CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Confederates were traitors to the United States.

---

Bull***t

---

Quote:

---

Nonsense. States will secede if it is necessary.

Confederate soldiers were not "traitors". GTFO with bs talk.

---

These responses seem to be coming from the same place and I'm curious about it.

I suspect being taught that confederates were fighting to retain rights against an unjust federal over reach. I also think it's from the overall portrait of southern officers as the noble hero in a classic tragedy play. Acting out their role of supporting their states out of loyalty while being conflicted about fighting against their own country.

How far off am I?

180

Dark_Knight said:

---

Nonsense. States will secede if it is necessary.
Confederate soldiers were not "traitors". GTFO with bs talk.

---

Sure they were. Secession is treason. Whether it's "necessary" by your definition (and protecting the right to own other humans is an interesting justification for treason), it's still treason.

I dunno. I'm against all the name changing and stuff, but I don't see how you can say that confederates didn't betray their country. Unless you want to argue that being born in a country doesn't mean it's "your" country. Or that some confederates were born in states/territories that weren't originally part of the US, therefore the US wasn't their country. But I think it's a stretch to say they didn't betray the country in which they resided, and under which the laws they previously abided by.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

180

---

Care to explain?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

Nonsense. States will secede if it is necessary.
Confederate soldiers were not "traitors". GTFO with bs talk.

---

Sure they were. Secession is treason. Whether it's "necessary" by your definition (and protecting the right to own other humans is an interesting justification for treason), it's still treason.

---

Lol...more wrong

Leaving the United States unconstitutionally, firing on US troops and seizing US property, then killing US troops isn't treason? What exactly is treason, then?

I think you need to do more research into what you are talking about. For someone claiming I'm presenting a certain kind of kool aid, and I'm not, you are going against the broad acceptance of historians and experts on this time frame.

Hood was at best an average division commander who lost every battle he personally lead after that. Bruce Catton wrote that "the decision to replace Johnston with Hood was probably the single largest mistake that either government made during the war." He was from Kentucky and left and came to Texas and join the confederate army because he wanted to fight for keeping slaves as property. He repeatedly pushed his Texas brigades into slaughter after slaughter so much so that soon there were very few Texan's left in his so names units. After the war he didn't even come back to Texas but rather went to Louisiana to work in cotton sales. There is nothing Texas about him other than Texas was willing to give him a commission in the confederate army.

The naming of the fort after him was a whole other level of federal bs that should make you even more made than renaming the fort after an actual Texan who did something you can be proud of. The fort would never have been named after him if it hadn't been for the federal government appeasing a group of lost cause believers so that they could annex land from 300 families and bulldoze 3 towns in the process. Let that sink in for a minute.

He was so ****ty that after the war the veterans of the famed and elite Texas brigade decided to refer to themselves as Hoods Texas Brigade at their reunions.

Just prior to the battle of Antietam, Hood was under arrest and pending court martial. Then men of his old Brigade marched past Lee chanting "Give us Hood". "We won't go onto action without Hood". Lee consented and the brigade went into action with him.

Hood was one of the first senior officers to be accepted by the newly formed Texas brigade. He was initially the commander of the 4th Texas Infantry, and didn't suffer the same fate as other appointed leaders who were basically run off by their men. (The confederate way of naming officers was actually pretty interesting and lots of company level officers were voted in. If you became a tool bag, then they'd vote your ass out). Hood knew how to best control these men, give them a very long leash and respect the "Texas" mentality" and because of that they are fiercely loyal him and charged into glory at Gaines Mill, 2nd Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness, all the while suffering 50% casualties in every major engagements yet still returning to the next fight just as effective and motivated to continue. Other elite unites such as the Iron Brigade, Stonewall Brigade and Irish Brigade were bled out but Hoods Texas Brigade remained a potent, motivated and proud fighting force until the very end with the men giving Hood credit for their status and adopting his name as their veterans organization.

Dark_Knight said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Leaving the United States unconstitutionally, firing on US troops and seizing US property, then killing US troops isn't treason? What exactly is treason, then?

---

They weren't attempting to overthrow the US govt, that's kinda a big difference.

You can think what you want, but your wrong as confederate soldiers are not held as traitors.

If I feel that the fed govt commits further gross over reach or continues to violate the constitution, I have every right to fight back in defense of the constitution and for my state to secede. That doesn't make me a traitor.

---

That's not a "big difference." It's still treason.

Aggie13B said:

---

He was so ****ty that after the war the veterans of the famed and elite Texas brigade decided to refer to themselves as Hoods Texas Brigade at their reunions.

Just prior to the battle of Antietam, Hood was under arrest and pending court martial. Then men of his old Brigade marched past Lee chanting "Give us Hood". "We won't go onto action without Hood". Lee consented and the brigade went into action with him.

Hood was one of the first senior officers to be accepted by the newly formed Texas brigade. He was initially the commander of the 4th Texas Infantry, and didn't suffer the same fate as other appointed leaders who were basically run off by their men. (The confederate way of naming officers was actually pretty interesting and lots of company level officers were voted in. If you became a tool bag, then they'd vote your ass out). Hood knew how to best control these men, give them a very long leash and respect the "Texas" mentality" and because of that they are fiercely loyal him and charged into glory at Gaines Mill, 2nd Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness, all the while suffering 50% casualties in every major engagements yet still returning to the next fight just as effective and motivated to continue. Other elite unites such as the Iron Brigade, Stonewall Brigade and Irish Brigade were bled out but Hoods Texas Brigade remained a potent, motivated and proud fighting force until the very end with the men giving Hood credit for their status and adopting his name as their veterans organization.

