Posted on 12/16/2004 6:48:26 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Americans Owe Confederate History Respect
By CHRIS EDWARDS
The Time Has Come To Take A Stand After attending the Confederate Memorial Day service on June 1 in Higginsville, I found myself believing our nation should be ashamed for not giving more respect and recognition to our ancestors.
I understand that some find the Confederate flag offensive because they feel it represents slavery and oppression. Well, here are the facts: The Confederate flag flew over the South from 1861 to 1865. That's a total of four years. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in April 1789, and that document protected and condoned the institution of slavery from 1789 to 1861. In other words, if we denigrate the Confederate flag for representing slavery for four years, shouldn't we also vilify the U.S. flag for representing slavery for 72 years? Unless we're hypocrites, it is clear that one flag is no less pure than the other.
A fascinating aspect of studying the Civil War is researching the issues that led to the confrontation. The more you read, the less black-and-white the issues become. President Abraham Lincoln said he would do anything to save the union, even if that meant preserving the institution of slavery. Lincoln's focus was obviously on the union, not slavery.
In another case, historians William McFeely and Gene Smith write that Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant threatened to "throw down his sword" if he thought he was fighting to end slavery.
Closer to home, in 1864, Col. William Switzler, one of the most respected Union men in Boone County, purchased a slave named Dick for $126. What makes this transaction interesting is not only the fact that Switzler was a Union man but that he bought the slave one year after the issuance of the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, history students know the proclamation did not include slaves living in the North or in border states such as Missouri.
So if this war was fought strictly over slavery, why were so many Unionists reluctant to act like that was the issue?
In reviewing the motives that led to the Civil War, one should read the letters soldiers wrote home to their loved ones. Historian John Perry, who studied the soldier's correspondence, says in his three years of research, he failed to find one letter that referred to slavery from Confederate or Union soldiers.
Perry says that Yankees tended to write about preserving the Union and Confederates wrote about protecting their rights from a too-powerful federal government. The numerous letters failed to specifically say soldiers were fighting either to destroy or protect the institution of slavery. Shelby Foote, in his three-volume Civil War history, recounts an incident in which a Union soldier asks a Confederate prisoner captured in Tennessee why he was fighting. The rebel responded, "Because you're down here."
History tends to overlook the South's efforts to resolve the issue of slavery. For example, in 1863, because of a shortage of manpower, Lincoln permitted the enlistment of black soldiers into the Union Army. Battlefield documents bear out the fact that these units were composed of some of the finest fighting men in the war. Unfortunately for these brave soldiers, the Union used them as cannon fodder, preferring to sacrifice black lives instead of whites.
These courageous black Union soldiers experienced a Pyrrhic victory for their right to engage in combat. However, history has little to say about the South's same effort in 1865. The Confederacy, its own troop strength depleted, offered slaves freedom if they volunteered for the army.
We know that between 75,000 and 100,000 blacks responded to this call, causing Frederick Douglass to bemoan the fact that blacks were joining the Confederacy. But the assimilation of black slaves into the Confederate army was short-lived as the war came to an end before the government's policy could be fully implemented.
It's tragic that Missouri does not do more to recognize the bravery of the men who fought in the Missouri Confederate brigades who fought valiantly in every battle they were engaged in. To many Confederate generals, the Missouri brigades were considered the best fighting units in the South.
The courage these boys from Missouri demonstrated at Port Gibson and Champion Hill, Miss., Franklin, Tenn., and Fort Blakely, Ala., represent just a few of the incredible sacrifices they withstood on the battlefield. Missouri should celebrate their struggles instead of damning them.
For the real story about the Missouri Confederate brigades, one should read Phil Gottschalk and Philip Tucker's excellent books about these units. The amount of blood spilled by these Missouri boys on the field of battle will make you cry.
Our Confederate ancestors deserve better from this nation. They fought for what they believed in and lost. Most important, we should remember that when they surrendered, they gave up the fight completely. Defeated Confederate soldiers did not resort to guerrilla warfare or form renegade bands that refused to surrender. These men simply laid down their arms, went home and lived peacefully under the U.S. flag. When these ex-Confederates died, they died Americans.
