POLITICS - Update - Confederate Memorial Day

[Charles]

On the original Battle Hymn of the Republic Thread, I mentioned that last Saturday was Confederat Memorial Day and The Sons of Confederate Veterans placed Flags on the graves of 97 Confederate dead here in Corpus Christi Texas. We had a squad of muskets in Confederate uniforms and we fired a salute (blanks) in honor of their service and I offered up a prayer.

Today, I learned that some people complained and the city went out and removed the flags from the graves. One of the local TV stations has requested an interview with the leadership of our SCV camp.

I only post this because Hobie and a few others seem to be oblivious to the fact that there is trememdous political pressure placed on various govermental entities to remove Confederate memorials and monuments.

It seems that we are no longer allowed even to mark the graves of Confederate dead. Those of you who think there is no attempt of dishonor the patriots of the South need to wake up.

[Tennessee Hayre]

I think that is sad.

[RSY]

Sad is definitely the word. But what can be expected when the "Civil War" is probably the most misconstrued and misunderstood episode of our national history.

Charles, I appreciate your postings on this subject. It has done much to re-awaken my heart and mind to the place that period of history has had in my life: Like my grandfather before me, I attended the University of the South. General Kirby-Smith was one of my fraternity chapter's earliest faculty advisors. And, finally, one of my very best friends is the great, great grandson of one of the men who signed the South Carolina secession act and later designed our Confederate Battle Flag.

Like many, I take that heritage for granted, all too often. Unlike many, I have never been ashamed of it. Bottom line, it is a key part of who I am and I'm glad you woke me up, so to speak.

Scott

[DerekR]

Interesting post. I had to drive to a little out of the way town in Tennessee today. It is about 50 miles from my home town. The town was Chapel Hill, Tennessee. Chapel Hill was the birthplace of Nathan Bedford Forrest. The town is VERY small, but there were two monuments to NBF. There was at least two streets named Forrest and the local High School was Forrest High School. I thought it was interesting considering the controvery surrounding N.B. Forrest. If the town weren't so small and rural there would surely be protest!

[Ray Newman]

Always remember:

People & politicans do what they are allowed to get away w/....

[Warhawk]

There is intense pressure to wipe out any and all vestiges of confederate heritage.

I to am an SCV member, and one of the first meetings I went to I learned about how in Atlanta, the powers that be renamed the road to the Confederate cemetery there ... "Martin Luther Kind Jr Blvd".

[gamekeeper]

Charles, thank you for posting. I think that it's disgraceful to disrespect the graves of brave men who fought for what they believed in during the War of Northern Aggression. I am sure that if the Confederate States had won, Union soldiers graves would have been honored.

I know that being an Englishman a lot of you will think, what's it got to do with me, but I have studied the Civil War and like a lot of Brits come out on the side of the "Rebels". You can see the Confederate Battle Flag over here quite often, in fact I'm wearing a Confederate belt buckle as I type this. I also wear red on fridays as I support all American troops fighting for freedom.

[Ysabel Kid]

I know that being an Englishman a lot of you will think, what's it got to do with me, but I have studied the Civil War and like a lot of Brits come out on the side of the "Rebels". You can see the Confederate Battle Flag over here quite often, in fact I'm wearing a Confederate belt buckle as I type this. I also wear red on fridays as I support all American troops fighting for freedom.

Bless you gamekeeper! As I have said, it is good to have brothers in arms in many lands!!!

[octagon]

Removing flags from graves!? That is about as low dog as you can get. Charles is right - I have seen more and more of this type sad behavior in the last few years - it is sad. Charles, how can we help?

[KirkD]

It seems that we are no longer allowed even to mark the graves of Confederate dead.

That is, indeed, disturbing

[Ram Hammer]

People are so caught up in their political agenda, they forget that this type of activity is about honoring the fallen. I don't care what flag a man falls under, he deserves to be remembered for his sacrifice!

[El Mac]

Typical PC turds.

[Rusty]

I don't know about where y'all are but around here it's a crime ( as in against the law) to deface a grave. I think I would raise enough of a stink about it that someone would pay.

FWIW The Jubal Early Camp provided color guard for this dedication in Nov. of 2007. http://www.songofdixie.com/Progress%20Report.htm

There's a lot of history here as well.

[DennisD]

Part of the problem; a lot of current Americans think the war was about slavery, thus the hatred by many of the Confederate Flag (and the current push to make it politically incorrect to display it).

I agree with raising a stink about removing the flags. I would bet that the race issue was used to get the flags removed.

[Hobie]

On the original Battle Hymn of the Republic Thread, I mentioned that last Saturday was Confederat Memorial Day and The Sons of Confederate Veterans placed Flags on the graves of 97 Confederate dead here in Corpus Christi Texas. We had a squad of muskets in Confederate uniforms and we fired a salute (blanks) in honor of their service and I offered up a prayer.

Today, I learned that some people complained and the city went out and removed the flags from the graves. One of the local TV stations has requested an interview with the leadership of our SCV camp.

I only post this because Hobie and a few others seem to be oblivious to the fact that there is trememdous political pressure placed on various govermental entities to remove Confederate memorials and monuments.

It seems that we are no longer allowed even to mark the graves of Confederate dead. Those of you who think there is no attempt of dishonor the patriots of the South need to wake up.

You sir are a thick headed old codger who didn't listen to a word I said/wrote. I am disappointed in you for that.

