Nazi war hero. Confederate war hero.

[Luminous Animal]

Do you believe they exist? I was reading the Wikipedia entry for Carson McCullers which described her mother as the granddaughter of a plantation owner and Confederate war hero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_McCullers

Is there any such thing as a Confederate war hero?

[redgreenandblue]

1. Not sure. But the answer is presumably the same as for "Is there a hero of the Iraq war?"

[Luminous Animal]

4. Unfortunately, I'd have to say no. With out a doubt there are

individuals that secured the safety of their mates. But fighting to secure oil contracts does not make one a hero.

[HiPointDem]

2. there is so long as there's a culture remaining that venerates said 'heroes'. i'd say there is in

both cases. maybe small in the case of the nazis but extant.

[loli phabay]

3. yup same as there are heroes in all winning and losing sides

it just depends where you stand and who your ancestors were, im sure there are many people on both sides who speak of Rommel as a hero and with admiration frinstance. Its not the side that matters more the deeds that the individual did in my opinion.

[Sherman A1]

6. Precisely

I believe the OP may be painting with too broad a brush in the question. I would also suggest that if one digs into one's own family history they are likely to find people on both sides of the Civil War as well as an "interesting" array of characters in their own past. I know I certainly have done so.

I think there was something said once about not judging lest ye be judged or something along those lines......

[Luminous Animal]

11. I acknowledge my family's slave holding past.

I have an unusual last name and most people in the South who share it are not my color. My point is that we swallow that Lee surrendered with dignity. And we are supposed respect that.

Bullshit. Lee led an army that fought to maintain as cruel an institution as Hitlers.

[loli phabay]

12. Lee was commanding an army and was fighting for his state, same as generals like Rommel etc

for some people a guy like bomber harris would be considered as bad as hitler but he was a hero to the Brits, what about robert the bruce hero to the scots not to the english or welsh, el Cid hero to the spanish not to the moors, and thats just leaders. Once again i think people can see heroism in all sides as they usually see the deeds rather than the person.

[geardaddy]

69. I would think the Welsh would consider him a hero as well for fighting a common enemy.

[arbusto_baboso]

75. Actually, Lee was offered command of the UNION army and turned it down.

He was nothing but a traitorous, treasonous bastard. I'm GLAD his home at Arlington was used for a cemetary. Served his ass right. He deserved to see what his treason had wrought.

He's VERY different from Rommel, Zhukov, El Cid, etc.

[a la izquierda]

114. The Moors respected El Cid...

Hence his nickname, which means the Master im Arabic. el Cid commanded Moorish forces for a period.

[loli phabay]

119. yup same as lee was respected and rommel and others

The whole point is there are two sides and an enemy can be respected both during a war and after.

[a la izquierda]

135. But Lee did not command Union soldiers...

you're not paying attention. El Cid should not be put in the same category. He actually commanded Moorish forces for a period of his fighting life, even though he was a Catholic soldier.

El Cid doesn't belong with Rommel or Lee. Neither Rommel nor Lee commanded opposing forces. Besides, comparing 12th century warriors to modern (relatively speaking) commanders makes little sense.

[loli phabay]

144. I always thought Lee served in the federal army before taking command of the army of nova

perhaps you feel there should be no comparison between 12th century warriors to modern but professional soldiers would compare themselves to even earlier warriors, the rules and techniques havent changed since the days of Rome and many modern generals look to the great leaders of history to learn from their errors and their successes.

[sarisataka]

145. You are right

LEE, Robert Edward, soldier, born in Stratford, Westmoreland County, Virginia, 19 Jan., 1807; died in Lexington, Virginia, 12 Oct., 1870. He was the son of the Revolutionary general Henry Lee (q. v.), known as " Light-Horse Harry," was graduated from the U. S. military academy at West Point in 1829, ranking second in a class of forty-six, and was commissioned as a 2d lieutenant in the engineers.

At the beginning of the Mexican war he was assigned to duty as chief engineer of the army under General Wool, his rank being that of captain. His abilities as an engineer, and his conduct as a soldier, won the special admiration of General Scott, who attributed the fall of Vera Cruz to his skill, and repeatedly singled him out for commendation. Lee was thrice brevetted during the war, his last brevet to the rank of colonel being for services at the storming of Chapultepec.

In 1852 he was assigned to the command of the military academy at West Point, where he remained for about three years. He brought great improvements in the academy, notably enlarging its course of study and bringing it to a rank equal to that of the best European military schools. In 1855 he was appointed lieutenant-colonel of the 2d regiment of cavalry, and assigned to duty on the Texan frontier, where he remained until near the beginning of the civil war, with the exception of an interval when, in 1859, he was ordered to Washington and placed in command of the force that was sent against John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

On 20 April, 1861, three days after the Virginia convention adopted an ordinance of secession, he resigned his commission, in obedience to his conscientious conviction that he was bound by the act of his state. His only authenticated expression of opinion and sentiment on the subject of secession is found in the following passage from a letter written at the time of his resignation to his sister, the wife of an officer in the National army; "We are now in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole south is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission m the army, and, save in defense of my native state--with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed--I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."

http://www.robertelee.org/

[loli phabay]

146. as i thought, so hes kinda exactly like el cid in this regard, thanks

loyalty is a strange thing, people are tribal by nature whether thats their family, state. nation, religion or belief that peanut butter or marmite is the preferred sandwich topping.

