The Native Americans joined the Confederacy so does that mean we should take away their reservations?

took up arms against the union, but they had to swear allegiance to the country.

If you need a pardon to avoid a charge of treason, you should not be honored. The argument ends there.

Some were conscripted into the confederate army and for those I have some measure of sympathy. But for those who willingly became traitors for the cause of oppression, they should be forever regarded as a boil on the ass of humanity.

Everyone in Germany had to join the army, but that didn't excuse them.

If I force you to commit a crime on the threat of death or worse, that doesn't make you a criminal.

I would not fight for a cause that I abhorred, even to death. After the war, everyone can say they were forced, just like the Nazi soldiers did. It's not an excuse. join the underground, run to the other side, refuse to fight. There are many other ways to avoid treason.

You cannot take arms against your country, period.

and I resent your term of "nonsense".

that immigrated to avoid conscription.

anything to avoid fighting for something you don't believe in.

Alleging that just because someone is capable of a crime, they must be guilty is nonsense whether you like the term or not.

This wasn't the 1960's, it was the 1860's, and in an agrarian society, your life and the lives of your family often depended on the land you were standing on, which was not as simple to abandon as you claim. With virtually zero safety nets, people can and did starve or fall prey to marauders. The south also employed an extensive network of people commissioned to chase down the "disloyal", who were nothing more than criminals themselves. Many of these soldiers did eventually leave as desertion rates in the south were extremely high, but outright refusal was grounds for a firing squad, with your family left to fend for themselves at a time when that wasn't going to end well.

As always, rich men make decisions, and poor men die.

in an effort to heal the nation. Anyone who refused to swear allegiance to the United States, after taking up arms, would have been liable to be convicted of treason.

By the way, you don't need a pardon if you didn't do anything wrong.

But a lot of the arguments for keeping the stars and bars and these statues has to do with "erasing" history. I've tried to engage these people but it always comes back to "history".

Lately, I've been asking these types what "history" they are trying to preserve? Is it the "states rights" version of the Civil War I was taught back in high school? You know the one that the South fought for "states rights" when every state secession declaration claimed they were defending slavery? (If it was really "states rights", then why was federal legislation passed to force states that did not recognize slavery to return runaway slaves to their owners and punish anyone who helped fugitive slaves?) Was it the "history" that said the South had to defend itself from the invading Northern armies or the history that South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter? Was it the "history" that taught the negro slaves were happily watched over by their white overlords (Song of the South) or was it the violent slave revolt of Nat Turner? Was it the "history" that taught us of fine southern gentlemen such as Robert E Lee or was it the same Robert E Lee that viscously beat his run away slaves and gave tacit approval to his army siezing any african american his army ran across during his Pennsylvania Campaign to be sent back to Richmond and resold as slaves? Was it the (joyful) last meeting of the Gettysburg veterans in the 1930s or was it the Union veterans who didn't let a single Confederate monument be erected on their hallowed battlefield when they decided to preserve it for themselves and their fallen comrades; if you go to Gettysburg you can see nearly all the Confederate monuments were erected after the US Government took over maintenance of the field and after nearly every Civil War veteran had passed. I could go on but IMO we are fighting to change "history" and return it to its proper narrative.

With the exception of Jefferson Davis no one was charged with treason. Davis was never brought to trial because prosecutors did not think they could convict him. (he argued he could not have committed treason against the U.S. because when Mississippi succeeded he was no longer a U.S. citizen and therefore could not commit treason. Legal experts at the time thought that argument would be successful in court). Charges were formally dropped when President Johnson issued pardons to anyone involved in the Civil War.

Accepting the pardon is an admission of guilt.

It was a mass pardon for anyone and everyone. The pardon was issued so that normal civil liberties could be restored. Other than Davis no one was charged with anything. It was similar to the pardons Ford and Carter gave to those who fled the country to avoid Vietnam.

but here's the facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates

Nothing I posted is at odds with the Wiki entry.

In a final proclamation on December 25, 1868, Johnson declared "unconditionally, and without reservation, ... a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ..."

As I said it was a general pardon which was not required to be accepted. Exactly the same as the Vietnam War pardons which you ignored.

If anyone took up arms in behalf of the confederacy, that is, by definition, TREASON.

My point is that there should be no monument in the United States erected to anyone who committed TREASON. WHAT PART OF TREASON DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

How and under what circumstances the individuals were pardoned is irrelevant and beside the point.

Not a slogan. It is specified in the Constitution. Who was convicted of treason in the Civil War?

Taking up arms, which is Lee on horseback, is Treason. period. End of story.

Why are you falling back on RW talking points on something so obvious?

This is my last reply to you.

If I wanted to encounter this BS, I'd watch Fox News.

History is the same whether monuments are there or not. This is about racism and running slavery in the faces of those whose ancestors were enslaved. Simple as that.

They claim it's about preserving history, but if their hearts and minds were open and reflective, they would have absorbed and learned from the outcome and from the suffering that existed in the country during the Civil War.

It is neurotic to want to keep fighting a battle that will settled 140 years ago.

A healthy society achieves peace and consensus among its warring factions through processses of education or reconciliation. These racists have kept their hate and close minds preserved brought the generations, unwilling to learn from the very history they claim to be defending.