) and Confederate Heroes Day (Texas), is an official holiday and/or observance day in a number of states in the Southern United States as a day to honor those who died fighting for the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.
Confederate Memorial Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same as the regular Memorial Day

Wikipedia said:
Memorial Day is a federal holiday in the United States for remembering the people who died while serving in the country's armed forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Day
 
The South had a legal right to secede. The civil war was an illegal act of aggression perpetrated against the Southern states who acted within their constitutional rights by seceding.

So inasmuch as southerners are traitors, northerners are usurpers whose disdain for the constitutional law of the land shattered the previously long-held precedent of states rights of self-determination

And a Confederate defender appears, spare me. :roll:
 
As a state or federal holiday? No.
 
Back
Top Bottom