"Army Recovering Most Confederate Streamers" Topic

Army National Guard units with a Civil War-era lineage were ordered to relinquish any Confederate battle streamers from their guidons, and the Army said it had recovered most of them, which are set to be preserved…

Military: link

Let the purge go on. On to Cemeteries and Battlefields next.

and history books, down the Memory Hole.

They are all dead now, so their enemies can do as they please.

Good

I heard that a number of Southern National Guard units have just refused to turn the in.

Has anyone thought to ask the states where these affected units where they stand on Confederate battle honors?

Yup, can't wait until we change the name of our country since, you know, we are hardly "united" these days, and can't forget "America", named after that ne'er do well scallywag Amerigo Vespucci. That suit you fine as well, Fitzovich?

Pleased to see that 29th Division, made up of units from both North and South, was allowed to keep its yin/yang blue and gray patch!

Grelber

"Doin' right ain't got no end,"

Captain Terrill (patron saint of all those who are in favor of all the name changes, monument removals, ribbon removals, defacing and rewriting of history).

Sooner or later they'll try to rename the country to the "Diverse States of Minorities" or "Trans America". They already have a Trans America building in SF.

Wolfhag

Pathetic decisions by pathetic persons in leadership positions.

From the Naming Commission's Final Report:

CAMPAIGN STREAMERS
Since 1925, the U.S. Army has recognized the Confederate
service of certain Army National Guard units to establish
a historical connection between pre-Civil War organized
militia units and the 20th-century Army National Guard.
Current U.S. Army policy authorizes units to display
campaign streamers for Federal service in a named cam-
paign.

Since 1949, some units have been authorized to
display unique campaign streamers to denote their service
in the Confederacy during the Civil War. These Confeder-
ate campaign streamers are authorized for display as an
exception to the Army policy of requiring Federal service.

The campaign streamers for Confederate service differ
from those for Federal service in the design and color scheme:

Civil War streamers for Federal Service are two
equally-sized horizontal stripes of blue over gray.

Civil War streamers for Confederate service (that is,
fighting against the United States) are similar, except
the color pattern is reversed to gray over blue.

In addition, alternative Confederate inscriptions of First
Manassas, Second Manassas, and Sharpsburg are authorized
for the battles of Bull Run, Manassas, and Antietam.

There are 52 Army National Guard units that display
the distinctive Confederate campaign streamers to denote
Confederate service. There are no units with Confederate
service in the regular Army or the U.S. Army Reserve.
Recommendation

The Commission recommends the Secretary of Defense direct
the Secretary of the Army to REVOKE the 1949 exception to
policy that facilitated the adoption of battle streamers NOT
associated with U.S. Army service. As such, all battle stream-
ers that commemorate the Confederacy should be removed.

This was a relatively recent privilege and has little to do with longstanding tradition or history. It was a bad idea to allow these units streamers which placed Confederate colors on top and use Confederate nomenclature. It is not erasing US history to require those units engaged at those battles to use USA nomenclature.

So was that famous pulling down of Saddam Hussein's statue by US soldiers "rewriting" history?

Actually Silurian, yes. The Iraqis should have been given that right.

And one day we may loose our right to game whatever army, period or battle in history we chose because it is offensive….think about that for all of you who are members here…wonder how many are trolls…???

It was relatively recent privilege that happened before Alaska and Hawaii were state and before anyone on active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard were in the Army, but it's recent, you know 70+ years ago.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

What with all this scrummage about North/South, etc,.
it appears that there will be NO looking into what in
heck is wrong with the (non)leadership of TODAY'S
ARMY, NAVY and so on.

Service to the country used to be an activity of which
one could be proud.

Sadly it seems we are mired back in the post-VietNam
days.

"Army National Guard units with a Civil War-era lineage were ordered to relinquish any Confederate battle streamers from their guidons, and the Army said it had recovered most of them, which are set to be preserved. However, all units may retain their rainbow streamers…"

/s

Ed, I respectfully disagree a bit. I travel a lot and see people thanking those traveling in uniform for their service all the time, have noticed this for years. I do it, and I never hear anyone anywhere dissing servicemen.

Streamers should represent service to the United States of America. Simple.

National Guard units serve both their nation and their state. A Confederate battle streamer commemorates service to their state. It is part of their heritage and lineage as a unit and should be remembered.

As an American I can be proud of the Sioux Warriors who fought Custer and proud of the men with Custer who fought against them as they are part of our common heritage as Americans.

One side own and one side lost but today we can celebrate the bravery of both because the descendants of both are united together in one nation. As kids we played cowboys and Indians and we place both sides of the Civil War and celebrated both the peace we enjoyed and the unity we share as Americans with a common but sometimes troubled history. And we could be proud of both sides.

This destruction of history harms us all.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Agreed and I do see your point, Mike. But we also know now that in the era of our childhood an awful lot of history had been swept under the rug. Slavery, massacres, etc. got little mention in the narratives we followed. Only some of us got to be proud, some did not hear their stories being told.

