Americans Owe Confederate History Respect

The Time Has Come To Take A Stand 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.

Chris Edwards is a local musician and MU graduate student of history. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and of the board of Missouri's Civil War Heritage Foundation.

John Brown was a psychopathic idiot but the PC side of this argument you've aligned with treats him as a prophet.

Well, that may be so, but I'm responsible for no one's opinion but my own. Were I wishing to pick a fight, I'd point out that your side of the argument is the Kluxers and their excusers. If the Klan and segregationists had not chosen the battle flag as a symbol, it would probably not be as controversial as it is.

I guess my point is that a person believes what he believes for his own reasons. Just because someone else reaches a similar conclusion, it does not mean that you abide by their reasoning. Just as I've reached my conclusions absent the PC nonsense of others on "my side" so, I trust, you've reached your conclusions based on your convictions and the best of what the South and its culture has to offer, and not out of any atavistic race hatred.

Plus, considering the number of moderate and swing voters (i.e., those required to actually elect a politician) who are turned off by the fact that there is a streak of modern conservatism that doesn't even what to admit that slavery was bad, letting alone all the auxiliary issues, it is a wonder that the Republicans control all the political offices that they do.

I'm glad Brooks caned Sumner. Wish he coulda caned all the RRs of the day.

Well, whatever. Well, Reconstruction would have been much worse had more assaults taken place?? The biggest strategic event in Reconstruction, from a Southern standpoint, happened at Ford's theater. If that narcissistic idiot Booth hadn't shot Lincoln, Reconstruction probably would not have been as bad. But we'll never know, I guess.

I'm Southern and make no excuses to any of ya'll whose water we have to carry to keep this nation from falling into the abyss.

Fantastic. I'm American. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the South. I've traveled a bit down there, and found the people to be warm and friendly. I even find things to admire about the Confederacy. Slavery just is not one of them.

All of your rant comes back to one thing, you are a fanatic on the subject of human slavery--consistently claiming that every system that allowed it, from the beginning of history, was evil for doing so.
But this moral judgment of yours, despite your rant, is not one that you have supported on any basis other than your own rhetoric.

Not true, but I'll restate it. I believe that every person has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that? It's in the Declaration of Independence. You can look it up. If a political system denies its citizens these God-given, inalienable rights, then that system is morally corrupt.

This does not mean anything more than that. It does not mean that everyone in that society is evil or that there is nothing positive to say about it. Merely that that part of the system which permitted human bondage was wrong.

***

While I agree that a slave system is a flawed system, that does not in and of itself make slaveholders evil men; nor does it give you the slightest right to interfere in other people's cultures.

It does not, in and of itself make those men evil men. I can think of a number of situations where a man could find himself a slave holder without acting immorally. But that does not mean that no (or most) slaveholders were of that type, or that slavery itself was not immoral.

Further, if a man holds a gun to my head, I have the right to kill him in self-defense. If a man holds a gun to your head, I have the right to kill him to save you. If a man holds me a slave, I have the right to kill him, if necessary, to free myself. And, likewise, if a man holds you as a slave, I have the right to kill him, if necessary, to free you. All the rest is dicta.

And this has nothing to do with some "not interfering with other people's culture" putrid politically correct crap. It has to do with whether you believe in the promise of America, that every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

***

If you want to narrow this to the specifics of this thread, let me be very clear. The Constitution--however you deny it--was a compact between the States, whose independence had been recognized in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. It was based upon delegated powers. As Article VII makes very clear, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." Parse that language anyway that you like, and it is a Compact between the States that ratify. Several almost didn't join.

Uhh, no. As I said before, the Constitution did envision the continued existence of the states, but it was no compact. If it was merely a compact between states, then the states could have ratified the Constitution through legislative acts. It would not require the consent of the people through Conventions. (Every state enters into compacts to this day, for interstate standards for many things. If there is a major river separating states, for example, often bridge authorities exist to control and manage the bridge crossings. Those are created through interstate compacts. When was the last time you heard of a convention to ratify the creation of a bridge authority?)

Further, in the Declaration, it sets out a political philosophy which states that when a Government becomes destructive to the ends of securing the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and create another. The Constitution created a new form of Government, that of a federal republic, in place of the one preceding it, that of the Articles of Confederation. Under the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, it was the people, not the states, which had that right. Thus, as a matter of political philosophy, only the people could have ordained and established the Constitution.

Finally, there is the issue of Article VI, clause 3. Not only did the Federal officers have to swear or affirm that they would uphold the Constitution (including the clause which made Federal law the Supreme Law of the Land), but members of the state legislatures, state judicial and state executive officers had to likewise do so. If the Constitution merely established a compact, the state legislatures, officers, etc., would not have to swear to uphold it. Thus, it is clear that the Constitution did not make something inferior to the authority of the state (which would be the case of a compact) but something superior to the authority of the state.

***

There are several provisions in that Constitution, which deliberately took slavery off the table, as an issue between the States, ratifying the Constitution. Your suggestion that you--or those who think as you think--would have been justified in waging a murderous war, against the Southern leadership, because they insisted on the original Constitutional intent, is what is truly immoral; truly evil. It was because there were an increasing number talking, as you are writing, was probably the single most significant reason for the South's secession--although there had been many other issues, also.