---

Did you quote that from Hood's autobiography?

No. It's on my need to read list though. Mostly stuff from Harold B Simpson, "The Bloody Fifth", Stevens account of the Brigade, Polleys account and others. I'm a huge nerd of the Texas Brigade.


Point being, people crap on Hood all day, but the men of his old Brigade chose to keep his name as associated with them even though he never commanded them after mid-1862.

None of that changes the facts stated above.

CT'97 said:

---

I think you need to do more research into what you are talking about. For someone claiming I'm presenting a certain kind of kool aid, and I'm not, you are going against the broad acceptance of historians and experts on this time frame.

Hood was at best an average division commander who lost every battle he personally lead after that. Bruce Catton wrote that "the decision to replace Johnston with Hood was probably the single largest mistake that either government made during the war." He was from Kentucky and left and came to Texas and join the confederate army because he wanted to fight for keeping slaves as property. He repeatedly pushed his Texas brigades into slaughter after slaughter so much so that soon there were very few Texan's left in his so names units. After the war he didn't even come back to Texas but rather went to Louisiana to work in cotton sales. There is nothing Texas about him other than Texas was willing to give him a commission in the confederate army.

The naming of the fort after him was a whole other level of federal bs that should make you even more made than renaming the fort after an actual Texan who did something you can be proud of. The fort would never have been named after him if it hadn't been for the federal government appeasing a group of lost cause believers so that they could annex land from 300 families and bulldoze 3 towns in the process. Let that sink in for a minute.

---

Lol...secession isn't treason and neither were the confederate soldiers considered traitors. Truth hurts. I don't care what the "historians" think, the US govt said otherwise.

Quote:

---

treason [url=https://www.ahdictionary.com/application/resources/wavs/T0332700.wav][/url] (trzn)
Share: Tweet
n.
1. The betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.

---

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=treason

Here is the definition of treason, I'm not sure you know what the word means.
I'm really not understanding how turning your back on an oath to protect and serve the constitution of the United States and then executing an unprovoked attack on your former country's military doesn't qualify as treason.

I understand that after the war was over the officers and soldiers were allowed to swear allegiance to the United States and were given parole and later amnesty. That allowed them to return to the union as citizens. Jefferson Davis and his government however were not part of that amnesty and were brought up on treason charges. Due to the political climate of trying to put the country back together those charges were never brought to trail. Eventually they were dropped and an agreement was come to allow Davis to live out his life if he swore allegiance to the constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court decided in Texas V. White in 1869 that Texas had not legally left the union and thus secession was illegal. So the question of succession was decided.
Confederate soldiers were traitors to their country, even though they were allowed to swear allegiance and were given amnesty. Any discussion of them not being traitors or succession being legal is simply furthering the mistaken ideas of the 'lost cause' proponents.

All of this is a long way down a rabbit hole and takes us away from the original argument that Hood should not have been used as a name for a United States Army base in Texas. He was a bad general, wasn't from Texas, and the naming of the base after him was pure political appeasement.

Quote:

---

on your former countries military doesn't qualify as treason.

---

You meant "country's", but think again about what you wrote.

You are missing the point, in order for there to be a pardon, in order for them to be given their veteran status back they had to do something illegal in the first place to cause it to be removed. They had to do something that needed to be pardoned. What they did was treason.

Dark_Knight said:

---

I don't even care about Gen Hood nor have I advocated for him. I just don't necessarily agree with renaming forts or bases because of stupid wokeness. Where does the madness end and the micro aggressions stop?

---

So you don't want to change the name because you don't like change.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

CT'97 said:

---

You are missing the point, in order for there to be a pardon, in order for them to be given their veteran status back they had to do something illegal in the first place to cause it to be removed. They had to do something that needed to be pardoned. What they did was treason.

---

No, it was not.

They were soldiers of a sovereign country, at war with the United States.

The winner may get to write the history after, but that doesn't make it correct.

---

You are wrong, this has been decided and while you might not like it you can't just scream louder and ignore facts. The states the succeed did so illegally. That has been decided by the Supreme Court and defended by historians. They were not a sovereign nation.

Even if the succession was legal, those confederate officers left their previous nation turning their backs on their oath and took up arms against it. That is treason. Hoods state didn't even secede, he left that state and came to Texas to get a commission in the confederate army. I could buy Lee's argument that when Virginia seceded that his duty was to remain loyal to Virginia. I think that's a flawed argument, but I can understand it. Hood can't even claim that. He just wanted to fight to keep slaves as property and Texas was willing to give him a commission.

Were the US citizens who left the US and fought for Germany in WW2 traitors?

Another worthy candidate.

A little off the Hood topic, but Bragg is going to Fort Liberty?

How about it being renamed for someone who was 82nd or Special Forces? The list of deserving soldiers is endless.

CT'97 said:

---

You are missing the point, in order for there to be a pardon, in order for them to be given their veteran status back they had to do something illegal in the first place to cause it to be removed. They had to do something that needed to be pardoned. What they did was treason.

---

Lol semantics at this point. You're arguing on technicalities. In the end, they weren't traitors. I don't consider what they did to be treason in the first place.