[a la izquierda]

149. Oh for god's sake....

I'm a historian (blessedly not of the United States, though), and I'm well aware that Lee served the Federal Army. Most military men in that period served in the Federal Army, as you've got to get officers from somewhere. What are the officers supposed to have been 4 years old? Lee did not, if I recall, serve the Federal Army DURING THE CIVIL WAR. Did he?
No.

El Cid, on the other hand, commanded Moorish troops- sworn enemies of Catholic Iberians (regardless of the kingdom), against other Catholic Iberians (you can't say Spaniards, because Spain didn't exist). He was a mercenary for a particular king.

You may see a comparison. I don't. Rommel and Lee, maybe. I don't know much about Nazis.

[loli phabay]

152. well both ultimately fought against their previous employer so the comparison is pretty good

Main point being both were highly respected commanders.

[freshwest]

90. We are sympatico at the first part of your statement, but not all the way through:

I acknowledge my family's slave holding past. I have an unusual last name and most people in the South who share it are not my color.

That was my experience, as well, and I know my family's history for centuries back, also the history of blacks who bear my last name. It was always a source of shame to me, knowing how those names were given.

Neither my family nor I respected the Confederacy, and it was an abomination to us. My parents supported the economic advancement of blacks and their civil rights, very publicly, also privately and in their business.

As far as the people who did support a mythical vision of the Confederacy, you cannot argue with people who are personally dishonest and refuse to leave the past. They are insane and to be shunned, and no amount of talking does any good. My father was able to get those who still had reasoning ability and get them to not oppose civil rights, winning some battles but not others.

When you are in the presence of such people who are blathering about the Confederacy and states rights, etc., you are choosing to visit the insane asylum. The fact there are so many of them, doesn't change that. They are not worthy of hatred any more than a rabid dog, they are meant to be marginalized and eliminated from ruling others. If they come back to their senses, fine.

[Sherman A1]

97. You know

I agree that slavery was an incredibly cruel institution and a stain on our national character. That said, I didn't live in that time and while I study the Civil War a bit, I will not pass judgement on everyone's intentions, motivations or beliefs of that time. People are an imperfect lot and life is never a straight line.

[Luminous Animal]

112. You know... I am a dissident now and I would have been a dissident then.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. OCCUPY!

[Sherman A1]

113. Good for You

Enjoy yourself

[aquart]

140. What an utterly idiotic comparison.

There is nothing unique about genocidal mass murder and there is nothing unique about the ancient, common practice of slavery. BUT THEY AIN'T THE SAME THING.

[Luminous Animal]

7. The reason why I asked is that even though the South lost, as a cultre..,

we ascribe "hero" to our enemy. We give respect to Lee when, in a just world, he would have been in prison for the rest of his life for leading an army to promote a disgusting institution,

Lee, Davis, et.al., should be spat upon as much as Hitler is.

[Zalatix]

8. Where are their graves located?

[Luminous Animal]

13. I know. But why do you ask?

Where is Hitler's grave?

[loli phabay]

14. he dosent have one, not sure why you ascribe to Lee being the same as hitler

i think a better comparison is Rommel or Model to Lee if you want to make a confederacy and germany comparison.

[Zalatix]

17. Jefferson Davis = Hitler

[loli phabay]

19. probuably a better comparison but i would say magnitudes of difference.

I think Hitler is one of a few in a class of their own.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Davis and Lee should have been destroyed, They should have been lead from

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:04 AM - Edit history (1)

town to town with shackles around their necks. One lead and one lead the fight to maintain one of the cruelest institutions.

[loli phabay]

20. okay i guess its not a discussion you want rather some sort of wierd one upmanship

good luck, still dont understand this place

[Capt. Obvious]

39. You'll get the hang of it

[obamanut2012]

56. We do not do that in this country

If Mary Surratt hanged, then Davis and Lee both should have hanged as well.

I am anti DP, but logically, Davis, Lee, and some other generals and CSA cabinet members should have hanged. If that was deemed unsuitable for some reason, then life imprisonment. This was treason.

[LanternWaste]

57. I don't think that Lee committed suicide

I don't think that Lee committed suicide when the confederacy found out he said nothing re: the July Bomb plot. Rommel did. So I really don't perceive Rommel as a very good comparison, either.

[hifiguy]

68. The KGB threw his ashes in a river

somewhere deep in Russia per the orders of Yuri Andropov. At least that's what they have been saying for more than twenty years and I don't have any reason to doubt that.

[loli phabay]

10. regardless of your thoughts on it, a large chunk of your fellow americans dont see it that way

they see Lee as a brave soldier who lead his army with skill and daring, personally i just cant put him at the same level as hitler. Here in VA i dont think any other description than a hero who fought for his state could ever be ascribed to Lee.

[arbusto_baboso]

76. No, Lee is not a Hitler figure.

he is a JUDAS figure. He abandoned the nation of his birth to fight against it. In some ways, that's far WORSE than Hitler.

[eridani]

115. The very notion that loyalty to the US trumps loyalty to your state--

--was a RESULT of the Civil War.

