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.
Five of the seven didn't 'freely join' anything. They were admitted into the Union only through the approval of the other states as indicated by a majority vote in both houses of Congress. There is no reason to believe that leaving should have required any less.
That is why he needed to die at the hand of a Constitutionalist, southern or not.
President Lincoln died at the hands of a back-shooting sot too cowardly to join the confederate army and fight for his adopted 'country'. Any courage John Booth had came from the bottom of a brandy bottle.
Gee, you're smart. No wonder I was convinced by your argument.
The point many seem to miss is that Gephardt basically ordered Holden to take isolated Confederate Battle flags down. There was no debate or discussion. Gephardt thinks he's right about everything and acts like Joe Stalin here in Missouri when in fact he's never held a statewide office. He needs to be taken down a couple notches if you ask me.
Some people on this thread say they like the FR because it gives them the chance to exercise their 1st Admendment rights of free speech. Someone needs to ask Gephardt and Holden about 1st Admendment rights pertaining to the Confederate Battle flag.
I'll admit I'm not an expert on the letter of the law concerning the rights of seccession but if obvious that this war was an American tragidy. But today is 2003 and we have bigger fish to fry.
Very good page, BTW.
I'm well aware of that, but you would be absolutely amazed at how many people think it was passed by the Democrats!
I tell them I was 30 years old when it was passed, that I remember following it closely.
They still think I'm lying about it!
But do you see my point about changing history to suit the needs of a person, party, or belief?
To say that one side tells only the truth and that the opposite side is telling nothing but lies, is foolish.
Are you convinced now?
Wrong.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America
Article I, Section 9
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America SPECIFICALLY OUTLAWS all governments under the Confederacy from EVER ending slavery - which is what's so damned laughable about the revisionists "state's rights" claimed excuse for rebelling against the Union. The Confederate states would have had no "right" to alter their slave holding status under the Confederate Constitution.
Tracing this back to #7, Non-Sequitur's "no it wasn't" refers to what the auithor of this dreadful article said about the rebel congress offering freedom to the slaves who came forward to fight.
No, it didn't. This statement:
"The Confederacy, its own troop strength depleted, offered slaves freedom if they volunteered for the army."...is false.
The author made a misstatement of fact.
N-S made a comment that was entirely appropriate.
Walt
Thanks; I missed that.
Walt
Walt
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.