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.

[Non-Sequitur]

No they didn't. Here is a link to the text of the legislation.

[Non-Sequitur]

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary

Are you including your posts?

[donmeaker]

The purpose of the Constitution was to create a more perfect Union. The Union was pre-existing to the establishment of the Constitution. The only states which temporarily had the right to exist outside the Union were those who had not yet ratified after the first 9 had ratified. Once they ratified, the deal was sealed. For that purpose, customs officers were sent to collect duties from Rhode Island after the Constituion was established, and before Rhode Island had ratified.

Theoretically states could have seceded legally, but did not. That would have required either a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court, or an amendment to set the terms for secession (and perhaps for entry). Neither approach was satisfactory to the rebels. They appealed to the sword, and lost resoundingly. They deserved it.

Only 4 of the states that rebelled left were were the original 13.The rest of the rebel states were created by the Union. That includes Texas, (part gained from Mexico by war) Arkansas and Louisiana (purchased by the Union from France), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida (all or part bought from Spain by the Union) and Tennessee.

Of course the current US constitution was created for the United States as a whole. The United States of America was already a perpetual union under the terms of the Articles of Confederation. If you have doubts abouts seccession, look up the term perpetual in Black's Law. That term is used twice in the Articles of Confederation.

You can also look up the 1860 ratio of black to white residents in South Carolina. Denying sufferage to the majority in South Carolina (and Texas by way of holding a secession convention) was also not part of the Constitution, but rather was the unique responsibility of the states which accomplished it. The current southern partisan position attempts to smear the Union, for the actions of the secessionists. Then they point out the overwhelming support for secession, by neglecting to mention the indians and others.

The Union was a package deal. Part of the deal was honoring in one state, laws made in another state. That provided the justification of the Fugitive Slave Act, Lincoln enforce the FSA, to the dissappointment of many supporters. He was a lawyer, and understood that you had to follow and enforce laws with which you disagreed. Too few had that insight in the south, and the cost was 900,000 lives.

No state can follow the constitution without union. Each state is guaranteed a republican form of government, by the constitution. What meaning do you construe for that phrase, if any state may leave, and set its own terms for the leaving. After it leaves, then they may set up a monarchy, theocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy, or tyranny?

No, the right approach is liberty and union, one and inseparable. We need no balkanized conglomeration of warring states and localities, and the resounding defeat of the few slave holding states in their rebellion (not all) should put period to the notion.

I do not understand how honorable men could have gone to war for slavery. Yet the history books tell me that they did. The north fought for the legal union, knowing that separation would have lead to ever more tension between the "erring sisters". It is good that few on the Union side foresaw the level of sacrifice that would be demanded. It was a miracle that the Nation created Grant, like some kind of antibody to fight against this disease of the body politic.

[donmeaker]

And your point? It didn't pass. Was that because it was intended to assure the south that their particular institution would not be touched, but not permitted to be extended to the Territories?

I think that slavery has to be seen in context of Cotton. Before the cotton gin, slavery was on its way out, partly because it made poor use of a scarce commodity: human brains. For a brief time, slavery was the path to a LOT of money via cotton, but supporting reasons were the cotton gin to remove seeds, and steam looms. As cultivation of Cotton moved to India and Egypt, the southern planters sought to reduce the costs of production yet further.

Slavery was doomed, thank goodness. The Union made, and makes sense. As a person born in OK, raised in NY, educated in MO, and AZ and working in CA, my freedom depends on Union. We Freepers need the Freepers from other states to prevent the loss of liberties to local despots.

[archy]

And your point? It didn't pass.

It hasn't passed yet... I have no doubt that there are legislators just as venal and self-serving today, who would pass such legislation even today if they believed there was political profit for them to be gained by doing so. Such corruption is hardly limited to any geographioc portion of the country or any political group.

Slavery was doomed, thank goodness.

Hardly. it continues and thrives, only now as a government monopoly, with chains and servitude now equally available to all, not primarily those of a particular race. That's not much to offer as an improvement.

-archy-/-

[Corin Stormhands]

Matter of fact the south surrendered like the French.

I can't decide whether that comment is more stupid or more insulting.

Nah. It's just stupid.

[archy]

Nice bait... They don't fly the South Vietnam flag in Vietnam...

Indeed. American troops had prettier ones to fly. And the Viet Cong flag was commonplace enough on American campuses, though now rarely seen in its Vietnamese home itself.

[donmeaker]

I distinguish between slavery and taxation.

I dislike both, but hope that representation and civil rights limit the second. Slavery enslaved one group (the white laborer/small holder) to enslave another group (the Negro bondservant)

Consider the small holder. He could not work without demeaning himself. He was required to participate in the militia, which was maintained at high readiness to counter the threat of servile insurrection. He paid the Tariff on imported goods, but could not make his own, for that would demean him. Even northern law enforcement officers were required to support the "Peculiar Institution" under the terms of the Fugitive Slave Act. Someone tell me who benefited from this system? Oh yes, the large slave holders.

Sounds to me like a plutocracy.
On the other hand, even a poor man in the north could and many did go west, set out their own lands, their own shops.

[CJ Wolf]

"I can't decide whether that comment is more stupid or more insulting."

Yeah your right, that was as stupid comment and insulting to the French, there is no comparision. The French at least got to keep their country in the long run.

Charles de Gaulle issed a "call to arms" to loyal Frenchmen from London: "France has lost the battle, but France has not lost the war!"

[Corin Stormhands]

Stupid is as Stupid does.

You certainly is.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

Absolutely false. Typical Neo-confederate lies.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

In reviewing the motives that led to the Civil War, one should read the letters soldiers wrote home to their loved ones.

From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North."

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

History tends to overlook the South's efforts to resolve the issue of slavery.

"It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid ofslavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that wecannot do without; that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently,intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act asif the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here forever—is our property, and ours forever—is never to be emancipated— is to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days."

-- Richmond Examiner, May 8, 1861

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

Ignorance or willful deception.

The rebel congress passed legislation to allow blacks to serve only in 1865; Douglass made his comments in 1861.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

1. The Constitution did not recognize slavery, except by omission.

That is false. Although the terms "slave" or "slavery" do not appear in the Constitution, the term "persons held to service" -does-.

Slavery was clearly protected in the Constitution. That is why William Lloyd Garrison called it a "pact with the devil."

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

To many Confederate generals, the Missouri brigades were considered the best fighting units in the South.

Ha. I'd like to see a quote of two to support -that-.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

No they didn't.

Correct. The slave owners still had to agree to grant freedom under the legislation as written.

Man, this guy is as delutional as Dilorenzo.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

During the postwar period, ex-Confederates overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party.

Imagine that.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The confederate flag represents American Southern history to me, and I'm a Hoosier. When we visit Dixie, we love the feeling we get from seeing that brave flag wave. We visited Murfreesboro battle ground in March of this year. We noticed immediately the lack of her confederate flag. PC stinks!

Think about this the next time you come south.

Maj. Gen. R. Taylor Commanding District of Louisiana:

GENERAL:

In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hebert, of the 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862.

Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the state, no exception can be taken.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

S. S. Anderson"

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

It's been said that the victors get to write the history. I guess it's true.

This article posted by StainlessBanner shows that the losers are trying to wrest the history of these events into an interpretation based mostly on fiction.

This article is riven with factual distortion and statements that won't stand even a cursory glance at the record.

Walt