Re: >>>I thought of the threat that the flag symbolizes to many people<<<
A few thoughts – first, how “many” is “many”? And, have you noticed where it is that “many” (black) people have historically chosen to make their homes (hint – in the South, Confederate flag notwithstanding)? The results of the Mississippi flag referendum a few years back should have demonstrated that “many” black people living in a state that is nearly 50% black don’t really give a rat’s patoot about the flag one way or the other. Most of them stayed home. One out of every three who thought it was important enough to vote voted FOR the old state flag with the Confederate battle emblem in it. All that notwithstanding, some people see the flag as a symbol of heritage and some see it in as being offensive. Big deal. Where is it written that one group must bow to the wishes of the other? There are many things which those who normally find the flag offensive revere which I detest. I have no right to tell them to put their interests away, and they have no right to tell me what to do about mine. My “feelings” are just as important as anyone else’s. Ever hear of “live and let live”? Care to comment?
It isn’t often that I see a “media type” who shows that he’s done a bit of research. Normally, I’d lay a few insults on you and let you know that there are lots of us out here who don’t agree with you and let it go at that. But since you’ve taken the time to do some research, I’ve included some hopefully not-too-lengthy pieces from my own research which might show you that there is another side to the story, and much to think about.
For one thing, the Confederacy didn’t go to war over slavery. True, the 7 deep Southern states did secede over the issue, but the war itself was provoked by Lincoln’s government in their refusal to let the South go in peace. Few, if any in the Confederate government were looking for a war against the North, whose available military population outnumbered the South’s 4-1, and whose industrial capacity was 10 times that of the South’s. Jefferson Davis had been Secretary of War, and he’d been in two wars himself. He was well aware of war’s effects, and well aware of the South’s shortcomings. Are you aware that he sent a delegation to Washington DC to meet with Lincoln prior to Fort Sumter, and that Lincoln steadfastly refused to meet with them? Are you aware that he said on several occasions, “All we ask is to be left alone”? That sentiment was echoed by many other Southerners, from cabinet member Judah Benjamin, to Mary Chestnut, to the soldier in the field.
A warning about reading history - don’t look at your ancestors, or your region, or any period of history for that matter, through 21st century eyes. A historian once said, “Americans are willfully childish when it comes to studying history. They chastise the people of the past for not being like them. Or, they make up stories to pretend that they were like them, which is a certain way to learn nothing from history”. Don’t fall into this trap. No one needs to apologize for the people of the past because they had slaves. The institution was in this country for 240 years before Fort Sumter was fired on and the North had a major hand in it taking root in this country. Indeed, every society since the dawn of organized societies has practiced the institution at one time or another.
And know that the Northerner’s anti slavery sentiment had nothing to do with his love of the black man. I have a hundreds of pages of research attesting to this fact. Texas Congressman John Reagan also knew it. He had this to say to his Northern colleagues in the House of Representatives, in January 1861, shortly before Texas seceded:
“Suppose these slaves were liberated; suppose the people of the South today would voluntarily surrender 3 billion dollars of slave property, and send their slaves at their expense into the free States, would you accept them as freemen and citizens of your States? You dare not answer me that you would. You would fight us with all of your energy and power for 20 years, before you would submit to it. And yet you demand us to liberate them, to surrender this 3 billion dollars of slave property, to ruin our commercial and political prospects for the future.” “When in the Course of Human Events”, by Charles Adams, Page 140
English editorialists, writing during the war, also saw through the North’s hypocrisy- “They [the Northern white men] do not love the Negro as a fellow-man; they pity him as a victim of wrong. They will plead his cause; they will not tolerate his company.” “Slavery, Secession, and Civil War, Views from the United Kingdom and Europe, 1856 – 1865”, By Charles Adams, Page 271
So how does the average Southerner (as well as perhaps your slave owning ancestor), see the war vis a vis slavery? One of the best explanations comes from Captain Raphael Semmes, of the Confederate Raider Alabama in his book, “Memoirs of Service Afloat”. The discussion below involves a conversation which took place between Captain Semmes and Captain Hillyar, of the HMS Cadmus. Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semmes’ contention that the people of the South were “defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats”, and asked for further clarification as to how this was so?
(Semmes) “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law”
(Captain Hillyar) “All this is new to me”, replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question”.
(Semmes) “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.” It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence. Our forefathers made a great mistake, when they warmed the Puritan serpent in their bosom; and we, their descendents, are endeavoring to remedy it”. (pages 186 – 187).
There is much in history that you have not seen. Included are stories about people like the 50 some odd slaves your ancestor owned. Their story is not nearly as simple as today’s politically correct liars would like you to believe either, as evidenced by the comments of one ex-slave below. But then again, history’s complexity is also its beauty:
“I had two uncles. Jipp and Charlie Clark in Stonewall's company. They would never talk much about him after his death. It hurts them too much, for Stonewall's men loved him so much. Jeff Davis was a great man, too." From the “Slave Narratives”, Charlie Jeff Harvey, South Carolina
Harvey was a slave – his father and uncles fought on the Confederate side. Surprised? Don’t be. There’s lots more where that came from.
Richard Weaver, in “The Southern Tradition at Bay, a History of Post Bellum Thought” summed up the Confederate fighting man’s motivations - Whether an officer or a grunt private, you’ll find the same thought - “With me is Right, before me is Duty, behind me is Home.”
Or perhaps you prefer the report of Charles Dickens, who in 1862, reported on the observations of a French journalist. From private to general, “They took high ground, which appeared to them above all discussion or controversy. They have vowed to the North a mortal hatred, they will wage against it an implacable war, because the North has made an armed invasion of their territories, their native land; because they are driven to defend against it their homes, their honour, and their liberty. From the general in chief to the lowest soldier, everybody held the same language with wonderful unanimity” “When in the Course of Human Events”, by Charles Adams, page 12
I’m sorry for the length of this letter. I tried to keep it short but it seems to have grown to over 2 pages despite my best effort. Just remember, there’s a lot more where these snippets came from.
If you are a thoughtful man who can see both sides of an issue, I hope my thoughts will have some effect on you. If however, your intent in writing your column was simply to get on your soapbox and show the world that you are a progressive, wonderful, sensitive guy who “carries” the now almost mandatory “burden of Southern history”, then I suppose my efforts were for naught. And if that is indeed the case, then I’d say your decision not to join us is a good one. In that case, we really don’t need you, and we don’t want you.
Bill Vallante Commack NY SCV Camp 3000, Associate SCV Camp 1506, Associate
