midnight rain

Well, I guess the best I can provide is a comparison. Would you find it okay if an adult today was hanging this flag over his house:



because his grandfather fought bravely in WWII and he wanted to honor his legacy? I think the American Civil War is very unique in that the Confederacy (the losing side) is celebrated almost as much as the Union. Just take a trip down south and you'll see all the monuments dedicated to the bravery of the South. Not something you'd find in Germany I'd imagine.

Out of interest, what do people think of John Brown, a domestic terrorist or a hero?

Engine

I think that's an unfair comparison because you're comparing two entirely different political landscapes. To answer your question, I feel that in a perfect world, a non-bigoted German would be allowed to fly that flag in honor of his grandfather, and not be a social outcast.

Hero. I would have been an abolitionist personally.

__________________

Like an arrow,
I was only passing through.

midnight rain

Well you yourself say 'in a perfect world' which I think means that bias aside, it's not a terrible comparison. Keep in mind that not only did the Confederacy represent the belief that one race was superior to the other it also represents treason to our country. I guess you look at it as detaching the beliefs that inspired those actions from the picture, leaving just the heroic actions of the Confederacy?

If the laws had been upheld properly, Robert E. Lee and all the other generals of the CSA would have been executed for their crimes.



And I would agree with you.

Engine

I don't believe in capital punishment, I don't think the idea that the Confederacy was treasonous to the US matters much, and I know that US citizens in the free states were generally as racist as those in the slave states.

__________________

Like an arrow,
I was only passing through.

Unknown Soldier

Germany in both WWI and WWII were the aggressors and also on both occasions had the strongest military and economy for fighting a war and also initiated both conflicts. Whereas the Confederacy, was not the aggressor but more the victim and started as the firm underdog, for that reason it can treat its soldiers as heroes.

midnight rain

The victim of what exactly? Oh poor South they don't get to keep their slave labor anymore, LOL. I think you need another history lesson, chief.

They were the underdog, but plenty of wars have been won by the sides with the smaller army.

Unknown Soldier

The victim as in they were the defenders of their territory. I don't mean victim as in their cause was just or anything.

midnight rain

Ah ok I see. That's not entirely the case though, while what you say is true, the only reason it was that way was becasue they were entirely unsuccessful in their attempts to take the North's territory. See Gettysburg, for example.

Unknown Soldier

I disagree. For the Union to win, what they had to do was invade southern territory and give the rebels a beating they couldn't recover from, they did this eventually but it took them 4 years to achieve it. For the Rebels to win, all they had to do was defend their territory and wear the Union down in their own territory, for this reason the majority of the battles were fought in Virginia and Tennessee, and the Mississippi river was seen as the key to war as well (rebel territory)

The Confederacy actually came so close to achieving victory and their aims on several occasions, they had consistently whipped the Union armies especially in the Eastern Theater (Virginia etc) on several occasions, but made the mistake of then invading northern territory (Pennsylvania) the Confederacy were great at fighting a defensive campaign, but not so good at fighting an offensive one which proved their undoing.

The million dollar question is, did the Union win the war or the Confederacy lose it?