"Why Confederate soldiers are not considered 'US veterans'" Topic

"The question over whether or not Confederate soldiers were U.S. veterans is largely a symbolic one today. Only one Civil War pension is still being paid (that pensioner was a veteran of both sides of the conflict), and by the time Confederates received real benefits, they were all dead by the following year. No specific legislation exists that identifies Confederate veterans as having equal status to all other American veterans.

However, provisions exist that could add up to that protected status. Under the law, that is.

President Lincoln considered Confederate citizens and soldiers "Americans in rebellion," and not citizen of a foreign country. His view dominated in the days following the end of the war. Lincoln even began the Reconstruction process early with the 1863 Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, which pardoned the average Joe Confederate troop still fighting for the South…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

But one can still obtain a Veterans Affairs provided grave marker for Confederate veterans.

link

Jim

The simple answer--they fought against the United States.

Legionarius hits it out of the ball park! They weren't in the US army, why should they be considered US veterans?

Imho….If it was a civil war… both sides belongs to the same country… not as the South was an ocupied country…

Amicalement
Armand

oooo. I guess that opens up a fundamental question. A civil war is when two sides are fighting to take/keep the same country. This was one side trying to form a separate country and the other side saying "nope".

So should we change the name of the American Civil War to something more…descriptive? My vote is for Big Bloody Battles Between Banded Brothers and Succeeding States. The BBBBBSS.

It was "The War of the Rebellion". Losers don't get to claim benefits.

Yeah, but TWR is already taken (The War of the Roses).

Congress passed a bill decades ago giving Confederate veterans the same rights as Union veterans. I think it has been posted on TMP. It certainly has on Facebook.

Legionarius---Some times simple is not entirely accurate. Quite a few who fought on the Southern side were US veterans already. And almost all Confederate veterans were pardoned by 1868 (although this did not grant veteran status).

And, Rudy, your assertion is not entirely accurate either. No such law was passed, although a law was passed that did give Confederates buried the right to a grave marker.

In French it's "la guerre de sécession", which translates as " The war of secession ".

In various threads on this forum I've argued that CSA soldiers were fighting for their country and that country was not the U.S.A. The CSA soldiers who survived the conflict were war veterans but NOT U.S war veterans.
I doubt that the majority who fought for the CSA considered themselves US veterans and suspect that many would have been offended by such an assertion.

As for the name of the conflict, I've always liked the 'War of Northern Aggression'. However, I consider that 'American Civil War' is the most appropriate given who won and that the CSA states [eventually] rejoined as states of the USA. I've always considered it odd that those states had to be readmitted and also contradictory given the overall argument proposed by the USA that the CSA states were still states of the union and thus 'states (not a State) in rebellion'. [Had the CSA won then 'American Civil War' would not have been an accurate name. Maybe 'Second American Revolution' or 'American War of Liberation' in that hypothetical instance.]

Treason doesn't get you a prize. The actual guys were just happy they didn't get a noose on their neck. All nonsense based over a nice gesture a hundred years later because former rebel graves were falling apart and making Federal cemeteries look pathetic. Then, picked up by the klan reaching for straws of legitimacy. Frankly, this whole idea is an insult to any real US veterans.

I wondered when "treason" and "traitor" would be brought up (yawn).

Traitor and treason can have both narrow and broad use.
Napoleon was a traitor to the French Royal family from which he gained his commission.
American Revolution of course all the Patriot Leaders were traitors to the British Crown. At the same time American Loyalist leaders were regarded as traitors to the Colony or State to which they owned property. The claims between Loyalist and Patriots continued up until the War of 1812.in WW2 the term as were frequent during the discussion of almost every country.

"Why Confederate soldiers are not considered 'US veterans"

Um, because they are all like, ‘dead'. I don't think those who fought for the Union really had much in VA benefits either.

Winners make the rules.

I do find it interesting how the "First Revolution" was/is praised, but those attempting to do exactly the same less than 100 years later get so derided.

During the 1800s people were most loyal to their home states, and allegiance to the nation as a whole was secondary.

I understand history, and all the various points of view on the subject, but the above is interesting nonetheless.

As above, surely the answer to the question of the topic title is simply…they lost the war. Victors' justice has always applied.