Of course we know that these PC idiots are everywhere, I've written about it. I've written about my efforts to reverse some such actions. I've been on the board of an organization that was constantly fighting such things and written about that. I even included the link to that foundation's site (which I spent many a night writing and editing and publishing) in my signature everywhere I posted for all the time they had it up (and, no, I don't know why it is down).

Catch a clue Charles. We're on your side I just feel that you shouldn't be bigoted about the other side either.

[Charles]

Welll Gents, it is indeed sad, but signs of the times. Like others I stood by and watched as Southern heritage came under increasing attack over the years. That was when I decided to come out of the closet and join the Sons of Cofederate Veterans. We are planning our response to the media, but we need to be careful. We don't want to come accross as bigoted or insensative to other feelings.

Hobie.. Let's clear the air.. This is what I got from your other responses. Like all internet things I could have "misconscrewed" your meaning, but this is what I got.

1) I am on your side, but on the other side as well, so lets tone it down.

2) I most certainly got the message that you thought my concerns and sentiments were overblow, overstated, or otherwise out of place.

That is what I got, and it may have come from your dual family background or your moderator's way of trying to keep things from getting out of hand.

For the record again... I honor the men who served in the Northern Army for their heroism and service. I think of things as nothing less than American patriots and fighting men.

I have no issues with the descendents of those men or those folks who live in te North today. Every man, North or South should be judged by the content of their morals and character.

My problem is with the politicans and spin doctors of the North at the time of the event. They managed to concoct a web of lies that defame the South, it's cause, and the men to fought for it. That web of lies has been passed down from generation to generation until it is accepted as the truth, and it is very difficult for folks to see this.

Now that is what I heard from you and what I intened to say. If you find that a dissappointment I am sorry.

Take care, one and all, North and South. I wish you all well, but still remain and unreconstructed Confederate.

[Hobie]

Charles,

I just want you to know and understand that I am oblivious to nothing. I agree with you about honoring CSA service. I am not "PC" about either side. It was what it was.

As to the desecration of graves, there has to be something that can be done in your area. I know we can do stuff here as it is illegal to remove those things from the grave. It is theft.

Around here the big problem was the stealing of the SCV/DOC grave "shields" from veteran graves. Most often these are simply replaced as the low-lifes can't be caught. Every once in a while we have somebody bring one by the shop. We get their names first, then ask them point blank if they stole it or know who did. It is usually left with us and returned to the organization for placement. Have done 3 that way myself.

It is a never-ending fight (just as it is to honor those killed in the current conflict).

[pharmseller]

My problem is with the politicans and spin doctors of the North at the time of the event. They managed to concoct a web of lies that defame the South, it's cause, and the men to fought for it. That web of lies has been passed down from generation to generation until it is accepted as the truth, and it is very difficult for folks to see this.

Now that is what I heard from you and what I intened to say. If you find that a dissappointment I am sorry.

Take care, one and all, North and South. I wish you all well, but still remain and unreconstructed Confederate.

Charles,
I think I need some educating.
My take on the Civil War is that the root cause was the issue of state's rights. The primary question was, does an individual state have the right to conduct itself as it sees fit? Does the state (represented by the will of its citizens) have the right, the power, the authority to choose how it's citizens live, or does the republic as a whole have the right to dictate certain laws that control an individual state? Slavery was one of the issues, since the republic as a whole disapproved and sought to force its will on the Southern ("slave") states.
How close to the mark am I?

I must say that when I read your posts the impression I get is that you have a chip on your shoulder in the shape of the stars and bars. If you have a problem with the spin doctors and politicians of the North at the time of the event, take it up with them. Seeing as how that's impossible, seek to educate others with less of an aura of hostility.
As for remaining an unconstructed confederate, please be advised that the South lost. Honor the memory of the fallen (on both sides) but move on. I interpret statements such as those to be anti-American, since the Confederate States do not exist. In my mind identifying yourself as a Confederate instead of an American leaves room to question your patriotism.
I'm proud to be an American, constructed, reconstructed, deconstructed, unreconstructed, and whatever -structed.

My opinion only.

Quinn

[Hobie]

KIITV news report on the desecration and some history on the cemetery

[Blaine]

I'm currently hard pressed to remember how the term Southern Gentleman came to pass........

[BruceB]

I'm currently hard pressed to remember how the term Southern Gentleman came to pass........

I gather you're a believer in the fairy-tale Charles mentioned.

[JohnnyReb]

Even here in the deep south, PC has won:

I have a hard time navigating in downtown Atlanta these days, To go the the state capitol you would exit on to Lee street, cross Jackson and turn left on Forrest. Now the streets are MLK, International Blvd, McKinney (for Representative Cythnia McKinney who slapped a Congressional security guard for asking for her ID at a security post), Ralph Abernathy Ave. and Andrew Young Dr.

[JohnnyReb]

One point of interest: Old governor Roy Barnes, who attends the Confederate Day celebrations every year, pulled a fast on the PCs.

He removed the Stars and Bars from our State flag, which got him beat in a re-election. On the face, it looks like he caved in and let them win. Well, anyone who has studied the history of the war will realize that the S&B's was a battle flag and never the official flag of the country. Well, guess what the State of Georgia now flies as the state flag: The official flag of the Confederacy!! Unfortunately not enough people understood that fact and voted against him. Of course, he, nor anyone in favor of the heritage, could openly state the true meaning of our current symbol.

[Hobie]

One point of interest: Old governor Roy Barnes, who attends the Confederate Day celebrations every year, pulled a fast on the PCs.

