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.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I was wrong any way. This letter does not seem to appear in "The South vs. The South."

Groups

Advanced Groups Search    Preferences    Groups Help 

Groups search result 1 for hebert smith quarter negro taylor 

Confederate Flags $9.95 • 3'x5' flags of the confederacy as low as $5.00 with quantity discount • www.unflags.com	Sponsored Links
U.S. Flag Depot, Inc. • Historical & current U.S. Flags & poles for home & business. • www.USFlagDepot.com
Civil War Uniforms • Reenactors & Cowboy Action Shooters 10% off - use coupon code 0103 • www.colorado-junction.com

Search Result 1

From: J Witmer (paydirt3@ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: "Immortal Captives"

View: Complete Thread (58 articles)

Original Format

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: 1998/02/10

Bob Johns wrote in message <34DFB8C2.24BF@bellsouth.net>...

>>
>> No treatment of this sort
>> >can be shown where Confederate authorities authorized cruelty as were
>> >shown to the six hundred Confederate POWs by the United States
>> >Government. Audi alteram partem. - - Bob Johns
>> >
>> >            *** The First Casualty in War is Truth ***
>>
>> I've brought this point up before, but what about the orders not to take
>> prisoners at Milliken's Bend (made by officers of at least the division
>> level command, and probably higher)?  If killing prisoners isn't cruelty,
>> I'd like to know what is.
>
>     Please cite source of orders not to take prisoners.  Is there
>anything in writing that I can check out? - - Bob Johns
>
>>
>> Steven Witmer

I'm in the process of moving right now, so most of my stuff is boxed up.  I
did manage to dig a copy of a page from the OR out (I've got more around
here somewhere - God I hate moving), but at the moment I don't have the
exact series and volume handy.  I'll post those as soon as I find the rest.
Anyway, here it is:

                    "Headquarters Department Trans-Mississippi,
                            Shreveport, La, June 13, 1863

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
                        Assistand Adujutant-General"

Also on this page is the last part of a message from General Kirby Smith
concerning the situation (I'm just quoting part of it here, if you want it
all I can give it to you later):

 ". . . your subordinates who may have been in command of capturing parties
may have recognized the propriety of giving no quarter to armed negroes and
their officers.  In this way we may be relieved from the disagreeable
dilemma . . ."

Actually, I find the idea of turning any of those who did in fact chance to
end up prisoners over to the civil authorities an interesting twist of law.
If the government of Louisiana executed them as slaves in insurrection, it
absolves the military of any involvement and protects it from retaliation by
the Federal Army.  I'm not sure the Federal Government would play along with
that game, but it's an interesting attempt at trying to resolve the issue of
ex-slaves in uniform.

Steven Witmer

---

Google Home - Advertise with Us - Business Solutions - Services & Tools - Jobs, Press, & Help

©2003 Google

[WhiskeyPapa]

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???

I have never flogged anybody with a wet noodle.

The point was that it was suggested that slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution, but that document clearly protects the institution.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

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?

Click on "Whiskeypapa" at the end of this note. Go to my FR homespace and then click "find in forum".

I posted about five notes to Stainlessbanner yesterday dealing with errors of fact and interpretation in this article he posted.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

You're repeating yourself. Since there are indications that at least some blacks were mustered into service for combat, and it's possible that at least some of them were slaved enlisted with the permission of their owners. But that still doesn't answer what would have happened to them after their service was over and if the confederates had been victorious. Considering that by March 1865 few people in the confederacy predicted victory then it's probably that few people expected to be faced with the problem. As for your questions: Is a man bearing arms still a slave? He certainly is if his owner considers him to be one. Can he be easily returned to slavery after said service? I have no idea, but no doubt some owners would have tried. Why would he fight to win if he was not to be free after his service? He would have fought because he was told to fight, same as any conscript.

[Non-Sequitur]

Five of Seven?

Yeah, five of seven. We're not talking Borgs here. Five of the original seven confederate states, specifically Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, were admitted to the Union through the procedures outlined in the Constitution.

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.

I believe that it is possible for a stat to leave the Union, but not in the manner that the confederate states chose. Leaving should be done through the same manner as entering, through a vote of Congress. I don't think that the founding fathers thought that a state could leave unilaterally for any reason, or no reason at all.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

No it did not. Here is what the legislation said:

"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."

But here is what the author of this article said:

"The Confederacy, its own troop strength depleted, offered slaves freedom if they volunteered for the army."

