The flag salute
Don Coldsmith
Originally published 01:45 p.m., January 14, 2008
Updated 01:45 p.m., January 14, 2008
Not long ago, there was a letter to the editor of one of the newspapers which carries this column. It had nothing to do with the Horsin’ Around column, but it disturbed me. It was written by a military veteran who didn’t seem to understand some of the significance of having served his country, or his brotherhood with any who have ever done so.
His problem was that in some of the material he had been handed, there were pictures of all of the flags under which American soldiers ever served. It disturbed him that there were included several flags used by troops in the Civil War. Flags of southern states, sometimes referred to as the “Stars and Bars.” He was offended, he said, that the flags of “enemies of the United States” would be allowed to appear in the literature handed to him by a veterans’ organization.
There’s always somebody, I suppose, who just doesn’t quite get the idea of supporting a cause or belief.
I was born into a family with a lot of closeness to this point and to the War Between the States. My dad grew up at the southwest corner of Missouri. Missouri never seceded from the Union officially, but had definitely southern sympathy. Consequently, as a child I had access to both political points of view.
As a student in Kansas schools, I was taught the Civil War was fought “to free the slaves.” That was, I think, a convenient misinterpretation. Slavery was already dying, because of the invention of machinery to pick cotton and hoe other crops. Far cheaper than to feed a slave family year-round.
However, as we travel the old highway separating Kansas and Missouri, traveling south (the “old Military Road”), the stories change. What was the War about? Not “slavery.” That was already a dead issue anyway.
It was about the right of “each sovereign state” to govern itself.
In the South, there are statues and monuments to leaders of the Confederate States of America. As a youngster, on a vacation through the south, in the family car, I was puzzled about this. Monuments to the losing side, instead of the winners?
Our dad explained to us. These people thought that they were right. It wasn’t about slaves, but about how much authority a “sovereign state” has over its sovereignty. The southern interpretation was largely ignored because they had lost the war.
Here’s an odd circumstance: There is one southern state now which could leave the Union if they like — Texas. Texas had not joined the Confederacy, but was a sovereign nation. They joined the Union later, with several reservations. They could, if they choose, divide into as many as five independent States. That would give the Southern states more votes that the Northern block and they could control nearly any election. They have never taken advantage of that special status.
Now, back to the origin of this subject and a misinterpretation of history and facts. At no time was the South an “enemy” of the United States. That’s why the material handed the new recruit to the veterans’ organization recognizes with honor those who served THEIR United States.
It was many years ago that veterans of the United States and the Confederate States merged together in respect and honor. The last veteran of the Civil War died only a few years ago. It so happened that he was a confederate veteran and he was given a military funeral under an American flag.
I hope that the writer of the ridiculous letter to the editor has learned something by this time. It’s questionable at best. If he reads this, assuming he can read, I hope it corrects his understanding somewhat.
On another level entirely, I don’t know the man, but I’ll match my own military record with his, any day!
See you down the road.
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, since we have yet another person thinking that slavery was a "dead issue" and had nothing to do with the civil war, I'll repeat some posts from an earlier thread:
From Honest Abe himself: "Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war"
Now, I think he was there, and the writer of this article was not, so I think I know who I'll choose to believe.
January 14, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Excerpts from Wikipedia - draw your own conclusion on how much of a "dead issue" slavery was at the time....
The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a civil war between the United States of America (the "Union") and the Southern slave states of the newly-formed Confederate States of America under Jefferson Davis.........Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.
Historian Kenneth M. Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat.
Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede.
The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race". Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan said that emancipation would make Southerners feel "demoralized and degraded".
South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. At issue were:
The refusal of Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave code, violating Southern personal property rights;
Agitation against slavery, which "denied the rights of property".
Assisting "thousands of slaves to leave their homes" through the Underground Railroad.
The election of Lincoln "because he has declared that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction".
"...elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens".
January 14, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
continued....
Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war"
Confederates enslaved captured black Union soldiers, and black soldiers especially were shot when trying to surrender at the Fort Pillow Massacre
The Emancipation Proclamation greatly reduced the Confederacy's hope of getting aid from Britain or France.........Confederate offers late in the war to end slavery in return for diplomatic recognition were not seriously considered by London or Paris.
The Emancipation Proclamation enabled African-Americans, both free blacks and escaped slaves, to join the Union Army. About 190,000 volunteered, further enhancing the numerical advantage the Union armies enjoyed over the Confederates, who did not dare emulate the equivalent manpower source for fear of fundamentally undermining the legitimacy of slavery.
