Posted on Aug 2, 2022
The 29th Infantry Division gets to keep its Confederacy-themed patch
1.35K
24
16
5
5
0
Posted in these groups: 
Infantry
Confederate Flag
Infantry Confederate Flag
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
The patch was created for “unity” of the North/South upon the formation of division sized units. Leave the battle streamers alone. There are 14 streamers for the “Indian wars” on US Guidons too…..are they next?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
History has many cases of altering that very same record. Like Comfort Women. Remember shrines that need be remembered.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Buried in the article is the point that the commission recommends moving Confederate battle streamers.
But wouldn't removing those streamers indicate that the Army of the Confederate States WAS an Army of a nation that was independent of the United States? Wouldn't this be a recognition that the Confederacy was a legitimate sovereign entity and the US illegally subjugated them through conquest?
Either (1) the Confederate Army was a US Army - in which case their battle history is American battle history; (2) The Confederate Army was the Army of a sovereign nation - in which case the US illegally and cruelly subjugated the CSA through conquest; or (3) the ENTIRE Confederate Army was treasonous and all POWs should have been immediately tried for such.
I don't remember a whole lot of treason trials for Confedetate Soldiers. So that leaves options (1) and (2).
But wouldn't removing those streamers indicate that the Army of the Confederate States WAS an Army of a nation that was independent of the United States? Wouldn't this be a recognition that the Confederacy was a legitimate sovereign entity and the US illegally subjugated them through conquest?
Either (1) the Confederate Army was a US Army - in which case their battle history is American battle history; (2) The Confederate Army was the Army of a sovereign nation - in which case the US illegally and cruelly subjugated the CSA through conquest; or (3) the ENTIRE Confederate Army was treasonous and all POWs should have been immediately tried for such.
I don't remember a whole lot of treason trials for Confedetate Soldiers. So that leaves options (1) and (2).
(3)
(0)
SPC Gary C.
SFC Casey O'Mally - Oops sorry. Grandpa or Uncle, you can load them up on sugar and then give them back to Mom & Dad....LOL
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SFC Casey O'Mally - Lee and Davis didn't lose their citizenship, per se. They lost the full civil rights of being a citizen, like voting. This is like what happens with convicted felons in most states. We don't treat them as having lost their citizenship. What Lee and Davis applied for was amnesty for being a leader in a rebellion and wanted to restore their civil rights. That was the legal theory that the government was operating under.
"Indeed, it was the official policy of the administration of Union President Andrew Johnson that there had been, in fact, no such entity as “the Confederate States of America.” And the several states that had made up that republic were, in Johnson’s view, simply states “lately in rebellion.”
But because General Lee had served as the ranking military officer of the so-called “rebel” army, he and others who held high position in the late Confederacy were denied their civil rights and indicted for treason. Later, that indictment was dismissed and no one who had served the Confederacy in its high command was actually brought to trial.
But even before the indictments were dismissed (and General Grant himself had said the indictments went against the surrender terms at Appomattox), even before that, President Andrew Johnson issued an amnesty proclamation in May of 1865. It was because of this amnesty that Lee, in June of 1865, applied to President Johnson for the restoration of his civil rights as a citizen of the United States. General Grant endorsed Lee’s application and forwarded it, from the War Department to the President."
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/robert-e-lee-got-citizenship-back-william-freehoff.html
You do make a good point that the government didn't want to bring it to trial, and I agree they didn't. For much the same reason I think it would be difficult to bring Trump to trial. There is a good chance that their will be at least on sympathetic jury member to the idea that they could secede and create a huge PR problem. Based on our prior discussion on this you wanted to claim that it was an undisputed fact that they had the legal authority to secede. I'm glad to see that perhaps you are coming around to the opinion, that perhaps it was an open question at the time if they could. If that is your position, then I agree with that.
"Indeed, it was the official policy of the administration of Union President Andrew Johnson that there had been, in fact, no such entity as “the Confederate States of America.” And the several states that had made up that republic were, in Johnson’s view, simply states “lately in rebellion.”
But because General Lee had served as the ranking military officer of the so-called “rebel” army, he and others who held high position in the late Confederacy were denied their civil rights and indicted for treason. Later, that indictment was dismissed and no one who had served the Confederacy in its high command was actually brought to trial.
But even before the indictments were dismissed (and General Grant himself had said the indictments went against the surrender terms at Appomattox), even before that, President Andrew Johnson issued an amnesty proclamation in May of 1865. It was because of this amnesty that Lee, in June of 1865, applied to President Johnson for the restoration of his civil rights as a citizen of the United States. General Grant endorsed Lee’s application and forwarded it, from the War Department to the President."
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/robert-e-lee-got-citizenship-back-william-freehoff.html
You do make a good point that the government didn't want to bring it to trial, and I agree they didn't. For much the same reason I think it would be difficult to bring Trump to trial. There is a good chance that their will be at least on sympathetic jury member to the idea that they could secede and create a huge PR problem. Based on our prior discussion on this you wanted to claim that it was an undisputed fact that they had the legal authority to secede. I'm glad to see that perhaps you are coming around to the opinion, that perhaps it was an open question at the time if they could. If that is your position, then I agree with that.
How Robert E. Lee Got His Citizenship Back ~ The Imaginative Conservative
At his death, Robert E. Lee was not fully a citizen despite the efforts he made in his last years to regain his citizenship. This final aggression against the name of a great man continued to trouble many Americans, both in the North and the South... (essay by William Freehoff)
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SPC Kevin Ford OH, I fully understand it was a disputed fact. I just posit that the "disputed" part doesn't negate the "fact" part.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google