And that is a false statement.

This was less than -three-weeks- before the rebellion collapsed, and the slave power could still not write legislation to free negroes from bondage.

Oh, and what about this:

From the Confederate Constitution: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

I hadn't heard the rebels ever added any amendments to their constitution, so no owner -had- to free his slaves, nor could the government seize them.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Well, by law, the rebel government could NOT seize slaves arbitrarily. When they included the clause that the owner had to agree to grant the slave freedom, they were following the rebel constitution as written.

Of course as you know, there was no judicial review in the so-called CSA, because the judiciary had never been staffed. The rebels violated their own constitution and never set up a Supreme Court.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, by law, the rebel government could NOT seize slaves arbitrarily.

Since when did Jefferson Davis care about the law when it got in his way?

[WhiskeyPapa]

Well, by law, the rebel government could NOT seize slaves arbitrarily.

Since when did Jefferson Davis care about the law when it got in his way?

None of the rebels cared a thing for law, elsewise they wouldn't have rebelled against the legal government to begin with.

Walt

[bk1000]

'Similarity I am refering to is the fact that they lost the wars they were fighting. Is that not a fact?'

That is a fact, but your analogy is like saying acid and water are both liquid. Hardly relevant, and your comment reads as if you would lump these people into a like group, or would dole out respect based on victory status alone.

[Grand Old Partisan]

No regiments of blacks Confederate troops were raised, ever, though in the Richmond-Petersburg area, several slave gangs of trench diggers nad whatnot were dubbed military units. A couple of them drilled for a few days, but none were ever armed and none fought.

Propagators of the silly neo-Confederate myth about black rebel troops, even some government employees in times past, have had incentives to place erroneous markers around, which when false prove nothing. For example, in Alexandra, VA there is a historial marker from the 1950s on the spot where that inn keeper shot the U.S. Army officer who was taking down a rebel flag. The marker goes on about how the inn keeper was nobly defending blah blah blah and that he was the first casualty of the war when he was shot secondds later. Of course, the colonel he had just shot was the first casualty of the war!

[Grand Old Partisan]

Facts evidently mean nothing to you.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

A sucker is born every minute.

Walt

[FLAUSA]

I wrote: "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. "

You wote:" Including the three voting activist/civil rights workers that were murdered in Mississippi in 1964? Or maybe just their murderers?

Did it represent Medger Evers? Or just Brian De La Beckwith, the man who shot him in the back in 1963?

I appreciate your comments, but I don't think you are on target here.

Walt

That's a red herring, Walt. It's like asking if the American flag represents Timmothy McVay, or the DC sniper. Surely, you can do better than that. The point is that in 1964, Americans did not view the battle flag as a symbol of hate but rather as a symbol of the south. Since that time America has come to hate the south and to hate all southern symbols. It is ironic that as the south moved towards integration and equality, the hatred for all things southern intensified.

[bk1000]

"That would have done little to heal the wounds of rebellion, as was recognized at the time."


Yeah, like the Union really tried to 'win the hearts and minds' of the southerners...

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

That is simply not true. The idea behind the Constitutional Convention -clearly- was to rein in the power of the states. They were too powerful under the Articles of Confederation and everything was going to hell in a hand basket.

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786

If a state could withdraw at will or pleasure, then there was no point in writing a Constitution at all.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The point is that in 1964, Americans did not view the battle flag as a symbol of hate but rather as a symbol of the south.

There is some truth in that.

I never cared much about how the battle emblem was perceived until I came across the neo-confederate movement 6-7 years ago. They clearly want to pervert the history of these events. They are the revisionists, and they are dangerous to the degree that their propaganda is accepted in place of a fair consideration of these events.

The article at the top of this thread is the perfect example of the perverted history they push.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

"That would have done little to heal the wounds of rebellion, as was recognized at the time."

Yeah, like the Union really tried to 'win the hearts and minds' of the southerners...

Both Grant and Sherman offered very generous terms to the defeated armies in their front.

Compare what happened in the United States after the ACW with any other failed revolution.

In fact, until it was clear that southerners fully intended to reinstall slavery in all but name, you don't see much retribution at all.

Walt

[bk1000]

Thanks for the quotes. Had I known this guy was such a...
well, had I known, I would not have wasted my time.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Since that time America has come to hate the south and to hate all southern symbols.

I don't think "America" gives a flip one way or the other.

Walt