[loli phabay]

121. question is where does loyalty lie. if you ar scots is it scotland or the UK

Same for welsh or irish. Were does a serb or croats loyalty lie. Lee's loyalty lay with his state which like the above examples was part of a larger unit.

[gkhouston]

148. ^^ This. Lee's loyalty was to Virginia, which *was* his country.

At the time of the Civil War, with less mobility and communication between states, your little corner of the world was your world. The Federal government was a distant and somewhat abstract figure, by comparison. Shelby Foote summarized the attitude very neatly with the observation that before the Civil War, common usage was "the United States are" and after the war it became "the United States is".

[Posteritatis]

123. DU seriously needs a hyperbole jar. The servers would be platinum-plated in hours. (nt)

[arbusto_baboso]

132. So prove me wrong, smartass.

[Posteritatis]

133. ... And a fallacy jar, to diamond-stud any peripherals. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

134. No, Lee was a Sophie's Choice figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_Choice_(film)

Sophie (a Polish Catholic) eventually reveals that her father was a Nazi sympathizer. Sophie had a lover, Józef (Neddim Prohic), who lived with his half-sister, Wanda (Katharina Thalbach), a leader in the Resistance. Wanda tried to convince Sophie to translate some stolen Gestapo documents, but Sophie declined, fearing she might endanger her children. Two weeks later Józef was murdered by the Gestapo, and Sophie was arrested and sent to Auschwitz with her children.

(snip)


After Nathan discharges a firearm over the telephone in a violent rage, Sophie and Stingo flee to a hotel. She reveals to him the tragic choice she was forced to make at Auschwitz. Upon arrival, she was forced to choose which one of her two children would be gassed and which would proceed to the labour camp. To avoid having both children killed, she chose her son, Jan (Adrian Kaltika), to be sent to the children's camp, and her daughter, Eva (Jennifer Lawn), to be sent to her death in Crematorium Two.

Lee had to choose which side to defend, the relatively young United States, when Lee was born the United States wasn't old enough to legally drink alcohol by today's standards or the comparatively ancient colony/state of Virgina; an entity of which his family had great prominence throughout its' history.

I believe Lee chose in the same manner as Sophie, that being he chose the entity with the most memories, in her case it was her eldest child, the one that held the most memories for her.

Lee never wanted the South to secede especially his home state of Virginia, I'm convinced if Virginia hadn't seceded Lee would've taken Lincoln's offer and become the commanding general for the North but he couldn't bring himself to take up arms against his own family, friends, community, state and heritage.

[Bluerthanblue]

126. not sure you are quite accurate with your description

of why Lee led the army of the confederates. You'd do well to read up on his reluctance to fight against the Union. There is a lot you clearly do not know about the man- he didn't want to take up arms against 'the union'- and had even been willing to fight with the Union forces, but was unwilling to fight against his fellow Virginians. He asked to be allowed to just opt out of the war entirely .
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/

Lee was not personally in favor of slavery. To equate him with Hitler is foolishness.

I'm no fan of his, but I am a fan of fairness and truth. Hitler and Lee are not comparable. Your mis-characterization of him is unfair and unfounded.

Pres. Lincoln's stand to end slavery evolved- there are some facts and statements which he made that don't sit very comfortably with the angelic image many have of him.

He was a GREAT man and an excellent leader. But he had some distinct prejudices and short comings. Just as Lee had his own admirable qualities and is worthy of a modicum of respect.

[Luminous Animal]

15. It's kind of nice to consider what side you are fighting for...

Slavery vs Freedom.

Some of my ancestors were slave holders but damn them and damn me if I consider their point of view.

[loli phabay]

16. no it makes no difference when it comes to heroics which comes down to individual deeds

whether thats holding Xerxes at the gates of fire, leading a cohort to enflank an enemy phalanx, charging a machine gun nest that has your friends pinned down, or throwing yourself on a grenade. Heroism knows no side or uniform. Also trying to put your morals from today on people who lived hundreds of years ago in a different culture and who felt their home state was worth fighting for dosent work, we can say they were wrong but it already happened and all you can do is learn from it. Not much more i can add from my perspective on individual heroism in this context so i bow out.

[Luminous Animal]

30. Apparenty, some people had morals, because (you know) they fought for the other side,

[Capt. Obvious]

40. Too bad their morals had nothing to do with ending slavery

[Zoeisright]

147. Sorry, no one who fought to uphold slavery can EVER be a hero in my book.

That was completely, absolutely, and utterly immoral. I don't care if it was thousands of years ago. Wrong is wrong.

[metalbot]

80. The North was certainly not fighting for "freedom"

The North was fighting to maintain the Union. While we'd like to look back romantically on the Emancipation Proclamation as "freeing the slaves", the reality is that it ONLY freed the slaves in the states that were in rebellion. It did absolutely nothing for the 1 million slaves that were part of the Union.

[Bluerthanblue]

128. perfectly said-

thank you for this.

[dogknob]

5. If the South ends up winning, there will be a great many Confederate War heroes. n/t

[Selatius]

9. Jefferson Davis is considered a hero where I live.

The plantation estate he eventually came to own, Beauvoir, is here in Mississippi facing the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Katrina essentially wiped it off the face of the earth if it weren't for people donating money to have the plantation restored to its former glory with the Confederate stars and bars flying high.

