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.
Actually;he wss found "not guilty",
Not guilty of the crimes as charged;
Nobody is "found innocent".
Under the constitution that is the source of the laws under which he was tried, he remains innocent until proven and found guilty. Until then his innocence is a given, and a legal finding of *not guilty* restores that presumption of innocence.
He is just as innocent as Lee Harvey Oswald, the Columbine killers Kleybold and Harris, and any other number of felons and miscreants who may well have been culpable of various crimes, but remained unconvicted and thereby innocent of them.
Nevertheless, either the underlying principle of the founding document that establishes the law remains in effect, or the laws themselves are moot and meaningless, and have no legitimate moral authority behind them.
-archy-/-
Happily.
"The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, Colonel Wharton, and a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers, Colonel Morrison, and a large number of citizens of Rutherford County, many of whom had recently taken the oath of allegiance to the United States Government. There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day." - Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Vol. XVI, Part 1, page 805
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/gifcache/moa/waro/waro0022/00819.TIF6.gif
Some of the original 13 states had territorial claims extending to the Mississippi or even the Pacific. I don't know if Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut and the others would have joined the union and given up these claims if they knew that after years of paying taxes to defend, survey, settle, and organize these Western territories, that the new states they became could leave the union at will.
And cotton wasn't king yet in 1787. The lands that would later prove to be the richest and best for cotton were still unsettled, and wool and linen were more economical in most markets. It would take the invention of the cotton gin a few years later, and the mechanization of textile production to give cotton the advantage.
Virginians did have European markets for tobacco, but also many headaches. The best planters were already aware of some ills of the plantation economy: soil erosion, indebtedness, dependency on foreign markets, racial tensions, and the corruption of character among masters. So they weren't opposed to becoming part of a larger nation that would encourage industry and commerce as well as agriculture.
The same perception was as valid for far-seeing Southerners and other Americans in 1890 or 1990 as in 1790. It was only the cotton boom of the mid-19th century that deceived many in the South that sole reliance on slave-based agriculture was the way to wealth.
No need to spin. Jefferson answered that issue in 1803:
"When I view the Atlantic States, procuring for those on the Eastern waters of the Missipi friendly instead of hostile neighbors on it's Western waters, I do not view it as an Englishman would the procuring future blessings for the French nation, with whom he has no relations of blood or affection. The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." Jefferson, letter to John Breckinridge, August 12, 1803
That is actually the official name for the Civil war.
What on earth are you smoking, Partisan? The multi-volume set entitled "The War of the Rebellion" is the OFFICIAL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLISHED SET OF MILITARY RECORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR. You cannot get any more "official" or any more "union" than that. It was put out by the government printing office to archive the major military documents. The cornell website has most of the volumes online, including the one I linked you to. That record I cited you is a yankee commander's reports of action to his superior officers during the middle of the war - an official military document from a first hand source appearing in an official government publication.
I have on several occasions said that early on a few black slaves did accompany their masters to battle. Again, cite me a reference in any U.S. Army account.
I just did, Partisan, and you responded by claiming that the official military account in the official records publication of the US Government was not credible since it was titled "The War of the Rebellion"!!! If the official records of the US government don't count on the grounds that YOU do not like their title, I ask you - what else does count? Apparently nothing.
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.