Americans owe Confederate history respect

Columbia Tribune ^ | June 10, 2003 | Chris Edwards

[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.

[Grand Old Partisan]

There was no attempt to arrest the high officers of the Army of Northenr Virginia, though it was being discussed by many leaders in Washington including President Johnson. Grant did indeed quash it, though nothing would probably not have been any arrests anyway as Lincoln had made federal policy on this point crystal clear.

[Grand Old Partisan]

During the Civil War, the CSA central government in Richmond (excluding the rebel army, of course) was the largest employer in the Confederacy.

[Colt .45]

" But if you want to wave around a loser flag and somehow feel proud of it, go ahead."

Isn't it wonderful that a cretin like yourself makes use of the 1st Amendment to denigrate better men than yourself. You buy into this PC crap and therefore you are an enemy of true liberty. You hide behind your cloak of self-righteousness and call the Confederates "losers", however I want you to take notice .... WE ALL lost in 1865, because the government gained more power as a result of the Confederate defeat. So everytime you bitch about taxes, or Big Brother's intrusiveness, or the loss of our rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights just remember .... it was your side who brought it about, and it was what those so called "losers" were fighting against.

"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson.

'The People are the supreme authority, and can make or unmake the constitution as they see fit." - James Madison

"We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim that those who give power may take it away. It is the people who give power, and can take it back. Who shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it." - John Marshall 1788.

The servants are supposed to be the Federal Government, but we know the answer to his question of "Who shall restrain them?" That self same Federal Government of 1860 - 1865.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"At that time, the confederate battle flag stood for a distinct part of America, the South-Eastern portion and represented everyone there, white, black, or purple."

Did the Confederate battle flag represent the 40% of southerners -- the blacks and the white unionists, who together contributed 300,000 troops to the Union Army -- who opposed the Confederacy?

[Veracious Poet]

"During the Civil War, the CSA central government in Richmond (excluding the rebel army, of course) was the largest employer in the Confederacy."

And your point...I could care less what ANY government other than what my so-called representative government does...my opinion is the Civil War was unnecessary and an excuse to expand Federal Gov't...

[Grand Old Partisan]

The federal government was miniscule until the 1930s expansion by the Democrats followed by the 1960s expansion by the Democrats in the 1960s, so it is ridiculous to blame federal goverment expansion on a Republican President in the 1860s.

[Huck]

Humoring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply."

A very Menckenesque way of looking at it.

[GOPcapitalist]

Maj. Gen. R. Taylor Commanding District of Louisiana: GENERAL: In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hebert, of the 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862. Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the state, no exception can be taken. I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. S. Anderson"

Hold it just a moment there, Walt. In the interest of consistency, I desire to invoke your own "standards" of proof that this document ever existed. I accordingly request that you provide multiple photographs of the handwritten original, a link to at least one website citing it, the location it may be found in the national archives, and a professionally or academically written source citing it...OH WAIT! It'll have to be all that and more since I provided you with each and every one of those things for Milroy's murder lists and you STILL claimed that it was insufficient. Let's see. What should I add?

How about a carbon dating test of the original document itself, just to show it is not a forgery. And since those can be faked, I will also require that you provide at least two independent verifications of that carbon dating test. The handwriting could also be forged, so I demand that you hire a handwriting expert to authenticate it against an authentic document from S.S. Anderson. I require that his consulting be done in the presence of at least four witnesses, two of whom are members of the SCV and the other two of your choice to ensure balance. Oh, and of course you will have to find it on usenet, aol, and google, then prove to me that it was posted there by a legitimate source and isn't really spam. And did I mention that I expect you to hand deliver the document to me for personal inspection? Otherwise, Walt, per your own standards, I have no choice but to reject your claim as unsubstantiated and your document as unproven.

[GOPcapitalist]

Even the legislation passed by the rebel congress in 1865 did not do what the author of this article says it did.

Yet the terms of enlistment for several of the black regiments that were raised in that final month did. The one that saw combat was among these and it is noted accordingly on the historical markers there.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Hold it just a moment there, Walt. In the interest of consistency, I desire to invoke your own "standards" of proof that this document ever existed.

How about this:

Okay, this is not exactly what you asked for, but I did a search on:

taylor smith hebert anderson louisiana civil war

And I came up with 379 hits. Some have nothing at all to do with the ACW, and some do.

When I searched on the principal names of your source on Yahoo and Google, I got none, zero, nada, hits.

The letter I use appears in "The South vs the South" by Dr. William Freehling.

That's -Doctor Freehling- to you.

Walt

[Veracious Poet]

"The federal government was miniscule until the 1930s expansion by the Democrats followed by the 1960s expansion by the Democrats in the 1960s, so it is ridiculous to blame federal goverment expansion on a Republican President in the 1860s."

If you really understood the mechanisms behind what happened with the Fed since the 30s, you would know it was Lincoln's perversion of the Constitution and his use of dictorial-like powers that enabled the endless expansion...Lincoln set the precedent that made it all legal.

[betty boop]

This article is riven with factual distortion and statements that won't stand even a cursory glance at the record.

It would be a great help to me, WhiskeyPapa, if you would point out the statements this author asserts that you find unfounded. What are the distorted facts?

This is the kind of stuff we need to conduct a rational investigation of the historical record, which I think would be useful to do. Otherwise, that can't happen.

Thank you for writing, WP.

[donmeaker]

And so another neoconfederate thread ends, asking for the impossible standard of proof on one side, and insisting that enuendo and absense of evidence be accepted on the other. Another valiant effort Walt.

