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.
If I were to say "George Bush and Dick Cheney and all those Republicans," it is both suggestive and implicit thatBush and Cheney are Republicans. Same goes for your statement about klansmen. If you did not intend it to be so, you should be more careful about your wording.
And all this time I thought you were a shut in who got screwed out of a government pension....
You are mistaking your mirror for your computer screen again, mac.
Nope you fight to win, usually you fight for something worth fighting for. If you don't win, you lose. WHAT is the pride in that? Are you a soccer mom?
The south lost, therefore they are losers, what is more is evident on this thread is that they are SORE LOSERS, refusing to admit the mistakes of those said ancestors, insisting they were still right and that the war was the start of the destruction of the republic. Blah Blah Blah. By starting the war they cost themselves countless lives and property.
"The bottom line, CJ, is that your claim that surrendering to overwhelming military odds makes fighting men "losers" is nothing but a cheap slur." Do you think the Japanese lost the war? BTW, what is your definition of "Loser"? Am I missing something, here? Let me take a look in the dictionary to make sure... Yep lose a war makes one a loser. You might want to check with Bill Clinton (southerner) to come up with a better legal term that's more satisfactory of his heritage.
No.....
Lincoln quoted the scriptures to blame man:
"...woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"
The offense of slavery came from Americans, north and south.
Walt
Yes. Just as the U.S. forces lost the Battle of Bataan and the Battle of Wake Island to the Japanese when they surrendered.
However, you originally used the term "losers" in the current insulting slang as in "a bunch of losers". Neither the Americans at Bataan or Wake Island nor the Japanese at Guadalcanl or Okinawa nor the Army of the Potomac at Chancellersville nor the Army of Nortern Virginia at Gettysburg were "losers" in the insulting context that you originally used that term by any stretch of the imagination.
BTW, what is your definition of "Loser"?
I would say that a "Loser" is someone like you who takes some sort of sick pleasure in going around insulting the ancestors of his fellow Americans.
Ok so I am a loser for pointing out that the rebel flag represents a bunch of losers. That's a real good one. yuk yuk.
Long enough ago that typing in the insult "bunch of losers" into a Google Search yields 92,700 hits.
Google Search: "Bunch of Losers"
You are the one creating slang definitions here and insults.
Here was your original post in Post #13:
"....the confederate flag is unwanted and a disgrace simply because it represents a bunch of losers."
If you are going to go around refering to the ancestors of other fellow Americans as "a bunch of losers", CJ, at least have the manhood to stand by your original post instead of hiding behind the skirts of semantics and claiming that I invented the insult "bunch of losers".
Ok so I am a loser for pointing out that the rebel flag represents a bunch of losers. That's a real good one. yuk yuk.
No, you are a loser for not having the courage to even stand by the original context of your Post 13 and calling men far braver than you "a disgrace" because they were a "bunch of losers".
While you are yukking it up, here are things that represent men who lost their fight but are honored by men who understand the concept of honor due brave fighting men regardless of whether or not they won their fight:
Ya know, when you're standing there reading those words (and the Gettysburg on the other wall), the thought that always springs into my mind is that Lincoln personally wrote those words.
Even the best speech writers today don't come close.
David Wolper did a Lincoln one hour special in the early 70's with Hal Halbrook and a ton of make up playing a younger Lincoln. A lady comes into the tavern asking for a lawyer, says she can't get a permit to perform. Lincoln feeds her a line and she picks it up and runs with it and they are declaiming the Bard back and forth at each other. I forget the play; it was pretty interesting. At the end, Lincoln says, "don't worry, we'll get your permit!"
Walt
Walt
And there you have it, Partisan. Did you see that? The odds are close to 50-50 but still slightly favor the house. It's like the roulette wheel with only one green zero instead of two. That one slot makes the red-black split an almost safe 50-50 bet, but not quite. Therefore in the long run it will statistically favor the house. For that reason, one slotted roulette wheels are about as rare today as faro (the modern ones have two green slots to give the house bigger odds). But the simple fact that casinos don't use them much anymore doesn't mean that they didn't favor the house. It is my understanding that the house's edge in faro was built into an even chance-breaking rule that gave the dealer a slight edge. Any time a "split," or pair, occurred on the same turn, the dealer kept half the wagers for that turn, thus giving him a slight statistical edge like the single slotted roulette wheel. That he had this edge in any fair game was a mathematical certainty because it was built into the rules. As with any game of chance this meant that one could theoretically come away ahead in the short run on luck, but in the long run the law of averages would inevitably set in and the house would gain the upper hand.
Not only was Stevens a renowned defense attorney and parliamentarian, he was also a financial whiz, easily capable of prevailing over the yokels at such a math-oriented game.
The yokel factor only works so far, Partisan. That means short run luck. Inevitably in formal gambling, you are playing a long run match against the house and the house, unlike yokels off the street, knows how to play its own games too.
There's no need to get mad at other people for knowing more than you do, Partisan. If you were wise, you would take advantage of these cases and expand your own knowledge.
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.