January 14, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh, it WAS about individual state's rights, all right. A state's right to continue slavery or not....
January 14, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wanderer (anonymous) says...
I've agreed with many things Don has written, but I respectfully have to disagree here. A few points:
1) As others have mentioned, the main "states' rights" issue that was raised at the time was the right of a state to allow or prohibit slavery. And most academic historians these days no longer consider slavery a "dead issue" -- they hold it up as one of the primary causes of the war.
2) The flags that were shown in the literature were most likely not the "Stars and Bars" (the Confederate national flag that looks a lot like the U.S. one) but the Confederate battle flag, the one with the St. Andrew's cross filled with stars. Since that flag was actively born against U.S. troops, I can understand why the veteran objected.
3) I especially have to take issue with the statement that "At no time was the South an "enemy" of the United States." Bearing arms against the government, soldiers and people of a country isn't exactly a friendly act. The good people of Lawrence might especially have some things to say about this.
4) I do not doubt that many of the Southern troops and generals served their cause with great bravery and honor. But one can serve a bad cause as bravely as a good cause. The South rose up, at least in part, because an election didn't go the way they wanted and they feared what might happen as a result. The irony is, had they not rebelled, Lincoln might have taken a much more gradual path to ending slavery -- or, with Southern politicians still in their places of power in the government, he might have been unable to end it at all.
I have a lot of respect for Don, his military record and his writing ability. But on this subject, I'm afraid we part ways.
January 14, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Abraham Lincoln later himself said that "slavery was somehow the cause of the war".
Now, who ya gonna believe?
Just for anyone who needs a brush up on history, Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War.
Don Coldsmith was born long after the civil war was over.
Who do ya think knows more about the actual situation at the time?
Your choice.
January 14, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Emporiafan (anonymous) says...
You should never use Wikipedia as a reliable source as anyone can change what is written in there.....just my two cents worth......
January 14, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
I think Don's statements is a convenient Southern misinterpretation, and certainly not what I was taught as a boy growing up in SW Missouri.
January 14, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Fair enough, Emporiafan - you are correct, Wikipedia can be edited at any time. So here's basically the same things from other sources:
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/in...
"The cause of the Civil War was clear — according to President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address: "One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
And from the same article, as to "slavery being a dead issue that was on the way out anyway" (to paraphrase).....
"According to historian James M. McPherson, "One of the best arguments of [Frederick] Douglass and other abolitionists was that slavery was a source of strength to the Confederacy. Slaves worked in the fields and factories; slaves dug trenches and drove wagons for the Confederate army. Without their labor, the South would collapse, and the North could win the war. A proclamation of emancipation, said Douglass, would cripple the South by encouraging slaves to flee their masters and come over to the Northern side where freedom awaited them"
A week later Stoddard wrote:"The President's Emancipation Proclamation is having a greater effect at the South than even its friends anticipated"
Historian Hans L. Trefousse wrote: "While president, Lincoln, for reasons of political necessity, emphasized that the war was fought, not for the abolition of slavery, but for the preservation of the Union; he never wavered from his conviction that slavery was wrong.....
Union came first. Historian James M. McPherson wrote: "Although restoration of the Union remained his first priority, the abolition of slavery became an end as well as a means, a war aim virtually inseparable from Union itself.
---------------------------------------
So even though preservation of the Union was the first and foremost reason for the war, the very reason for the split was so entwined with slavery as to be inseparable.
As for the other things I pulled from Wikipedia, you can look them up on their own from multiple sources: The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession, South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union", the historical quotes - there all found anywhere you care to look.
But that's a good point. Always verify Wikipedia elsewhere. Even though references are checked, and editors work to verify, it can be erroneous at times, especially newer data - until it is corrected.
January 14, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
When I was a kid (50's) I was fascinated with the Civil War and read many adult history books on the subject. I was convinced the war was mainly about slavery. (My great great grandfather from Tennessee died in a Union prison camp. It wasn't about slavery for him, though. It was about pride. I have absolutely no idea what he thought that meant, but that's what he wrote home in the only letter that survived.) Adults, including at least one teacher, told me it was really about state's rights, not slavery. The states right the Confederate states wanted most to protect was that one which held that slavery was ok, I argued. But I was a kid and they overruled me.
I think there was some kind of cultural need back then to try to shrug off the differences between the peoples of the north and the south for reasons that continue to bother me and make me uncomfortable in southern states even today. I don't think anyone was attempting to say that slavery should have stayed in place. In some ways, though, I have no doubt they were sick and tired of talking about it. In order to make it all more bearable, they denied the truth of the matter, that the war was indeed about slavery.
