Confederate group not allowed to march on Memorial Day

[The Instructor]

I know there are slaves today.

Even though it is illegal, it occurs right here in the good old U.S.A. and in other countries too.

Just look at the monster who locked his daughter away all those years and fathered children with her. He made her his sex slave.

This kind of thing happened all the time to slaves on plantations. The women were raped and had babies by their owners.

[abuck76]

No marching for Rebs..........They betrayed a nation..........

[Tigercannon71]

No marching for Rebs..........They betrayed a nation..........

There was another group that betrayed a nation. Economics played a big part in that betrayal. They believed their leader had wringed them and was denying them their rights. They fought for the right to own slaves. Thry fought to make their own country too. That group was our founding fathers. Only difference between them and the Confederacy was they won.

[Space Cowboy]

No marching for Rebs..........They betrayed a nation..........

You are a teacher, so its safe to assume that you have at least a reasonable knowlege of American history. To make a generalization like that, then you should have no problem admitting to the fact that the banks and industry of the north delt treasonously with the south before the war. The vast majority of people in the south were not so happy about the situation.

[Tigercannon71]

You know heres what I think is funny a lot of you guys are opposed to this group marching. Yet you are the first ones on this site to jump on any other groups bandwagon and say they should be allowed special privileges because of whatever race, sex, creed, or whatever they should be. Yet here is a group representing veterans wanting to march on Memorial Day and you guys are showering hate towards them. Hate which comes from stereotypes and misinformation about the actual situation. I guess its ok to preach tolerance as long as it suits your needs.

[CherryBombBHS]

I haven't posted on this forum for a long time, but this topic caught my eye. As somebody who has always been fascinated by the machinations leading up to, during, and after the civil war, I consider it more than a hobby. I probably have 30 books dealing with this subject, 20 directly about the war and around 10 books dealing the the socialogical issues during the years 1820-1870. Not to many various documentaries that I currently have or have seen. I noticed there's alot of half truths or misleading statements about this going on. Although I'm not a specialist by any means, but I do know a thing or two. Just as much as anybody else on here.

First of all when the Confederacy was "born", that means they were another country all together set by their own standards. The people who championed this new found "nation" were the wealthy as a rule,not the exception, not the lower class poor who were , at best, indifferent and just wanted to be left alone.
Slavery was the biggest reason that led to the conflict. The south not only wanted to keep slavery but they wanted to expand it to other states. The souths biggest economic institution was agriculture.The south couldn't survive without their "workforce". Yes, they could have still sold their product to Europe, but how would they cultivate their crops? And the people who had the biggest farms or "plantations" were slave owners (anybody ever hear of people like Pierce Butler?) . Those were in the main the very same people who had the greatest political persuasion.
Those who had well established plantations over a period of years or even generations indeed had to buy slaves, but didn't have to buy slaves as often as you might think. Slaves did propogate.
Both the north and south conscripted people. (it wasn't just german soldiers)
To those that brought up that the south were the first to think about using black soldiers. Why did you not explain why it wasn't done as common practice across the board? Yes, there were commanders that freed some of their own slaves to help the fight such as Nathan Bedford Forrest. But that wasn't a common thing.
Speaking of Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was a slave trader before the war, before anybody gets the idea that he was in anyway glorious or great needs to read more than two paragraphs about Fort Pillow. And before anybody harps, yes, there is documentation.

As for the Revolutionary war, the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak, was taxation without representation. Slavery was not as big of an issue during that war as it was for the Civil war, although it was an issue. *edit (I had representation without taxation typed originally LOL oops!

Finally, if whoever is in charge of the Ironton parade doesn't want the Confederate flag flown, then that's all there is to it. They don't need to explain their reasons.

