Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (1569765)	11/3/2025 10:38:18 PM
From: the traveler	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570665

believe what you want. don't matter to me what you think.

To: combjelly who wrote (1569765)	11/3/2025 10:45:57 PM
From: Maple MAGA	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz the traveler Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570665

"Nope. They reneged on their oath to protect and defend the Constitution that they took when they first became officers. That isn't honorable. Especially when your side loses. The lower ranks, who joined after succession, they are different. Like Dick Dowling. But the generals and many of the other ranking officers, were Union officers, first." History is a bit more complicated than that. The idea that every Confederate officer was dishonourable for resigning is too simplistic. Many of them, like Lee, viewed their primary oath as being to their home state before the Union, because that’s how federalism was understood at the time. The Constitution didn’t clearly define whether secession was legal, and it wasn’t settled until after the war. You can disagree with the cause they fought for and most do, but denying that many fought with courage, loyalty, and a sense of duty to what they believed was their country is rewriting history. Honor and correctness aren’t always the same thing.