In my opinion, it has been a good thing that we have brought to light both bad and good in recent years. My resentment is more about the coverups of history than the actual events, which none of us today are responsible for. The coverups are understandable sometimes, but that does not make them truthful history. We are a remarkable nation, can be even more so by coming to terms with our faults as we celebrate our achievements. Proud of our commitment to the words of the Declaration.

Sorry Tort, I call BS. I was born in 1953 in a small Wisconsin town, and by kindergarten/1st grade--thanks in large part to TV (You Are There, The 20th Century and even The Three Stooges, FFS!), family, and the Nuns who taught catechism EVERY SATURDAY MORNING from Kindergarten to 6th grade, lol--I was well aware of the Civil War, who was North and who was South, that slavery was bad, and that it was good the South lost the war. Oh, and also that Natives were pushed off/killed off "their" lands [which tribe killed off or otherwise drove off by warfare which other tribe was not [and is STILL rarely, if ever) mentioned in the "Natives were massacred unrelentingly narrative"] by Whites and, gasp(!) Blacks.

My friends knew the same. When the Centennial of the war rolled around, I was in 3rd grade and we used to buy blue or grey kepis at the Dime Store and fought sham battles at recess with our toy guns, brought to school for that purpose, btw. And by the time I started having my own family in 1973, all of those issues were front and center in the news of course, but also all over our culture. So unless you are much, much older than me, you grew up with all this information and more already being promoted in every aspect of the media. So, no, I don't buy the "Slavery, massacres, etc. got little mention in the narratives we followed" narrative that you and many others in our society espouse.

Well, I am two years older than you and I am not talking about learning who won the war. I grew up in Pittsburgh. I went to catechism every week, and do not remember much except for memorizing stuff. Certainly no social justice commentary.

I don't remember much about media either, which we called "tv". We wore Davy Crockett hats, had cap guns. The Alamo was big. Did not think much about other races, we were still de facto segregated. We did not see them much on tv. I did not think about why we were pretending to shoot at Indians. It was play, we were kids. Disney was the History Channel for kids. I don't think they did Harriet Tubman.

I don't remember anything about Wounded Knee or Tulsa being mentioned at all in the 50s or even much of the 60s. In fact, I knew nothing about the race massacres of the 1920s until a dozen years ago.

From the 50's until college, my favorite general was Robert E Lee and his men were my heroes. They were the dashing heroes and colorful personalities. The troops had the rebel yell. The war was fought over states rights and slavery, but we never thought about that. It was brother against brother, poignant. Nobody wanted to be the drab, incompetent Union soldiers. All very Lost Cause narrative.

Thanks to writers like Ron Chernow, we know now that Grant was not a drunk or a butcher. Thanks to many writers, we know about the brutal Indian wars- that they waged against each other, as well as outsiders. I don't judge any of it, it's good to learn more. This is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Well said, Tortorella.

It was relatively recent privilege that happened before Alaska and Hawaii were state and before anyone on active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard were in the Army, but it's recent, you know 70+ years ago.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

You're missing the point. This was a 1925 ( 1925 was the apex of the KKK and Confederate mania) request which was granted as an exception to the Congressional mandate that campaign streamers only went to units that could show being present along the federal lineage. Apparently, the request sat around until 1949 when someone in the DOD finally did Confederate sympathizers a solid. None of this was presented to or vetted by Congress. The privilege should probably never been granted and all the Army did was correct the anomaly.

Someone likes to quote movies, well here's one from Office Space; "We fixed the glitch, so it'll just work itself out naturally."

National Guard units serve both their nation and their state. A Confederate battle streamer commemorates service to their state. It is part of their heritage and lineage as a unit and should be remembered.

That's not an argument for letting the unit keep its Confederate streamers but rather for disbanding the unit completely. I would've preferred that along the lines of a "rotten to the core" doctrine but the Naming Commission didn't go that far.

As an American I can be proud of the Sioux Warriors who fought Custer and proud of the men with Custer who fought against them as they are part of our common heritage as Americans.

And you can still be proud of traitors rebelling against the USA. However, in the American military, they cant have Confederate streamers because 90% of the rest of us don't want to foot the bill for that pride.

One side own and one side lost but today we can celebrate the bravery of both because the descendants of both are united together in one nation. As kids we played cowboys and Indians and we place both sides of the Civil War and celebrated both the peace we enjoyed and the unity we share as Americans with a common but sometimes troubled history. And we could be proud of both sides.

You can still do all of this too but, again, the country doesn't have to officially celebrate or subsidize it. You seem to be under the impression that the social mistakes of the past are reasons to not ever correct them and that any such corrections are part and proof of some national moral decay. I see this as the exact opposite; we finally have the strength of character our forbears during the Jim Crow era lacked.

This destruction of history harms us all.

That would only be true if you couldn't acknowledge the unit's Confederate service however as one guy likes to repeat, that info is still available in books on Amazon.