[The Instructor]

[quote="CherryBombBHS"]I haven't posted on this forum for a long time, but this topic caught my eye. As somebody who has always been fascinated by the machinations leading up to, during, and after the civil war, I consider it more than a hobby. I probably have 30 books dealing with this subject, 20 directly about the war and around 10 books dealing the the socialogical issues during the years 1820-1870. Not to many various documentaries that I currently have or have seen. I noticed there's alot of half truths or misleading statements about this going on. Although I'm not a specialist by any means, but I do know a thing or two. Just as much as anybody else on here.

First of all when the Confederacy was "born", that means they were another country all together set by their own standards. The people who championed this new found "nation" were the wealthy as a rule,not the exception, not the lower class poor who were , at best, indifferent and just wanted to be left alone.
Slavery was the biggest reason that led to the conflict. The south not only wanted to keep slavery but they wanted to expand it to other states. The souths biggest economic institution was agriculture.The south couldn't survive without their "workforce". Yes, they could have still sold their product to Europe, but how would they cultivate their crops? And the people who had the biggest farms or "plantations" were slave owners (anybody ever hear of people like Pierce Butler?) . Those were in the main the very same people who had the greatest political persuasion.
Those who had well established plantations over a period of years or even generations indeed had to buy slaves, but didn't have to buy slaves as often as you might think. Slaves did propogate.
Both the north and south conscripted people. (it wasn't just german soldiers)
To those that brought up that the south were the first to think about using black soldiers. Why did you not explain why it wasn't done as common practice across the board? Yes, there were commanders that freed some of their own slaves to help the fight such as Nathan Bedford Forrest. But that wasn't a common thing.
Speaking of Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was a slave trader before the war, before anybody gets the idea that he was in anyway glorious or great needs to read more than two paragraphs about Fort Pillow. And before anybody harps, yes, there is documentation.

As for the Revolutionary war, the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak, was representation without taxation. Slavery was not as big of an issue during that war as it was for the Civil war, although it was an issue.

Finally, if whoever is in charge of the Ironton parade doesn't want the Confederate flag flown, then that's all there is to it. They don't need to explain their reasons.[/quote]

Great Post!

[Tigercannon71]

Cherry, thats actually up in the air about Forrest and Fort Pillow. There is evidence both pro and con about him ordering the massacre. Read his exploits the man was a great General and a great soldier. Yea he was a slave dealer and later he was the first Grand Dragon of the KKK, but as a soldier and General he was on of the best. His maxims he developed still stand today as standard practice in warfare.
As for the Confederates arming the slaves there was just as much bigotry in the North when they made that decision just as there was in the South.
Again with the slavery issue you are trying to simplify the reason for war. Since the Constitution was developed there was always questions to the legitimacy of it and the bonds created between the federal govt and the states. Even Thomas Jefferson brought up that fact in his Virginia Resolutions. As the country grew the South was becoming more geared toward farming and the North towards industry a rift started growing. One of the rifts that grew was the fed. governments issue of tariffs to protect Northern industry. Hence you got the South being taxed without its consent, just like the colonies, and they believed that the government was taking advantage of them. Hence you got this nagging sense that the North is trying to take advantage of her Southern brothers. The more they taxed the South the more money they took out of their hands. Its like if you owned a business in Southern Ohio and you could buy your supplies from Ky cheaper than Northern Ohio, but Gov Strickland put a huge tax on Supplies coming from KY which forced you to pay the higher price for the Northern Ohio supplies. I doubt youd be too happy with that turn of events. Thats what the South was facing.
This leads to the letting slavery expand into new states. This would be common sense for anybody. If you think the North is trying to get more political power you need something to combat that. So when more states come into the country you need states that think like you do. That way the balance of power is maintained.
As for the parade officials I think they are making big mistake and they need to explain why they are not letting a veterans group march in a parade that honors vets of all wars.