During the postwar period, ex-Confederates overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party. This party, led in Missouri by Rep. Dick Gephardt and Gov. Bob Holden, has chosen to turn its back on its fallen sons.
The act of pulling down Confederate flags at two obscure Confederate cemeteries for the sake of promoting Gephardt's hopeless quest for the presidency was a cowardly decision. I pray these men will rethink their decision.
The reality is, when it comes to slavery, the Confederate and United States flags drip with an equal amount of blood.
Chris Edwards is a local musician and MU graduate student of history. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and of the board of Missouri's Civil War Heritage Foundation.
if not here it is again:
within 10 years Le Republicque Quebecois will secede from Canada.
within 20 years Los Estados Unidos de Azatlan will be established by popular vote (by 2015,FIVE states in the west will be overwhelmingly Latino.) taking AZ,CA,CO,NM & likely NV out of the Union. (will you damnyankees declare war on those states/the new Hispanic republic?)
THEN the new & much improved Southron Republic will, quietly & hopefully peacefully, depart the Union.
that's how i see it.
free dixie,sw
You assume that all every Latino would vote for this plan. That's a stupid assumption. First, there are many patriotic Americans of Latino or Hispanic dissent who wouldn't want to be part of Mexico or "Aztlan." Further, the main proponents of the Aztlan plan, MEChA, is seen by most, including many Latinos, as either being akin to "the Klan with a tan" or maybe simply a group for stupid college trouble makers.
(will you damnyankees declare war on those states/the new Hispanic republic?)
As for their being a breakaway Hispanic republic, perhaps you weren't paying attention. States cannot "secede" from the Union with a simple popular vote. It takes a constitutional amendment to do it without war. We decided that question one hundred thirty-odd years ago when some other people tried and got their asses whipped.
THEN the new & much improved Southron Republic will, quietly & hopefully peacefully, depart the Union.
...and is that when the Trekkies get to beam aboard the Enterprise?
it's really hard to have a real discussion with an empty-head like yours seems to be.
leaving that aside for a minute, how about a SIMPLE yes or no answer to my question? WOULD YOU support a WAR to keep the new Latino nation in the union??? AND how many MILLION people are you prepared to KILL to keep Azatlan part of the union of the UNwilling???
barring NO definitive answers to those simple questions, go back to sleep or better yet over to DU.
free dixie,sw
Yes.
AND how many MILLION people are you prepared to KILL to keep Azatlan part of the union of the UNwilling???
As many stinkin' rebels as there are...same plan as last time.
barring NO definitive answers to those simple questions, go back to sleep or better yet over to DU.
You really need to get over yourself. Just because someone doesn't agree with your rather peculiar world view does not mean that they are stupid or liberals. Frankly, given the poor quality of thought you've demonstrated in your posts and reliance on calling people liars, hate-filled "damnyankees" and so forth, my guess is that most people who attempt to have a conversation with you give up in the face of what appears to be a colossal waste of time. Apparently "conservative" to you means living in a fantasy world where the South is nothing but what it was in 1860-1865, and anyone who doesn't buy into your fantasy must be some atheistic, pc, liberal DU'er.
You say things like, "gee, it would be NICE if you had a brain! it's really hard to have a real discussion with an empty-head like yours seems to be." The fact of the matter is that I've not had to give your messages any real thought, because they are reflective of such a simplistic outlook on life that none has been required. So, instead of calling you stupid or an idiot or hate-filled or brainless, as you do, I've been making jokes at your expense. The fun of that has gone. I am done with you.
(Oh, one last thing, when you say "damnyankee" in real life, do you sound like Foghorn Leghorn?)
Yes, war involves killing. But a war for our own independence is not what you have proposed. You have proposed a war to change other people's social systems. The officious arrogance of that is something to behold.
As others have pointed out to you, no one at this venue is seeking to reestablish slavery, or saying that slavery is a good thing. But you go beyond that to heap venom on the heritage of many of your fellow Americans. When challenged as to your moral authority for your rant, you simply repeat it in other words. That is not an argument.
