Posted on 06/13/2003 6:22:01 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
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.
Gawd, but I love it! No wonder the Republicans can rarely agree on anything today!
One side says, "I say it is so, I can cite history books, therefore it is so!"
The other side says, "I say it is so, I can cite history books, therefore it is so!"
Then each side says, "You're full of cr@p!"
GOP, let me ask you a question...thanks.
On what is assumed to be your home page, you have a link to http://www.republicanbasics.com/ on which is stated, "...and the 15th amendment according voting rights to blacks -- all three were enacted by the much-maligned Radical Republicans in the face of fierce Democrat opposition."
The question: How much longer will the lie that Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be believed by everyone...of any or no party?
This lie is already accepted by a large portion of the population.
See my point?
What are you saying, Walt's facts are wrong because who he votes for? Y'all need to come up with a new strategy.
for a free beer, rs
Gore would probably have required an environemental impact statement before we attacked Iraq. I'm glad that Rumsfeld is SecDef, I'm glad that Colin Powell has the portfolio at State; heck, I'd probably come down in favor of Ashcroft being attorney general. These are tough times; we need tough people.
It never occurs to me to hit the abuse button when ya'll post this compendium of my posts. Free speech is good.
It's clearly a personal attack on me of a sort that is not allowed by the guidelines of the site, however.
What it really shows of course is that you resent my holding forth on ACW issues and just don't have the facts to counter my positions.
Walt
That's interesting; I drove through the Shenandoah Valley in 1997, and there were pretty much the same number of rebel flags as U.S. flags.
Walt
How can it be a personal attack when I never said a word. The words I posted were all your own, which you posted to this site. I think the freepers should know who you are. Most already know about you and your little group....but for those that didn't....well there you are.
You've obviously never been to Germany. It may not be seen as much as the Confederate flag is seen in the South, and not publicly either, but it can be seen.
It's as plain as day that you can't address what I say about the ACW on the merits.
Walt
Where did I condemn or ridicule you in this thread? I merely identified you for what you are.....a liberal.
Prove it then!! I can only document that they found him not guilty of the charges against him. There is a huge difference between being determined to be innocent (he flat out didn't do it) and being found not guilty (the evidence never rose above the level of "reasonable doubt").
I know that I'm late coming to the party but I just have to tell you that that has to be the finest argument put forth on any subject yet. I understand completely and and now convinced.
The claim that the confederate government somehow struck a blow against slavery by enlisting slaves to fight in exchange for their freedom is one of the most often told confederate fairy tales and one of the easiest to disprove. Here is a link to the text of senate bill 190: A bill to provide for raising 200,000 negro troops. You will see that it was read in in February 1865 and was actually passed the next month. And even at this darkest moment in confederate history the confederate congess couldn't bring itself to endangering the institution of slavery by freeing those slaves who were willing to fight for it.
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.