[DoodleDawg]

The only way they could be considered “NOT” American veterans would be if they won the war and successfully became another country. But they lost, so they were always a part of the US.

They fought against the U.S. and not for it. They were not granted U.S. veteran status until the mid-1950s.

[Mariner]

As of the date of the article, the VA was still paying two surviving children survivor benefits...from Confederate Veterans.

Amazing.

[miss marmelstein]

Yeah, and if it was up to you, they’d still be denied citizenship status.

Still remember Liz Holtzman (who you remind me of) refusing to vote for Marsh Robert to be given his citizenship back.

[robroys woman]

They fought against the U.S. and not for it.

---

Yes, but fighting against a country does not take away your citizenship. It may take away your life, of course. :)

[snarkytart]

It doesn’t matter they were granted it. And Veteran groups are not happy about this Monument removal and statue removal. And this is why the Dems lose they go too far because they’re going to stand up and fight veterans now? I said this before and another thread and excuse me if it’s offensive, but it has to be said the Democratic party is a big shit show and they’re too stupid to realize how bad and low they are. They’ve lost so many seats in the last few years all across the board and they just keep beating the same old racism horse.

[zipper]

They were not granted U.S. veteran status until the mid-1950s.

My great-great grandfather was provided a veteran's headstone by the US government after his son applied for it when his father died, because of his confederate veteran status.

Way before the 1950's.

[zipper]

They were not granted U.S. veteran status until the mid-1950s.

And furthermore, it was common for survivors of confederate veterans to receive benefits from the US government after the war.

[Edward.Fish]

>> The only way they could be considered “NOT” American veterans would be if they won the war and successfully became another country. But they lost, so they were always a part of the US.
>
> They fought against the U.S. and not for it. They were not granted U.S. veteran status until the mid-1950s.

So, why weren't confederate officers prosecuted for Treason?
(Because if they were, all one would have to do is point out that if the Confederate States could not have left the Union then the Union waging war was upon the states… thus matching the literal Constitutional definition of Treason.)