Happy Veterans Day to all my fellow veterans. Thank you for your sacrifices and your service to our country.
Over at Crossroads, Brooks has highlighted why many confederate heritage advocates are despicable scum. Note that the group in question claims affiliation with the Virginia SCV. I’m not surprised. The big question is what is the Virginia SCV going to do about it?
Perhaps they’ll try to palm off the lie that confederate veterans are American veterans.
They aren’t. Some confederate heritage advocates will make the absurd claim that confederate veterans are American veterans by act of Congress. They aren’t. No act of Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans. They were declared to be Civil War veterans.
38 US Code 1501 (3) says, “The term ‘Civil War 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 those forces.” It includes confederate veterans as Civil War veterans, not as American veterans.
Congress has authorized government-paid headstones for graves of confederate veterans, and in 1958 authorized payments to widows of confederate veterans as well as a pension to any surviving confederate veterans [there were none].
Here’s that legislation:
It modified a law passed the year before for payments to widows. Here are the relevant parts of that bill.
As we can see, it talks about “Civil War veterans.” The definition of a “Civil War veteran” was expanded in 1958 to include confederate veterans. The US was magnanimous thanks to Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Texas) and Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (D-Texas). The Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs was Representative Olin E. Teague (D-Texas). The Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs wasn’t created until 1970. Prior to that, veterans legislation was handled by the Senate Committees on Finance and Labor and Public Welfare [see here]. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and the Public Welfare was Senator Joseph Lister Hill, (D-Alabama). Anyone see any trends in this? They voted pensions to widows of confederate veterans and that worthy effort has today been perverted to a lie that the Congress declared confederate veterans to be American veterans when in fact instead of serving our country they were traitors to the United States of America.
So when someone from the heritage instead of history crowd tries to tell you confederate veterans are American veterans by act of Congress, you can set them straight.
Student of the American Civil War 
“Over at Crossroads, Brooks has highlighted why many confederate heritage advocates are despicable scum. Note that the group in question claims affiliation with the Virginia SCV. I’m not surprised. The big question is what is the Virginia SCV going to do about it?”
Group in question? You know who is in this “group”? You know their identity? You know for certain it’s not just one anonymous person with a Twitter account? How does one anonymous person or “group” (smirk) become “many Confederate heritage advocates? (Oh, and capitalize Confederate; in this usage, it’s a proper noun). And you know for certain that the Virginia SCV knows about this Twitter account, and its claims to be affiliated with them?
“Perhaps they’ll try to palm off the lie that confederate veterans are American veterans.”
Have they done that yet? If not, seems you’ve done some faulty second-guessing, jumped the gun and gone to a lot of trouble for nothing.
Oh, and one other question — is anybody who disses veterans (like, for instance, the V.A. or the leftist Obama/Ayers axis) despicable scum, or just heritage folks?
Connie, it’s been too long. How have you been? Certainly you’ve seen Brooks’ post on this, so you know exactly which group this is. This is not the only time a heritage instead of history type has insulted American veterans, and I’m pretty sure you know that. I’m pretty sure Ben Jones has been made aware of them, and I think that he’s a dedicated individual who would at least notify the Virginia SCV about this group. Also, you should probably look up the definition of the word “perhaps.”
The VA doesn’t diss veterans. There were some despicable scum who failed to do what they were supposed to do and they’ve been dealt with. Personally I’ve never had any problems in my dealings with the VA. I’ve found the VA employees I’ve dealt with to be friendly, cheerful, and eager to do a great job. Don’t know who you mean in the “leftist Obama/Ayers axis,” so I can’t comment on that. I’m generally speaking not a political supporter of the President, though I do respect the office and I recognize when he does something of which I approve, though I don’t do that on this blog unless it’s related to the Civil War or its legacy.
So have you seen any books that I’ve reviewed that you’re interested in reading? How do you like the videos I’ve been posting?
Al, you didn’t answer the question. What is your evidence for who “SaveConfedMuseum” is and who “WeLoveOurSouth” is?