I don't much care for his legacy, personally. It is a beautiful plantation, though.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Might as well have the nazi flag flying high...Jeesh,

why are people not ripping that crap down?

[Selatius]

25. That's kind of an extreme position to take, don't you think?

The South was a defeated foe by the time Sherman and Grant had really gotten the ball rolling. With respect to that war, or even any other war before or since, I don't believe in the exercise of military power beyond what is absolutely necessary to achieve victory is merited. The point was to reunite a nation that was torn apart, not to kill an entire half. Enough people had died as it was, and I doubt people in the North had the stomach for seeing even more little boys coming home in pine boxes. Eisenhower was employing the same logic when he voiced his lack of support to Secretary of War Henry Stimson as far as dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a blockaded and crippled Japan.

[limpyhobbler]

22. maybe he saved a bunch of guys or something.

maybe he carried a bunch of injured guys through a battlefield back to a field hospital.

That would seem to be pretty heroic.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Who? Hitler or Lee?

[loli phabay]

24. Carson McCullers you know the guy who was the point of the original post.

i stand corrected this guys great great grandad or who ever is cited in the op

[Luminous Animal]

28. Carson McCollers. A WOMAN.

[loli phabay]

29. Carson McCullers is a women as well i think, who is McCollers?

[Luminous Animal]

32. Second cousins.

[loli phabay]

33. Bravo witty answer :)

[limpyhobbler]

26. I meant Carson McCullers great grand father

I have no idea why they are calling him a hero on wikipedia, they don't even cite a reference.

on edit:
But I take your larger question as well that if a war is unjust can a soldier be a hero in that.

I don't know, but I can think of a guy that might seem heroic even fighting for an "evil" army.

For example if someone was drafted in an "evil" army and couldn't afford to resist, or didn't know any better, and then he carried five injured guys across a minefield to a hospital. Maybe. I don't know.

[loli phabay]

31. i think its the deed thats heroic regardless of the uniform

in every war there are tales of enemy soldiers who are admired and lauded for an heroic deed. whether its the pilot of a downed Zero, the pikeman who withstood the assault, the redcoat who held his position, or the enemy soldier who carried a wounded comrade or enemy across an open killing field. What we have to look at in this regard is the individual and their bravery rather than the cause or the uniform that they wear.

[Zorra]

53. So, then, were the terrorists that killed and maimed a bunch of us on 9/11 heroes also?

They bravely gave their lives for "their team" in a kamikaze act of totally selfless religious and patriotic fervor.

Their deed was heroic in the eyes of many; they are still celebrated by "their team" for their "heroic" deeds.

They seem to fit perfectly into your conceptual guidelines of what constitutes a hero.

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. I'm sure Pol Pot had his heroes/martyrs too.

Everyone who kills is probably someone's hero.

It all depends on your allegiance. If your allegiance is to the united states, then your heroes are those who worked to create and preserve it.

[Confusious]

101. No

A hero, in this definition, fights against people who can defend themselves.

People who attack and kill defenseless people should never be called heros.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. Is there any such thing as a Confederate war hero?

Sure: George Pickett,....



....for our side....

[tclambert]

35. In the Trojan war, were there heroes on the Trojan side?

Of course there were. It doesn't matter if you won or lost. There is often more opportunity for heroism on the losing side.

In 1864, if the North had lost (and it was a near thing until Sherman took Atlanta), wouldn't the winning South have regarded the Northerners as having fought to try to subjugate other sovereign states? How could there be heroes on the Northern side fighting for such a despicable cause?

[redgreenandblue]

38. It's not about "win or lose". It is about which side was morally correct.

[dionysus]

47. each side has heroes because in a war each side believes they are morally correct...

[redgreenandblue]

50. regardless, there are objective standards.

i would not place the nazis on the same level as the people who opposed them, for instance. granted, not many conflicts are as black and white as that one. and even in that case there are some morally objectionable actions of the opponents of the nazis.

[dionysus]

88. it's not saying the nazis were on the right side or anything. in a generic sense, if someone does

something like run through a hail of machine gun fire to drag an injured comrade to safety, it's considered a heroic act.

[Marr]

73. I don't think that's true. Do you consider John Kerry a war hero?

[tclambert]

100. Morally correct in war? That's an iffy proposition from the start.

My real point was, if the South had won, they would be regarded as the morally correct side. Abraham Lincoln would have gone down in history as a great big villain, wasting all those lives trying to stop the noble Southern states from exercising their rights.

[redgreenandblue]

154. Yeah, but isn't that close to moral relativism?

If the nazis had won, they would have gone down in history as morally correct. That wouldn't mean they were.

[SkyDaddy7]

36. There could be...

I think Robert E. Lee could be seen as a "War Hero" as he was never known to torture & execute POWs & he could have prolonged the war & caused many more young men on both sides to die even though the war was over.

Erwin Rommel...He treated all POWs in his custody very well & was never known to torture or execute soldiers. He actually was forced to commit suicide for being connected to the failed assassination of Hitler. Plus, he was not connected to the extermination of the Jews in anyway.

Both men are considered military geniuses & their military strategies are still studied & respected to this day.

