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.
"Citing Lee's 1846 will in the records of Rockbridge County, Virginia, [Douglas Southall] Freeman states that "he had never owned more than some half-dozen slaves, and they had probably been inherited or given him by Mrs. Custis [his wife's mother]." In another passage, [Douglas Southall] Freeman reports that "the negroes at Arlington numbered sixty-three." It is therefore clear that Lee and his family did own slaves."
--from the moderated ACW newsgroup
"My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Curtis; after the death of Mr. Curtis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Curtis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859, we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to 'lay it on well,' an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee's agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad ; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements; I am at present employed by the Government, and am at work in the Nation Cemetery on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; by sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement." [National Anti-Slavery Standard, April 14, 1866]
Reprinted in SLAVE TESTIMONY, edited by John. W. Blassingame p 467-68 In a letter to his son Rooney, Robert E. Lee wrote:
And this:
"I fear I shall have to purchase a servant. I find it almost impossible to hire one, and nearly all the officers in the department have been obliged to resort to purchase. . . ."
In other words, "I prefer to rent." I would suggest the reasons for this are likely similar to the reasons people with means prefer to rent houses. Ownership of a piece of property is often inconvenient to people in certain circumstances.
Lee continues, "At present I have a boy belonging to Major Marlin for whom I pay $20 per month. I have thought some one about Richmond might have a good family servant for whom they are obliged to part, and for whom they would like to procure a master. Do you know of any?"
It is notable that Rooney Lee left this letter out of his collection of his father's correspondence."
Also from the moderated ACW newsgroup
Walt
Stephen Douglas, a Democrat Senator from Illinois, tried just such a dodge, living off the labor of 140 slaves at a Mississippi plantation he made sure to keep in his wife's name.
When Stephen Douglas married Martha Martin in 1847, Robert Martin offered them his 2,500-acre plantation on the Pearl River in Lawrence County, Mississippi, which included more than 100 slaves, as a wedding present. Douglas refused the gift, using as an arguement the fact that he was a Northern man and was unfamiliar with southern agriculture and slave labor and was therefore not competent to manage a plantation. He suggested that Martin retain ownership and make provision for its disposition in his will. So when Robert Martin died a year later, the the terms of his will specified that the Pearl River plantation was bequeathed to Martha and eventually to her children. If Martha had no children, the slaves were to be given their freedom and sent to Liberia. While explicitly acknowledging that Douglas had no interest in owning the property, Martin's will designated Douglas as property manager and directed that he henceforth receive twenty per cent of the plantation's annual income for his services. This arrangement doesn't appear to be much different that the situation that Robert Lee was in with his father-in-laws will, and you steadfastly maintain that Lee didn't actually own those slaves. Can you know agree that Douglas didn't own any, either?
Bull Run was in July, at least two months after the confederate congress had declared war. Did the south think that, once they had declared it, war would not come to them?
ONLY Union state that the South "invaded" was Pennsylvania, in 1863...
Did you forget Maryland in 1862 and 1863? Missouri in 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864? Kentucky in 1861, 1862 and 1863? Morgan's raid into Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky in 1863? Kansas in 1863 and 1864?
Well said.
Sure it does. Eisenhower's troops didn't open fire on the people of Arkansas, nor were they used to run the state government out of office. Lincoln's were.
Wow. There's a sweeping statement. Yeah, the Japanese in China, the Germans in Poland, the Romans in Carthage, the Mongols, the Huns, the Soviets in Eastern Europe, the Aztecs...none of 'em hold a candle to the damnyankees, huh? I forget, which southern cities were the ones where the Yankees used babies for bayonet practice? How long was it before Southerners were made citizens again? How many of their officers and political leaders were executed? Jeez, man, Reconstruction barely registers on the scale of man's inhumanity to man, except in your restricted little worldview.
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.