And I stand corrected, that the US constitution in its Deal with the Devil did mention "persons held to service". I accept the ritual flogging with a wet noodle in good grace.

[betty boop]

And I stand corrected, that the US constitution in its Deal with the Devil did mention "persons held to service". I accept the ritual flogging with a wet noodle in good grace.

This seems to be the point that Walt chooses to overlook, donmeaker.

Walt???

[Polybius]

"Is that your opinion about Vietnam War veterans?"

Nice bait... They don't fly the South Vietnam flag in Vietnam, so it would be an accurate comparision. South Vietnam lost and we fought on the loosing side. That is fact.

So "we fought on the losing side". That is the definition of losing a war. You don't fight a war simply to gain battle honors.

But you, CJ, like Bill Clinton, want to parse your words and definitions.

The gallant defenders of Baatan and Wake Island all surrendered but you back-pedal on your slur because the U.S. "won" the war. The U.S. did not win the Vietnam War but you back-pedal on your slur because we never "surrendered" in Vietnam.

The bottom line, CJ, is that your claim that surrendering to overwhelming military odds makes fighting men "losers" is nothing but a cheap slur.

I find it odd that you find pride in a flag that is/was in direct opposition to the Stars and Stripes and this country all the while advocating and glorifying rebellion and the mistakes of your ancestors.

What I find odd is why you and some others take so much pleasure in denigrating the ancestors of other fellow Americans.

I never mentioned anything about "pride" in the Confederate flag. I never mentioned anything about "my" Confederate ancestors.

I have no Confederate ancestors.

And yet, without provocation, you attack my ancestors simply because you presumed them to be something they were not.

As I documented in Post 138 on this thread, the regional hate-mongering that you are now engaging in was rejected by Civil War veterans themselves and by America as a whole by the turn of the 20th Century.

As I poitted out on Post 70 on another thread such hate-mongering is now a standard operating procedure for Leftists that want to discredit America's historical heritage one piece at a time.

What benefit, exactly, do you get out of engaging in this regional hate-mongering that America-hating Leftists take such delight in, CJ?

[donmeaker]

Actually it was Walt that pointed it out to me!

I submit there is a different level of guilt associated with swallowing hard and accepting something as the best that you can get now, and destroying an imperfect system to make one that is much much worse. That last approach was that of the Confederates.

For what it is work, I was born in Oklahoma, raised in NY, schooled in Mo, Az, and worked in Tx and Ca. I guess I have a few more states to live in. I would like to have voted in all 50 before it is over.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Five of Seven?

13 states were soveriegn powers organizing the Union with the plan to organize more states and have them join the original "several states" upon coordinated votes by the federal government so authorized by the Constitution.

From the 14th state on, states were so organized by their own citizens in coordination with the federal government under the then recognized doctrine of "states rights". These semi-sovereign "state" jurisdictions took states rights very seriously.

The union would never had been formed as it was had not the understanding of leaving the Union without war been considered obvious, certainly by the wealthy, exporting southern states. The north imported labor for its mills' at slave labor wage rates, and needed the tax cash flow from the southern states to sustain the central government.

Texas had been a free republic and would not have joined the union in 1845 if it were to have been trapped, under threat of destructive invasion if Texas later voted to leave the Union.

Booth was the 1860's version of a rich, addict, Hollywood star. Coward? Yes. He should have used a revolver and killed both Lincoln and his accompanying officer, face to face, as was the warrior's formation...easily done at Ford Theater that night.

Lincoln's fate fits with the ironic tragedies of the first American Civil War. By his own orders, tactics against Confederate civilians, Lincoln was a war criminal.

Nearly 600,000 of the best Americans and new immigrants were killed. Millions of lives were consumed, mutilated, and ruined during the period that the federal government refused to abide by its clearly limited powers under the Constitution as it went on a killing spree to make an example of southern elite and its agricultural manpower, for all time.

Central governments alway metastasize like Borg. They prefer power over lawful authority, relentlessly.

In 1993, the Clintons' put Americans on notice as their federal powers during the February through April JBT assault of a large church home of nearly 150 souls at Mt.Carmel near Waco, Texas. Deadly abuse of power continues by those unwilling to live within the limited Constitutional authority.

Power over authority continues in our governments.

[GOPcapitalist]

How about this

Nope. Not only is it not what I asked for, but it also fails to meet most of the criteria I derived from your own arbitrary and continuously absurd standards. Try again

And I came up with 379 hits. Some have nothing at all to do with the ACW, and some do.

So in other words, you have no links, nothing concrete, and nothing of substance. Try again.

The letter I use appears in "The South vs the South" by Dr. William Freehling. That's -Doctor Freehling- to you.

Dr. Michael Bradley, who authored the N&S article, was insufficient for your own standards, thus Freehling would fail to meet them as well. Try again.

[Badray]

I was referring only to the law (as shown) that is described in the link at post #140, not the CSA Constitution.

[Badray]

" Since the confederates were not victorious..."

From your link:

SEC. 3. That no negro slave shall be received into the service without the written consent of his owner and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of War to carry into effect this act.

The law was passed by the CSA Congress so it must have had at least some popular support. Black enlistment required the approval of his owner. So before (not after) the end of the war, did the slaveholders agree to military service for their slaves? Did some? Did any? Is a man bearing arms still a slave? Can he be easily returned to slavery after said service? Why would he fight to win if he was not to be free after his service?