As I have stated before, neither the Bible nor the doctrine of any of the other traditional Faiths makes the sort of statements that you offer. Just what is your moral authority? The Declaration of Independence does not offer one. As I pointed out earlier, stirring up domestic insurrections was one of the Founders' grievances. And, incidentally, it was the recital of grievances that justified the revolution, not the iteration of what they considered self-evident. You have simply mistated the purpose for the language that you paraphrase. All they were doing there was reciting the right to revolution, not justifying their particular revolution. It is you who need to read the document more closely.
But enough. Again the question is not so much what you or I think of slavery, either in general, or as employed in America. The question, really, is why you feel such a need to keep besmirching the heritage of the most Conservative region of the American Republic? Just why?
And you also missed my point about the Communists and Nazis. They justified their conquests with rhetoric not unlike yours. Yes they were enslaving other peoples, but that is not how they described it. Thad Stevens basically enslaved the whole South in Reconstruction, but that is not how he described it either. Fanatics never describe their work as more objective people see it.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
what i do note is that you SEEM to many on FR to be an empty-head, who has drunk deeply of the kool-aid from the leftist damnyankees.
people TRY to make fun of others, when they know ZILCH of importance to share with the forum.
free dixie,sw
some of your SILLY posts, as i said reflect an empty cranium & some reflect HATRED & a tendency toward CRUELTY/VIOLENCE. NEITHER are worthy thoughts, imVho.
thus, i'd guess that FR has found yet another mindless, hateFILLED damnyankee to replace #3 fan & "heyworth the hatefilled" (both of whom are banned).
free dixie,sw
You don't sound like Foghorn Leghorn? How about Cooter from the Dukes of Hazzard?? Gomer Pyle??
what i do note is that you SEEM to many on FR to be an empty-head, who has drunk deeply of the kool-aid from the leftist damnyankees.
You seem like someone who needs to put down the Nathan Bedford Forrest action figures and maybe read a book that doesn't have pictures in it.
people TRY to make fun of others, when they know ZILCH of importance to share with the forum.
...or when they are faced with people who are dumb as mayonnaise.
Well, given that it's coming from you, I don't think I will worry to much about your suggestions.
Hmmm, jackboots, black uniform and cap with silver skull: wasn't that the 20th century version of the Butternut jacket?
some of your SILLY posts, as i said reflect an empty cranium & some reflect HATRED & a tendency toward CRUELTY/VIOLENCE. NEITHER are worthy thoughts, imVho.
Some of your posts reflect an inability to grasp the English language, not to mention the inability to form a coherent thought. I guess we're even.
thus, i'd guess that FR has found yet another mindless, hateFILLED damnyankee to replace #3 fan & "heyworth the hatefilled" (both of whom are banned).
"Hate filled" and "damn yankee" are each two words, genius.
No, what I am proposing is a willingness to wage war in order to secure someone else's independence, based on fact that the enslaved have the same right to life, liberty, etc., as I do.
***
You have proposed a war to change other people's social systems. The officious arrogance of that is something to behold.
I am proposing a war to end slavery. Nothing more. Feel free to call it what you want. I don't care. If it involves changing their "social system" as we did in Germany and Japan in WWII, that's okay by me. Or are you saying that our involvement in WWII was officious and arrogant to you?
***
As others have pointed out to you, no one at this venue is seeking to reestablish slavery, or saying that slavery is a good thing.
No, but the fact that they and you seem unwilling to make the simple statement that chattel slavery in the antebellum South was evil is an evil in itself.
***
But you go beyond that to heap venom on the heritage of many of your fellow Americans.
What about the heritage of my fellow Americans whose ancestors suffered under the whip? Do they not count? Should I insult their heritage of triumph in the face of evil to assuage the feeling of apologists for slavery?
***
When challenged as to your moral authority for your rant, you simply repeat it in other words. That is not an argument.
Yes, I have provided it, you just chose not to pay attention. Moreover, your moral vacuousness is shown by the fact that you even require a moral justification for fighting a slave system.
***
As I have stated before, neither the Bible nor the doctrine of any of the other traditional Faiths makes the sort of statements that you offer.
You have stated it, you've just been wrong. The abolitionists were explicitly religious, and that religion wasn't Buddhism.
***
Just what is your moral authority? The Declaration of Independence does not offer one.
Yes, it does. It says that God granted to every human being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If God granted everyone that right, then anyone holding another as a slave is committing an offense against God.