Symbols matter and when displayed, authorized and permitted (Especially by the most influential organizations on our lives) they give the impression of positive support and legitimacy. Symbols as lethal to the USA as those of CSA can never be allowed to be on equal footing or celebrated as either wholesome or acceptable in any government/public space.

I love to read about the war, wargame it and talk about it among historical enthusiasts without judgment but when it comes to actual social influence, treating the CSA as anything but anti-American and allowing it to thrive in any official part of our lives cant be tolerated.

The privilege should probably never been granted and all the Army did was correct the anomaly.

Amen!

Their "state" service also happened to have been while fighting AGAINST the U.S. Army!

If were remembering history, why not have the Union Jack denoting the history of loyalist units in the American Revolution or a unit commemorating Benedict Arnold? Well, NO they were/are all considered traitors in the eyes of America. As the southern units that fought against the U.S. should be. By all rights the southern generals should have been hung as traitors by taking up arms against the United States.

I have no problem with regarding Benedict Arnold as a heinous traitor, first to King George III and secondly to the Patriot cause.

But I think you can hardly call Loyalist soldiers 'traitors' as they were remaining loyal to the Crown in the face of an armed rebellion before it was subsequently legitimised by victory and the recognition of the USA as an independent country by Great Britain. That would be equivalent to regarding those who fought for King Charles I in the British Civil Wars as 'traitors' to a republic that did not exist until after the execution of the king.

National Guard units serve both their nation and their state. A Confederate battle streamer commemorates service to their state. It is part of their heritage and lineage as a unit and should be remembered.

As an American I can be proud of the Sioux Warriors who fought Custer and proud of the men with Custer who fought against them as they are part of our common heritage as Americans.

One side own and one side lost but today we can celebrate the bravery of both because the descendants of both are united together in one nation. As kids we played cowboys and Indians and we place both sides of the Civil War and celebrated both the peace we enjoyed and the unity we share as Americans with a common but sometimes troubled history. And we could be proud of both sides.

This destruction of history harms us all.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Well said, Mike.

I have no problem with regarding Benedict Arnold as a heinous traitor, first to King George III and secondly to the Patriot cause.

The British eventually forgave him though. Is there a Benedict Arnold military decoration in the UK?

But I think you can hardly call Loyalist soldiers 'traitors' as they were remaining loyal to the Crown in the face of an armed rebellion before it was subsequently legitimised by victory and the recognition of the USA as an independent country by Great Britain. That would be equivalent to regarding those who fought for King Charles I in the British Civil Wars as 'traitors' to a republic that did not exist until after the execution of the king.

Didn't the Crown consider the Patriots traitors even after the peace was signed and long afterwards? I'm sure they never quite forgave George Washington. You must agree that traitor is a shifting viewpoint depending on what pair of shoes you are standing in.

Your analogy is faulty in several aspects, three of which are that:

There was a religious change in the English Monarchy from Catholic to Protestant that made the Roundheads more acceptable and thus allowed military honors from more contentious times to remain more celebrated. Additionally, military honors were still allowed or not allowed by the crown which means that the ultimate authority must've vetted and allowed those military honors. Unless you are suggesting that UK military traditions and honors often exist without the knowledge or approval of either King or Parliament?

Second, the concept of nation wasnt as strong in 1642 as it was in 1688 as it was in 1776 and then in 1860; in each era nationalism both changed and became progressively stronger and so did the concept of what it meant to be a traitor.

Last, if you believe that extrinsically recognizing a nation is when traitors get to be or not be determined by that nation, then by your own reasoning, the Confederacy, having never been recognized as a nation, must be considered traitors to the only legitimately extant nation in the conflict, the USA.

Actually old Benedict has quite a few plaques and a monument in the US. There are probably more, but I took the 4 easiest to find.

"Reading the Monument

The monument does not mention Arnold by name, but there are a few intricate details which often go unnoticed by passersby.

A boot and a two-star epaulet are draped over a howitzer barrel to symbolize an individual with the rank of Major General who suffered a wound during a battle in this location. A Laurel leaf wreath sits atop the howitzer, an emblem which often resonates victory, power, and glory.

The reverse of the monument is inscribed with the following quote:

"In memory of the most brilliant soldier of the Continental Army who was desperately wounded on this spot, the sally port of Burgoyne's great [western] redoubt 7th October 1777 winning for his countrymen the decisive battle of the American Revolution and for himself the rank of Major General.""

Subject: Boot Monument (U.S. National Park Service)


link

Subject: Live In History at the Benedict Arnold House, Kinderhook – Upstater


link

Subject: Facilities • Norwich, CT • CivicEngage


link

Subject: Benedict Arnold House — Google Local


link

And in London

"At the end of the war, Arnold left North America and established a residence in London. Today, the man many believe to personify treason is honored as an "American Patriot" at his former residence in London. The home where he lived until his death in 1801 now includes a commemorative plaque that states, "MAJOR GENERAL BENEDICT ARNOLD AMERICAN PATRIOT RESIDED HERE FROM 1796 UNTIL HIS DEATH JUNE 14, 1801.""