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.
Some of these self-righteous South haters always make me think of a great scene where some of their like state of mind, after invading Virginia, encounter some Virginia Negroes. They tell the latter, that they are there to bring "Freedom," and get them to agree to set up a secret rendevouz with other slaves, only for the would be Abolitionists to ride into an ambush, because the Negroes were loyal Virginians, and wanted no part of the Yankee meddling?
To those who do not feel a compulsive need to apologize for the realities of history, it is a very amusing account.
Anyway, Merry Christmas!
Bill Flax
Are you such a narcissist that you coin a neologism and use it without explaining that you, in fact, invented the word? Don't be such a vexterion!!!
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!
You find it offensive to go to war and change another country's social structure. We did that precise thing in Germany and Japan. Is the fact that they fired the first shot, so to speak, enough in your mind to then justify going to war and meddle in their domestic affairs? Would that include your hypothetical whip-cracker society if it, I don't know, fired on one of our military installations?
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.
That's not circular. I don't justify my "assault" on the fact that you don't agree with me. My opinions on the evils of slavery are based on my beliefs of morality. Those same beliefs regarding morality tell me that your refusal to call the evils of slavery "evil" is, itself, an evil.
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.
That is your right. But in your mind it is evil to force your social values on other people, but not evil to actually own other people? That's messed up.
Here's the difference: I believe that there is no right to enslave. Neither a state nor a person has the right to enslave. Therefore no state has a valid claim that it's rights were violated when another state moves to destroy that state of enslavement.
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.
I did not say that God needs me to carry out his will. I said God granted each of us rights. I belive that I would be acting morally if I choose to defend another in their exercise of those rights.
(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.)
I stated my understanding of what the words meant, not what Jefferson intended. Frankly, her was more a scrivener than an author, anyway. Moreover, I think he was a bit of a hypocrite. (Either he believed that all men were equal with rights to life liberty and property, and was a hypocrite because he held slaves or, as Taney wrote in Scott v. Sandford, he did not believe that the blacks were men. I think the former was the case.)
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.
(Interesting that you would characterize the term untermenschen as "cute"...) I don't give a damn what they claimed. The fact of the matter was that neither the Sudetendeutsch nor the Danzigers were actually enslaved. I am not saying that it is okay to invade another country so long as you claim to be freeing someone from slavery; I am saying that it is okay to invade another country so long as you are freeing someone from slavery. Big difference.
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?
Am I advocating a classless society of Aryan supermen? Uh, no. Classes aren't the issue: slavery is. Propose a class-obsessed, non-slave holding society, and we have a different situation.
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.)
No. I've said it a number of time: what I am opposed to is one person owning another. That's it. From that flows the right to destroy such a system, but at heart, I am just saying no to slavery. It's not about class or heirarchy or anything like that.
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.
Again, hierarchies are not the issue. The issue here is ownership of other people. In the situation you describe, the Chief may be essentially a slaveholder or the top of a primitive legal system, so it is impossible for me to determine whether it is objectionable, lamentable or what.
And didn't blacks in the Old South have no rights but those the white chose to confer?? Didn't that mean they had no rights that white men had to recognize? Didn't that mean that they were treated as if they had no God-given rights?
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.
As you prefer.
free dixie,sw
NOPE i'm NOT a professor (as everybody on the WBTS threads knows.) i'm what they call i "guest lecturer" for a local college.
in point of fact i'm a "POLICY WONK" for a "nonprofit"corporation (i.e., the company i work for).
of course mean-spirited, ignorant, hateful TROLLS like you can't figure a simple concept like that out.
you really should get a LIFE, troll!
then people "with a greater than room temperature IQ" won't spend so much time LOL AT you.
or on the other hand, you COULD head over to DU where FOOLS & CRETINS dwell. they'll LIKE you.
btw, was third grade your best 5 years??
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
dr mop-wonk. go ahead, step deeper into it!
