April is Confederate History month, needed now more than ever!
Once again controversy stirs as descendents honor their Confederate dead, and the values of the CSA! by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Down in Texas, in a small town called Palestine, a band of brothers, descendants of Confederate Veterans, part of an international organization known as the Sons of Confederate Veterans, approached the County Court about flying the first Confederate national flag at the Court House. The Court agreed, and on Friday, April 1st a formal ceremony was held. Many of the county's most distinguished attended including the County Judge, representatives from several veterans associations, and others.
A small group of protesters of African American descent attended. After the ceremony there was a discussion between the President of the local chapter of the NAACP and one of the SCV members...which ended in two men hugging and promising further conversations about their views on history and heritage.
That brief commonalty ended abruptly when a television station from Dallas appeared after the ceremony to create havoc. From their biased reporting storm clouds have gathered in East Texas over Confederate History month. The flag was voluntarily removed from the Court House by the SCV and the Daughters of the Confederacy in an attempt to calm the situation, but the media, like hound dogs are on the trail.
So why do I say we need to look back at history...?
While many argue thatSouthern secession was about slavery, the fact is that secession was about that and a whole lot more. The fanaticism and terrorism of northern abolitionists were responsible for attacks on southern whites at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. In Texas, nine towns burned on one day, arson attributed to a conspiracy of abolitionists inciting a slave revolt in Texas in July, 1860. Financial support for the fanatics was provided by wealthy folks in the northeast, and John Brown was celebrated a martyr.
But, the disagreements between north and south were much wider and deeper, across a broad spectrum of issues. If one compares the two Constitutions, the US and the Confederate, one can see many of the differences. Here are the bigger ones:
1. In the preamble of the Confederate Constitution, the South called for the wisdom and protection of the Almighty God. If this were the only difference it would be big enough by itself. It reflected the South's continuing devotion and subordination to God. It places God at the Founding of the nation. It reflects to the Christian roots of what is today called the Bible Belt.
God had been with the very first explorers of the western hemisphere. The first act of Columbus when he landed in the western world was to kneel in prayer offering thanks to the Almighty for the safe journey and the wonderful discovery. And God was evident through the settlement of the 13 colonies. Each colony had a predominant religion. And in all the colonies it was a requirement that one attend a church to hold office. And in fact, the very first tax resolution adopted to build a public school cited reading the Bible as the reason for the need for the public school! (The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, by Morris)
2. The Confederate Constitution restates the preeminence of the states over the central government in the preamble,
When the 13 colonies first joined, they joined under the Articles of Confederation. This was the first constitution of the United States. It was created at the beginning of the American Revolution to provide a national structure to lead the 13 colonies during the war. At the end of the war, a convention was called by the states to fix the Articles, to improve them. When it was found that it could not be done, the states decided create a new governing document, the present Constitution.Again, the Founders sat down to draft a document...but all, north and south, feared a powerful central government.
It is important to note here, that England signed a trearty with the 13 separate colonies/states, listing each one!
And some patriots like Patrick Henry of Virginia, opposed adoption of the Constitution by the State of Virginia. Henry foretold the causes of Secession almost eighty years later.
Interestingly, to get to the new Constitution, each of the 13 states had to secede from the Articles of Confederation, and then adopt the new government under the present Constitution. The state of Rhode Island took two years to consider the question before they rejoined the new union!
3. The President of the Confederacy was given more power, vis a vis the Congress.
The President was given line item veto. The President could unilaterally cut spending not authorized in his budget bill. And Congress needed two thirds of each house to add even one cent to the president's budget.
4. Bills could only deal with one subject, and earmarks were prohibited.
5. Federal appointees, whose jurisdiction was within one state, could be deprived of office by that state!
6. No monies could be spent to support an industry.
The bail outs recently done by Bush - Obama could not have been done in the Confederacy.
7. To hold office, and to vote, one must be born in the Confederacy.
These are just a few of the major differences between north and South.
Believing in God, curtailing central government powers and spending, making the central government more efficient at the powers it did have, were the hallmarks of the Confederate Constitution. The Founders of the Confederate Constitution saw into the future, and created a document intended to forestall much of what is occurring today!
