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.

[XRdsRev]

That was one of the most convoluted posts I have ever read.

For your information, the firing on the Star of the West took place in January 1861, the firing on Fort Sumter took place in April 1861. The blockade (embargo) of southern ports wasn't even presented until May 1861 and wasn't implemented until the summer. So your inference that the embargo (blockade) was a justification for firing on the Star of the West and Sumter doesn't make any sense.

Fort Sumter was US Property and the US had a right to supply and reinforce it since there was no declaration of war. Using your logic, I guess you figure it would be ok if Cuba attacked our base at Guantanamo Bay since it is on Cuban soil and they don't like the US.

[sandydipper]

I fly the "Bonnie Blue" and seriously believe that "when government becomes oppressive" it is the DUTY of the citizenry to revolt.

[Maelstrom]

There's the problem and the reason we debate. We don't want anyone to refight the War Between the States.

I'll put it quite simply: it's inevitable unless states' rights are restored.

States' rights and other very important limitations against government power are essential to your continued freedoms in the United States. Currently, there are insufficient limitations to prevent a historically indicated unavoidable situation where the government falls into tyranny.

AND THAT IS THE REASON we still debate the War of Northern Aggression.

[carton253]

Well, I was only talking about myself. I always read the posts when Johnny Reb and Billy Yank start fighting, I mean debating, the Civil War.

I find the subject absolutely fascinating... I want to learn more... and it's highly entertaining. LOL!

[XRdsRev]

While I think most of us agree that State's Rights have been trampled upon, we need to excercise some caution in how that issue is addressed.

The Confederacy lost the War because of inherent weaknesses in the issue of States rights. The weak central government of the Confederacy could not manage it's affairs both domestically and abroad. Some Southern States purposefully withheld troops and supplies from the CS Gov by arguing they had a State Right to do so. Some Southern States even had representatives in Europe negotiating deals for military arms & equipment in direct competition with representatives from the CS Gov. with the result that these supplies either were lost to US Gov. buyers or ended up costing much more than they should have. Different states issued their own currency which sometimes was not accepted in other states.

At the end of the War it was discovered that many Southern State arsenals and depots were crammed full of unissued weapons, ammunition and uniforms that had been hoarded by state governments for their own use. At the same time, troops from these states had been fighting without adequate supplies because their state governments botched the job of getting them what they needed when they needed it.

Our founders wisely foresaw that the central government needed some control over certain affairs. What we need to do is find a smart, fair balance between State's Rights and Federal responsibilities.

[Maelstrom]

The supply ships were sent to provide a secure, nearly unassailable base at Ft. Sumpter.

The mobilization of troops from Ft. Marcie to Ft. Sumpter was an act of war that could not remain unaddressed.

Federal ships had been in place before that time to ensure that "smugglers" paid tariffs that were collected at the Ft. Marcie "customs house" after they had seceded.

Moreover, there is documentation IN the Library of Congress admitting that Ft. Sumpter was a unignorable provocation of Southern forces. South Carolina wasn't sued for breach of contract. Virginia was, instead, attacked.

There are several points to be made:

1) S. Carolina wasn't Licoln's to bring back into the fold, they were gone before he was in.

2) The mobilization of troops at Ft. Sumpter was the renegging of a promise made by Bucchanan.

3) Lincoln treated the South alternately as a foreign power and as rebellious states to satisfy various arguments as it suited the strength of his argument...and so do most people today.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, S. Carolina simply waits them out and provisions do not attempt to break the seige.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, provisions are sent to them through S. Carolina, not in attempt reach them directly.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, the men therein surrender when fired upon when they have no means (yet) of responding to such fire.

IF mobilization to Ft. Sumpter was not an act of war, firing upon them does not provoke an act of war (See Florida).

Mobilization to Ft. Sumpter required a response. It is a commendation of the patience possessed by Southern forces that it was not bombarded the morning a ship arrived capable of doing so.

[Maelstrom]

The end of the war did not see "a smart, fair balance between State's Rights and Federal responsibilities".
However, Lincoln's precedences started the inevitable slide that lead to FDR's later seizure of the United States as his own personal kingdom.

Lincoln's precendences also allowed the failed "Great Society" a burden under which we have not been able to throw off despite universal recognition of it's failure.

Thus, we refight the arguments here, over and over again, hoping to avoid that day when we're out in the fields doing the same thing with fewer words said.

Many of our forefathers fled Europe for the Americas due to powers governments had usurped for themselves far less than the American government today possesses. We cannot leave; there are no more frontiers for us to conquor and inhabit. We've been backed into an increasingly smaller corner for the better part of the last century.

[4CJ]

The firing on the unarmed steamer Star of the West ...

According to military orders, the ship was on a military expedition, with over 200 ARMED men and munitions, with MILITARY orders to put TROOPS into Sumter. From the Official Records:

CHARLES R. WOODS,
First Lieutenant, Ninth Infantry.