PLEASE don't accuse me of being a racist or whatever I was simply answering the question the best way I know how...If there is such a thing as a Confederate "War Hero" or "Nazi War Hero" I think these two would be the closest fit. Otherwise I see the two regimes as two of the most disgusting entities in history.

[Lawlbringer]

41. I would imagine that it's less because they furthered the cause

and more that they saved the lives of their compatriots, hopping on a grenade to save his platoon and whatnot. That's valor, bravery, and makes them a hero to the people you're trying to protect. Doesn't stop them from being a piece of shit Nazi or Confederate. But they're a hero by virtue of having saved some (possibly worthless) lives. A little cut and dry, I know, but I'd rather not be TOO wordy.

[Odin2005]

42. NO! If you were a Confederate you were a TRAITOR.

[loli phabay]

151. 8 guess it depends if you believe people have a right to fight against what they believe they dont w

Not that i agree with the cause but civil wars have always been around. Where the ionians wrong for rebelling the jacobites the croats. Would quebec citizens be wrong for wanting to break away would people in the nw be traitors for wanting cascadia or a myriad of others. Its hard to put yourself in others shoes when it comes to this stuff and the feelins of people at the time of the civil war towards the fed were probuably a lot different to how you feel. During the revolutionary war one side were heroes and the other traitors depending on which side you stood.

[slackmaster]

43. It depends on your point of view

General Robert E. Lee is certainly viewed as a hero by a lot of people.

General William Tecumseh Sherman is viewed as a Civil War hero by some, a war criminal by some, and a bit of both by many.

The same could be said of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Can soldiers on the losing side fight with bravery and honor?

Can soldiers on the winning side commit war crimes and atrocities?

I think the answer to both of these questions is "yes".

[1-Old-Man]

45. Neither soldiers on the winning or losing side can fight with honor - bravery maybe, but not honor

There is no honor in war, none what so ever.

[Nye Bevan]

49. I believe that the young conscripts who landed on the Normandy beaches fought with honor.

I'm sorry that you think those brave soldiers were dishonorable.

[Spoonman]

51. I beg to differ

Only a coward stands by to watch the unjust suffering of another people.

I suppose there was no honor in defeating Hitler. (he was an "OK" guy)

Idi Amin was just misunderstood.

Ousting Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, that was just totally unjustified.

(I'm certain you are only referring to the recent trend of "for profit war&quot

[PavePusher]

142. As I've said before.....

sometimes a hearty "Go fuck yourself... sideways." is all the answer a vile piece of steaming shit requires.

[Spoonman]

46. There's no description of his "heroic" act(s)

so in that particular case we do not have enough information on which to base a sound decision.

The question you pose is an interesting one.

Take out the "PC" aspects of any given conflict and ask yourself this question:

If an individual selflessly places their life at EXTREME risk to save the life of another, is that individual a "hero"?

[kctim]

48. A war hero is defined by an act of valor

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Not a personal opinion based in politics.

[redgreenandblue]

54. so an act of valor within an unjust cause is heroic?

is a bank robber a hero if he sacrifices himself to defend another bank robber from the police?

[obamanut2012]

58. If a member of the Wehrmacht risked his life to save his fellow soldiers

Then yes, he would be considered a hero. If a soldier dressed in butternut crawled across an open field to drag a fallen buddy to safety, then yes, that man was a hero.

[redgreenandblue]

61. Would you consider a German national holiday honoring Wehrmacht soldiers appropriate then?

Should Jewish and other groups be required to look beyond the politics of it and recognize the inherent heroism?

[obamanut2012]

117. Oh yes, I TOTALLY said that

Apologies my logic got in the way of your strawman.

[redgreenandblue]

153. The problem is that very few "acts of heroism" in warfare revolve around saving someone.

At least not in the pure sense as you a have described. Sure, there are occasional instances, but usually "acts of valor" involve killing numbers of "enemies". This immediately then raises issues surrounding the morality of the war.

For instance, I think any Iraqi could rightfully take offense at any medal given to a soldier who participated in the invasion of their country.

[kctim]

60. Topic is "war" hero

Should have included it in my post.

[Marengo]

136. Referring to the dictionary definition of heroic, yes.

Merriam-Webster:

2 a: exhibiting or marked by courage and daring
b: supremely noble or self-sacrificing

Yes, the bank robber could be considered a hero within these parameters of definition.

[Marrah_G]

52. Yes

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. Yes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Russell said it best:

"Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one." - Bertrand Russell

[Zorra]

66. +1 That's really good, thanks.

☮ ☮

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. Heroism is defined by actions

Were there men fighting for both the Confederacy and Nazi Germany who were brave and valorous? Yes. Were there men fighting for the Union and the Allies who committed war crimes? Yes. See: Sherman and his march to the sea. Sherman engaged in collective punishment and the deliberate targeting of civilians. By modern standards, this constitutes a war crime.

A little anecdote for you: my great-great-great-grandfather was a farmer from Clayton County, Georgia. He joined the Confederate Army in the spring of 1864, when he was 46 years old and past military age, because his home was right in the path of Sherman's march. He didn't join to fight for slavery, or secession, but to fight for his home and family. Is that heroic? I don't know. Would you do the same thing in the same situation? I probably would, personally.

