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.
The destruction of his steel mill didn't wipe him out financially. What ever money he made at it had long since been thrown away in support of his chronic and daily habits at the gaming table.
What proof do you have that either Lee or Jackson were ever Klansmen? Heck, Jackson was DEAD for several years before the Klan even formed! And you dare to call me insane....
You not only persist in the same old debunked lies but now you shoot your mouth off with statements such as the above. Behavior such as that is rude and unprofessional for any historian, as you profess yourself to be. I expect it from Godebert and Aurelius, and I expect it from some of the rabid neo-secessionists who appear from time to time on this forum, but for some reason thought that you were more civilized than that.
Strange. Guess I was wrong.
What on earth are you talking about? It was a fact of history that, as of 1863, Stevens' factory that got burned was not a great profit maker. He was a chronic gambler and, for some time, alcoholic, both of which hurt his finances severely. He may have been offered payment for the factory, but it certainly wasn't market value or a representation of the financial losses it imposed on him because his finances were already shot by personal habits of far greater cost than anything the confederates could have ever done to him.
A lot of people thought 9-11 would change that, but it seems to be going right back to where we were on 9-10.
mac_truck => as in hit by one.
President Lincoln made an "if/then" statement. In your rush to excoriate him, you only embarrass yourself.
Walt
And his "if" presumption set up his attempt to blame his own war on God. That is blasphemy, no way around it.
Maybe its YOU who should seek help about THAT nasty habit...
All historical reports indicate otherwise. Besides, it is a simple statistical fact that no habitual gambler, so long as he plays by the rules and does not score a single chance outlier that distorts all other losses (i.e. a winning lotto ticket), will never in the long run make money. The law of averages is simply against him and the more "tries" that are made at a given test, the closer its summary data will reflect the probability of that test. Since probability in games of chance are ALWAYS against the gambler and in favor of the house, the long run honest gambler will fall below the breakeven threshhold.
There's a famous story of a black minister asking him for a donation on his way home from gambling. Stevens made a game of giving him the first bill that he could fish out of his pocket. It was a $100 bill, and the minister declined to accept so much (several months salary for a working man), but Stevens insisted, quoting the title of a classic hymn "God Works In Mysterious Ways, His Wonders To Peform".
Cute, but entirely anecdotal. Did you quote that out of your own book as well?
"GOPcapitalist could very well be a DNC operative hired to discredit Free Republic by trashing Republicans and defending Democrats. Seen in that light, his posts make a lot more sense." - Grand Old Partisan
In that case...paging Terry! I want my check! At, oh, 4 years of posting here, that should ammount to several hundred thousand dollars (but that, of course, should be no problem since all it takes for them is a call to the chinese government).
The credibility of that statement is destroyed by the fact that its source regularly aligns himself with, praises, and defends the poster known as WhiskeyPapa on this very same forum. That's right, Partisan. On a daily basis you do exactly what you accuse me of by defending, praising, and assisting Walt, the Bill Clinton/Al Gore voter who hates the Republican Party and has never voted GOP in his life.
Oh, and for the record, last week I was out freeping Hildebeast on her magical mystery book tour. Where were YOU when all that was going on?
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.