Should Confederate soldiers be remembered at Arlington National Cemetery?
Let’s let the past stay in the past. Looking forward, we can agree not bury any more confederate soldiers in Arlington
Man some people on this app are still very hot about the civil war.
This user is currently being ignored
they were traitors
Yes they should. Fuck you, fight me.
No. Only Americans should be buried there.
NO! FUCK NO....
If they are , they should be dug up and thrown out like trash....
No, they’re not American service men.
There are Confederate soldiers buried there.
No, that’s in effect a massive participation trophy.
Remembered for what? Attacking the United States? For fighting to preserve slavery? For losing?
On the other hand the Confederates buried at Arlington probably have descendants in states that are now part of the Union. And they have as much right to remember their kin as any other American.
They do not need to be in Arlington to be remembered.
It’s really a non issue to me.
We’re all Americans.
We're all Americans until some of us start committing treason.
Treason is an unamerican word... America was built on challenging the government.
George Washington committed treason. He was a righteous dude. He set the example for how to handle a government out of control.
You’re grasping at straws so much you’re trying to justify treason.
They weren’t trying to overthrow the government. They rejected the authority of the federal government in favor of the authority of the state government.
You’re confusing secession with treason.
Yes. They were more than content to let the US go it’s own way peacefully. In any event they were justified in warfare, treason, and destruction of the US as the US had violated the constitution in a critical way.
Arlington belonged to Robert E Lee after all.
Hell no. If anything their corpses should be dug up an burned, and left in a mass grave somewhere in the deep south.
You are really that arrogant? You don’t believe that you could’ve ended up the same if you were in that environment??
What next, should we dig up deceased gang members and throw them into a mass grave? Dig up muslim rapists? Dig up those who murdered South African Farmers? Dig up your mother and your father for the mistakes they’ve made? Dig you up for your arrogance.
We’re all raised to believe certain things, and only time will tell what things were wrong. All we can do is focus on ourselves to do the right thing, rather than judging those of the past with desecration and arrogance.
...desecration and arrogance.
Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery and it was intended for use against the Indians. Nearly every culture on earth has been both enslaved and slave holders.
That happened in 1645.
I'll answer all of your responses to me here. None of those examples you gave come even close to the crime committed by the Confederates. Treason. Yes, TREASON. It is an American word. It's the only crime that is specifically mentioned by our fucking constitution. They didn't challenge the government, they levied war against it. Threatened to harm it, and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Americans who were loyal. They were traitors and they should have been punished. Since that didn't happen, they definitely deserve NO honor at all, including any respect for their remains beyond archaeological research. Fuck traitors.
So we should desecrate John Browns grave too since he led a slave revolt against a federal arsenal in Virginia? A crime against the federal government aka treason.
John Brown's crime was against the state of Virginia not the federal government. He merely used the arsenal as a staging point for a slave revolt, of which he failed. So no. He was a nutcase and a fool, but not a traitor.
My comment specifically stated it was a federal arsenal, which it was. He attacked a federal arsenal, so therefore he committed treason.
Desecrate the grave of a man who stood against slavery, I dare you.
Yet he still didn't wage war against the US federal government. He waged war against Virginia. There is a difference at this point in American history, so much so that it was exactly what he was charged with in his trial. Treason against Virginia.
He still attacked the US Government, did he not?
Nope. He attacked the state of Virginia.
a federal arsenal isn’t Virginia
I'd prefer them buried in the South as traitors but don't move the ones already buried.
Did you realize that Memorial Day was started by women in Southern states, when they decided to put flowers on the graves of both Confederate AND Union soldiers?
This doesn't mean that the Confederates weren't traitors though. They were. My idea also doesn't impact anyone as no soldier being buried is a confederate.
I just think it’s interesting that Confederate widows could be more gracious than someone like you, hundreds of years later!
Sorry I'm not gracious towards traitors who fought and died for what they viewed as a foreign country, to uphold a system that enslaved innocent peoples and divided families.
I actually am being gracious. According to them they weren't Americans, why then should they even be at our national monument? We don't allow North Koreans or Iraqi soldiers to be buried here, why confederates? See I am being gracious, I'm letting the dead rest where they are, just no new traitors to be added to our national cemetery.
You’ve apparently learned a one sided view of history. I suggest you read what @Okie1967 said, below.
But back to my main point—Confederate widows (who could have been bitter) honored the men that KILLED their husbands. What have YOU lost in this war, that you’re so bitter about it?
It's not what have I lost. Are they not traitors? Is it not traitorous to leave the union without going through the formal process? Our founding fathers were also traitors but they actually won. Plus the father's weren't traitorous to me but rather Britain.
My question is: why are you defending individuals who fought to leave the country? Why are you supporting secession through declaration? Does that not set up a bad situation where just any state can leave if they just want to? Why are you being kind to literal traitors who fought to defend a system that also enslaved millions?
True.. after all, any state could get a wild hair up their wahzoo. Didn’t Texas once contemplate it? How about California?
Like I said, read what @Okie1967 said, below. He says it much better than I can!
Scenario is on ignore. FYI.
Exactly TD, there should have to be a process states go through to secede. The states that seceded didn't follow any process.