[Go Vols]

93. +1

[Sherman A1]

96. Great Great Grandfather from NC

Join a regiment with his brother. He deserted and ended up in Illinois a few years later with his family. Brother was home seeing his sweet heart during harvest time and was caught by the state guard, he is believed buried in a unmarked grave. The area from which they came had very few slaves and pretty much backwoods. They joined up because everyone else was doing it and to defend their homes. I agree with you that I too would have done what I could to protect my family and home from the advance of Sherman's Army, had I been in that situation.

On the other side
My Great Grandfather on my Dad's side apparently served in the Union Army, but I haven't tracked down his exact regiment as of yet.

[ieoeja]

156. Sherman was hailed as a hero and liberator by many southern newspapers at the time.

People were starving to death in the breadbasket of the Confederacy. Sherman distributed the majority of his forage to starving southerners. Contemporary southern accounts also put the blame for most of the destruction during the march through Georgia on a Confederate scorched earth defense.

The "march to the sea" stories mostly appear AFTER the fact. And by the Norman aristocracy whose crops he was distributing to the starving people.

South Carolina was another story. Sherman purposely put South Carolina to the torch. He freely admitted it which made the march to the sea stories even more confusing to him. If he admits what he did in South Carolina, why would he lie about Georgia?

[libinnyandia]

63. My problem with Lee is that he considered himself a Virginian rather than as an American.

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

[COLGATE4]

70. You can't take modern concepts and superimpose

them on previous generations. At Lee's time, most Americans thought of themselves as citizens of their particular state, rather than as citizens of the United States. In fact, the correct English useage at the time when describing our particular country was "The United States ARE...", not the current "The United States IS...". Different times, different standards.

[libinnyandia]

74. And that is why my great-great grandfather died. The Constitution was a document for Americans,

not for Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians.... If Americans could stand together against the British twice, against the Mexicans etc, then they were Americans.

[COLGATE4]

94. What's your point?

[libinnyandia]

95. My great-great grandfather fought as an American working to keep the United States united. Lee

fought as a Virginian working to destroy the United States. Do Southern sympathizers say The Pledge of Allegiance?

[COLGATE4]

116. Well, seeing as it's now

147 years since Lee surrendered at Appomatox, I imagine they do. But your ggggrandfather most likely considered himself to be a "New Yorker' or 'Mainer' or whatever rather than a 'citizen of the United States'. Fighting to keep the union of states is not the same thing as 'fighting as an American'.

[libinnyandia]

118. This could go on. You don't know how my ancestor felt. I know he died to keep thiis country

together. Way too many people today seem to consider themselves natives of a certain state and proudly fly the Confederate flag, which to many is a ssymbol of treason.

[loli phabay]

122. i think.everyone thinks of themselves as natives of a state

Its not hard tk find people when asked who will say im a californian or texan or ohian. Its not even particular to the US as people from the Uk will say they are welsh or scots or english.

[libinnyandia]

130. In the UK the people were at one time part of different countries. The ? I ask is:is it more

important to identify yourself as an American who happens to live in a particular state or is the term Texan or Ohioan or Califiornian more important.

[PavePusher]

143. If you don't think there is some serious regionalism in the UK...

you are either grossly confused or badly deluded.

[COLGATE4]

125. You're completely missing

the point I was trying to make. At the time of the Civil War most people in this country considered themselves first and foremost to have their allegiance to their state, not to a national entity. It was only as a result of the Civil War that people for the first time began to consider themselves citizens of the United States first and of a a state secondarily. In addition you're getting all exercised over nothing. I don't know how your ancestor felt and I would suggest that neither do you. Do you know if he enlisted or was drafted, and if he enlisted for what reasons he enlisted? But if it gives you something to hold on to to think he 'died to keep this country together', go for it. But using the Fox-style slur "..which to many is a symbol of treason" isn't worthy of being posted on DU.

[libinnyandia]

129. Why did people volunteer to go to war during the Civil war, not after? If they had not thoght of

themselves as being Americans why would they risk death to preserve the Union? Many thought slavery was ok and women should not have voting rights. Some people were enlightened earlier than others.

[Uncle Joe]

131. Because they followed their states, towns, family and friends to war, entire regiments were made up

from one community or state, they even named many if not most of the battalions and regiments after the states whether they were from the North or South.

Most everything was localized back then and fighting age men of entire towns enlisted all at once, served, fought and died together though-out the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_regiments_by_state

[libinnyandia]

137. They fought as Americans. Listening to the Battle Cry of Freedom. The Union Forever.

[Uncle Joe]

138. The vast majority of those Americans followed the direction of their elected state governments.

If a state successfully seceded, most of those people went with the state.

If a state tried but failed to secede, ie Missouri or Kentucky those people were more divided, if a state stayed firmly in the union those people overwhelmingly fought for the federal government.

[Posteritatis]

124. Your perspective was settled by the Civil War.

Before that happened what you just said was very much up for discussion.

You can't say "their 19th century interpretations of the polity were invalid because the 21st century interpretations are different."

[Uncle Joe]

79. The same can be said for the majority of people from every other state, including the North.

The difference being in the case of the Civil War federal and Northern interests were aligned, by the time of the war, slavery in the North had for the most part been abolished and it wasn't a major economic force with Northern power brokers.