He removed the Stars and Bars from our State flag, which got him beat in a re-election. On the face, it looks like he caved in and let them win. Well, anyone who has studied the history of the war will realize that the S&B's was a battle flag and never the official flag of the country. Well, guess what the State of Georgia now flies as the state flag: The official flag of the Confederacy!! Unfortunately not enough people understood that fact and voted against him. Of course, he, nor anyone in favor of the heritage, could openly state the true meaning of our current symbol.

Then and now
and the "First National"

[ursavus.elemensis]

Gentlemen, either you love the United States of America, or you do not. And, if you love this country as I do with every strand and fiber of my being, then you can not defend, nor should you try to pay tribute to those who tried to tear us apart.

I am opposed to making special honors and commemorations for the confederate war dead. And, I am against publically-sponsored displays of the confederate flag (i.e. taxpayer-supported displays such as on public property). It has nothing to do with blacks, whites, or prejudice or bigots or anything like that. It has nthing to do with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday or anything at all to do withy any black person or cause. I am a Texas-born American (born at the base hospital at Webb Air Force Base, an AMERICAN military installation). I am a patriot who loves my country. And, I look back into history with disgust and genuine sadness at the thought that some people tried to literally tear this country apart. There's a lot that our government does that is deplorable, but I can not support bringing the violent force of arms against the United States of America and I do not understand nor countenence any effort to pay any tribute to those who did bring arms against the United States. In my corner are patriots such as Sam Houston (a man born in Tennessee who won Independence for the Republic of Texas, my birthplace). Sam Houston refused to fight for the rebels from the southern states. Also in my corner are men like President Andrew Jackson, a man born in South Carolina who sent Federal troops to his birthstate to put down their attempted illegal nullification of American laws. I humbly submit that honoring those who tried to violently tear apart the United States of America during the 1860's is the same as paying tribute to those who seek to destroy us now. Those confederate dead deserve the dignity that any human being deserves (oh, by the way, tell that to the Americans who were tortured and starved by the confederates at Andersoneville). But that means that they deserve to lie undisturbed in their graves and they deserve nothing else. They've had the chance now to stand before God and answer for what they did to this country, and I am fine with letting Him determine their fate with regard to eternity, but I do not support efforts to try to pay tribute here on earth to those criminals. And, THAT has nothing to with whites, blacks, being "politically correct", etc. As I said, either you love the United States of America, or you do not.

[El Mac]

...thats just it. The Confederates of yesteryear fought to preserve what they believed WAS America. That is, a less powerful centralized government in favor of what was originally intended by the founders...they were Americans no different than you.

[Charles]

pharmseller... You are very close, but "State's Rights" is a very broad term. There was cultural and political tension between the North and South. The North was trying to control the political and economic power through the control of Congress.

The North sought to control the Congress by keeping the population of the South Down by the method of counting. The South wanted to count the slaves in the population for purposes of Congressional representation. The North did not want them to count at all, but forced the 3/5ths of a person through Congress as a compromise. That being that each slave was counted as 3/5th of a person.

To be certain slavary was a moral evil and most folks north and south understood that. But the economy of the South was based on that kind of labor. The north having an industrial economy and the south having an agricultural economy. There was also the question of what would happen to the slaves as they had no job or social skill to survive.

Slavery was on it's way out by the time of the Civil War as farm machinery was being developed that would do the work. In fact the Confederate Constitution forbad the importation of slaves.

The United States Constution protected the property of the citizens and slaves had been recognized as property for generations. The South felt it was unfair for the north to size their property and felt it was a violation of their rights under the consitution. In March of 1856 SCOTUS handed down the Dred Scott decision, ruling that slaves and freed blacks who had been slaves were not citizens of the United States, and in a legal sense they were not people but property.

The south viewed the abolition movement as a way of destroying the south, it economy and political influence in the congress.

The south thought the abolution movement was very hypocritical as the north engaged in the "Coolie Trade" Hundreds of thousands of Chineese were brought into the country for cheap labor. The Chineese had to sign contracts agreeing to pay about $2,000.00 for their passage by working off the debt. The actual cost of the passage was about 1/10th of the contract price. The contracts were then sold in the United States and after the price of housing and food was deducted from the meger wage, the Chinaman would never be able to pay off his debt, making the Coolie Trade defacto slavery.

In general the South felt under political and economic attack from the North and felt they had no choice but to leave as their rights as American citizens were not being protected by an increasing hostile Northern controled Congress. Lincoln was a Whig until 1855 when he jumped to the Republican party and was elected will a little more than 35% of the popular vote. The Republican party was a regional party that won the electoral vote of a few key Northern states and was able to put Lincoln in the White House without a single electoral vote from the South.

The South knew this was the end of their ability to partcipate as equals in their own government and that is what triggered sucession. They would have no rights if they stayed in the United States. In short the South was pushed into a politcal corner and had no way out.

Now as to having a chip on my shoulder, I guess that depends on where you come from and who your family is. To someone whose family did not loose their farms, homes and property during the war I suppose it is easy to just sluff it off as history. To someone whose land was not occupied by a foreign army, I suppose this would not be a matter of consequence. To someone whose momunents and memorials to their ancestory are not being torn down, I suppose this is a matter of no consequence. To someone whose history has not been distorted, this would be a matter of no consequence.

As testimoney to the hostility to Southern heritage, you have only to read some of the posts in this thread.

One hundred and forty years ago, American peoples right and lives were destroyed by people who wanted power and didn't care who got hurt in the process. Today much of what we cherish as Americans is also under attack. We can learn the lessons of the past or we can forget and see history repeated.