[CherryBombBHS]

tigercannon,

You also make good points and I'm not disputing that. What I stated in my above comments that alot of points made prior to that were half truths and misleading. I made my points countering those, and I believe I made it quite clear.
In other words, for every person who pushes for good reasons to wave the confederate flag, there are just as many people who push for good reasons for it not to be flown.
As I also stated, the Confederacy, by its own standards was its own country. They LEFT the Union. They quit it. They disavowed themselves from it. They considered themselves as being in no part a part of the Union any longer. And, in the end, after the south was defeated, thousands upon thousands dead, families wiped out, farms rent to ruination, the financial standard almost obliberated....that is the legacy of the civil war, aside from the freeing of slaves. That is the true legacy of the south. They almost exterminated everything that they once held so proudly. You cannot simplify that.
Yes, there was most certainly bigotry in the north. But I think we both know that there was no ratio-equivalency there. Mainly because the northern states didn't rely so heavily upon slavery for their social, economic and political standings. The south did. You cannot simplify that either. You said so yourself when you stated "common sense for anybody?".
The Confederacy sites slavery as a dependency in it's own constitution! Or rather, I should say "peculiar institution".
The big question is this: Did the Confederate flag stand for the United States of America? Or The Union? Or "These states"? It's as simple as that.

I guess the people who run that parade in Ironton do not think so.

[Tigercannon71]

When you boil it all down and take away all the political talk and everything else the flag stands for those Americans who died under it. According to the US government they deserve all rights that their northern counterparts received. Johnny Reb is considered an American Vet just like Billy Yank is. Thats all Im saying.
Besides everybody is hating on these guys because of what they think the stand for. I see it like this how many times unless you go to a reenactment are you going to get to see Union and Confederate troops marching. I think it would be cool to see this. Its just like getting to talk to a WWII vet. I dont care if they are a die hard Waffen SS officer. Hearing him talk about the war and seeing his uniform is just as interesting as seeing and hearing one of our soldiers talk about the same war. Maybe some kid seeing that Confederate flag waving might think hey thats a cool flag. Then they go home and start reading about the flag and the Confederates which gets them interested in the war. In turn it gets them enthused about history and they might down the road become a history teacher, writer, or whatever just because they saw those men marching in the parade and their curiosity got peeked. Maybe Im wrong in seeing this as an educational experience.

[The Instructor]

The Lawrence County Memorial Day Parade is for veterans who served and fought for the United States of America.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for The United States of America.

They were fighting for themselves....for their own country.

The left the United States of America.

I believe that is what CherryBombBHS is stating.

Is this what you mean, Cherry?

[CherryBombBHS]

The Lawrence County Memorial Day Parade is for veterans who served and fought for the United States of America.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for The United States of America.

They were fighting for themselves....for their own country.

The left the United States of America.

I believe that is what CherryBombBHS is stating.

Is this what you mean, Cherry?

Indeed, it is, Instructor. Thanks for finding the simple words that convey that much more easily than I!
I find it very sad that thousands of people had to pay the ultimate price fighting their own bretheren thanks to a relatively few wealthy who had grand ideas. And to be honest with myself and everybody I can not find it in my heart to find glory in a failed idea that did what it did to our country.

[Tigercannon71]

The Lawrence County Memorial Day Parade is for veterans who served and fought for the United States of America.

The Confederacy wasn't fighting for The United States of America.

They were fighting for themselves....for their own country.

The left the United States of America.

I believe that is what CherryBombBHS is stating.

Is this what you mean, Cherry?

Indeed, it is, Instructor. Thanks for finding the simple words that convey that much more easily than I!
I find it very sad that thousands of people had to pay the ultimate price fighting their own bretheren thanks to a relatively few wealthy who had grand ideas. And to be honest with myself and everybody I can not find it in my heart to find glory in a failed idea that did what it did to our country.

That failed idea unified our country. At the end of the Civil War people no longer thought of themselves as just Virginians or Ohioians or Georgians they thought of themselves as Americans. We went from being these United States to The United States. The end of the war legitimized the authority the Federal Government had over the states.
Like I said you dont have to honor the government of the CSA you honor the men who fought. Great men like Lee, Jackson, Stuart, and the oridinary soldiers who fought and the bravery they showed on the battlefield.