YOU ARE A BUSTED FRAUD!
you have NOT claimed in the archived posts to be any of what you claim people "know" you are.
clever little attempt at spinning though. you must have refrained from getting wasted last night so you could collect your thoughts into this new story.
guest lecturers do not, do not, DO NOT send out faculty notes as you claim to have done from your office at the gas station.
they are not faculty. tenured faculty don't even always like non-tenured faculty. guest lecturers are lower on the pecking order.
unless you are a political luminary or business titan.
are you? lol!!!!!!!
but of course you are!!! you are everything and anything on this board! lol!!!
what is obvious to the discerning is that you really are a piece of work!!
you are a turd.
you can count on being watched and your fraud seeing the proverbial light of day.
dr stand and watie's explanation in a previous post in this very thread to be compared with his post just above this one:
"NOPE i'm NOT a professor (as everybody on the WBTS threads knows.) i'm what they call i "guest lecturer" for a local college."
vs.
"it has been my expierience (sp) throughout graduate school & TEACHING on this campus,......
"in point of fact, a GENERATION (20+ years for the "LAOTZU"s out there) ago, i had an IBM ball-typewriter converted to NO caps. (LOL!!!! sure you did, dr watie!!!lol!!!!)that drove the ........ on the FACULTY crazy....." (CAPS added for emphasis.)
free dixie,sw
237 posted on 12/22/2004 8:52:44 AM PST by stand watie
rock on professor wonkamop!!!
and
"free that willie"
much to your chagrin dr "freedixie/wonkalot" i will paste the latest update to your life of fraud which is now on another (really?? another one?) confederate thread.
i just found out on yet another confederate thread (surprise, surprise again) that coupled with your
a)illustrious service record defending all of us
b)life in academia
c)business world acumen as a POLICY WONK (forgive my mirth
at your expense...that one just...what can i say?)
d)reserved for whatever other things turn up in old posts.
you are also an american indian!!!!!!
again i say, of course you are.
with that, i'll leave you with a link to a bit of your fr legacy......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250410/posts?q=1&&page=1#1
it is 900+ posts long and in it what will people find dr "freewillie"?
they will find the 30+ instances of the same snarling, nasty responses they find in this thread!!
directed at those who disagree on some point with the good dr watie.
VERBATIM (tough word i know, look it up dr).
i feel some sympathy toward you after viewing your posting history in these other threads.
same words over and over.
but you make us freepers look bad due to your affiliation with this board.
responding to your attacks is even worse than the hand grenade/fishing analogy.
i now think it's like clubbing baby seals or hunting chicklets with a 12gauge running 3inch magnum rifled slugs.
BUCK UP!! my man.
crack open those books at the university!! (snicker, snicker). bone up on that vocab and get some new stuff to hurl at people.
btw, i didn't start out attacking you professor/indian chief wonksalot.
i entered a post which i later backed off somewhat from due to the regional context i had of this issue.
you elected to go into attack mode.
i won't stand down to fools like you though, and i'm sure we'll cross again the next time you blast someone else.
what's that smell dr willie?
teen spirit??? no....
it smells like .......BURNT FRAUD!!!!
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
I read that same thing in the Book of Lists about 25 years ago.
"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?)"
Another bogus prediction. "La Raza" represents a very small minority within a minority. Even when the demographics place hispanics in the majority, the so-called Azatlan separatists will never succeed (or secede).
nothing more.nothing less.
free dixie,sw
opinions are like BELLYBUTTONS. everybody has one.
free dixie,sw
Merry Christmas, stand. Hope all is well with your family and "significant other" this holiday season.
most sincere holiday greetings to you & yours.
free dixie,sw
yes, professor WONKER!!!!
the hateful word is there and you are correct. i don't like you and the FRAUD in your background you WHITE RACISTS perpetuate.
so let's go ahead and repost some of your FAKE "CREDENTIALS" (LOL just sounds funny assigning the word to someone like you.) in the 250-300 block....in case some of your slow jethro buddies want to jump in to this post from nowhere.