Now, we've got Mr. Coldsmith attempting to revive it, again, and if there is a dead issue hanging around, it is the notion that the Civil War was not about slavery. I have liked Mr. Coldsmith's writing while not always agreeing, but over the last year he has walked out on a number of planks, got seemingly lost, and plunged over the side into The Crevasse of No Sense. I think that may be what happened here, too, except that what he says is also incredibly shameful.
Good writers should always sit back and think about it all while they are still writing well. It could be advisable for Don to do a little more of that. I am afraid that I will now remember him for these gaffes and failures of good sense rather than the entertaining and informed writing that made up most of his years.
It should be the responsibility of the editorial staff here to send someone out to the ranch to have a sit and spit with Don. "That peg up there on the wall, Don. You oughta just hang your hat on it. You know? Maybe it's time."
January 14, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
It's hard to understand. For some time Don has taken on the mantle of an angry man. I think you're right CAFEmporia - the Gazette needs to find some gentle way to rein him in, for his benefit as well as the readers.
January 15, 2008 at 5:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Yes Don,
You have wrote something about a painful time in our history which is argued by historians to this day and since not everyone that read it, agrees with you...you should be fired. Freedom of the Press? No Don, does not apply to you. Your Opinion, Don? Well, keep it to yourself. What do you think you are...an Opinion Writer? So Don, tonight go watch the sunset and tomorrow never write another word. Start anew. I mean after all, you might write something that gets people discussing a matter, thinking about a matter, or, at the least, reading a newspaper. Unacceptable, Don. Clean out your desk.
Simpletons.
January 15, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
EsqEB
I re-read the entire thread and didn't find anyone advocating Don Coldsmith be fired.
I don't know Don well, although I've met him and spoken several times about writing, etc. He seems like a nice enough guy.
I have observed that over the last year or so something's changed. He seems angry, like he's constantly wielding an axe. I think that any opinion writer has to have something of an edge, but I think that there's something excessive/troubling about the approach Don has taken for some time now. It doesn't serve him or the Gazette well.
January 15, 2008 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
These are angry times, with a lot of stupid things going on...I like Don's columns and I agree with him on the "states rights" issue as well as the "coming together as brothers after the war" part. Yes, it was - on the surface - about slavery, a very important issue that the South was wrong on, and I don't debate that issue. BUT it was also about control and economics, and a majority of the people who ended up fighting (and dying) were never slave owners. They were people trying to protect their land and families. I was proud to see the Confederate flag in the Veterans Day parade. It showed a sense of forgiveness, and acknowledgement of the horror of war on any front, but especially one held here at home, between brothers.
January 15, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
A simple reading of the Confederate Constitution is the best rebuttal of a somewhat faulty arguement. I won't quote it, you find it and read it for yourself as it pertains to slavery.
January 15, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluenosedviking (anonymous) says...
USNretired said "A simple reading of the Confederate Constitution is the best rebuttal of a somewhat faulty arguement. I won't quote it, you find it and read it for yourself as it pertains to slavery."
Until sometime after the Civil War the US constitution also permitted slavery.
I found Don Coldsmith's comments quite reasoned.
January 15, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
From a "simple reading" of the Confederate Constitution:
Section 9 (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Section 3 (3) In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
From South Carolina Secession Causes (1st state to cecede)
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. "
January 15, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BrockTownsend (anonymous) says...
Lincoln On Original 13th Amendment
http://brocktownsend.forum5.com/viewt...
1. I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861
2. North Carolina State archives to display Lincoln's slavery amendment
http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlin...
January 15, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861
"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the ONLY substantial dispute."
Civil war hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.
Now, if slavery was not the cause of the war, I guess "Honest Abe" wasn't so honest after all.... looks like he lied in his address above....
January 15, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
One can find thousands (or as many as you care to look up) of references stating that Lincoln did NOT intend to abolish slavery as president. This is true. Also, most references detail how his thinking changed and modified during his presidency. But it remains, that in the southern state's own declarations of secession, slavery figured quite prominently - some people try to mask it with "state's rights", but only those who simply refuse to believe otherwise would not interpret that as the state's right to slavery. The state's own declarations declare their fear that Lincoln would eventually abolish slavery, despite his insistence he would not. So what was the secession all about?
1) Lincoln says in his Inaugural adress: "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the ONLY substantial dispute."
2) The southern state's declarations of secession state very clearly they feel their rights as slave owners were being trampled upon by non-slave states.
