Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

Actually, it does. The modern National Guard was founded in 1903 by the Dick Act, then became what we recognize today under the National Defense Act of 1916.

Prior to that, each state militia was controlled entirely by the individual states. Each had their own organizations, their own requirements, often even their own ranks and uniforms. The 2 acts I listed brought them into line with the US military, ensuring that everything was standardized across the Federal and State systems.

But yes, the VA is the storehouse of all military personnel records, be they militia, national guard, or active duty. Going back to the Revolutionary War.

Now as for the question if the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors were "American Servicemen", I will defer to the following fact.

When the states in rebelion returned to the United States, all were pardoned for any actions they might have taken (except for a select few).

And the US Government continued to pay pensions and survivor benfits to the veterans and families of those who served, on both sides. Even the modern incarnation of the Veterans Administration continued to do so. In fact, as of 2 years ago the VA was still paying a pension to a surviving child of a Confederate Veteran.

So I would think that pretty much ends the question if Confederate servicemembers are "American Veterans". The US Government for over a century has recognized them as such, end of subject.

Now if somebody has a personal axe to grind about that, that is their problem. But it is exactly that, their problem and their issue. Has no bearing on reality. Kind of like a flat earther.

 

Not true. As far as Confederate veterans, not a single CSA veteran received a U.S. pension for service in that war -- that would be the one where they took up arms against the US and committed treason.

The 1958 Act was a bone toss to the few surviving widows and children, and it was done largely in part by a southern senator.

No. They haven't. That's absurd.

You're wrong. Embrace it.

 

Then you would do well to think again. If the payment of such benefits constitutes the basis for calling CSA vets American veterans, we should refer once again to 14AS4, which prohibits any federal or state government entity from "assum[ing] or pay[ing] any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States", wherefore any such benefits to Confederate vets could hardly be paid on the pretext that the US has any obligation to them comparable to that incurred by the service of Union vets, other than in brazen violation of the Constitution.

 

Some one forgot to inform the VA doesn't it ?

How many Confederate commissioned officers served in the U.S.Army after the "civil war" as an SNCO's and NCO's and put in from twenty to thirty years of service to collect a pension ?

How many thousands of Confederate soldiers who served in the U.S. Army after the "civil war" and would serve honorably and end up collecting a pension ?

You might want to look at who served and led the the U.S. military (Army, Navy & Marines) just not before the Civil War but after the war. Be it the Spanish American War, the Banana Wars, punitive actions against Mexico, WW l, WW ll, the Korean war, Vietnam War, the "Cold War" the first Gulf war, and the war against terrorism. The South is well over representative big time.

 

Try reading the actual words I write, kay bud?

Here, I'll help,,,,now, read it slowly::

Originally Posted by Paperview
Not true. As far as Confederate veterans, not a single CSA veteran received a U.S. pension for service in that war -- that would be the one where they took up arms against the US and committed treason."

 

I concur, that pretty much ends the question if Confederate service members are "American Veterans."

 

Look above.

 

The biggest trick in all of this is that it all predates the modern configuration of the US military and the National Guard.

Prior to the creation of the National Guard Bureau, each state handled all of the demands of it's own militia. From pensions and survivor benefits to retirement homes and hospitals. These were soldiers who fought for the state, so each state took care of their own. And rather elaborate systems were set up for soldiers who served one state, yet fought in another (Mexican-American War is one such an example).

But in 1903 this was all cast aside, and the US Government pretty much took over, as far as the logistics of state militias were handled that is.

Comprehensive medical care and pensions for Veterans would not be assumed until the creation of the Veterans Administration was created in 1930. By that time almost all Civil War veterans were either already dead, or living in the previously constructed state homes, or handled by their state pensions.

Oh, and not all "Confederate Officers: became NCOs. I present Major General Joseph Wheeler. Formerly Congressman Wheeler, from the State of Alabama. Prior to that, Lieutenant Wheeler, CSA. And prior to that, Lieutenant Wheeler, USA.

Like the German soldiers who flooded to other nations after WWII as mercenaries, quite a few Southern soldiers left once they lost their war, seeking employment and new homes elsewhere. Others returned to the Army, since that is where they were before the war started. The American West became "lousy with Southerners" after the Civil War.

 

^

A reporter got it wrong. Like, when has *that* ever happened, eh?

Go find a Confederate pension record for a soldier here:

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/confederate/pension.html

Aw, none?

"The federal government did not grant pensions to Confederate veterans or their dependents , however, southern state governments granted pensions to Confederate veterans and widows . Veterans filed for pensions in the state where they were living at the time, not the state from which they served."