I guess what is a "chip on the shoulder" is a matter of perspective. Your choice.

[pharmseller]

Charles,
I appreciate your perspective but I must disagree with you on most of your points.
Why would the southern states want to count "property" for the purposes of elected representation? To skew the numbers, I suppose. Pigs or pork, property or people, but they couldn't have it both ways. Talk about "spin."
Yes, slavery was (and remains) a moral evil, but you seem to defend the southern view of it by saying that the south depended upon it for their agrarian way of life. Again, moral evil or "tradition," pigs or pork. You can't have it both ways.
As for Dred Scott, as I recall the makeup of SCOTUS at the time was heavily southern. Just an observation, but I could be wrong.
Sure, the treatment of Chinese laborers was reprehensible, but two wrongs don't make a right now, either. I find your statement to be irrelevant.
As far as getting pushed into a corner they had no way out of (a point I do not agree with), did the war change that? From what I remember about history, the south was offended that the rest of the country wanted to change the way they lived. When the rules change is the only option to take your ball and go home? Or do you recognize that change occurs and you do your best to roll with those changes? If Hillary or Obama win the presidency I will not secede from the Union, I will wait until I can make a positive change.
As far as losing homes and farms during the war, I have a hard time being compassionate with those who sought to destroy the nation under which they had the right to those homes and farms. Be a good citizen and you retain the rights of a good citizen. Act seditiously (sp?) and you run some pretty heavy risks.
I see no hostility to southern heritage in these threads, but I do see some hackles going up when some people seem to believe that the confederacy exists. It doesn't, no matter how much some people wish it did. No foreign army occupied the south. To me that is a ridiculous and divisive statement. The south wanted to take it's ball and go home and the Union said, well, actually, that's MY ball, and if you don't like it, tough.
And speaking of those rights and lives being destroyed, is it an honest question to ask about all of the African rights and lives that were destroyed? It's very easy to focus on the slavery issue of the Civil War (NOT the war of northern aggression, let's be grownups here) and I believe that the "moral evil" is a stain that will never quite wash off.
And yes, from my perspective your post has clearly identified your chip. It's too bad, really, because it marginalizes your input. Again, just my opinion.

Quinn

[JohnnyReb]

Charles,
you stated the argument for the war between the States very well.

My ancestors believed very strongly in the cause and alot of my family blood was shed on the battlefields east of the Mississippi.

With that said, brother, I cannot agree to stand as a unreconstructed confederate. The issue was decided and we re-joined the union to now stand together with all citizens of this great nation.

ursavus.elemensis
As stated by El Mac, the Confederacy fought to preserve a version of the country whereby the States, collectively, and sometimes individually, possess authority superior to the Federal government. They were no less patriotic then the citizens of the States that fought to establish the Federal system as the superior authority.

The war was illegal as prosecuted by both sides:
By the South
South Carolina, ultimately supported by the remainder of the Confederacy did not have the right to deprive the Federal government of its property at Fort Sumter.

By the North
One of the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of this country is the right NOT to be citizens... so if 1 leaves the nation...that is OK.... 10 is OK....1000...wait a minute......100,000....Not allowed...

JR

[pharmseller]

Charles,
you stated the argument for the war between the States very well.

My ancestors believed very strongly in the cause and alot of my family blood was shed on the battlefields east of the Mississippi.

With that said, brother, I cannot agree to stand as a unreconstructed confederate. The issue was decided and we re-joined the union to now stand together with all citizens of this great nation.
JR

I really like your statement.

Quinn

[Hobie]

...thats just it. The Confederates of yesteryear fought to preserve what they believed WAS America. That is, a less powerful centralized government in favor of what was originally intended by the founders...they were Americans no different than you.

Yes. That is true. Just about everyone did their best to do right. That their idea of right doesn't agree with any given person's idea of right these 143 years later doesn't really matter, does it? It is a moot point. I should also point out that there were many who served in the US Army, then CS Army and then in the US Army again. Many had friends and family against whom they fought and with whom they reconciled after the war (although not all reconciled).

I always found it interesting that my Great-Great Grandfather was better reconciled with those that shot him than his grandson (my Grandfather). This is the sort of thing I see in those who still have so much anger against the "other" side, whichever it is.

[1886]

Gentlemen, either you love the United States of America, or you do not. And, if you love this country as I do with every strand and fiber of my being, then you can not defend, nor should you try to pay tribute to those who tried to tear us apart.

I am opposed to making special honors and commemorations for the confederate war dead. And, I am against publically-sponsored displays of the confederate flag (i.e. taxpayer-supported displays such as on public property). It has nothing to do with blacks, whites, or prejudice or bigots or anything like that. It has nthing to do with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday or anything at all to do withy any black person or cause. I am a Texas-born American (born at the base hospital at Webb Air Force Base, an AMERICAN military installation). I am a patriot who loves my country. And, I look back into history with disgust and genuine sadness at the thought that some people tried to literally tear this country apart. There's a lot that our government does that is deplorable, but I can not support bringing the violent force of arms against the United States of America and I do not understand nor countenence any effort to pay any tribute to those who did bring arms against the United States. In my corner are patriots such as Sam Houston (a man born in Tennessee who won Independence for the Republic of Texas, my birthplace). Sam Houston refused to fight for the rebels from the southern states. Also in my corner are men like President Andrew Jackson, a man born in South Carolina who sent Federal troops to his birthstate to put down their attempted illegal nullification of American laws. I humbly submit that honoring those who tried to violently tear apart the United States of America during the 1860's is the same as paying tribute to those who seek to destroy us now. Those confederate dead deserve the dignity that any human being deserves (oh, by the way, tell that to the Americans who were tortured and starved by the confederates at Andersoneville). But that means that they deserve to lie undisturbed in their graves and they deserve nothing else. They've had the chance now to stand before God and answer for what they did to this country, and I am fine with letting Him determine their fate with regard to eternity, but I do not support efforts to try to pay tribute here on earth to those criminals. And, THAT has nothing to with whites, blacks, being "politically correct", etc. As I said, either you love the United States of America, or you do not.