For me, I don't know if it's really worth my time posting any more about it.... there will always be those who have other views. I'll go with Lincoln, and the other people alive at the time. As president, if he thought slavery was the ONLY substantial dispute as to the southern states wanting to secede, then I'll defer to his judgement, not Mr. Coldsmiths.
January 15, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
While Lincoln believed that preserving the Union was paramount, he also held the firm conviction that the Union could not endure being half slave and half free (1858):
"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
The two issues, states rights vs the obligation of national union and slavery, were intertwined. This marriage of issues can be clearly seen in bleeding Kansas and the attempts of the south to expand the right to hold slaves into new territories and states.
In his first inaugural Lincoln suggested that the issue was subject to the will of all the people, and that it could even be brought by the people in the form of a constitutional amendment. Southern slave holders rejected that. He further told the southern states that he would not assail them. They rejected that and attacked Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.
If the south had not wanted to maintain and expand slavery, the Civil War may not have happened. But it did, because the south wanted slavery as a state right.
January 15, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluenosedviking (anonymous) says...
If the South had wanted to maintain slavery until perpetuity they could have staid in the Union. The Corwin Amendment would have ensured it.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
However the Southern States were not interested because by that time tarrifs in the Union had become unacceptable.
January 15, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Search the entire text of the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" at
http://americancivilwar.com/documents...
You won't find the word "tarif" or "tarrif" (however you choose to spell it) in it once.
January 15, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SouthBaird (anonymous) says...
The best source for information on the start of the war, and its causes, is "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams. He shows without a doubt that tariffs caused the war, and also the exact time the North decided to invade the South. And it wasn't after, but before Sumpter. Lincoln, like Grant, said the war was not about slavery. Grant said he would fight for the other side if it was. As far as I know, he never changed sides.
Slavery existed in both sections of the country, but the North did not want blacks, slave or free, in the Territories. By free soil, they meant free from blacks, and free for settlement by European immigrants. The Confederate Constitution also prohibited the importation of slaves, and left slavery to the individual states, which is what should have happened in the country as a whole. The North did not want blacks living with them, but also did not know what to do with the black population. That's why so many free blacks lived in the South. Often they were chased out of the North. (as with Randolph's slaves in Ohio)
The real cause of the war was the view of the government. It has been said that the war was fought over the word IS. Before the war, all United States treaties and documents stated, "THE UNITED STATES ARE". After the war, it changed to "The United States is" That is a profound difference, and why we no longer have a republic. A couple of good books to read are "From Republic to Empire" by Clyde Wilson and "The South Was Right" by Donald and Ronald Kennedy. Also, their "Why Not Freedom" is good, among other of their works. Thomas DiLorenzo's books "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked" are excellent for cutting through the revisionism that is the Lincoln myth. One caution: Once you know the truth, you can't go back. So if you are happy with the Lincoln myth, and don't care that much about facts, you are better off with you head in the sand.
January 16, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
There are many "best sources for information on the start of the war and its causes". Many "best sourses of information) would disagree with the above. The truth, and the facts, seem to be whatever you want to believe.
It's very interesting to read SC's (first state to secede) secession statement. The statement "certain duties were imposed upon the several states is mentioned once - and it's not even clear what it is referencing. However, out of the 27 paragraphs that make up the declaration, slavery is the main focus of the last 13 (half the declaration). It's even funny how they consistently declare themselves a "slave state" in opposition to "non-slave states"..
Maybe the people that wrote the secession declaration had their head in the sand. After all they sure went on at length (half the document) about something that supposedly was a "myth".
But hey, spin it all you want. I'm sure there are mountains of writings out there that will say the last 14 paragraphs had nothing to do with slavery.
January 17, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The last half of SC declaration:
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
continued....
January 17, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
copy/paste prob - let me start the last half over again...
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
January 17, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
January 17, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
-----------------------------------------
But of course, many people that wrote some "best sources of information" saw nothing about slavery in that, and everything about tariffs.
Everyone read and decide for yourself.
January 17, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yet another "best source of information"
The question of how high the tariff on imported manufactured goods should be was a point of contention between the agricultural south and the industrializing north in the years before the war. The north wanted a high tariff and the south wanted a low tariff. It only reached a level of a crisis once though, when South Carolina threatened to secede over the tariff in 1832. No other state supported her in her position though and she backed down, although the tariff was also reduced. In comparison the Union was frequently threatened with dismemberment over the slavery question and several important compromises had to be made to keep it together. Four of the Southern states issued declarations of causes along with their instruments of secession in order to explain why they were taking that step (you can find them on the web). They all focus almost solely on slavery. Only one of them even mentions the tariff and that only to cite the tariff as an issue that had been settled to Southern satisfaction
January 17, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Declaration of Causes of Seceding States:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reas...
