- Jun 19, 2014
- 12,794
- 31,984
Founding Member
Lots of discussion about the causes of the Civil War.
I think you guys are asking the wrong question.
It's one thing to ask why South Carolina decided to secede from the Union.
It's another to ask why South Carolinians fought in the Civil War.
The answer to the first is not the same as the answer to the second.
Think about the border states (the slave-holding states which did not secede from the Union). Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Let's set Delaware and Missouri aside for a moment. Were the citizens of Maryland THAT much different from the citizens of Virginia? Were the citizens of Kentucky THAT much different from the citizens of Tennessee or Virginia?
Per wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt) nearly 60 infantry regiments of Kentuckians served in the Union armies versus just 9 in the Confederate. However, a rather large number of cavalry outfits joined the latter. Again, per wikipedia, it has been estimated that, of the state's 1860 population of 687,000, up to 25,000 Marylanders traveled south to fight for the Confederacy while about 60,000 Maryland men served in all branches of the Union military.
So it appears that in the border States, most stayed home. A small number chose to fight for the North or for the South. Let's call those the true believers. They are the ones who fought for the political reasons you guys are debating here. What of the large majority who didn't fight?
I hypothesize that if Virginia hadn't seceded and joined the Confederacy (which did not happen until after Ft. Sumter), like Maryland and Kentucky, most of her boys would have stayed home. The reason most of them went to war wasn't for some political idea (although if you asked them, I'm quite certain that is the very reason they would have given). I believe they went to war because their State called.
Had Maryland seceded and joined the Confederacy, I have no doubt many Marylanders would have joined the Confederate war effort in droves and very few would have helped the Union. Ditto for Kentucky.
That is why South Carolina should honor Confederate cemeteries and memorials. Because South Carolina called them to fight and they answered that call. They fought and died not for slavery or for state's rights...they fought and died for South Carolina. Same for Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.
Of course an argument can be made that Confederate soldiers were fighting for a bad cause. You can also argue that American soldiers who fought in the Mexican-American War were fighting for a bad cause and you can make the same argument for the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, possibly for World War One, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. 150 years hence, do we want people arguing whether the Iraq War was fought over WMDs or Islamophobia or American Imperialism or to fight terrorism or whatever and have people argue that the troops who fought there should not be honored or that they should be exhumed from Arlington National Cemetery and moved to a garbage dump?
Our soldiers who fought in Iraq had all kinds of motivations but ultimately they fought because their country called and they answered that call. Whether you support the war or not, WE, as a nation, called them to fight for us and that is what they did. Same thing applies to those who fought for the Confederacy.
Sherman's troops cut a swathe of destruction through the South that could easily be called a war crime. Yet we honor those troops. Our airmen indiscriminately firebombed Japanese civilians. Today, that would certainly be a war crime. Yet we honor those troops. AS WE SHOULD.
Should a Confederate Battle Flag fly over the South Carolina State House? No. Should it fly somewhere on State House property, maybe over a memorial to the fallen of the Civil War? In an ideal world, that would be fine. But we don't live in an ideal world. That particular symbol has been co-opted and represents something very negative to many of our citizens. It doesn't matter that slavery happened under the American flag, or the British flag, or the Spanish flag, or that Native Americans were oppressed under the American flag, or that the Klan and the American Nazis used the American flag or whatever. (I hate this phrase) but it is what it is. We can't rehabilitate that flag right now. Maybe 50 years from now that will change. But not today. So, even though it's not "fair", that flag should come down.
BUT--it should be replaced by an appropriate symbol that does not carry all the negative connotations of the Confederate Battle Flag. I respectfully suggest either the "Stars and Bars" or the "Bonnie Blue":
There is some historical accuracy and relevance to both and neither carry the stigma of the Confederate Battle Flag.
As for cancelling re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard or Wal Mart pulling Lynard Skynard albums because of the cover art...that's just childish.
Alex.
I think you guys are asking the wrong question.
It's one thing to ask why South Carolina decided to secede from the Union.
It's another to ask why South Carolinians fought in the Civil War.
The answer to the first is not the same as the answer to the second.
Think about the border states (the slave-holding states which did not secede from the Union). Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Let's set Delaware and Missouri aside for a moment. Were the citizens of Maryland THAT much different from the citizens of Virginia? Were the citizens of Kentucky THAT much different from the citizens of Tennessee or Virginia?
Per wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt) nearly 60 infantry regiments of Kentuckians served in the Union armies versus just 9 in the Confederate. However, a rather large number of cavalry outfits joined the latter. Again, per wikipedia, it has been estimated that, of the state's 1860 population of 687,000, up to 25,000 Marylanders traveled south to fight for the Confederacy while about 60,000 Maryland men served in all branches of the Union military.
So it appears that in the border States, most stayed home. A small number chose to fight for the North or for the South. Let's call those the true believers. They are the ones who fought for the political reasons you guys are debating here. What of the large majority who didn't fight?
I hypothesize that if Virginia hadn't seceded and joined the Confederacy (which did not happen until after Ft. Sumter), like Maryland and Kentucky, most of her boys would have stayed home. The reason most of them went to war wasn't for some political idea (although if you asked them, I'm quite certain that is the very reason they would have given). I believe they went to war because their State called.
Had Maryland seceded and joined the Confederacy, I have no doubt many Marylanders would have joined the Confederate war effort in droves and very few would have helped the Union. Ditto for Kentucky.
That is why South Carolina should honor Confederate cemeteries and memorials. Because South Carolina called them to fight and they answered that call. They fought and died not for slavery or for state's rights...they fought and died for South Carolina. Same for Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.
Of course an argument can be made that Confederate soldiers were fighting for a bad cause. You can also argue that American soldiers who fought in the Mexican-American War were fighting for a bad cause and you can make the same argument for the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, possibly for World War One, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. 150 years hence, do we want people arguing whether the Iraq War was fought over WMDs or Islamophobia or American Imperialism or to fight terrorism or whatever and have people argue that the troops who fought there should not be honored or that they should be exhumed from Arlington National Cemetery and moved to a garbage dump?
Our soldiers who fought in Iraq had all kinds of motivations but ultimately they fought because their country called and they answered that call. Whether you support the war or not, WE, as a nation, called them to fight for us and that is what they did. Same thing applies to those who fought for the Confederacy.
Sherman's troops cut a swathe of destruction through the South that could easily be called a war crime. Yet we honor those troops. Our airmen indiscriminately firebombed Japanese civilians. Today, that would certainly be a war crime. Yet we honor those troops. AS WE SHOULD.
Should a Confederate Battle Flag fly over the South Carolina State House? No. Should it fly somewhere on State House property, maybe over a memorial to the fallen of the Civil War? In an ideal world, that would be fine. But we don't live in an ideal world. That particular symbol has been co-opted and represents something very negative to many of our citizens. It doesn't matter that slavery happened under the American flag, or the British flag, or the Spanish flag, or that Native Americans were oppressed under the American flag, or that the Klan and the American Nazis used the American flag or whatever. (I hate this phrase) but it is what it is. We can't rehabilitate that flag right now. Maybe 50 years from now that will change. But not today. So, even though it's not "fair", that flag should come down.
BUT--it should be replaced by an appropriate symbol that does not carry all the negative connotations of the Confederate Battle Flag. I respectfully suggest either the "Stars and Bars" or the "Bonnie Blue":
There is some historical accuracy and relevance to both and neither carry the stigma of the Confederate Battle Flag.
As for cancelling re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard or Wal Mart pulling Lynard Skynard albums because of the cover art...that's just childish.
Alex.