Who did the tearing? Just a little intellectual curiosity coming over me. 1886.

[Bruce Scott]

"I always found it interesting that my Great-Great Grandfather was better reconciled with those that shot him than his grandson (my Grandfather). This is the sort of thing I see in those who still have so much anger against the "other" side, whichever it is." Hobie

In a TV documentary shown on Anzac Day an old Turkish soldier said of the Anzacs, "...they were ordered to attack us and we were ordered to defend our country against them. I never hated them....Never!"

Of those invaders Mustafa Kemal Ataturk- the defender of Gallipoli - said:

Those heroes that shed their blood
and lost their lives...
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country,
therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Jonnies
and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side.
Here in this country of ours...
You, the mothers,
who sent their sons from far away countries
wipe away your tears.
Your sons are now lying in our bossom
and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well."

During a brief ceasefire on Gallipoli arranged to bury the dead one of the Turks said to an Australian while pointing to some graves "That's politics." Then he pointed to the dead bodies, and said: "That's diplomacy. God pity all of us poor soldiers!"

Soldiers, it seems, are less likely to be able to hate or maintain the rage that boils in the breasts of those who were not there.

The past is past. Pay honor to the fallen of both sides and celebrate the greatness of your united nation.

[Charles]

JohnnyReb... I too am an American and proud of it. My family left it's blood at Brandywine, Georga in 1863, Bella Wood, Iwo Jima, The Frozen Chosin and Viet Nam. Our service to this country has been constant and continual from the Declaration of Indepence to the present. Nobody can question our patriotism or our willingness to serve and die if necessary for the American Dream.

When I say I am an unreconstructed Confederate, it means I have survived the "Reconstruction" our heads not bowed and our souls not crushed. I still believe the original vision of our Founding Fathers was expressed well in the Confederate Cause.

As long as their are mean spirited people like urasavas whatever, that demeans the sacarifices made by Southern men, I will remain ready to defend Southern honor.

It would be nice if we could just sing Kum By Ya, eat smores and get along. That would be very nice indeed, but as long folks like Ursavas are around trying to take our honor away from us, and as long as city goverments remove flags from Confederate graves, I will stay on the ready.

I am a Texan and an American and I will not allow attacks on Southern honor to go unchallenged.

That is what I mean by being an Unreconstructed Confederate. We were defeated on the battle field and Lee surrendered his Army, but he did not surrender our honor and no man can take it away from us. As long as some of us live, we will honor the sacrifices made by our ancestors for an American we believed to be be just and true.

When there are no longer voices spouting hate for the South, then maybe we can get around to those smores.

Pharmseller... I can live with being "marginalized" by this group. I have never considered being a part of the majority to be a worthy goal at the sacrifice of conscience. "This above all, to thine own self be true".

When we get to the end of the road, all we have left is how we have lived and what we have stood for. Each of us, must answer those questions for himself. I have often not been part of the majority, but I seek to be true to what I understand to be true and right. The fact others may not see it that way, matters not. I would rather be known as "a hard headed ol Coger" on the "margins", than a fellow who went along to get along.

As far as having my facts straight on the causes of the Civil War, I wrote my post with my wife at my side checking my facts. She is a College Professors who teaches American History. Those facts were how the
South saw the situation at the time. It is not important how either you or I see them now. History is made by those who lived it, not those who read it.

[RSY]

What is the NAME of our nation??? Have we ever pondered what it means and represents??? The STATES are not to be subordinate to the federation to which they belong. It's that simple. That especially includes the right to freely exit the Union as they please and see fit.

If you truly love the United STATES of America, then you should be appalled by what Lincoln did to "preserve the Union." In forcibly doing so, he went 180-degrees against everything that this nation was supposed to be about. Unions are properly preserved from within by ensuring that their members derive some positive benefit, and therefore continue to desire to belong.

How can people who love guns and are true lovers of individual freedom swallow the pat, junior high school version of our "Civil War"???

On a related thought, I wonder how many people who believe in "No Fault" divorce think this conflict was justifiable and proper?

scott

[JohnnyReb]

Charles:
I appreciate your explanation and better understand your point of view.

RSY:
This is the very principle exercised by the south; government only by the consent of the governed.

I will add a personal note. As I had stated in another post regarding this conflict, we all, north and south, owe a great debt to Robert E. Lee.
He was the one to force the decision of Gettysburg. His subbordinates, Longstreet most of all, wanted to fight a guerilla war. The theory was to extend the war as long as possible and simply wear down the north. There would have been a negotiated truce and we may have well ended up like North and South Korea, with an uneasy peace and a guarded border. Lee felt the South had to have a clear victory or defeat. If we had been successful at Gettysburg then the Confederate army would have marched on and captured Washington and forced an end to the war. If not, then the outcome that we suffered.

We should all be thankful for men of character and foresight in our history.