As for the Virginia SCV, surely you know that anybody can put a link to whatever group/site/blog/page they wish on their Twitter feed. That doesn’t prove that they’re a member of the group. It proves little more than that they know how to copy/paste a URL.
Do you really have that much faith in anonymity?
Connie, I’ve asked you several questions you never bother to answer. Seems rather unfair to ask me to answer all your questions when you ignore mine, n’est pas?
Note I didn’t say they were members of the Virginia SCV. I said they claimed affiliation with the Virginia SCV. You should read a bit more carefully.
Looks like the usual hate from Connie along with her back pedaling. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt is it? I visited her blog today and was immediately repelled with her usual ignorance, especially the part about teachers.
Hey, wannabe teacher types that believe in the lost cause myth. When you earn your master’s degrees and actually become teachers then you may have some credibility. Until then keep on whining. Learning takes patience and work, virtues which you do not possess. Of course you lost causers also lack honesty and integrity along with other virtues. I guess I will just keep teaching while you keep whining.
Mr. Dick, you can claim there’s hate, backpedaling and denial on my blog, but until you specifically identify which sentences and paragraphs contain them, you’re just stating your opinion, which I consider to be biased and unreliable.
I don’t think one has to be credentialed by the leftist educational establishment to be a teacher. I don’t consider leftist indoctrination and teaching to be the same thing. There are all kinds of way to teach and learn and your way is no guarantee of success. I’ve known people with master’s degrees who couldn’t write a coherent (or grammatically correct) sentence.
I welcome your providing any objective evidence (not opinion or fantasy) of my lack of honesty, integrity and other virtues. And if you don’t mind my asking, it is just “lost causers” who lack honesty, integrity and other virtues in your view, or do you notice the same lack in people you agree with — say, for example, Brooks Simpson’s [edit–no evidence of that], negative reviews of my novels and short stories at Amazon.com? (That’s an example of what I mean by objective evidence.) Is his doing that okay with you, since you agree with him about history, and I have a difference view of history than you do?
Leftist educational establishment? Sounds like the usual whine from somebody whose version of history fails to meet the standards of truth and honesty. See, when you use these things known as facts to develop your interpretations of history, then you establish credibility. When you ignore the facts in order to present an interpretation that is based on lies to suit your personal opinion then you fail to establish that credibility and are regarded as a charlatan.
Brooks has already pointed out quite well your usual line of hatred on your blog. You can’t backpedal fast enough. Your entire blog is the perfect example of ignorance when it comes to historical knowledge. It also show your lack of the virtues I mentioned.
You just do not know history, but you do a very good job of trying to revise it to suit your beliefs which I find utterly repellant.
I think Connie sincerely believes what she says about “heritage.” So in my opinion she’s not lying but rather is repeating lies she’s read or been told and has believed because they make her feel good about “heritage.”
1. I’ve been fine.
2. I haven’t read your book reviews.
3. I haven’t seen the videos you’ve been posting.
Al, do you have any credible evidence that this “group” is anything more than an individual with a Twitter account?
1. Glad to hear it.
2. Why not?
3. Why not?
Their Twitter address is “@WeLoveOurSouth.” That’s a plural. I take them at their word. Are you saying confederate heritage people can never be trusted to tell the truth?
You know why she doesn’t read your book reviews or watch the videos you post. It is the same reason she and the rest of the lost causers won’t take Eric Foner’s EdX course. She does not want to learn because that would alter her version of the past. She is not interested in learning, just in trying to perpetuate the false mythology of a past that makes her feel good while ignoring the truth of what really happened.
I do find it perplexing that she seems to be afraid of telling us why she doesn’t view the videos or read the reviews.
2. Because.
3. Because.
You take anonymous people at their word? Seriously? I wouldn’t have thought that of you…
What I’m saying is that I would have to know who the account belongs to before I put much stock it. I’m saying that anybody can use an anonymous vehicle like Twitter to claim anything.
