The Civil War was a defining moment in our nation's history, when more than half a million soldiers laid down their lives to defend their values. Minor research shows that only two pensions exist for decedents of these war heroes, and the pensioners are qualified due to illnesses which prevented them from self-sufficiency. Just because the Civil War was fought long ago is no reason to think of stripping these two pensioners of their financial stability. The Civil War pensions are legitimate and are but one simple token of appreciation for what the Civil War soldiers sacrificed for their, and our, country.
If the person qualified to receive a pension as the child of a soldier, and continues to qualify (under whatever rules exist), then why does the specific war matter? We like to think that the Civil War is ancient history, but some of the soldiers married much younger women and started families as very old men. And some of those children lived to a very old age. This particular problem will go away soon enough.
The United States owes its freedom the the brave veterans that fought for it. Furthermore, it is wonderful for America to show its appreciation for veterans by providing them with pensions and financial support after fighting for the country in wars. However, the children of veterans from long ago wars - especially the Civil War - should not still be receiving pensions.
Like really come on now. Who is still keeping those records to avoid fraud. If the slaves did not get their 40 acres and a mule then the descendants of civil war veterans should not still be benefitting from something that happened almost 200 years ago. The black descendants from slaves have not received any reparations so it seems a bit unfair.