FORT COLUMBUS, N. Y. H.,
January 13, 1861.

Col. L. THOMAS,
Assistant Adjutant-General, U.S.A., Washington. D.C.

COLONEL: Pursuant to instructions, dated Headquarters of the Army, January 5, 1861, I embarked on the evening of Saturday, 5th instant, from Governor's Island, at 6 o'clock p.m., on a steam-tug, which transferred us to the steamer Star of the West.

My command consisted of two hundred men, recruits from the depot, fifty of whom were of the permanent party. My officers were First Lieut. W. A. Webb, Fifth Infantry; Second Lieut. C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, and Assist. Surg. P. G. S. Ten Broeck, Medical Department.

On Tuesday afternoon, 8th instant, arms and ammunition were issued to all the men...
Reports of Lieut. Charles R. Woods, Ninth U. S. Infantry, of first expedition for relief of Fort Sumter.

Secondly, by your own admission, the Federal government resumed control of Sumter (along with Moultrie) after 1842. South Carolina never formally took ownership of Sumter nor garrisoned it or made any improvements. Federal work on the fort was still underway in 1860 as per a recent Congressional appropriation which was voted in the affirmative by SC Congressional delegation. Thus the fort and it's armament were still legally Federal property just as they are to this day.

Nope. The terms of the cession, both in 1805: (referenced in the 1836 cession) for the construction of Ft. Sumter:

That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the Governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein; in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.

It was up to the federal governemnt to complete the Fort & garrisoon it, not the state. The government accepted the tendered offer, and then failed to abide by the terms or meet it's contractual obligation. SC might have gave them a few more years to try to fulfill it's bargain, but even then it failed. Anderson spiked his guns & took over Sumter.

Finally, in the Election of 1864. Lincoln won by an electoral landslide (Lincoln 212, McClellan 21). The only states he didn't carry were Deleware, Kentucky & New Jersey. The only large electoral states that were even close for McClellan were Pennsylvania, New York & Connecticut.

The popular vote was much closer 55%-45%. And Butler admitted to using the miltary to supress the votes by non-unionists - especially in New York.

[Cobra Scott]

There are plenty of PC-safe bashing that can go on -- men, Christians, Caucasians, Europeans, etc. It is open season on Southern heritage in large part because it is conservative and Christian.

You said a mouthfull there. How true.

[Maelstrom]

I apologize, the Ft. Sumpter troops came from "Moultrie" I've been calling it "Marcie".

[XRdsRev]

First off Fort Moultrie and Sumter were garrisoned by Federal forces for years and had been unmolested. Just because South Carolina decided it would secede, didn't mean the Federal government automatically had to concede and turn over Federal property including forts (if Kentucky left the Union tomorrow, would we just let them have Fort Knox ? I don't think so.). South Carolina's demand could be construed as an act of war itself (demanding the surrender of federal installations).

The Union commander (Anderson) made the decision to move concentrate his force at Sumter on December 26, 1860. The first shots were fired at the Star of the West in January 1861. Buchanan was still President not Lincoln (Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861). Southern authorities were aware that if they flagged down the Star of the West and demanded that it not enter the harbor, it would turn around and leave. They purposefully didn't hail the ship and instead ambushed it and fired upon it. That is an undenaible act of war, yet the Federal Government still tried to negotiate.

That wasn't good enough however and Fort Sumter was bombarded on April 12, 1861.

You can try to justify the firing on the Star of the West and Fort Sumter all you want but the fact remains that Southern forces fired the first shots on 2 seperate occassions.

There was a peaceful way and a violent way. In 1861 Charleston, some wrong headed people took the violent way, eventually costing half a million American lives and accomplished nothing for themselves in the end.

That's nothing to be proud of.

[XRdsRev]

Whether or not, the Star of the West carried 200 infantrymen is irrelevant. Those infantrymen were no threat to the batteries on Morris Island. The ship was essentially unarmed and unable to respond to the cannon fire it was exposed to.

Southern authorities also knew that the ship was coming, they knew what the troops orders were and they knew that if it was challenged it would turn around and leave. Instead of peacefully challenging it, they ambushed the ship.

Certain persons in Charleston wanted to start a war. They got one and paid the price for their indiscretion.

[Maelstrom]

No. Ft. Sumpter wasn't garrisoned. It was a new garrison under construction at the time of secession.

4ConservativeJustices has already given you an excerpt of the agreement at secession.

Demanding the surrender of Ft. Sumpter wasn't an act of war unless our recent UK's farmer shooting burglars was an act of uninitiated aggression.

Nobody was uninformed about the Star of the West's intentions or direction. That's a red herring.

The fact remains that firing upon Ft. Sumter and the firing on the Star of the West were absolutely necessary for Charleston to remain an uncontested harbor. The fact remains that the retention of troops in Ft. Sumter and its attempted provisioning were *intended* to be the unignorable provocations that they were.