The account is barely over a month old and thus far, its content appears to be little more than copy/pastes of stuff easily found on the Internet. It could be someone claiming to be a heritage supporter when they’re really the opposite, and plan to use the account to smear heritage folks with. (Corey Meyer has a long history of this.) Or, it could be a genuine heritage supporter who genuinely disrespects US veterans. The point is, it’s impossible to tell which without knowing who the person really is.
The problem I have is less with the anonymous Tweeter, and more with Simpson’s disingenuous conclusion that because this unknown person posted a photo of Susan and linked to my blog that Susan and I share that unknown person’s disrespect for veterans because it’s a flat-out lie. This would be like somebody claiming you share my views of the Confederacy if I happen to post a link to your blog. My blog is not secret or restricted, anybody can link to it, and I have no control over who does that.
Simpson admits he hasn’t read my books, but from sheer spite, he posted very negative reviews about them (one of which is an attack on me personally) at Amazon that imply he has read them, That certainly meets the definition of fraudulent, which means false, deceptive. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AIU5WLY1YO7GT/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp
2. Nonresponsive
3. Nonresponsive
Why shouldn’t I take them at their word? They certainly make all the same claims the heritage instead of history crowd makes.
If you’re going to accuse Brooks of a flat-out lie, then you ought to make sure you’re being accurate in what he posts. He didn’t say you or Susan Hathaway share disrespect of veterans. He said that group embraces and endorses you two, and the flaggers, which they do.
For something to be “fraudulent” the person has to be deceitful for material gain. The link you provided is not to Brooks Simpson but to someone known as “Not Connie’s Sister.” What proof do you have that is Brooks?
Why shouldn’t you take them at their word? Because, um, you don’t know who they are? Anybody can make claims, especially if they’re anonymous.
That Twitter feed has other links and lots of images. Why did Simpson single out Susan and me? His claim that posting a photo and a link is “embracing and endorsing” us is an attempt to create an association between us and the anonymous tweeter that doesn’t exist, and thus implying that we share that person’s disrespect for veterans, which is a flatout lie. If you think Simpson was trying to make some other point, identify it.
Deceit for material gain is not the only definition of fraud. Oh, and so now you’re skeptical about the identity of an anonymous internet handle? The evidence that Simpson is “Not Connie’s Sister” (originally known as “None of your business”) is here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/09/brooks-simpson-reviews-my-novels.html
When I blogged about his “reviews” on September 5, he had only posted two; all the rest have been posted since that date. He has changed the fake reviewer name several times. It started out as None of your business, as the screenshots in my blog post establish, and was changed to One Skeptical Observer, then True Confederate Patriot, and now Not Connie’s Sister.
His first “reviews” were displayed together on the Activity Page for None of your business, which also displayed a link to the reviewer’s Wishlist, but when you clicked the link, it didn’t take you to the Wishlist for None of your business; it took you to the Wishlist for Brooks Simpson. I guess he overlooked that. In a hilarious act of tush-covering, he has since removed the Wishlist link on his activity page, but the Wishlist is still on Amazon.com, and the link to it in my blog post from back in September (in the paragraph that begins “Click Public Wish List…”) still takes you to it.
I’m not sure of the reason for all the name changes, unless it’s an effort to cover his tracks and erase any evidence that the “reviewer” is himself. Also, why just delete the *link* to the Wishlist when you can delete the list itself (particularly when it’s empty, as this one is) because the URL hasn’t changed and its still works, if you have it (and I do).
I have acknowledged more than once that some unidentified person could have made the Brooks Simpson Wishlist and posted the fake reviews, but it seems unlikely, and given his antagonism toward me, it does seem likely that he’s the reviewer.
I don’t know a lot of folks and I take them at their word. They haven’t proven I should do otherwise at this point.
I’m skeptical about your interpretation of the identify of an anonymous internet name. As far as I know, that person is “Not Connie’s Sister.”