[pharmseller]

Good on you Braveheart I mean Charles.
Meaning no disrespect to your wife, college professors have no corner on the facts market. That's one of the beauties of history, perspective colors the events.
You speak in the first person plural, as if you wore the gray, and you seem hypersensitive to criticism of the south. I wonder why? It comes back to the chip on your shoulder.
Perhaps a 'smore is in order.

Quinn

[lever-4-life]

I have no problem with the honer of fallen family or friend... even if it occurred over 140 years ago. My 5-g grand fathers name was Thomas Jonathan Jackson, perhaps you have heard of him? Even with such a great southern leader in my family I am STRONGLY against the non-historical display of the southern banner. I can not change my family, I dont want to but I can say he was wrong even if the war was started states rights I don't belive that God could have chosen a nation that kept humans as slaves to win a war of such importance.

I have read the thread a few times and have decided to jump in. I dont know how I missed the post about nathan bedford forrest...That set me off, I am sad to hear that that man is being thought of as a hero! Now that is unthinkable

I know I will get flack for this, but I don't care. I am a Christian first and then an American not a Confederate!

[BruceB]

How can people who love guns and are true lovers of individual freedom swallow the pat, junior high school version of our "Civil War"???

Amen brother!

GOD BLESS THE CONFEDERATE STATES!

[DixieBoy]

Hello to all. I'm new on this forum, though I've enjoyed it for months. Must confess that I debated saying hello on this particular thread, but here goes.

By way of introduction, like most of you all I flat out love lever guns, single action six-shooters, and lots of other firearms as well. Like many here in Florida, I am a transplanted Yankee, and I have to say that Charles has most of the facts on his side. By the way, I teach American History at the local community college and it is a safe bet that I am the only pro-Second Amendment professor that most of my students may ever meet.

I confess to being indoctrinated in the winner's version of events and issues while attending public schools up north. I too, honor the service of those men of the north who gave their lives and limbs in the poorly named conflict which most call "The Civil War." But I believe that Charles is correct in believing that the men of the south deserve not only respect while in their graves, but their cause needs to be understood or it truly all was "in vain."

For those of you who care, there are a couple of must reads. Be warned, these books challenge pretty much all of what most of us were taught in public schools. For what it's worth, I struggled for several years in accepting what is, in fact, verifiable truth.

Book number one is The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. He also has a follow up book titled Lincoln Unmasked. DiLorenzo is an economist, and as an economic historian he has few equals. Also, as an academic he has an incredible amount of guts. You see, the truth is out there if we're interested in doing the research. But the "official" version of events has many powerful supporters, and much grant (read: government) money is available for those who perpetuate the official fictions. Note when you read harsh criticisms of DiLorenzo's books that they never attack the facts that he recounts. They go after him personally, with ad hominem attacks. That should be a giveaway that all is not what it seems when it comes to the presentation of our "Civil War."

I'm asking for forgiveness in advance for the length of this post, because these truly are important issues; in many ways we are still fighting this war when we fight in America today over taxes, and just how much say the government has in our lives. As 2nd Amendment supporters, we are all very much touched by these issues. Okay, here we go:

1. We did not have a "Civil War" in this country. A Civil War is when two or more parties fight for control of the government. The south wished to secede from the union, and believed (correctly) that they were involved in a voluntary union. Probably the most accurate title for this war would be The War of Secession. Of course, there are many more.

2. During the time in which men like Robert E. Lee attended West Point, among their studies were Constitutional studies. Their text was titled "A View of the Constitution" by William Rawles. These men were all taught that secession, though not to be embraced over minimal concerns, was indeed a right of all states.

3. The war was fought over money and power. Yes, slavery was an issue, but not the major one by a long shot. Indeed, Lincoln made a specific point of promising that the institution of slavery would never be threatened during his first inaugural address. In 1832 the people of South Carolina moved perilously close to war during what was called The Nullification Crisis. The North controlled a majority of the vote in Congress and they had voted to increase a tariff (taxes on imports), which the South called "The Tariff of Abominations." When President Jackson got a vote to use troops to squash South Carolina's resistance to collecting these high tariffs in S.C. ports, Congress also hastily voted to reduce the tariff. You see? The majority in the nothern dominated Congress were doing the same thing that the British did on several occasions in the years immediately before our own war of secession with the Brits. They'd levy a tax which proved to be terribly unpopular. Tax collectors would be beaten, and violence bubbled up, then the Brits would reduce or eliminate the tax.
This pattern continued even after these united States won their independence. We ARE tax rebels by heritage.

4. When the American colonies won their independence from Britain the peace treaty which was signed in 1783 specifically recognized that the Brits were making peace with 13 "Free and Independent" states. This is why many early writings call this country "these united States." Lincoln's war definitely changed the country that the Founders had given us, and, for what it's worth, I consider the Founders to be wiser men than any who have "governed" us since then. States were intended to have the majority of powers, and the newly created (with the ratifying of the Constitution) Federal gov't. having a very few clearly defined powers. The whole purpose of this government was to safeguard the rights of individuals. Doesn't sound much like our modern national gov't. to me, but I could be wrong.

5. The Morrill Tariff which passed before Lincoln's inauguration essentially duplicated the abuse of the Tariff of Abominations from the 1830's. By the 1830's and continuing to the days before the War of Secession, the south paid close to 80% of the nation's tariffs. Yet, barely 20% of this money ever found its way back to the south. The northern dominated congress was spending this money in the north, on federally financed "internal improvements" which were mostly railroads and the canal systems desired by business interests in the north. The south did have a right to be angry about this situation, and in early 1861 a number of the southern states opted to leave. They did not choose to take over the country, they chose to leave.

