Sure. How do you define "honourable?"
Definition of HONORABLE
Definition of honorable
1: deserving of respect or high regard : deserving of
honor an honorable profession
2a: of great renown :
ILLUSTRIOUS the college's long and honorable history
b: entitled to
honor or respect —used as a title for the children of certain British noblemen and for various government officials the
Honorable Judge Smith the
Honorable Senator from California
3: performed or accompanied with marks of honor or respect
4a: attesting to
creditable conduct honorable wounds
b: consistent with a reputation that is not
tarnished or sullied an honorable withdrawal received an honorable discharge from the army
5: characterized by
integrity : guided by a keen sense of duty and ethical conduct Brutus is an honorable man— William Shakespeare
assured her that his intentions were honorable
Exerting great effort or even skill while defending a dishonourable cause isn't honourable in and of itself.
It depends on what you think the cause actually was and whether it accurately reflects each and every individual who fought for that cause.
It took a lot of logistics skill to coordinate the 9/11 attacks. Does this make the 9/11 attackers worth honouring?
I'm not sure if I like the premise of this question. 9/11 is not the same thing as the Civil War.
And plenty of those Union leaders were racist themselves. Why should we take their opinion as Gospel?
So, you're saying we should tear down the statues of the Union leaders as well? Don't the opinions of those who actually
fought the war and defeated all those traitors from the South actually count for anything? Is the entire US government totally morally bankrupt? (Not that I would disagree with that, but at least we're starting to get to the truth of the matter here.)
"The nation's wounds" weren't healed. The fact that there are monuments of Confederate generals all over the South is testament to that.
Or are you only counting white people as "the nation?"
Again, you're trying to bait me, but I'm not biting. In the eyes of the Union leadership, the same people who won the war, ended slavery, and preserved the Union, the primary goal in the Postbellum period was to promote unity, national patriotism, and healing the nation's wounds.
And yes, both sides were very racist, which is why it's disingenuous to single out Confederate monuments as "racist monuments" when the whole country was racist.
The South did remain hostile up through the World Wars and beyond. The US just capitulated during the Reconstruction.
The US didn't capitulate. The Union clearly won the war, and no one has ever disputed that basic historical fact. They just didn't care as much about the well-being of black people as much as today's historical revisionists would have us believe. Too many people have this perception (and I've seen it played out in this thread) that racism in the U.S. is/was strictly a Southern thing, all wrapped in a Confederate flag and battle monuments.
Then they wonder why, even as late as 2020, the problem still persists. It's because they don't know what the cause, nor do they particularly care about solving the problem.