[Tigercannon71]

Heres what the US government has to say on the issue of whether these men deserve to be honored.

http://www.criticalhistory.info/html/us_support_for_cv.html

Background

At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a move in the North was made to reconcile with Southerners. President McKinley was instrumental in this movement. When the Spanish-American War concluded successfully in December 1898, President McKinley used this as an opportunity to “mend the fences”. On 14 December 1898 he gave a speech in which he urged reconciliation based on the outstanding service of Southerners during the recent war with Spain. Remember, as part of the conciliation, several former Confederate officers were commissioned as generals to include former Confederate cavalry general, Wheeler. This is what McKinley said:

“…every soldier’s grave made during our unfortunate civil war [sic] is a tribute to American valor [my emphasis]… And the time has now come… when in the spirit of fraternity we should share in the care of the graves of the Confederate soldiers…The cordial feeling now happily existing between the North and South prompts this gracious act and if it needed further justification it is found in the gallant loyalty to the Union and the flag so conspicuously shown in the year just passed by the sons and grandsons of those heroic dead.”

The response from Congress to this plea was magnanimous and resulted in the Appropriations Act of FY 1901 (below).

Remarks: McKinley’s address as the President is significant. He clearly alludes to Confederates as “Americans”. While the semantics may appear minor, the impact is major. Confederate soldiers were already Americans, however, the President acknowledged this fact officially. They are not addressed as “U.S.” soldiers, but “American” which carries the import of giving them equivalent, not equal, status to Federal soldiers. It did not grant them the right to a U.S. pension, however, it did recognize them as fellow countrymen due the respect and honor accorded to U.S. soldiers.



Congressional Appropriations Act, FY 1901, signed 6 June 1900

Congress passed an act of appropriations for $2,500 that enabled the “Secretary of War to have reburied in some suitable spot in the national cemetery at Arlington, Virginia, and to place proper headstones at their graves, the bodies of about 128 Confederate soldiers now buried in the National Soldiers Home near Washington, D.C., and the bodies of about 136 Confederate soldiers now buried in the national cemetery at Arlington, Virginia.”

Remarks: More important than the amount (worth substantially more in 1900 than in 2000) is the move to support reconciliation by Congressional act. In 1906, Confederate Battle flags were ordered to be returned to the states from whence they originated. Some states refused to return the flags. Wisconsin still has at least one flag it refuses to return.



Congressional Act of 9 March 1906

(P.L. 38, 59th Congress, Chap. 631-34 Stat. 56)

Authorized the furnishing of headstones for the graves of Confederates who died, primarily in Union prison camps and were buried in Federal cemeteries.

Remarks: This act formally reaffirmed Confederate soldiers as military combatants with legal standing. It granted recognition to deceased Confederate soldiers commensurate with the status of deceased Union soldiers.



U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929

(45 Stat 1307 - Currently on the books as 38 U.S. Code, Sec. 2306)

This law, passed by the U.S. Congress, authorized the “Secretary of War to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and to direct him to preserve in the records of the War Department the names and places of burial of all soldiers for whom such headstones shall have been erected.”

Remarks: This act broadened the scope of recognition further for all Confederate soldiers to receive burial benefits equivalent to Union soldiers. It authorized the use of U.S. government (public) funds to mark Confederate graves and record their locations.



U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958

(US Statutes at Large Volume 72, Part 1, Page 133-134)

The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval forces of the United States.

Remarks: While this was only a gesture since the last Confederate veteran died in 1958, it is meaningful in that only forty-five years ago (from 2003), the Congress of the United States saw fit to consider Confederate soldiers as equivalent to U.S. soldiers for service benefits. This final act of reconciliation was made almost one hundred years after the beginning of the war and was meant as symbolism more than substantive reward.


Additional Note by the Critical History: Under current U.S. Federal Code, Confederate Veterans are equivalent to Union Veterans.

U.S. Code Title 38 - Veterans’ Benefits, Part II - General Benefits, Chapter 15 - Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability or Death or for Service, Subchapter I - General, § 1501. Definitions: (3) The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/titles.html