That’s a thin reed of evidence to call proof, but just for the sake of argument and nothing more, let’s assume it’s correct. It still isn’t “fraudulent,” as that term applies when someone uses deceit for material gain. Its root is the word “fraud,” which means, “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.” If the goal was simply to rile you, I’d say that’s mission accomplished; otherwise, you wouldn’t be so obsessed about it.
Well, Mr. Dick, I’ve explained more than once, on my blog and elsewhere, that, while I have a casual to fairly lively interest in history, I’m far, far more interested in what’s happening now — in how history is used as a tool (or a weapon) for manipulating culture and society. I’m particularly interested in the civil war left’s biased presentation of history designed to attack and evilize the South and Southerners, past and present.
What Brooks “points out” about me is not reliable.
You still haven’t identified any backpedaling I’ve done. Just a paragraph, heck, just copy and paste one SENTENCE of backpedaling. If you don’t, I will have to assume you can’t.
Casual to fairly lively encompasses a long continuum. It seems to me that someone with a “fairly lively” interest in history would be interested in knowing about history books and in viewing videos that discuss history, don’t you think?
Depends. I’m not interested books and video that use history as a tool (or a weapon) for manipulating culture and society and that attack and evilize the South and Southerners,
Given your views, I suspect that’s the kind of books and videos you like and recommend.
You wouldn’t know if you don’t read the review telling what the book is about, or if you don’t watch the video. And given my views, one would suspect that’s not the kind of books and videos I would like and recommend.
Al, I’ve know about your bias re:the war since CRR days.
Pointing out Simpson’s rather juvenile tattling (to a leader of an organization he’s presumably not even a member of) and pointing out reasons why it’s possible that the group is fake isn’t backpedaling.
Connie, you’ve been wrong about me since CRR days.
I’m sure you can see how people can reasonably make that interpretation.
[…] Chastain, throwing a tantrum about Twitter while engaging in the usual lying. You can see that over at Al Mackey’s blog. Al makes the insightful point that the United States Congress recognizes Confederate veterans as […]
Let’s see. Connie makes statement with no factual basis in reality, insists it is true, denies reality, calls historians leftists for not believing a bunch of lost cause [edit], complains that she doesn’t backpedal when it is obvious she does. Rinse, repeat, rinse and repeat.
People point out her ignorance. She denies it and claims she is right. Rinse and repeat endlessly.
Meanwhile, we teach and she whines.
Another day of Connie complaining, yada, yada, yada.
I think we’re approaching the limit of the law of depreciating returns on this. Connie’s asked for a specific example of backpedaling from her, and to be fair I for one haven’t seen it here. Brooks showed where Connie at one point tweeted that he was going to “tattle” on the group and later at least implied the group was a fake. If there’s another instance I’m sure Connie would be happy to address it.
Revisiting this, Al. I can’t find where the US Code defines “American veteran” at all. A cursory search of Title 38 brings up the terms “native American veterans” and “disabled American veterans” a few times, but no “American veterans.”
The purpose of the Department of Veterans affairs “…is to administer the laws providing benefits and other services to veterans and the dependents and the beneficiaries of veterans.” The point of defining veterans is to determine who is eligible for said benefits.
The language (1) defining veterans AND (2) designating/defining CSA veterans as veterans appears almost identical:
===38 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions includes this:
For the purposes of this title—
(2) The term “veteran” means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
And…
===Public Law 85-425 Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1957 includes this:
“(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.”
What those two passages define is the term “veteran,” not “American veteran” and not “Civil War veteran.” And the term “veteran,” as of 1957 includes Confederate veterans.
A on-site search of the US Code at Cornell University’s Law School’s Legal Information Institute appears to indicate that the term “American veteran” does not occur in Title 38, VETERANS’ BENEFITS.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/American%20veterans?f%5B0%5D=bundle%3Ausc_node
Thus, it seems to be a generic or popular designation — and by virtue of the nearly identical definitions above, if “American veteran” can be applied to U.S. vets, it can be applied to Confederate vets with the same accuracy.