Dr FREE DIXIE's (/ AKA CHIEF PROFESSOR stand and watie) illustrious career!!!!
YOU ARE A BUSTED FRAUD!
you have NOT claimed in the archived posts to be any of what you claim people "know" you are.
clever little attempt at spinning though. you must have refrained from getting wasted last night so you could collect your thoughts into this new story.
guest lecturers do not, do not, DO NOT send out faculty notes as you claim to have done from your office at the gas station.
they are not faculty. tenured faculty don't even always like non-tenured faculty. guest lecturers are lower on the pecking order.
unless you are a political luminary or business titan.
are you? lol!!!!!!!
but of course you are!!! you are everything and anything on this board! lol!!!
what is obvious to the discerning is that you really are a piece of work!!
you are a turd.
you can count on being watched and your fraud seeing the proverbial light of day.
dr stand and watie's explanation in a previous post in this very thread to be compared with his post just above this one:
"NOPE i'm NOT a professor (as everybody on the WBTS threads knows.) i'm what they call i "guest lecturer" for a local college."
vs.
"it has been my expierience (sp) throughout graduate school & TEACHING on this campus,......
"in point of fact, a GENERATION (20+ years for the "LAOTZU"s out there) ago, i had an IBM ball-typewriter converted to NO caps. (LOL!!!! sure you did, dr watie!!!lol!!!!)that drove the ........ on the FACULTY crazy....." (CAPS added for emphasis.)
free dixie,sw
237 posted on 12/22/2004 8:52:44 AM PST by stand watie
rock on professor wonkamop!!!
and
"free that willie"
To: stand watie
much to your chagrin dr "freedixie/wonkalot" i will paste the latest update to your life of fraud which is now on another (really?? another one?) confederate thread.
i just found out on yet another confederate thread (surprise, surprise again) that coupled with your
a)illustrious service record defending all of us
b)life in academia
c)business world acumen as a POLICY WONK (forgive my mirth
at your expense...that one just...what can i say?)
d)reserved for whatever other things turn up in old posts.
you are also an american indian!!!!!!
again i say, of course you are.
with that, i'll leave you with a link to a bit of your fr legacy......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250410/posts?q=1&&page=1#1
it is 900+ posts long and in it what will people find dr "freewillie"?
they will find the 30+ instances of the same snarling, nasty responses they find in this thread!!
directed at those who disagree on some point with the good dr watie.
VERBATIM (tough word i know, look it up dr).
i feel some sympathy toward you after viewing your posting history in these other threads.
same words over and over.
but you make us freepers look bad due to your affiliation with this board.
responding to your attacks is even worse than the hand grenade/fishing analogy.
i now think it's like clubbing baby seals or hunting chicklets with a 12gauge running 3inch magnum rifled slugs.
BUCK UP!! my man.
crack open those books at the university!! (snicker, snicker). bone up on that vocab and get some new stuff to hurl at people.
btw, i didn't start out attacking you professor/indian chief wonksalot.
i entered a post which i later backed off somewhat from due to the regional context i had of this issue.
you elected to go into attack mode.
i won't stand down to fools like you though, and i'm sure we'll cross again the next time you blast someone else.
what's that smell dr willie?
teen spirit??? no....
it smells like .......BURNT FRAUD!!!!
free dixie,sw
he/she/it is the prefect example of a damnyankee = ignorant,self-righteous, arrogant, foolish,ill-educated,bigoted against the southland & her people and blinded by HATE.
on the other hand, i wonder what we of Free Republic did to deserve him, it must have been something awful.
free dixie,sw
"on the other hand, i wonder what we (LOL !!!!)
of Free Republic did to deserve him, it must have been something awful."
"we"?
yes indead, dr fraud.
you are just like the rest of the "we" in the freerepublic world!
yes you are......lol!!!!!!LOL!!!!!!!!!!
"Free dixie's wonker!!!!"
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.