Industrialism and in turn embryonic corporatism were the driving power forces for the North, as the half century following the Civil War showed only too well.

People; in the north civilian or military, at least on any large scale simply never had to make the gut wrenching decision whether to defend state, friends and family or nation?

[Iggo]

64. Yes.

[The Midway Rebel]

65. What a great thread...

for people to jump on their moral high horses and express their ignorance of the ACW.

[Romulox]

67. Most of the soldiers in both cases were conscripts. Not heroes. Not villains. Lots of boys. nt

[xmas74]

104. You've got it.

They were just boys. Some were scared, some were excited, but in the end they were young boys and far too many never made it home.

[4th law of robotics]

71. Well, I'd go with German war hero

and yes I would say there were people on both sides of the conflict who behaved heroically and in accordance with what they believed was right.

Was a german soldier fighting because he loved hitler or did he sign up because the soviets were invading his country?

Was the confederate fighting for slavery or to keep people from burning his home?

[Marr]

72. That's an interesting question. I'd have to say yes.

If we can accept the notion that many US soldiers didn't want to fight in Vietnam or Iraq, then we can separate the soldier from the things their "side" stands for. In that case, there would have to be Nazi and Confederate war heroes.

[RZM]

77. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess

Often we say 'hero' to refer to anybody who performed impressive acts and/or was feted as a hero by their own side. That happens in every war on every side. And the bigger the war, the more it happens.

It certainly doesn't imply agreement with any cause.

I would refer to Robert E. Lee as a Confederate war hero because he was an able commander and was considered a hero on the Confederate side. I don't think using that term implies any position at all on the Confederacy or its cause. It just means that Lee performed well and was considered great within the Confederacy.

Many people who serve in a war, including those feted as heroes, are often not particularly keen on their side's cause, but fight out of a sense of duty to their country/their unit/whatever. The greatest American hero of WWI, Sgt. Alvin York, started out as a conscientious objector, for instance.

'Hero' is most about conduct on the battlefield and less about the which side wins or loses or what they were fighting for.

[rrneck]

78. Morality is easy with 20/20 hindsight. nt

[NYC Liberal]

81. Yes they might be heroes for their own side. But I wouldn't honor them for it.

[white_wolf]

82. As someone who was born and still living in the South I have no respect for the Confederacy.

I consider it a black mark on our history that we would do well to not forget, but quit celebrating. I don't hold the common soldiers in any contempt, they likely had no real choice in a lot of cases, but men like Lee knew what they were doing and had a choice. To be frankly honest, I don't think the North was hard enough on the South. For starters all the property of slave owners should have been taken and divided among their former slaves as compensation for years and possibly generations of unpaid labor. There are other reforms I think should have been made following the Civil War, but those are more about changes that I feel should have been made in the structure of our country. I won't go into too much detail here since this may not be the place for it, suffice to say I think the term "State's rights" has done us far more harm than good.


As you can tell from my rant, I really don't fit in here in Tennessee.

[backscatter712]

83. One Confederate "Hero": Nathan Bedford Forrest, war criminal and founder of the KKK.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

[Uncle Joe]

84. Ironically even Forrest changed his views, he also disbanded the KKK in 1869

about the time Reconstruction was ending in Tennessee.

In an 1868 interview by a Cincinnati newspaper, Forrest claimed that the Klan had 40,000 members in Tennessee and 550,000 total members throughout the Southern states. He said he sympathized with them, but denied any formal connection. He claimed he could muster thousands of men himself. He described the Klan as "a protective political military organization... The members are sworn to recognize the government of the United States... Its objects originally were protection against Loyal Leagues and the Grand Army of the Republic..." Forrest dissolved the first incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in 1869, although many local groups continued their activities for several years.[50]

Forrest testified before the Congressional investigation on Klan activities on June 27, 1871. Forrest denied membership, but his individual role in the KKK was beyond the scope of the investigating committee which wrote:

When it is considered that the origin, designs, mysteries, and ritual of the order are made secrets; that the assumption of its regalia or the revelation of any of its secrets, even by an expelled member, or of its purposes by a member, will be visited by ‘the extreme penalty of the law,’ the difficulty of procuring testimony upon this point may be appreciated, and the denials of the purposes, of membership in, and even the existence of the order, should all be considered in the light of these provisions. This contrast might be pursued further, but our design is not to connect General Forrest with this order, (the reader may form his own conclusion upon this question,) but to trace its development, and from its acts and consequences gather the designs which are locked up under such penalties.”[51]
The committee also noted, "The natural tendency of all such organizations is to violence and crime; hence it was that General Forrest and other men of influence in the state, by the exercise of their moral power, induced them to disband.”[52]

In 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from that of the Klan, when he was invited to give a speech before an organization of black Southerners advocating racial reconciliation, called the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association. At this, his last public appearance, he made what the New York Times described as a "friendly speech"[10] during which, when offered a bouquet of flowers by a black woman, he accepted them as a token of reconciliation between the races and espoused a radically progressive (for the time) agenda of equality and harmony between black and white Americans.[53]

[Dawson Leery]

86. +1

Both a coward and a terrorist.

[Kaleva]

109. Another one, General Wheeler, later fought in the Spanish-American War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Wheeler#Spanish-American_War

[cwydro]

85. the never ending south bashing threads on DU

What's the point?