Those who formed the Union in the first place were required to compromise on the issue of slavery, in order for the South to agree on the issue. They made a deal with the devil so to speak. To the extent that it later sowed the seeds for the abolition of slavery was some mitigation. They are morally culpable for their actions, but I think they did what they could.

Had they chosen to fight in order to eliminate slavery instead of making this compromise, they would have been morally justified in doing so.

***

As for systems that demean individuals? Do you really think that the slave or bondsman, whether in Biblical, Greek, Roman or ante-bellum Southern times, who served a Master loyally, and in a way that contributed to his social order at the time, had less dignity than someone today, living on Welfare, without even trying to do anything productive?

Oh, please. Are you really so myopic that you see nothing but this false duality? Who has more dignity, Uncle Remus or the welfare queen???

Turn it around: Who do you think has a higher moral standard, the overseer who whips slaves out of sadism and rapes the slave women for his own animal gratification or the man who promoted Colin Powell to Secretary of State and Condie Rice to National Security Adviser??

***

Or take the serf, serving the great landowner, who went off to war with his King, Henry V? Was there not far more dignity in his service at Agincourt, than that accorded many a modern beneficiary of Tony Blair's Socialist Britain?

Again, the question was not whether he was dignified in his situation, but whether he was respected as a man. Was this serf given the option of not serving? Was his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stripped from him on the arbitrary whim of the state? If so, then an evil was done. The decree to which the victim of that evil mitigates or overcomes it is merely a credit to him as an individual, it does not go to vitiate the evil in the system.

***

You want to see history as a battle between Good and Evil, rather than one between differing perspectives, and competing interests.

Actually it is often both. History is often a battle between Good and Evil. See, e.g., WWII. But is also a fight between differing perspectives and competing interests. See, e.g., WWII.

What you appear to want to do is to simply strip the element of evil away from the antebellum South in order to not feel unease at your admiration for the Confederates. This is juvenile thinking, in my opinion, because it presupposes that the Confederates were incapable of evil and incapable of being wrong. If you view them this way, then you do not view them as human beings, which they most assuredly were, but as demigods, whose every action is justified if only we could discern how.

A mature view of history could say Robert E. Lee was a gentleman, a fine soldier, a man of good character, and one of the indispensable men of history who, unfortunately, fought in defense of a system which permitted the evils of slavery.

***

There certainly are evil men; but their differing with you on competing social systems is not the crux of their evil. On the other hand, those who take an oath to support a Constitutional compact, and then call for a course of action that flies in the face of that compact, have violated one of the most sacred principles of morality.

This, in my mind, is a pretty monstrous way of looking at the world: It is not evil to establish a slave-holding society, but it is evil to fight one? What a tortured view of morality that is.

***

The South was reacting, not provoking in her secession. The tragedy--on both sides--flowed from the arrogant madness you espouse.

All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it is moral to fight to secure these rights, be the beneficiary of that fight you or another. If these ideas be "arrogant madness" then I am arrogantly mad. As were innumerable great men in our history and in world history. I would be proud to take my place among them.

No one here has said they admire slavery. We are simply not obsessed with exploiting the condemnation of it to feed our need for self virtue and sanctimony.

There are those who post here who do not seem to be the least bit morally offended by the fact that slavery was permitted to exist, and, in fact, hold that the only immorality was fighting to destroy it. Others seem to view anything Southern or Confederate as somehow beyond reproach, including slavery and Jim Crow. That's just dumb.

And it has nothing to do with "self virtue" or "sanctimony." I've merely stated that slavery and slave-holding is evil. That this is statement is somehow controversial in 2004 in the United States is jaw-dropping.

As for race which appears to occupy a large chunk of your brainspace,

I've condemned slavery regardless of race. If someone who is white or oriental is being held as a slave, my opinions would be consistent. Race isn't an issue with me, although I understand how it interferes with the "we Southerners were magnificent creatures who did no wrong, but are unfairly maligned" narrative that I've seen whenever this subject arises.

I lived in Manhattan. I was not impressed with race relations there. Tawana, Howard Beach, Yankel Rosenbaum, and Bensonhurst come to mind....not to mention the dangerous hostility some blacks have towards others in certain areas.

Is there a section in the "Lost Cause Handbook" that says that when the subject turns to race, you deflect criticism of the South by pointing out the racial problems of the North? Frankly, I agree with you that race relations in the North have been insane at times and are no model for much. But so the hell what? If you want to have that discussion, we can have that discussion.

What I'm asking here is whether the confederate system and its supporters really believe what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If someone could posit a cogent explanation showing that this is not violated by chattel slavery, I'd consider it. But the fact that one has never been produced simply tells me that none exists.

But then again, my moral orbit does not revolve around only race.

Nor does mine. I'm not saying that the slaves shouldn't have been held because they were black, I'm saying that they shouldn't have been held as slaves because they were human beings. How is this controversial?

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.