To fight or even to wage war against that offense is clearly a moral act because such a war would be {hint, hint} a just war. Put down your copy of "The South Was Right" or "The Real Lincoln" and look up Aquinas, Thomas.
***
As I pointed out earlier, stirring up domestic insurrections was one of the Founders' grievances.
Yes, it was one of their grievances. Which goes to show that even the most well-meaning people do the right thing for evil reasons.
***
And, incidentally, it was the recital of grievances that justified the revolution, not the iteration of what they considered self-evident. You have simply mistated the purpose for the language that you paraphrase. All they were doing there was reciting the right to revolution, not justifying their particular revolution. It is you who need to read the document more closely.
Wrong. The list of grievances are merely evidence that the colonists were justified in their conclusion that the then-present situation between the colonies and Great Britain had become destructive to the proper ends of government: viz., securing the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The document clearly states that it is only when the government fails to secure these inalienable rights that revolution is justified. The list of grievances is proof, evidence. ("To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.") Surely you understand the difference between a right or proposition and the evidence to support the right or proposition.
***
But enough. Again the question is not so much what you or I think of slavery, either in general, or as employed in America.
Actually, that is the question. Why is it that you excuse those who held others in bondage? Why do you refuse to label it a moral evil?
***
The question, really, is why you feel such a need to keep besmirching the heritage of the most Conservative region of the American Republic? Just why?
Why not? If part of their heritage consists of something evil, it should be called evil, regardless of whether the area is conservative, liberal, libertarian, moderate, whatever. The coward is the man who refuses to call an evil thing evil because he believes it will offend someone else.
If someone wants to delude themselves into thinking that slavery was anything less than evil, why should I be complicit in that delusion simply because the region where the deluded person lives trends conservative? Would that not be placing partisanship about morality?
***
And you also missed my point about the Communists and Nazis. They justified their conquests with rhetoric not unlike yours.
No, they didn't. The Nazis justified their conquests on avenging the diktat of Versailles and on the inherent right of the superior Aryan race to dominate the inferior Slavic untermenshen. The latter, you will notice, is analogous to, if not identical to, the Southern justification for chattel slavery: the inherent inferiority of the black race.
Communist conquests were justified, if at all, on the idea that the workers were entitled to the control the means of production, and later on defeating Fascism. In Europe, the thesis there were spheres of influence within which the USSR had the right to maneuver in order to protect its system was advanced, and in Asia conquest was justified on the notion that whatever was historically part of China should be incorporated in the PRC.
None of these are rhetorically similar to the idea that it is okay to go to war to free slaves. However, even if there was any rhetorical analogy that could be forced, in practice, the Nazis and Communists were enslavers, not liberators of the enslaved. So and comparison is ultimately meaningless.
***
Yes they were enslaving other peoples, but that is not how they described it.
I don't give a rat's ass how they described it. What is important is the morality of what they did, not how they chose to describe it.
***
Thad Stevens basically enslaved the whole South in Reconstruction, but that is not how he described it either.
No, he didn't. I dare you to find a record of Ashley Wilkes or Scarlett O'Hara being forced to work the fields under the whip and being sold at an auction block. That's how the former whip-crackers like to described Reconstruction, so as to justify their 80-year reign of terror against the black population of the South after the end of Reconstruction.
***
Fanatics never describe their work as more objective people see it.
The fact that you can't stand to call slavery "evil" means that you are so far from objective that you can't even see it.
i got into it so to speak with this watie thing on another confederate flag thread.
so i searched a few and guess what? the tool posts on most of the others too. it's likely some sort of "religious" obsession similar to du affliction.
the personal attacks are typical.
quite easy to confuse this little device as it's vocabulary is limited. lol!
free tibet!!!!!or whatever.... (apologies to waitie)
I think the only thing watie has is hatred for those who don't agree with his opinions. Pathetic, really. I'll eventually tire of him, as he is not at all challenging, and just stop responding to him. He'll probably think it another victory for the glorious cause. Whatever.