Oh, sorry, Okie, I didn’t realize you had him on ignore. Shoot! What you said was so good, I wanted him to read it!
Conservatives today don’t understand that the confederacy was the first to oppose the unconstitutional expansion of powers by the federal government - something conservatives fight against every day in the context of Obamacare, 1st and 2nd amendments, judicial activism, etc.
They Shrink from defending the south because nobody today likes slavery, but slavery was just the central issue used by the north to justify ignoring the constitution.
Maybe if okie wants an honest conversation he'll unblock me. Maybe he'd like to actually defend traitors lmao or not, that's his choice.
We can defend the south without defending slavery. We can always defend the constitution. It’s a great document and it set forth a peaceful way for amending it. The north should have pursued those peaceful means just as democrats should today pursue elimination of the 2nd amendment instead of trying to nullify it through judicial activism.
It would be honest and respectable if democrats put forth an effort to amend the constitution. Instead they attack it and its supporters by politicking with the dead bodies of students.
Oh, I thought it was that you had him on ignore, Okie.
SN, Okie says that if want an honest convo, unblock him. He has some REALLY great material both in this thread and in his own thread below. I’m not going to debate it any more tonight because what he’s said is so much better than any explanation I could come up with. He’s quoting the Constitution, after all! Lol
He's quoting the part of the Constitution that says slaves are worth 3/5ths of a person?
I do have him on ignore.
Okie, out of all that you posted, he picked out one part and said that you’re quoting the part that says that slaves were worth 3/5 of a person. If you want to debate him, have at it. I’m done for the night. I’ve got too much at home to do.
I did quote that part, and others. He’s staying on ignore. I don’t need to read his nonsense.
No 4JC, I didn't see any of what he posted because he has me blocked and I asked a question as that's pretty much the only part that actually mentions slaves.
The founding of Arlington was actually to bury Robert lees friends in his yard. So I’d say yes
They were as valiant as the others and their cause was honorable.
Their cause was slavery.
Few southerners owned slaves, especially amongst the ranks of those who fought. They were upset over northern aggression.
And slavery was legal and protected by the constitution. If slavery was the issue then it could only mean the north was ignoring the constitution and trying to end slavery.
Many Southern states cited slavery as the reason to secede. Even the confederate president and vice said their cause was slavery.
Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution prohibited free states from protecting slaves under state law. In other words, if a slave escaped to a free state, that state was not allowed to "discharge" the slave from their owner or to otherwise protect the slave by law.
So........how exactly could slavery be the issue? The constitution protected it and even made slaves equal to 3/5 a person. How could it be that this was the issue unless the north was setting-aside the constitution and violating it?
Northern aggression was on slavery, amongst other issues. After reading the constitution tell me how slavery could possibly be the issue unless the north was violating the constitution???
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
Pretty straight forward. How then could it even be possible for slavery to be an issue except the north was violating the constitution?
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
The constitution even guaranteed a protection for slavery, but did allow for more importation of ew slaves to be prohibited after a certain date.
So slavery was perfectly legal and protected by the constitution. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment could end it. So what possibly could upset the south about slavery except for the north violating the constitution?
Give it up Pepsi. You have a poor argument at best
Slavery was an illustration of the Norths disregard for several critical states rights. Yes, I agree Slavery was terrible, but all states agreed to allow slavery under the constitution. It is not any more logical to say there was only one states rights issue as it is to say the war was not about slavery.
No, screw them. Bury them in the south!
In their own cemeteries in the South for sure.
Burn the treasonous bodies and let their momma’s watch!
You are being a little redundant and harsh
If any others are, then yes.
No, they fought against America.
If the US hadn’t violated the constitution then there wouldn’t have been a war.
Yes - the civil war was Americans fighting Americans. Both sides had their faults, but the war greatly improved the Nation in time.
Americans fighting traitors, and one side was fighting to OWN PEOPLE.
They deserve no honor at all.
The North only wanted to end slavery to give them an economic advantage.
The North wanted to keep the union intact and didn't give a shit about the slaves until about halfway through the war, and even then it was a war tactic to deprive the enemy of potential material support. I'm willing to be honest about this fact, you aren't. You continually prattle about state's rights but ignore that the rights in question were about owning people. Not caring about the slaves is nothing compared to committing treason to keep them in bondage. There was not an equality on both sides here. One side were assholes about slaves, the other side were traitorous monsters.
It looks like you conceded that slavery wasn’t the primary issue right there in the middle of your comment.
It wasn't the Union's primary concern DURING the war. It was the South's primary reason for STARTING the war.
Prince is right. The Union didn't come in thinking "this is about slavery". They thought of it midterm and used it as a tactic to crumble a group of traitorous states. They didn't even liberate slaves in Northern slaves states that decided not to secede.
However the south did come in thinking about how they believed Lincoln would liberate the slaves or stop the expansion of slavery out west. Whether you call this "states rights" or whatever, slavery was a part of the equation. It may have not been the only reason but it definitely played a part.
Think of the 'Causes of The Civil War' as a bicycle wheel. There's a lot of spokes, and a lot of reasons. Wars are complicated things, especially civil ones. The axle is slavery.
You can’t claim slavery was the axle and simultaneously acknowledge that the North didn’t care about slavery until the middle of the war.