6. Virginia held 3 different votes on secession, with the first two ending in a "No" vote for secession. Remember that Virginia was the home of this country's "first string" of presidents: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, to name the most well known. These decendants of the Founders did not enter into secession lightly, but in those times one's loyalty - whether you were a northerner of a southerner - went first to one's state. And no one thought that to be unpatriotic. It was Lincoln's call for 75, 000 troops to kill the Virginians' neighbors in South Carolina that clinched the "Yes" vote on the third Virginia secession vote. This came right on the heels of Robert E. Lee's refusal to accept Lincoln's offer to lead these northern armies. Lee may be the greatest patriot this country ever knew, and to smear his name betrays the ignorance of the smearer.

7. Lee personally detested slavery, and made his marriage to his beloved Martha conditional on her freeing her family's slaves. Many others in the south felt the same way. But...the 10 to 15% of the southern population who did own slaves were in a pickle. Granted, some of these men wanted nothing to change, and for slavery to continue on. However, many of the slaveowners in the south were the same men who worked to promote the laws making manumission easier.

8. With the exception of Canada, which had extremely minimal slavery, most every country in the Western Hemisphere had slavery. By 1900, all of them had managed to end it without a war. Were they smarter than us? Or did they make the time available for gradual emancipation to work, without destroying their own countries in the process? Remember, up until the early 1800's most of the northern states still had slavery, though much less extensive than in the south. This was a function of soil quality and weather more than anything. The north could not support agriculture like the warmer, more fertile south, and so developed into much more of an industrial region. Remember too, that New York was the hub of the slave trade up into the first decade of the 1800's.

So, what might have happened if the south had won its independence from the north, as in one of Harry Turtledove's novels? We can't know, but my guess is that that there might have come a reconciliation for the two regions, given the common language, land mass, and still holding more in common culturally than those things on which they differed.

When people discuss the Stars and Bars today, very few understand that the original Stars and Bars (thanks Hobie) was replaced on the battlefield because of the difficulty of distinguishing it from the union flag on a smoke filled area. Men, all spun around in the confusion of fighting could not clearly make out the differences between the two sides' flags until the St. Andrew's Cross became the Confederate battle flag. It is truly sad that hate groups like the KKK have commandeered the old battle flag, so that folks who don't know their history claim today that it is a symbol of hate. That is a flag that brave and patriotic men fought under, believing in their hearts that they were defending the true principles of America, priinciples which they believed the union side had forsaken.

That is the tragedy in all of this. The men of the south believed that they were fighting for their rights. Most men of the north believed, sincerely, that they were fighting for union. But here is where we have to ask ourselves a question: If you were in a marriage, and had taken vows, and had experienced continuous wronging from your partner, abuses which you felt were intolerable, would you feel that your partner was justified in pursuing you after you left, and dragging you back home at gunpoint, in order to maintain what - to them - was a happy situation? Ask your wife that one.

I have to admit that I take exception to the notion that "you can't say you love your country, but you don't love your government." Please. Didn't a guy named bill klinton tell us all that same thing not too long ago. He attached the same meaning to the words country and government. I would bet that any of you reading this dearly love your country, but have very little affection for your government.

The men who fought for the south believed that they were figthing to defend the vision of the founding fathers. After their defeat, the growth of the federal government began, accelerating during FDR's presidency at incredible rates, and again during LBJ's time, to the point we've reached today (and yes, GWB has been no friend to the Reagan belief in smaller government either). The federal government is now the largest employer in the country. I think that no matter what your political party, or your take on the events of 1861-1865, most of us cringe at this thought. Even Alexander Hamilton, the number one proponent of a strong federal gov't. would be terribly dismayed at what we've allowed to happen.

I don't know how we're going to reach a point where we feel that our government is truly responsible and limited in its powers again. But the issues that were in the air back in 1861 are definitely still with us. It would be great if we could honestly discuss all of this without fear of being labeled racists, or anarchists, or kooks. As gun owners we have a stake in all of this deeper than most.

My apologies for this incredibly windy introduction. I promise to much more brief in the future. - DixieBoy



Less incendiary than

[old goat]

...DixieBoy,
...Welcome sir!

...A good first post!
...Nice to hear FACTS on this matter, instead of "I don't care what it was about/don't confuse me with facts!" type of rants.

...old goat

[BruceB]

Welcome to the fire Dixieboy. An incredible first post! Bravo!

[gamekeeper]

Welcome to the fire Dixieboy.

Great post!!

[1886]

Welcome DixieBoy!. Great post and I do hope you that will not be your last. You have much to share. Regards. 1886.

[20cows]

Wow, Dixieboy! WELCOME!!

[Charles]

Dixie Boy... Welcome to the board and thanks for a most informative post. Long posts are welcome, when the contain substance, which yours most certainly did. A good student of history is always an asset.

Quite a few folks think I am overly sensitive on this issue and indeed I may be from their point of view. But it is not their ox that is getting gored.

Again...Welcome..Good luck and good shooting.

Charles Graff
Deep South Texas

[donw]

i must be "thick"...but if the issue of slavery was so high in the cause(s) of the civil war, why did lincoln wait until may of 1863 and saw the union was about to lose adhesion, did he sign the emancipation proclamation? he used it as a bargaining tool to hold the union together.

i don't understand why honoring the conferderate veterans is so offensive to many. i find cinco de mayo and kwanza offensive but i don't try to make an issue of it.

BTW...if obama gets elected...we gun owners may have to make HUGE changes...like turning in/disposing of all but single shot firearms...