Connie! What a pleasant surprise. How are things with you? How are the knees doing? I hope the cold weather isn’t negatively affecting them.
“I can’t find where the US Code defines “American veteran” at all.” Really?
38 US Code 101 (2): “The term ‘veteran’ means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.”
What does “active military, naval, or air service” mean?
(24) The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes—
(A) active duty;
(B) any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; and
(C) any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died—
(i) from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; or
(ii) from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident occurring during such training.
What does “active duty” mean?
(21) The term “active duty” means—
(A) full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training;
(B) full-time duty (other than for training purposes) as a commissioned officer of the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service
(i) on or after July 29, 1945, or
(ii) before that date under circumstances affording entitlement to “full military benefits” or
(iii) at any time, for the purposes of chapter 13 of this title;
(C) full-time duty as a commissioned officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its predecessor organization the Coast and Geodetic Survey
(i) on or after July 29, 1945, or
(ii) before that date
(I) while on transfer to one of the Armed Forces, or
(II) while, in time of war or national emergency declared by the President, assigned to duty on a project for one of the Armed Forces in an area determined by the Secretary of Defense to be of immediate military hazard, or
(III) in the Philippine Islands on December 7, 1941, and continuously in such islands thereafter, or
(iii) at any time, for the purposes of chapter 13 of this title;
(D) service as a cadet at the United States Military, Air Force, or Coast Guard Academy, or as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy; and
(E) authorized travel to or from such duty or service.
What does “Armed Forces” mean?
(10): “The term ‘Armed Forces’ means the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, including the reserve components thereof.”
So very clearly, by US Law, a veteran is a veteran of “the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.”
As I clearly showed in the post, what Public Law 85-425 does is include confederate veterans as “Civil War veterans” to allow their widows and children to receive pensions.
Would you say veterans of the Wehrmacht are American veterans? How about men who fought for Santa Anna during the Mexican War? Are they American veterans? No for both, and no for confederate veterans.
Always a pleasure, Connie. Stop by anytime.
Yes, really. 38 US Code 101 (2 defines the “The term ‘veteran’ — not American veteran. The word AMERICAN appears no-flippin’-where in the definition.
Read my comment again, Al. I didn’t say “veteran.” I said AMERICAN veteran.
I quite plainly said it defines VETERAN. But not AMERICAN veteran. The definition does not use that term, “AMERICAN veteran.”
Can’t you READ man?
Connie, what type of veteran do you believe the US code would define? Is it a Spanish veteran? Is it an Australian veteran? Is it a Brazilian veteran?
AL,it doesn’t matter what I believe, or what YOU believe, the US code “would” define. What matters is what it DOES define. And what it defines is “veteran”. And the definition does not include the word AMERICAN. And that word, VETERAN, is the same one that legally defines Confederate veterans. “American” is not a part of the legal definition, it is a popular or cultural term, so if somebody wants to call US vets or CSA vets “American vets” not a thing in the law prohibits that.
Apparently, Connie, y our confusion comes from not understanding what the term “American” means. Note the primary definition of the word:
A·mer·i·can əˈmerəkən/ adjective
1. of, relating to, or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants.
“the election of a new American president”
When someone says a platform was festooned with American flags, the image you think of is not the national flag of Peru, but rather the Stars and Stripes. By “American,” we mean “of the United States.” The US Code doesn’t need to specify “American veteran” because it’s making rules about American veterans.
I went through the information here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/101 Nothing suggests a confederate is a veteran.
Interestingly, when I pose the question on the Internet the engine turns up all kinds of websites claiming them to be US Veterans and every single one of the websites is a privately operated blog or website aligned with confederate treason. Not a single one is an official government site.
Also, it is kind of a silly discussion because every last one of the traitors is dead.
True, Jimmy, though that doesn’t stop the confederate apologist folks from making false claims.