In 1861, the Union forces had decided upon a violent way, they were simply going to take actions that forced the other guy to fire first. Much like the way a small annoying loud-mouthed pipsqueak in the local gang threatens to gang bang your mother.

I'm not sure if it can be made any clearer than that.

[Maelstrom]

The Star of the West also brought cannon.

[Question_Assumptions]

Your arguments are typical Hobbesian crap. Your interpretations of Constitutional language are colored by one assumption "That the government is the keeper of rights and determines which rights the people hold."

My interpretation is based on a clear reading of the language of the Constitution, a document written in language so simple and so short in length that it continues to amaze me that people seem unable to understand what it so clearly says. You are confusing the abstract philosophy of the Founders with the practical document they crafted to run a real country.

The Framers did not hold this view when they wrote the same language you are misinterpreting.

If the Framers did not feel that the government had eminent domain over private property, then why does the Constitution only prohibit the taking of private property for public use "without just compensation", clearly implying that private property may be taken for public use with just compensation?

Rights are qualified in that if you interfere with the rights of another your life, liberty or property may be taken. For example, if you kill someone, you may be incarcerated. If you scream like a banshee at 3am on your front lawn you may not exercise your right to free speech because you are interfering with your neighbor's property rights. It does NOT mean that you own your property so long as the government lets you.

That may be what the Libertarian Party platform says but that is not what the Constitution says. Read the Fifth Amendment. It is brief and very clear. When it says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation", the clear implication of the qualifying clause "without just compensation" is that private property may be taken for public use with just compensation.

Yes, I am sure you can find quotes from various Framers that take a different stand and I'm sure you can provide me some wonderfully colorful quotes stating in absolute terms where rights come from but the bottom line is that abstract proclaimations of absolutes are not practical foundations of real governments while the Constitution is. And the fact remains that the states of the Unites States, both Northern and Southern, ratified or were admitted to the Union under a Constitution with a 5th Amendment that clearly implies that the goverment has eminent domain over private property. You may not like it but pretending that the 5th Amendment doesn't say what it so clearly says is no more honest that the gun grabbers pretending that the 2nd Amendment does not say what it so clearly says.

The reason the civil war happened is because you secularist, leftist Yankees didn't understand that in 1865, and you don't understand that now.

Ah, the name calling. When all else fails, call people names.

Are you trying to claim that the text of the 5th Amendment changed between 1789 and 1860 or that the words, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." mean something different than what I'm saying they mean? If so, then please enlighten me to what the Constitution said before 1860 or clearly explain how I am misinterpreting the 5th Amendment.

Please note that you could use the same "taking clause" that I'm citing to argue that slave owners deserved "just compensation" for the "taking" of their property in the form of slaves. I am not claiming that the North acted in an entirely correct or Constitutional manner in everything it did. What I am saying is that the idea that property contained within in country is not subject to any sovereign control by that country's government is not even recognized by the Constitution. If you've got a problem with that, then you've got a problem with the Constitution as well as me.

[Question_Assumptions]

The first act of war was an embargo.

Please note that if this is correct, than that Japanese who claim that America started WW2 with them and that their attack on Pearl Harbor was defensive would seem to have a point.

[Question_Assumptions]

States had seceded before Lincoln.

Before Lincoln was elected or before he was inaugurated?

[Question_Assumptions]

However, Lincoln's precedences started the inevitable slide that lead to FDR's later seizure of the United States as his own personal kingdom.

Arguably, Marbury v. Madison sealed the fate of the United States because FDR got his way, to a large degree, by stacking the Supreme Court. I think FDR is the real villain here and blaming Lincoln only lets him off the hook.

[Cobra Scott]

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?

Awww, your prose is so good, your logic so sound, and then ya had ta go and throw that out there. Do you really want an honest answer? LOL!

[XRdsRev]

1) "4ConservativeJustices has already given you an excerpt of the agreement at secession."

And what agreement would that be ?

2) The Star of the West is a red herring ?

You can't be serious.

3) You are correct that Sumter was not properly garrisoned. However engineer troops and ordnance officers did perform duty there in 1859 & 60.

4) "The fact remains that firing upon Ft. Sumter and the firing on the Star of the West were absolutely necessary for Charleston to remain an uncontested harbor. The fact remains that the retention of troops in Ft. Sumter and its attempted provisioning were *intended* to be the unignorable provocations that they were."

Dude, your self delusions are almost comical but hey, at least you finally got the name of Fort Moultrie right. I guess there is hope for everyone. I often wonder if desk-jockey Super Confederates ever see their similarity with Arab apologists. It's never your fault, yours is the only true way and yeah you did bad things but the other guy (insert Yankees or evil infidels) made you do it.

Truly amazing.