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/confederate/confederate-pensions.pdf

"In 1958, the U.S. government opened up federal pensions to surviving Confederate veterans and their widows even though they or their husbands had fought against the government. Given that this was almost 100 years after the start of the Civil War, more people took advantage of this mostly symbolic gesture than you might think; two Confederate veterans and more than one thousand Confederate widows were added to the federal Civil War pension rolls in 1958.1

Confederate pensions prior to 1958 were not awarded by the U.S. federal government and are not in the custody of the National Archives. "

http://genealogy.about.com/od/civil_war/tp/confederate-pension-records.htm

"Confederate veterans, however, were never allowed access to pensions from the federal
government."

http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Salisbury.pdf

Confederate veterans and their dependents were not eligible for pensions from the Federal Government until 1958. Many states that had joined the Confederacy, however, did pay out pensions.

http://www.nbm.org/about-us/about-the-museum/civil-war-history.html

No YOU look above,

 

So would you agree that any ethnic group that fought the US government to gain supremacy for their own people were also traitors?

What are your feelings about outlawing the flags of these racist supremacist groups that demand having their own racial states?



Apaches Comanches

 

Yeah. That's comparable/

LOLOLOL

 

Since the founding of the United States the Native-American tribes have always been sovereign nations. As sovereign nations they do not betray the US Constitution if they fight against the United States.

 

If all the native tribes were so sovereign, then our government would never had fought them. Reservations were created by the US government, not the Natives. Also, when the Lakota savages killed the FBI agents at Wounded Knee in their reservation in 1973, the US government certainly had the authority to act against them.

So why do you not the support the banning of the flags of the Lakota traitors and only want the old Confederate battle flag banned?

 

Brilliant deduction. Utterly brilliant!




LOLOLOL

 

Are you betraying the Constitution if you try to remove yoursel ffrom it? After all, there was nothing in the Constitution itself that forbid a state from leaving the Union.

Go ahead, find me anything in the Constitution that forbids secession. There is nothing, but there is a clause that states that any powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states.

Now do not think I support sucession, I oppose it in any form. So how are they traitors if they were following their powers as they interpreted the Constitution?

And to this day, there is still nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. And there will not be, because it is allowed for various reasons. Sities seceede from each other, parts of counties seceede from other counties. Entire segments of states have seceeded to form new states.

Follow the legal precident my friend. I doubt you will find a State Constitution (or city or county charter) that prohibits secession, just like the Federal Constitution. Yet they do it fairly often, and nobody bats an eye (except the larger city-county at the loss of tax income or mineral rights). So logically, if they did not violate the Constitution, they are not traitors.

But please, show me where in the Constitution that secession is illegal. Then and only then will you really have a case that they were "traitors to the Constitution".

 

1. A state or states cannot unilaterally secede. That's been decided by multiple courts, including the Supreme Court -- and, by the Civil War itself, which answered that question

2.Stealing federal property and taking up arms against the US ---> Is treason.

3. Treason against the United States, shall consist in levying War against them.

4. Yes, they were traitors.

 

I'll also note, mushroom, you never owned up to your glaring error that confederate veterans were paid a pension not long after the war, and were recognized as such by the U.S. federal government "for over a century."

 

And name a precident that affirmed this before the civil war.

It is a basic law of our country that a law can neither be made retroactive, and no such law existed before the Civil War (nor does it exist today).

The only Supreme Court ruling I am aware of that states that secession is not allowed was in Texas V. White, in 1869. Well after the war was over.

But I do admit that the Civil War had indeed settled the matter. Might makes right after all.

Because unless you can prove that doing such was treason before the war broke out, then it can not be treason. That would be like when the first age of consent laws were made at 18, and going and convicting every case where an adult married a 14 year old as child abuse and statutory rape. You can not take a SCOTUS ruling in 1869, and use that as verifying your claim that happened in 1861.

 

If they're going to do that then they need to dig up and deface former KKK member Robert Byrd's grave as well.

 

Doesn't matter - the North owned slaves from the get-go.

No reason to stop at the Confederacy - you might as well bulldoze down all of Washington DC and all of the monuments of the Founders who owned slaves - better yet, just deport all whites back to Europe and give America back to the Indians.

 

Stealing federal property and taking up arms against the US ---> Is treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist in levying War against them.

Live it.

Learn it

:Love it.

 

I'm truly disappointed in our education systems that fail to provide basic knowledge of American history. I do not feel inclined to provide an American history class at this time.

Of note I've never claimed to want to ban the Confederate battle flag. I oppose censorship. All I do is acknowledge that it is the symbol of White Supremacy and is a symbol of traitors to the US Constitution.

 

It seems as though you a have problem accepting our Red brothers as equals to others. Are you of the opinion that only Whites can be racists or supremacists? Is it beyond your comprehension that Native Amerindians were no different than every other people on the face of the earth who acted in the interests of their own people---to gain and hold territory for their own ends? Of course the liberal history classes you have taken in past will never-ever hold all people to the same moral standards.

 

It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

This is so from the simple fact, that, under the law of war, there is no treason.

Vattel says :

NO TREASON IN CIVIL WAR. -> http://library.syr.edu/digital/collections/g/GerritSmith/533.htm