Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed

St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

[sheltonmac]

The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.

They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.

On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.

The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.

It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.

In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.

But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.

One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.

To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.

After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.

They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.

This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.

But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.

They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.

According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.

Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.

The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.

However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.

White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."

Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.

Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.

I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.

In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.

Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.

So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.

[archy]

No, but you did turn firehoses on them.

I'm sorry. I meant to use the past tense.

Instead of .50 caliber machineguns, as the Michigan National Guard did during the Detroit Riots.

[XRdsRev]

Just thought you might be interested in learning that BOTH the Union and Confederacy instituted drafts for their armies but before 1863 both armies were made up largely of volunteers and after 1864, both armies had significant numbers of draftees.

All troops, North & South were entitled pay whether they were volunteers or not. Now if they actually got paid was another matter. First person documents of the time indicate that some units on both sides often went long periods without being paid. Confederate soldiers bore an additional burden because especially late in the war, the money they recieved was practically worthless and even in the south, many would not accept Confederate currency.

And finally, early in the war, many troops pn both sides equiped themselves. The Union Army solved this problem fairly early in the war by using Federal and State military supplies to outfit troops but as late as 1863, some new Union regiments were moved to the theatre of war without weapons, ammunition or accoutrements.

The Southern Troops were supposed to be equipped by either their home state or the Confederate government. because of mismanagement, the system in the south was not run very well and it was discovered that incredibly large amounts of weapons, uniforms, accoutrements and ammunition were in storage at Southern arsenals and depots when those items should have been issued to troops in the field. Both North Carolina and Georgia, refused to release military supplies they had on hand to the Confederate government in 1864-65 with the result that these supplies sat unused until the war was over when they were siezed by Federal authorities and destroyed or sold at auction.

[archy]

From the words of other leading Confederates, it seems to me that they were fighting for the preservation of slavery.

As opposed to the Unionists who made it a government monopoly, applicable to all. Not much of an improvement, that.

-archy-/-

[archy]

REMEMBER FORT PILLOW, the massacre at which was led by the truly dispicable Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Indeed. Had he not prevented his troops from killing every last one of the enemy soldiers, the South might have been victorious, and you would instead be saying such things about the butchers Grant and Sherman.

But then Forrest was a real soldier, and did such killing as he found to be necessary himself, personally. Including that of his own officers.

-archy-/-

[Junior]

The Maritime Studies site has a link mentioning the Alabama's situation:

From the link:

In 1988, a non-profit organization, the Association CSS Alabama, was founded to conduct scientific exploration of the shipwreck. Although the wreck resides within French territorial waters, the U.S. government, as the successor to the former Confederate States of America, is the owner. On 3 October 1989, the United States and France signed an agreement recognizing this wreck as an important heritage resource of both nations and establishing a Joint French-American Scientific Committee for archaeological exploration. This agreement established a precedent for international cooperation in archaeological research and in the protection of a unique historic shipwreck.

The Bold is mine.

[archy]

Some other examples of Northern 'tolerance'...

You of course left out the Evansville, Indiana example in July of 1903, and that of Detroit, in 1967, as I recall, to include but two from the XX Century.

[Aurelius]

"It was impossible for the seceded states to cease to become American."

Of course they couldn't cease to be American, they could and did, for a time anyway, cease to be part of the Umion.

Lincoln viewed secession as impossible."

Contrary to what some of you Lincoln worshippers seem to think, Lincoln was not God.

[XRdsRev]

No, it's called looking at the historical record without having a chip on my shoulder.

Military history is my profession, specifically American military history 1775-1865.

Nothing frustrates me more than people spouting out BS fairy tales under the guise of fact. Personally this whole debate is silly but the least people can do is submit verifiable factual evidence instead of unprovable biased family legends.

[TomServo]

Thanks for further examples of northern hypocrisy. ;-)

[archy]

Hood was a native Kentuckian, not a Texan.

It is difficult to decide whether the cause of the South could have been better served by shooting John Bell Hood or Braxton Bragg.

Had Forrest given Hood a dose of the same medicine he dished out to Bragg, the battle at Franklin might have gone very differently. And that could have changed a number of things, up to and including the eventual outcome of the war.

[archy]

Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

Governor, had I foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.

-- General Robert E. Lee to Governor Stockdale of Texas, August 1870

[archy]

I received an e-mail from Ron Holland, editor of Dixie Daily News, calling my attention to this editorial. Apparently, the responses to Gunita's rant were overwhelming, because the essay was pulled from the St. Augustine Record's website. I was only able to find the text via a cached web page courtesy of Google.

Peter Guinta

Senior Writer
Record Employee Since: 1998
Phone: 819-3493
Email: peter.guinta@staugustinerecord.com

Peter Thomas Guinta, a 1980 graduate of the University of Florida, reported for newspapers in Leesburg, Ocala, Miami and Winter Haven before coming to St. Augustine in 1998.

Guinta has covered breaking stories in El Salvador, Panama, Washington D.C. and (many times) Tallahassee in the course of his career.

In 2000, he was given a third-place award from Florida Press Club for excellence in feature writing.

In 2001, he received a first-place for excellence in business writing.

When not working, he is a runner, a reader or working on his 1978 Oldsmobile Regency.

[wardaddy]

No, it's called looking at the historical record without having a chip on my shoulder.

I would have sworn it was called looking at the historical record with a halo on one's head

You are right though...these threads do get ridiculous, but we are all lured like moths to the flame or flies to a cowpie.

[wardaddy]

Why are they always ugly too Archy?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I gotta ask - why would anybody put time and money into a late '70s GM anything (case in point - a 1978 Olds Regency)? I didn't realize crappy metal and cheap vinyl replacement parts would hold together till now....

[Non-Sequitur]

Actually he did, it is documented that Lincoln planned to send all the black back to Afica.

Lincoln was a believer in colonization and in that he was no more evil than other supporters of colonization such as Robert Lee or John Breckenridge. Compare that to Jefferson Davis, who believed that blacks were fit for slavery and nothing else.

[Non-Sequitur]

As opposed to all that racial tolerance and brotherhood among the races demonstrated down south? </sarcasm>

[XRdsRev]

Stockdale's story just doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. While no one can ever definitively prove whether it actually happened or not, subsequent events just don't confirm what Stockdale said about Lee's views on reconstruction.

If Lee was so adamant that he would have rather died at Appomattox than live in the Reconstruction, why did he sign the famous Stuart letter just a few weeks after he supposedly spoke to Stockdale. It just doesn't add up and few credible historians believe what Stockdale said actually happened the way he said it did.

Here is an excerpt from Freeman's Biography of Lee that talks about the Stuart letter and gives an insight into what Lee really thought about the post war South.

"Being willing to ask in the name of politics what he would not have sought for himself personally, Rosecrans requested Lee to bring these gentlemen together that he might meet them. Lee's politeness and his desire to help in the restoration of good feeling prompted him to accede and to invite a number of former soldiers and publicists to his cottage. There, while Lee was noticeably quiet, General Rosecrans exchanged opinions with Beauregard, Alexander H. Stephens, and others. Nearly all of them assured him of the willingness of the people to support the Union and to deal justly with the Negro. Only the last man to be asked for his views, ex-Governor F. W. Stockdale of Texas, spoke out bluntly and said that the South would keep the peace but was not a dog to lick the hand of the man that kicked it. Lee then rose and brought the conference to an end.

>THIS IS SOUTHALL'S FOOTNOTE TO THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH DISCUSSING THE STOCKDALE STORY - "T. C. Johnson: Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, 498 ff. Doctor Dabney was not present and received his account of the meeting from Governor Stockdale. The latter told Dabney that he was the last to leave the room, and that as he was saying good-bye, Lee closed the door, thanked him for what he had said and added: "Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people desired to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox, no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand." This, of course, is second-hand testimony. There is nothing in Lee's own writings and nothing in direct quotation by first-hand witness that accords with such an expression on his part. The nearest approach to it is the claim by H. Gerald Smythe that "Major Talcott" — presumably Colonel T. M. R. Talcott — told him Lee stated he would never have surrendered the army if he had known how the South would have been treated. Mr. Smythe stated that Colonel Talcott replied, "Well, General, you have only to blow the bugle," whereupon Lee is alleged to have answered, "It is too late now" (29 Confederate Veteran, 7). Here again the evidence is not direct. The writer of this biography, talking often with Colonel Talcott, never heard him narrate this incident or suggest in any way that Lee accepted the results of the radical policy otherwise than with indignation, yet in the belief that the extremists would not always remain in office. For these reasons the writer is unwilling to quote this doubtful testimony in the text.<

Rosecrans was not through. On August 26 he addressed Lee a formal letter asking that the Southerners with whom he had conferred at the cottage unite in a formal statement of their views. Anxious as Lee was to allay ill-feeling and to heal the wounds of war, such a request was embarrassing. He had never written a line on politics for publication since the war, and he hesitated to break his rule, especially as he was unfamiliar with the language of political discussion.

What, then, should he do? Among the guests at the springs was Alexander H. H. Stuart, a Virginia lawyer of much sagacity and judgment, who had been Secretary of the Interior under Fillmore. Stuart's good sense showed him that Virginia had to pay a price for a return of her rights of statehood and he was working quietly but skillfully to that end. He was the man Lee needed to help him, for he could be relied upon to show conservatism along with candor. Through General John Echols, Lee sent Rosecrans's letter to Stuart and asked him to write an answer. In a short time Stuart brought a draft which Lee read over carefully and slowly in the lawyer's presence. It was to this effect:  

"General:
    "I have the honor to receive your letter of this date, and, in accordance with your suggestion, I have conferred with a number of gentlemen from the South, in whose judgment I have confidence, and who are well acquainted with the public sentiment of their respective States.
    "They have kindly consented to unite with me in replying to your communication, and their names will be found, with my own, appended to this answer.
    "With this explanation, we proceed to give you a candid statement of what we believe to be the sentiment of the Southern people in regard to the subjects to which you refer.
    "Whatever opinions may have prevailed in the past with regard to African slavery or the right of a State to secede from the Union, we believe we express the almost unanimous judgment of the Southern people when we declare that they consider these questions were decided by the war, and that it is their intention in good faith to abide by that decision. At the close of the war, the Southern people laid down their arms and sought to resume their former relations to the government of the United States. Through their State conventions, they abolished slavery and annulled their ordinances of secession; and they returned to their peaceful pursuits with a sincere purpose to fulfil all their duties under the Constitution of the United States which they had sworn to support. If their action in these particulars had been met in a spirit of frankness and cordiality, we believe that, ere this, old irritations would have passed away, and the wounds inflicted by the war would have been, in a large measure, healed. As far as we are advised, the people of the South entertain no unfriendly feeling towards the government of the United States, but they complain that their rights under the Constitution are withheld from them in the administration thereof. The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes and would oppress them, if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness. The change in the relations of the two races has brought no change in our feelings towards them. They still continue an important part of our laboring population. Without their labor, the lands of the South would be comparatively unproductive; without the employment which Southern agriculture affords, they would be destitute of the means of subsistence and become paupers, dependent upon public bounty. Self-interest, if there were no higher motive, would therefore prompt the whites of the South to extend to the negro care and protection.
    "The important fact that the two races are, under existing circumstances, necessary to each other is gradually becoming apparent to both, and we believe that but for malign influences exerted to stir up the passions of the negroes, the relations of the two races would soon adjust themselves on a basis of mutual kindness and advantage.
    "It is true that the people of the South, in common with a large majority of the people of the North and West, are, for obvious reasons, inflexibly opposed to any system of laws that would place the political power of the country in the hands of the negro race. But this opposition springs from no feeling of enmity, but from a deep-seated conviction that, at present, the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power. They would inevitably become the victims of demagogues, who, for selfish purposes, would mislead them to the serious injury of the public.
    "The great want of the South is peace. The people earnestly desire tranquillity and restoration of the Union. They deplore disorder and excitement as the most serious obstacle to their prosperity. They ask a restoration of their rights under the Constitution. They desire relief from oppressive misrule. Above all, they would appeal to their countrymen for the re-establishment, in the Southern States, of that which has been justly regarded as the birth-right of every American, the right of self-government. Establish these on a firm basis, and we can safely promise, on behalf of the Southern people, that they will faithfully obey the Constitution and laws of the United States, treat the negro populations with kindness and humanity and fulfil every duty incumbent and peaceful citizens, loyal to the Constitution of their country."


All this was what Lee had been thinking and saying ever since May, 1865. The language was slightly more rhetorical than he would have employed, but the sentiments were precisely his. A single change was all Lee thought necessary. Stuart, in speaking of the development of better relations between the races, had said, "but for malign influences exerted to stir up the passions of the negroes," etc. That grated on Lee. "Mr. Stuart," he said, "there is one word I would like to strike out if you have no objection. You have used the word malign. I think that is rather a harsh word, and" — he smiled as he went on, "I never did like adjectives."

Mr. Stuart immediately erased the offending word, and the letter was approved. Lee signed it, as did thirty-one other leading Southerners at the springs. It was forwarded to Rosecrans and was soon published. Its reception varied with the feelings and political opinions of those who read it. Lee followed it up by suggesting to Wade Hampton that, if he approved the letter, he get other Southern leaders to add their signatures and forward them to him or to General Rosecrans. And at Rosecrans's request Lee gave him the names of some Southern generals residing in New York." R. E. Lee: A Biography
by Douglas Southall Freeman
published by Charles Scribner's Sons,
New York and London, 1934

[XRdsRev]

Actually, Jefferson Davis was a major supporter of the Liberian colonization effort.

[ChicagoHebrew]

I'd protest for a different reason-- there's no way those traitors deserve the honor of a US Military funeral, nor do they deserve the honor of being buried with the American flag they spat upon.