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.

[stainlessbanner]

We don't know what we'd be like if we lived back then.

That's some food for thought. I'm pretty sure I would stand with my brothers, protect my family, my home, and my community. Remember the captured Reb who, when asked by the Yank, "What are you fighting for?" replied "'Cause ya'll are down here!"

History is a part of us individually and collectively.

[Fraulein]

ping

[Graewoulf]

I agree. Each age has its PC values, and in America there is a long tradition of blending in with the PC crowd of the age.

To stand out in the crowd is abhorrent to most Americans during any age. For example, in our American Revolution, only 20 percent of the population opposed Britian.

History records what was done, or not done. It is up to each of us to honestly review history frequently, and thus learn more about ourselves during this age.

[billbears]

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.

Sad indeed. There was a day, not so many decades ago that Democrats were the conservatives down here and Republicans were the liberals. Of course we're not supposed to point that out I guess......

[azhenfud]

Whether we like it or not, NS, OJ was branded with just what the court found him guilty of. Nothing more, nothing less. If we call him a "murderer", despite your or my personal convictions either way, we'd best be willing and able to prove the allegations under oath.

[azhenfud]

"There was a day, not so many decades ago that Democrats were the conservatives down here and Republicans were the liberals."

The line between the two is becoming a smudge again, billbears.

[archy]

And I'll bet you think that OJ really is innocent, too.

I can document that he was found innocent of the charges against him as described and theorized by the prosecutors charged with describing his crime beyond the presence of a reasonable doubt.

That the prosecution chose to come up with an unbelievably flaky postulation of O.J.'s actions and role in the murderous events, and tried to support their fictitious postulation with faked police evidence only reminds us of a greater need for competent and professional prosecutors in the public's service rather than the political hacks and ham sandwich mentalities that surfaced in that case.

-archy-/-

[CJ Wolf]

You cite battles, I cite the war. The south lost the war. Matter of fact the south surrendered like the French.

The comparision to the iraqis and the nazis was made because like the south they are losers not because of the ideolog behind them. Also make no mistake I would never seek to ban your beloved loser flag.

[CJ Wolf]

"How can you even think there is a similarity between Nazis, Baathists, and the CSA?"

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

[SCDogPapa]

History is a part of us individually and collectively.

Excellant point there Stainless.

[betty boop]

Ulysses S. Grant threatened to "throw down his sword" if he thought he was fighting to end slavery.

I understand Mrs. Grant owned a slave or two.

It's been said that the victors get to write the history. I guess it's true. Still, I deplore the hypocrisy and revisionism of the "standard" treatment of this crucial period in American history. Few people today seem to be aware that it marked the beginning of the apparently irreversible downhill slide of the Republic, and its replacement by the strong centralized state, with all the trappings of so-called "pure democracy".

Great post, stainlessbanner. Thanks!

[SCDogPapa]

You will notice there is only 1 post here. I am at home on my computer now. That damn triple post problem must be something in the computer at work or in the computer system at work. Go figure. :)

[Polybius]

...the confederate flag is unwanted and a disgrace simply because it represents a bunch of losers. ....CJ Wolf

Is that your opinion about the Alamo, Wake Island and the "Battlin' Bastards" of Bataan? Is that your opinion about the Union Army of the Potomac at Bull Run, the Seven Days Battles, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Cold Harbor?......Polybius

You cite battles, I cite the war. The south lost the war.....CJ Wolf

Ummmm.......O.K.

So your criteria is not winning battles but "losing the war". I will rephrase my question:

Is that your opinion about Vietnam War veterans?

Matter of fact the south surrendered like the French.

The Germans took from May 10 - June 22, 1940 to mount a major invasion of France and force a French surrender.

Union forces took from July 21, 1861 to April 9, 1865 to mount a major invasion of Virginia and force a Confederate surrender.

[tet68]

I think your confusing the fourth group with the fifth column, the racebaiting political activists of the left.

[stainlessbanner]

I just thought you had the rapid fire keyboard!

[CJ Wolf]

"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.

I would like to say that one of the differences between Vietnam and the War Between the States is that the USA didn't fall nor surrender to North Vietnam, unlike the CSA. We agreed to a ceasefire and pulled out of Vietnam. Which was wise and allowed us to regroup and fight another day. After we left Vietnam we continued to fight global communism in various ways. In that fight, Vietnam can be seen as a battle in a bigger war, a lost battle but one in which we will undoubtable win in time. As such I believe our vietnam vets are honorable men, the south vietnamese however are the losers in that example, they lost their way of life and ceased to exist as a country.

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.

Here is an experiment for you, try putting the wars we fought in order and tell me which of the other loser flags you would want fly. Perhaps you had ancestors fighting for the British against the Colonials too! You could identify with them and put the union jack flag up next to your loser CSA flag.

This flag is kind of cute, made it easy for them to turn it into a surrender flag.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Yes they did

[Leatherneck_MT]

I'll bet you think you're smart too.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary

[Leatherneck_MT]

Linkoln was under his oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. There was/is/neverhasbeen anything in that oath that made him preserve the Union.

The states voted themselves into the union, they had and HAVE every right to vote themselves out.

Even to this day

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

Question: Has anyone seen Ken Burns' "Civil War"?. Is this a good starting point to learn more about the Civil War or is Ken Burns PBS liberal propaganda? I just want to learn the truth; no B.S.