Also, Connie, apparently you don’t realize it but if indeed it doesn’t talk about American veterans as you claim, then by your own post the confederate apologists who spout this bilge are lying when they claim Congress made confederate veterans American veterans.
Correct Mr. Dick. Where confederates are defined (not “suggested”) as veterans is Public Law 85-425 Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1957. Did you not see that in my earlier comment? In case you missed it, it sez:
“(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.” (BTW, they weren’t traitors. Their actions don’t meet the definition in treason in either the Constitution or the US Code.)
Al, Congress didn’t make any veterans “American veterans.” That’s my point. It made them “veterans.” YOU are the one adding “American” to it, but that’s not in the US Code definition. And since Congress gave Confederate vets the same definition — veteran — and if “veteran” means “American veteran,” then that term applies to them both, and includes Confederate veterans.
And Al, you’re spouting bilge when you say the claims of heritge folks are false. They’re no more false than your claims that the stuff you posted timestamped March 2, 2015 – 6:11 pm proves Congress defined “American veterans.” It did not. It defined “veteran” which applies mostly to Americans who are veterans, or others who fought in the USA’s wars — but also to Confederates who were veterans, as of 1957.
Connie, “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.
She so perfectly illustrates the point about saying things mean something they do not. Why am I not surprised? She and the other Neo-Know Nothings say the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery. I think it is pathological on their part.
Mr. Dick, I challenge you to find where I have ever, ever, ever said “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. I’ll tell you right now, you won’t find it, because I’ve never said it, ever. EV-VER. Which makes YOU the liar. Why? Why did you tell this lie? Either prove where i have said it, or apologize to me. And it doesn’t count if somebody else said it, because you said *I* say that. I await the apology, though I suspect [edit] will freeze over first, because truth doesn’t mean a lot to critics of Confederate heritage folks. [edit]
Glad to see Connie hasn’t changed her game up one bit. Still arguing semantics and focusing on minutia dribble. See Jim, Connie will stand by her word that she never said the war was about “anything but slavery.” In reality, she usually admits to slavery as being a cause but of no more importance than taxes, politics, etc. That’s how she hides from arguments; by punting.
Oh, so you are ready to announce that the Civil War was caused by slavery? You’re ready to admit that the slave states seceded in order to preserve slavery? Say it clearly and I will be more than happy to apologize. I will be extremely pleased to announce to the world that I would be apologizing to Connie Chastain because she has stated for the record that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the men who fought for the Confederacy fought for the right to own human beings, and the men at the secession conventions chose to secede over slavery.
You say that and you will have your apology.
Mr. Dick, you said I SAID , “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery”. The burden of proof is on you.
If you can’t produce a link, a copy-paste, anything, where I have said, “the secession conventions were about anything but slavery and the Civil War was caused by anything but slavery,” then you owe me an apology.
But like I said, he– I mean Hades will freeze over first. (Almost forgot Al’s delicate ears….)
“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.”
Who has said they were American soldiers? Can’t you Confederacy-haters learn not to put false words in people’s mouths? American soldiers came to the Southern states TO KILL SOUTHERNERS. Confederate soldiers defended against that. Some enemies of America become enemies of America after America sends her soldiers to kill them…
Oh, and why did you edit out “[edit]” from MY comment and not from Jimmy Dick’s?
The confederate apologist liars who claim they are American veterans are claiming they were American soldiers, otherwise they wouldn’t be American veterans. I’m glad to see you agree with me that they weren’t American soldiers. That also means they weren’t American veterans.
I didn’t edit it out of Jimmy’s comment because he was referring to an entire group of people, whereas you directed the phrase at him. I don’t claim to be perfect in moderating comments, but I do have what I believe to be a fair reason.
I think the key here, as it most always is, is context. Congress seems to have approved of legislation classifying Confederate soldiers as veterans primarily for pensions. Whether or not they intended for Confederates to be celebrated alongside American veterans is an issue that would require in-depth research. Research that might yield succulent fruit given the racial environment of the 1950s and 60s. However, to call them veterans or American veterans and to hold them in the same regards as American soldiers is simply misdirected and dishonest. They are veterans via Congressional act, but they are “other.”