[DixieBoy]

Thanks guys. I think that there's a real good bunch here. I'm happy to call you all my fellow shooters.

I have just two short points to make regarding the topic of the War of Secession. I'll try to be more brief than my hello post.

When I first was reading in depth about the war, I was around 40 years old and I'm in my early fifties now. So, for most of my life I accepted the version of events as presented to me in school, and reinforced by many "scholars" who make significant dollars by perpetuating the myths which were fed to us as youngsters. When I first read "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel it actually hurt my head ! You see, there were some basic assumptions I'd long held which were being seriously challenged. I talked with a guy who was a bit of history buff about all of this, and he gave me a copy of Charles Adams' "When In The Course Of Human Events." Wow !!!!!

That blew the lid off things for me. Now, by this time, the internet had become available, even to neanderthals like me. With all the nonsense that's on the web, it still makes up for that by providing us with the best library imaginable. Now we can check the sources that authors footnote, and see for ourselves if they're being honest. A great example of an extremely DIS-honest historian in recent years is Michael Bellesiles, a guy who I'd bet at least some of the crew here have heard of. This is the dude who wrote "Arming America" back in 2000, not too long ago. His basic thesis was that there really were no guns around back in the days of the American Revolution. Of course, if this was so we would have to re-evaluate our understanding of the 2nd Amendment (so said his followers). This guy heavily footnoted his book, got all sorts of acclaim from many big shot historians with Ph. D. 's , and won the most prestigious award in non-fiction history writing, the Bancroft Prize. Just one problem though.

It was all lies. Ohhhhhh...! Bellesiles was exposed as a phony and a liar largely through the efforts of a guy who was a software designer and part time historian, Clayton Cramer, and boy did the sparks fly when he did. You can read alot of Clayton's stuff on the web, and believe me, I'm not even close to being in his league. This guy is an incredible researcher, and he has guts too. He stood up to all the attacks, and let the facts speak for themselves. In the end, Bellesiles quit his job days before being fired, and the Bancroft Prize was actually revoked (something that had never happened before). Lo and behold, the whole deal this guy was pushing was a crock. And, of course, most of the anti-gun historians who applauded Bellesiles' book quietly slunk off to the shadows. Big surprise. This was a major scandal in academic circles, well beyond just historians. It just goes to show you that simply because someone has a bunch of initials behind their name doesn't mean that they're not full of poop.

Okay, last thing: the Emancipation Proclamation. This one's easy, because we can read the original (you can even see photos of Lincoln's original) on the web. Lincoln freed no slaves with this document. It was an extremely shrewd political maneuver. Lincoln specifically named the regions in which slaves were to be considered free after his talk. These regions were only those areas of the south still in rebellion. Slaves in conquered southern territory were specifically mentioned, and they were to be kept in slavery. Slaves in the "Border States" of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and parts of Delaware were to stay in slavery. But of course, that was the "fine print" which newpaper readers would have to discover by reading all the way through the articles in their local papers. The headlines were what mattered: Slaves to be Freed.

This was very cynical and very shrewd on Lincoln's part. He knew that England was inches away from official recognition of the confederacy, and in fact, was rooting for the south by huge majorities. But... England was done herself with slavery, despite being the power which instituted slavery in the American colonies. Slavery was an albatross hanging aournd the neck of the south. If the south had been bold enough to announce an intention to phase out slavery, they would have won over the Brits, possibly even gained military support. But Lincoln beat the south to the punch on this.

The famous Lord Acton (known for "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely") was a friend of Robert E. Lee, and carried on a long correspondence with Lee. Their letters are available to us today. Acton clearly believed the secession of the southern states was the only hope of preserving the spirit of liberty in the country which the Founders had given us.

This was the result of the war which we were all left with, today: a gov't. which would assume increasingly greater and greater power over every aspect of our lives. The issue of who had the say-so over how things woudl be in the states - states themselves, or the feds - was settled at the point of a gun. And no matter whose side your own heart lies with, this was a net loss for all of us.

You guys take care. I'll be back soon. - DixieBoy

[Charles]

Dixieboy...another home run...keep em coming. Even old Southern boys like me can learn things about the War for Southern Independence.

Texas history is my strong suit. There was opposition to secession in Texas with the largest block being the German's who had settled in the Hill Country. They had no cultural or family ties to the South.

Texas held a Sucession Convention and voted overwhelmingly to suceed on February 1, 1861. My GGGrandfather John D. Pitts attended the convention. Even after Sucession there was a strong block of folks who didn't want to join the Confederacy, but rather wanted Texas to once again become an Independent Republic.

By the way John D. Pitts along with Sam Houston was against sucession. Pitts became ill at the Convention and died on his way back to his home in San Marcos.

There was a period of about a month between the Texas Sucession and the time it joined the Confederacy. The family and cultural ties between the Texans and the South carried the day. Most has their roots in the South.

In this interim, Texas raised troops and demanded Federal troops to vacate Texas soil, which they did. Had they not done so the first shots of the war would have been in Texas and not at Fort Sumpter.

It is still and issue to think about, what the results would have been had Texas not joined the Confederacy and sat the war out at a free and independent nation.

There were a few probes late in the war, by the Union trying to establish a seperate peace with Texas. Again it is fun to speculate how that would have turned out.

Texas while populated mainly by people from the South It really did not feel itself to be a part of the "Old South". It still doesn't,being something of a separate reality.

Again Dixieboy...Good post.

[Bridger]

Awseome posts Dixie. I enjoyed reading them greatly.