PLEASE continue your DUMB-BUNNY RANTS, as you too serve the risen southland.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
like old "wildhorsecrash", you seem FILLED with IGNORANCE, hatefulness & not much else.
head over to DU, where you so obviously belong.
free dixie,sw
from that post, i'd assume that you think that USERS of drugs are WORSE than the filthy, criminal scum that are DRUG-PUSHERS.
is that your position?
a simple YES or NO will suffice.(really i do NOT expect anything more than a simplistic answer from a simpleton.)
free dixie,sw
fyi, i was once an English major, but CHOSE to spell/capitalize things to suit ME. (frankly, i couldn't care less what you or any other statist, damnyankee lunatic thinks or doesn't think about my writing style.)
in point of fact, a generation ago, i had an IBM ball-typewriter converted to NO caps. THAT drove the leftist IDIOTS & "glass bellybutton gazers" on the faculty crazy.(if nothing else it gave them something to worry their "little pointed heads" about.)
free dixie,sw
aren't you getting tired of intelligent FReepers LAUGHING AT you??
Bubba, there's two kinds of dumb people. There are dumb people that know they're dumb, keep quiet and generally lead happy lives. Then there are dumb people that think they're smart. They don't stay quiet, end up frustrated and spitting mad and are usually reduced to hurling insults.
As I've done with you, when intelligent folks meet up with one of these second kind of dumb people, we usually don't point out the fact of this blind stupidity right away, but sit back and enjoy the show. There is something mildly amusing about watching an angry dunce try to keep up with his intellectual superior.
So if you are hearing intelligent Freepers laughing, well, let's just say it's not me their laughing at.
PLEASE continue your DUMB-BUNNY RANTS, as you too serve the risen southland.
"the risen southland"??? I've heard of "the South will rise again", but never "the South rose, but we didn't notice..."
Do you walk around town in a Confederate uniform and and tell people to call you "Colonel"??? I'll just bet that on the two or three times in your life that you wrote a letter, you put on your return addresses, "South Carolina, CSA"...
i HAVE sent "intra-faculty notes" out with "yankee-occupied Virginia", as a return address. THAT made the leftists, damnyankees and ARROGANT fools on the faculty CRAZY & "gave them something to talk about".
i suspect that it would also disturb "empty-heads" like you too.
why not head over to DU, where you so obviously belong?
free dixie,sw
Are you a one issue dysron? What on earth does our responding to an attack from Japan, followed by a German Declaration of War on us, for declaring War on Japan, have to do with your idea of gratuitously intervening in other people's domestic affairs?! No, I do not think it was officious that we defended ourselves! Your point is no point!
Your rant continues to be completely circular. You justify your assault on a system that has been gone for 139 years, on the basis that some of us do not agree with you that it was evil, only that it was a mistaken system. Well, I am sorry, but I do not pass judgment on other systems--except those which challenge me in the present, such as Communism and Socialism--where the evilness arises in their concurrence in your idea that it is all right for one group to force their social values on other peoples, in other Societies.
You ignore throughout what does not suit you, and postulate the absurdity, that God needs you to carry out his will, with respect to the human condition. (Yes, you misunderstand, deliberately, what Jefferson meant in the preamble that precedes the recital of the justification for our Revolution; but even if you were correct, that would in no way justify your intervention in other social orders. That idea was what drove John Brown insane; and you are beginning to sound more and more like him.)
As for the idea that the Nazis were bent upon enslaving people: You pick cute slogans out of context. The justification for their seizure of Czechoslovakia was to free the Germans in the Sudetenland; they justified the war on Poland to protect the Germans in Danzig. And while Hitler claimed superiority for a mythological race, he also advocated a "Classless, Casteless" Society in Germany. Isn't that what you are basically calling for? Aren't what you really saying in these rants against human bondage, is that you despise the attributes of an established hierarchy? (If I do you an injustice there, I will apologize.)
We have been round and round on other bondage systems in human history. But is your attitude any different, as to one of those societies that does not really embrace the concept of private property, but still has a hierarchy, where the Chief or one of the Headmen under the Chief, has virtual life or death authority over most of the members of the tribe. Under such conditions, the lower members of the order may have less rights than the slaves in the Old South.
But, this is all wearing thin. We are down to only a few still following this thread, so I will wait until our paths cross again on a fresher one, to debate with you further.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.