From Georgia:
....For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.....
.....A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.....
.....We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South.....
.....The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.....
Mississippi:
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.
January 17, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Texas:
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.....
...They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
continued...
January 17, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And here's the most eye-opening thing about Texas's Declaration of Secession:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.
----------------------------------------------
Yep, all about tariffs. And the moon is made of cheese.
January 17, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
Almost 150 years has past, and still the battle rages on. Dr. Coldsmth wrote an article in the Gazette offering his opinion on the Civil War. This in turn caused a wide range of resonses about that opinion. Is that not the sole purpose of this space? Public discourse is a wonderful way to exchange ideas. Having a differing view means just that. Why must pesonal atacks be employed? Those who have responded here are no more experts on the civil war than Dr. Coldsmith. If we all held the same view about all subjects, there would be no reason to comment on anything. Then what would the bloggers do?
January 17, 2008 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I apologize for the moon is made of cheese comment. Got a little carried away. My apologies for slamming anyone.
Lincoln's election was very close and contentious. He walked a fine line getting the votes of the "border states". As we all know, many things are said during a political campaign. And many angles are written about them afterwards.
But, for me, all I have to do is go and READ the ACTUAL DECLARATIONS of SECESSION by the STATES THEMSELVES. At least to me, they make it pretty clear what they had a problem with. But other people may read between the lines and come away with a different interpretation. To each his own.
I'm just saying don't put weight on my words, Mr. Coldsmiths, or anyone else - read the actual declarations themselves. I would say the actual statements of reasons for secession would be the best information available.
And draw your own conclusions, whatever they may be. Good luck.
January 17, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
from the CNN website...
Huckabee: Outsiders not welcome in Confederate flag decisions
Posted: 02:11 PM ET 1/17/2008
MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) – Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told South Carolina voters Thursday that the government had no business making decisions over the Confederate flag.
"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee said at a Myrtle Beach campaign event. "In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."
Later, in Florence, he repeated the remarks. "I know what would happen if somebody comes to my state in Arkansas and tells us what to do, it doesn't matter what it is, tell us how to run our schools, tell us how to raise our kids, tell us what to do with our flag — you want to come tell us what to do with the flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole."
The Confederate flag has long been the third rail of South Carolina presidential politics — offensive to some, a symbol of Southern heritage to others. The flag is currently displayed on state capitol grounds.
Huckabee is currently barnstorming South Carolina with former Gov. David Beasley, who has called for the flag’s removal.
–CNN Senior Producer Eric Fiegel
January 17, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
There is much revision of history concerning the Civil War. The catalyst was trade with Europe. The northern states imposed tariffs upon the import of manufactured goods to protect northern industry, which caused European nations to impose a tariff on southern agricultural products, thereby working a severe hardship on the southern economy.
The issue was not slavery. The United States Constitution guaranteed southern states the right to slavery; therefore, there was no reason for a war over that issue. The issue was the (until then) undefined rights of sovereign states to self-government. In fact, the Confederate Constitution limited slavery more than the United States Constitution did.
Veterans of the Confederacy are as entitled to recognition as much as any other American veteran. It is a shame that the victors rewrote history of that period and that the Confederate flag was hijacked by those with an agenda never intended by its first users. In fact, it was the flag of the United States that represented slavery before, and after, the flag of the Confederacy. The flag of the United States represented a government that still allowed slavery (in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri) until 1870, seven years after the emancipation proclaimation and five years after the war was over.
If one believes that states should not have power of self-government, then you should identify with the northern states in that war. However, if you believe that states or regions should have power against other states or regions who are taking advantage of them, then you should identify with the southern states. At least, if one is willing to honestly evaluate the matter.
January 31, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
playbook (anonymous) says...
Many people have different views on the confederate flag . Myself being a African American Male with a Mother and Father from the South , I have heard stories from many people. The words from my Grandmother from Mississippi which she was told from her Grandparents that the War was not over just Slavery, but Slavery played a large part of the decision to go to War. The flag to many African Americans is just like the Nazi flag is to Jews. It should never be displayed on any State Capitol or in any public parade. Makes you wonder why hate groups were quick to pick up this flag to use has their symbol of hate and racism. It was used before and it is continued to be used to strike fear and hate among those who realized the true meaning of this Flag !
February 1, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )