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.

[4CJ]

What I think gets overlooked on these threads is the simple fact that once the South decided to leave the Union, the South was "invaded."

It doesn't get overlooked, it must be outright dismissed as illegal by the Unionists. Otherwise the war was one of invasion.

The unionists attempt to make it into a secession over slavery - which was already legal, thus there was no need for the Confederacy to secede to continue slavery if that were the cause. Next, they attempt to paint their cause to be for union (denying the reserved powers of the states) or to free the slaves. Others nations freed their slaves without war, what made us so different? The Yankees only became moral over the issue after they had sold all their slaves, ignoring all their trips to Africa and the thousands flung overboard in the Middle Passage. The North didn't want blacks in their states, nor did they want blacks, free or otherwise, in the territories. How ludicrous - deny them entrance to the northern states & territories, yet thump their chests & bleat how they fought to free what they didn't want? ROTFLMAO!!!

Lastly, Lincoln must become a saint to them, the fourth member of the Holy Trinity, anything to cover his unconstitutional actions with the guise of legitimacy. After all, if they were legal, wouldn't 9 million people have abided by them?

If I lived in Virginia at the time, and even if I did not agree with the politics of secession, I would have fought to protect my home.

The same for me, and my ancestors/relatives that did fight for their homeland.

[carton253]

My ancestors/relatives fought on both sides.

I like what Benjamin Netanyahu said, "when attacked, win the war, and let historians fight over who was right and wrong."

If the Union had invaded my state, my county, my town, and my land... I would have fought. I would have joined the Stonewall Brigade... because Jackson understood war. "Raise the Black Flag." There is no other way to fight and no other way to win.

[stand watie]

a KS Confederate?????

WOW,talk about a RARE bird! there were probably at least 5 of those.KS was damnyankee territory from start to finish.

i celebrate the HONORABLE SERVICE of your ancestors.

free dixie,sw

[carton253]

Lastly, Lincoln must become a saint to them, the fourth member of the Holy Trinity, anything to cover his unconstitutional actions with the guise of legitimacy. After all, if they were legal, wouldn't 9 million people have abided by them?

In the Broadway Musical, The Assassins, (talking about presidential assassination of all things - but very clever and very well done)... the main character, who interacts with all the assassins tells John Wilkes Booth, after he had assassinated Lincoln... "Thanks to you, Lincoln who only got mixed reviews now gets only raves."

[stand watie]

i wouldn't say never, but whenever the DECENT MAJORITY of people in this country decide to learn the TRUTH about the damnyankees & their MERCILESS prosecutuion of war aginst innocent women, children & civilan men, as well as against Prisoners of War (to whom ALL capturing powers have an especial responsibility for care!) AND that decent majority decides they've had enough of LIES, disimilation & excuses.

free dixie,sw

[Question_Assumptions]

You are implying that the United States "owned" the land on which the Southerners made their homes.

In the case of the land of the Louisiana Territory, the United States paid for the land. Do you believe that settlers on American territory have the right to take that territory away for the United States for the purpose of starting their own state or joining another nation?

Why are you on this forum?

I could ask the same thing about the people here who seem to think the United States is an occupying foreign nation. Or any number of others. If you haven't noticed, there is a pretty diverse mix of opinions here.

The feds had no right to invade their homes and the Southerners had no obligation to leave them.

If you actually read the Constitution, many of the rights in the Constitution are qualified rather than absolutely guaranteed (interestingly enough, the right to bear arms is not qualified), giving the government a process for infringing upon many of them. For example:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In other words, the Bill of Rights presents a lot rights protected through restrictions and not prohibitions. Look at the above rights in terms of what they do allow the Federal government to do.

The Federal government can quarter troops in someone's house against their will in time of war in a manner prescribed by law. Searches and seizures can happen so long as they are reasonable and warranted. A person can be held to answer for a capital crime if they are indicted by a Grand Jury. A person can be put in jeopardy of life or limb, but only once. A person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property through due process of law. Private property can be taken for public use with just compensation. Finally, bails can be required, fines can be imposed, and punishments inflicted so long as they are not excessive or cruel and unusual.

You may not like or agree with that scope of powers and that's fine. But it does suggest that the government has domain over citizens and their property and this goes back to well before secession.

[stand watie]

tell me, kind sir/madame, would you tell a Jew "to just get over" the Holocaust, committed aginst his/her family????

that was a long time ago too.

FYI, the US government DID apologize to the desendents of the civilians killed by the bombing of Japan AND the government DID apologize for slavery as well.

free dixie,sw

[Question_Assumptions]

I went to law school in Boston and saw more racism there than I ever have in Texas.

How about condemning racism in Boston AND Texas rather than ignoring the racism in Texas because the racism in Boston is worse or ignoring the slavery in Boston because Texas was a slave state during the Civil War?

If you don't like people in Boston ignoring their own racism to assume that it is solely a Southern problem, the answer is not to ignore the racism in Texas to point out how bad the racism is in Boston. The answer is to point out racism where it exists, past and present, and to condemn it.

[stand watie]

how can you be expected to be believed when you spout damnyankee apologist LIES!

did you really believe that the WAR CRIMINALS that ran the PLPOWC would admit their CRIMES, which were committed by the guards & officers there???

SADLY, for the damnyankees & their apologists, there are NUMEROUS sources where persons who were assigned to PLPOWC wrote home about their LAWLESS & intentionally cruel treatment of POWs.

furthermore, each time the area floods (which is often, given it's location/low elevation!), more bones/skulls wash up;those bones are the remains of MURDERED POWs, whose bodies were NOT interred in the POW cemetery AND whose numbers are NOT admitted as true deaths.

the number of MURDERED POWs was AT LEAST 15,000 and may have been as high as 20,000, according to numerous official MD/US government sources.

FYI, the LIARS can't even get their stories straight;official signs at the site state that about 4500, about 5300 AND about 6100 died in that hellhole. which figure do you believe???? NONE of the figures/all of the fiqures????

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

since GEN Lee was an abolitionist (and Grant was a slaveOWNER, throughout the war), your whole argument falls apart.

sorry, that won't fly.

free dixie,sw

[Paul C. Jesup]

But I will continue to dispute your claim that President Lincoln wanted all blacks sent to Africa. His support was for voluntary emigration only.

Knowing him, it was probably as voluntary as staying in the union.

[4CJ]

Do you really believe that if one of the territories that were part of the Louisiana Purchase or some later acquisition had tried to secede from the Union and become an independent state or join another country that the United States would have let it go?

Yes I do. There is no power to coerce a state by military rule (the contrary of representative rule), there is no delegated power to prohibit secession, and the federal government is constitutionally required to recognize the acts of the states.

And do you think that if enough Mexicans can slip into California and vote for secession that the United States should just let it go?

Until you can show me where secession is prohibited I'd have no problem with ANY state seceding from the leviathan that has arose from the ashes of the Constitution. I agree with Jefferson & Madison that the states are a check on the federal governement, not a servant of it. Three states reserved the right to resume their delegated powers at will, not one state protested against it.

[XRdsRev]

"What I think gets overlooked on these threads is the simple fact that once the South decided to leave the Union, the South was "invaded."
It doesn't get overlooked, it must be outright dismissed as illegal by the Unionists. Otherwise the war was one of invasion."

A - You might want to look at a chronology of historic events before you make such an unfounded statement. South Carolina seceded from the Union on DECEMBER 20, 1860. There was no invasion then, nor a call up of Federal Troops. South Carolina forces fired on the US Steamer Star of the West....still no invasion nor call up of Federal forces. Finally Fort Sumter (US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY) was fired on by Seccessionists in April 1861. Now you get a call up of Federal Troops. Perhaps if calmer heads had prevailed in Charleston in 1861, the South wouldn't have had to go through the misery that it did for four years. It's nobody's fault but your own.

"The Yankees only became moral over the issue after they had sold all their slaves,"

A - Delaware, Maryland and Missouri still had slavery in 1861 and those states remained in the Union. New Jersey, New York and Pennsyvania had fairly strong pro-South sentiments in early 1861 (A former NJ Governor even advocated his state joining the Southern Confederacy) but the firing on Fort Sumter quickly changed much sympathy in the mid-Atlantic into a desire to crush a violent rebellion. Perhaps you need to be reminded that Virginia only seceded following a torturous and divisive debate after Sumter. I say it again, if Southernors had followed their heads, they might have actually gotten much of what they wanted politically but instead, they allowed themselves to be swayed by hotheads with incredibly poor judgement. You might also want to consider that many in the south did not favor seccession and several Southern States fielded white troops in the Union Army or in pro-Union militias during the war (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia). Pro Union sentiment was very present in sections of Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee & Virginia. Eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina were exceptionally troublesome areas for Confederate authorities who frequently complained that the populations of those areas were not friendly to the cause and interfered with Army recruiting efforts.

There is a very good article that was written about the battles between pro-Seccession and pro-Union militias in Texas during the Civil War. If I can find it, I will post the reference.

[stand watie]

YEP.

nature is UNKIND to such folks.

free dixie,sw

[Question_Assumptions]

The unionists attempt to make it into a secession over slavery - which was already legal, thus there was no need for the Confederacy to secede to continue slavery if that were the cause.

That's the most simplistic (and wrong) analysis of the situation that I've ever heard. If slavery wasn't the issue, then why did the election of an anti-Slavery Republican president cause such alarm? And why did so many states mention the institution of slavery when they seceded?

Please note that the battle over slavery had been fought for years through the admission of territories into the union either as Free or Slave states. Does the name "Missouri Compromise" ring a bell? The South knew that if new states were admitted as Free states that the balance of power would shift and that the power shift had already started with the election of an anti-slavery Republican president. The writing was on the wall and they knew it. If they weren't concerned about a loss of slavery, then what were they so concerned about that made them flee the Union?

Next, they attempt to paint their cause to be for union (denying the reserved powers of the states) or to free the slaves. Others nations freed their slaves without war, what made us so different?

A lot of those nations had freed their slaves already by then. Why hadn't the South? And why did the South keep insisting that a balanced number of new states be admitted as Slave states? Let me turn your point around. If slavery wasn't important for the South, why didn't they just free their slaves or simply let every new state be brought into the Union without slavery?

The Yankees only became moral over the issue after they had sold all their slaves, ignoring all their trips to Africa and the thousands flung overboard in the Middle Passage.

The moral outrage over slavery goes back to the very founding of the country. Apparently you missed that part. You also seem to be playing a game of moral equivalency like a pro.

The North didn't want blacks in their states, nor did they want blacks, free or otherwise, in the territories.

Do you mean to tell me that everyone in the North had exactly one opinion about slavery and everyone in the South had exactly one opinion about slavery? Is it fair to judge the entire South based on the very worst and immoral opinions expressed by Southerners during that period? If not, then why do you think it is fair to judge the entire North based on the very worst and immoral opinions expressed by Southerners during that period?

How ludicrous - deny them entrance to the northern states & territories, yet thump their chests & bleat how they fought to free what they didn't want?

Are you suggesting that the Northern states had a uniform policy towards blacks and that all Notherners had exactly the same opinion towards them? For someone offended by simplisticly judging all Southerners as racists, you seem to have no problem doing the same to Northerners.

[familyofman]

"Present-day Southerners have never owned, let alone whipped, slaves."
No, but a lot of the revisionists would probably like to - honoring their forefathers & all.

[Question_Assumptions]

tell me, kind sir/madame, would you tell a Jew "to just get over" the Holocaust, committed aginst his/her family????

To a degree, yes. If you can find a person who did your family wrong, then by all means go after them. Personally, I'd give a pass to anyone who reluctantly obeyed orders but that's just me. But to hold a people responsible for what their ancestors did or to try to refight a battle that was lost years ago is not constructive.

FYI, the US government DID apologize to the desendents of the civilians killed by the bombing of Japan AND the government DID apologize for slavery as well.

It would probably be a good idea for the government to admit to all of the horrible things it did in the past to innocent people and I'd have no problem with such an appology that mentioned crimes by the Union army against Southerners. Is that all you really want?

I would suggest that if you really want sympathy from Northerners, it would be more constructive to point out the awful things that Union troops did down south than to condemn the United States, itself, and all northerners.

[Texas Federalist]

"How about condemning racism in Boston AND Texas rather than ignoring the racism in Texas because the racism in Boston is worse or ignoring the slavery in Boston because Texas was a slave state during the Civil War?"

I believe both the posts to which you were responding were intended to counter a particular individual in this thread that seems to think hate is a purely Southern problem. It was not even intended to condemn racism in one area as opposed to another.

[Held_to_Ransom]

Why is it you know so much about your ancestor's service record, yet don't know when and in what regiment he served?

[Question_Assumptions]

Three states reserved the right to resume their delegated powers at will, not one state protested against it.

Question 1: Did any of those states secede in 1861?

Question 2: Why did those states have to explicitly reserve that right if it was assumed and why didn't other states similarly explicitly reserve that right if they intended to have the ability to excercise it later?

Please note that in the first part of my reply, I was talking about territories as well as states. Could New Mexico, as a territory, say, have seceded from the US and rejoined Mexico without a fight from the US government?