I'm English by my parents. though born in the south.

Get over it...a war more than a century ago. Good lord.

[scheming daemons]

89. "Confederacy" is to "South" what "Nazi Regime" is to "Germany"

Bashing the Confederacy is not the same as bashing the South.

Just like bashing Nazis is not the same as bashing Germany.

The Confederacy is worth bashing.

[2ndAmForComputers]

99. Yeah, that raised my eyebrow too.

Let's see if we get anything more than "SOUTH BASHING WHARGAARRRBL!!111!!!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. To one who considers himself a patriot to the US, "confederate war hero" is an oxymoron.

The United States exists today because the confederation lost.

[2ndAmForComputers]

98. This post seems to imply "Confederacy" and "South" are largely the same thing.

If not, please explain.

[cwydro]

105. Usually posts about an old war

are an attempt to attack the south.

Seems it's the northerners who can't let that war rest.

Seen it many times.

[2ndAmForComputers]

106. You assume too much.

[me b zola]

87. No, there is not

...but this is a gripe that I have, the white-washing of that part of our history. I was watching the PBS show History Detectives and they did a show about a woman with an ancestor who was a member of one of the racists groups from the Reconstruction period. I didn't have a problem with the show hunting down the artifact's history, but I had a huge problem with the banter about the woman's ancestor as if he was just an upstanding citizen. All I could think was that if this was a nazi artifact held by a family member, would the conversation have been the same? Hell no it would not have been. I used to love that show, now I only occasionally watch it.

[FiveGoodMen]

102. Hero is a word our culture needs to dump

We need lots of good, honest, fair-minded citizens.

We don't need heroes.

(Some people's acts on behalf of their fellows deserve recognition, for sure. But the public clamoring for it's next saviour/roll-model is never good)

[xmas74]

103. Why not?

Maybe he saved lives while on the battlefield. Who knows?

There are always heroes and cowards on both sides of the battle lines. We only hear about the heroes from the winning side and the cowards from the losing side.

[Marinedem]

107. Of course there were confederate heros.

And Union heroes.
And British heroes.
And Nazi heroes.
And Khmer Rouge heroes.
And Stalinist heroes.
And American heroes.

To be a hero one does not have to be universally regarded as one.

Hartmann was a hero to the Germans, but certainly not to the Russians, as Lee is to some southerners but probably not to most northerners.

Perspective is everything.

Without doubt, many southerners performed acts of heroism during the war. The fact that those acts were in opposition of someone's preferred views/allegiances does not negate that heroism.

[Go Vols]

110. There were "Indian Wars" heroes too

The US killed/displaced Native Americans for over 200 years.
They had been here for thousands of years.

[Kaleva]

108. By law, Confederate veterans have equal status as any Union veteran

"U.S. Code Title 38 - Veterans’ Benefits, Part II - General Benefits, Chapter 15 - Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability or Death or for Service, Subchapter I - General, § 1501. Definitions: (3) The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1501

[Jim Lane]

111. A question for those who answer "No"....

Suppose that, in the Hundred Years' War, a knight performed with particular gallantry and courage at the Battle of Poitiers. Would he count as a war hero? And, to answer that question, do you need to know whether he was French or English?

I agree with the many people in this thread who say that an individual can act heroically while serving a bad cause. If you disagree, then you can't identify any heroes in the Hundred Years' War unless and until you assess the validity of Edward III's claim to the French throne. It's ridiculous to say that the presence or absence of heroism depends on your interpretation of the law of succession that should have governed after Charles IV died without leaving a male heir.

[Fawke Em]

120. Yes, there is a such a thing.

Robert E. Lee for graciously ending the damn thing.

[Hippo_Tron]

127. As a practical matter, no to the former and yes to the latter

In order for someone to be a war hero, you need a society that worships them as such. The German people regard the Nazis as a god awful horrendous mistake of their past, to the point that it's illegal to deny the holocaust. That came about because we occupied their country for decades and re-shaped their society into believing that. It also probably helped that in West Germany, they were glad to have us there with the ever present Soviet threat right next door.

In the case of the Confederacy, the fact of the matter is that we didn't have the stomach to occupy the south for decades and re-shape their society by brute force. We left after a decade and let them go back to their old ways and pretty much vindicated their old beliefs. The Confederacy no longer exists as a government and a nation, but the sentiment that led to its creation is still very much around.

[aquart]

139. Yes. Now think hard how you define "hero."

Hint: The definition is not "someone who agrees with me."

[sarisataka]

141. A very interesting question(s)

In some sense, 'hero' is in the eye of the beholder (or victor). One who has respect of both sides is a person to be studied.

For the sake of argument and debate I present,
John Rabe-
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4012121,00.html

and Wilim Hosenfeld-
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4034231,00.html

could these servants of the Nazi regime be called heroes?

[raccoon]

150. Real heroes were those Union generals (and regular soldiers) who went

on after the Civil War to kill off Native Americans.


Judgemental much?

[VOX]

155. Consider CSA Sergeant Richard Rowland Kirkland, known as "The Angel of Marye's Heights"

He risked his own life to bring water, warm clothing and blankets to wounded Federal soldiers in front of his position during the battle of Fredericksburg...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rowland_Kirkland