Exactly, Rob. The intent was solely to give out some government handouts to women and children in the south. They were declared veterans of the Civil War, not American veterans.
Ya, she doesn’t care about the crux of any argument. She wants to nitpick argumentative points in order to discredit the entirety of the argument. It’s a laughable approach for anyone with half a brain. The truth is, Connie [edit] knows exactly what she is doing. She[edit] wants to argue. [edit].
“The confederate apologist liars who claim they are American veterans are claiming they were American soldiers, otherwise they wouldn’t be American veterans.”
No, they’re. That’s your interpretation, just like you saying, “Connie, what type of veteran do you believe the US code would define.” You are saying what YOU BELIEVE they are saying, it is your spin you’re putting on it. I’ve never seen any heritage folks claim Confederates were American soliders (many find the notion repugnant, since Confederates were defending their homes and communities, while American soldiers were the aggressors). Don’t extrapolate, Al. It isn’t becoming.
The American veterans claim comes from the fact that the US Congress defined Confederate vets as “veterans” — the same term used to define American vets. Why are you so willing to lacerate your common sense just to get a dig at heritage folks?
Apparently the concept is beyond you, Connie. I don’t think you’ll ever get it no matter how many times I explain it. It is what it is, I suppose. Suffice to say you have it all wrong. They are indeed claiming confederates were American soldiers. I am happy to see that you agree with me, though, that they weren’t. Therefore, they also weren’t American veterans.
Al, Mr. Dick’s, “I think it is pathological on their part,” included a direct reference to ME. “She and the other Neo-Know Nothings…” he said.
Your sense of fairness is abysmally twisted and distorted by your ideology and your animosity for heritage folks. The excuse for letting Mr. Dick’s comment through and censoring mine is lame, illogical and subservient to your animosity for heritage folks.
Well, Connie, I never claimed to be perfect. I just muddle along as best I can. To me there is a difference between the two comments, and enough of a difference to let one through and not the other one. Your mileage may vary.
[There is a] historical reference in the phrase “Neo-Know-Nothings,” so [it is not] just a playground insult.
I thought long and hard about this. I think we need to point out the historical reference, but I also think we don’t need to pile on anymore, so I took the liberty of altering your comment a little bit.
As expected and anticipated Connie Chastain is not going to make the statement that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. She wants proof. Well, open your eyes and mind and start learning. Read the primary sources such as the Secession documents. Read Charles Dew, James McPherson, Eric Foner, etc.
Connie, you said you wanted an apology. You will never get one because you can’t admit the truth. The evidence is overwhelming that the secession conventions were over slavery and that slavery started the Civil War. You reject the facts in favor of fiction [edit].
You get no apology.
“I will be extremely pleased to announce to the world that I would be apologizing to Connie Chastain because she has stated for the record that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that the men who fought for the Confederacy fought for the right to own human beings, and the men at the secession conventions chose to secede over slavery.”
When Connie Chastain makes that statement she will no longer be [avoiding the truth]. Until then she is.
Do not bother to post anything unless you make that exact statement, Connie. I will accept and apologize for nothing but you stating that statement as fact. I will not be holding my breath.
Mr. Dick, you claimed I said something I’ve never said. You lied about me. These other demands you are making are irrelevant to the fact that you lied about me.
I’ve given you the last word on this, Connie. I think we’ve gone as far as we need to go on that line. We don’t need to go back and forth on this anymore.
[…] The local SCV and Hammond consider themselves heritage advocates. As expected, they trot out the same tired arguments heard time and time again. Hammond claims people who attack the flag and/or Confederate monuments simply want to “do away with the Confederate…He [Confederate soldier] was an American soldier just like everybody else.” Of course, this is a statement Al Mackey might disagree with. […]