Since researching this subject several years ago, I frequently dispute this claim that Confederates were "made" U.S. vets "by an act of Congress" when I encounter it online.In the comment thread following the post (where my submission above will NOT show up, assuredly), somebody named "London John" made a comment with this as the first sentence: "The idea that Confederate veterans, who fought to destry (sic) the United States, are US veterans is obviously absurd."
Some of the legislation most people cite for this claim recognizes veterans of the military forces of the Confederate States of America as "civil war veterans," the same as union veterans.
(Most veterans legislation that I encountered in my research [which was admittedly limited considering the total volume of vcterans legislation] doesn't use the terms American veterans or U.S. veterans even for its own vets, though some may. Most of it identifies veterans by the war they served in -- Korean War veterans, Mexican War veterans, etc.)
Other legislation clearly says that members of the Confederate military are recognized (as civil war veterans) "for the purposes of this section" or some such language. The purposes are (1) funding for headstones and (2) funding for widows pensions, and that's all.
Since the graves and widows existed because of the barbarous invasion of the South by the union army, I think it is fitting that the U.S. government appropriated funds, paltry as they were, for headstones and widows pensions. It has certainly funded far more generous payments for many more purposes (physical rebuilding, economic rebuilding, educational, medical, technological rebuilding, etc.) to countries and people its military defeated in other wars. With the exception of paying for a few widows pensions and grave markers, the United States and its government did exactly the opposite to the South -- purposely kept it economically and culturally oppressed -- for several generations post war.
Neveretheless I vehemently disagree with the notion that Confederate soldiers need recognition as veterans of their enemy's government to validate them. They do not. They validated themselves and their cause (which was not slavery).
What's even more absurd is the claim that Confederates fought to destroy the United States. They fought to get away from the United States -- to depart, scram, take a powder, skedaddle, make like a banana and split, make like a tree and leave. Did it peacefully and democratically, via secession, and the epic tantrum-throwing union sent a flippin' army South to kill them for it.
Read the documents -- secession declaration, editorials, legislation at the state or general government level. There is nothing there to indicate they were all hot to destroy the union -- the Confederate Army didn't even march against D.C. when it had a golden opportunity to. You cannot possibly conclude that's what the South seceded and fought for ... unless you think that the mere act of its leaving the USA would have destroyed it -- in other words, that the north was not capable of being a nation on its own, without Dixie.
Nevertheless, the fear of looming national extinction should the South successfully depart is what goaded so many northerners to join Lincoln's army to "preserve the union." It was a far more urgent motivation for them than freeing slaves, which wasn't much of a motivation at all.
This explains why the union army visited such barbarism upon the Southern people -- not because they were indignant about slaveholding -- they weren't -- but because they were fearful that these slaveholders and dirt farmers held their country's future existence in their hands. And there was also a bit of woman-scorned type indignation that a bunch of slaveholders and dirt farmers wished to no longer be politically affiliated with the elevated and enlightened north.
After it was over, union realized that the savagery with which they and their army brutes prosecuted the war made them look uncomfortably like bad guys. "They wanted to leave, and we were afraid that would have destroyed us, so they had to be punished, severely." So they changed the narrative to, "These people had to be brutally warred upon because they were evil slaveholders, and we, the strong and good, were just the people to do it."
Yes, there had been a lot of talk about slavery during the sectionalism era... But that was not what caused the bad blood between north and South (that still exists on certain levels today). But it is ludicrous to imagine the barbarians in blue uniforms invaded the CSA and killed Southerners to free slaves. That didn't "become" a reason for the war until two years into the fighting.
And, of course, keeping slavery was not what the Confederates were fighting for. It was one of the causes of secession, but secession is not war, and there are different reasons for each. Bottom line -- you cannot fight to keep what nobody is trying to take away from you.
Would the departure of the Southern states have destroyed the union, even though that was not their purpose in leaving? You cannot say Confederates fought to destroy the United States. And obviously, the USA was not destroyed by the South's separation. It remained a viable nation, even while fighting a war. But the mostly unspoken fear of national oblivion nevertheless permeated the union's cause, its fight, its Victor Fables, and to this day, causes people like London Johon to claim, without a scintilla of evidence, that Confederates wanted to destroy the United States.
Claims that the South fought to preserve slavery AND to destroy the USA are equally spurious.