Slavery has to long overshadowed a more complete study of why the South decided to secede. A closer look at the Confederate Constitution offers an alternative form of American government, one without huge deficits, earmarks, and excessive government spending. And a nation guided by Almight God.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 19
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: April 6, 2011 11:00:34 AM
Mark,
Why would the SCVs fly the Confederate flag in a town that is known for its racial tensions? Isn't that kind of asking for trouble, daring someone to come out and say something? I do commend them for taking it down voluntarily; and maybe the controversy brings more light to the issue, which may be what they want in the long run. I just think it was a bit inconsiderate to flaunt something in the face of so many people who have problems with that time period. Couldn't they commemorate and honor the Confederate dead in a more respectful way? Just a thought.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: April 6, 2011 03:50:57 PM
I am a bit confusd by your question Palestine Texas is not known for racial tensions. In fact, before the Dallas camera's showed up, the President of NAACP and the Color Sgt of the camp talked frankly, ending their discussion with a hug, and a promise to continue dialogue. That abruptly changed when the television arriveds. Secondly, the First national Confederate flag flies at the Six Flags theme park, at all visitor centers for the state of Texas, and many other places. That flag was chosen intentionally...it was the national flag of the Southern nation. Third, so are you saying that if some ethnic symbol or event is hated by another group...for example St Patrick's Day, by Americans of English descent that we shut down St Patrick's Day? The problem is no one in America, or very few, have any clue what the war was really about...did you ever read the Confederate Consitution?
Posted By: Interested Catholic
Date: April 8, 2011 10:34:53 AM
Sorry, I was just going by what I read and heard in several news stories, about the racial tensions. I don't believe everything I read or hear, so can I assume, then, that you know that the city of Palestine does not have a history of racial tension? I should have verified the stories. As to the theme park example, the "theme" of the park is "six flags," so it makes perfect sense to include all the flags that represented Texas. I was merely suggesting that, because of the obvious (and long-standing) issues of race (in most US towns), would it have been possible for the SCV to commemorate their Confederate ancestors in a way that was more respectful to "everyone;" knowing that there would likely be people who were "injured" by it?
And c'mon Mark, St. Patrick's Day?? That's even ridiculous for you. :-)
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: April 23, 2011 11:10:07 AM
Yes, I do know Palestine, drive through there routinely, personally know the men of the SCV there. Further, the racial event being addressed in the media occured around the turn of the 20th century, almost 100 years before today. That's the only event.
But why is hatred and violence between England and Ireland not precisely as important as the First National Flag of the Confederacy? Why because it does not fit your stereotypes. You know, during the CW there were 3.5 million slaves in a nation of 9 million. Most of the white men, and some of the black men were off to war on behalf of the South. Why didn't the slaves revolt/ Especially from '63 on? It would have ended the war? So why didn't they? And why did thousands of blacks fight for the South? Why did they bring their wounded masters home? Why did they care for the people who enslaved them? Very politically incorrect questions...questions no one wants to even ask, no less answer.
The twisted,revised and untrue history of this era, and the South is preserved to act as an intellectual black hole which prevents real consideration of the era, the original compact known as the Constitution, and an alternative American government, one which would have avoided many of today's problems.
Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: May 12, 2011 09:15:30 AM
*rolls eyes*
The reason there were no slave revolts were due to the savage (albiet understandable) repression and reprisals after Nat Turner's slave revolt, and the fact that as slaves, communications , weapons, training and the like were almost impossible to come by. I'm certain there were slaves who were acceptant of slavery just as there are Uncle Toms in today's society, making apologetic noises for every indignity blacks are submitted to (or subject themselves to, in recent years).
On the other hand, the "champions of the South" refuse to admit the South produced nothing of any real value. It's economy was based on slavery and the unwillingness (or cheapness) of northern and foreign textile mill owners to pay more for cotton than they had to. It's culture was a sneering Anglo-centric fantasy steeped in ridiculous , testosterone laden values of romantic drivel and "pride", yet produced mostly apologetic ranting and rose-tinted views of a world that never existed, one where the White Master was a benevolent overlord and slavery was for the good of blacks. It's economic status was basically merely a tax hole , with Southerners unable to think a way out of it without resorting to violence.
That's not to say the Civil War was about "slavery" or "racism", good Lord, no. It was about greedy Northerners wanting more money from the South and greedy Southerns saying "no". But to take that and imply somehow the CSA was benevolent or admirable because it's government functions were in some ways more elegant than ours is today is stretching truth into fantasy.
The violence between England and Ireland isn't as important to Americans because Americans are insular isolationists blinded with their own supposed superiority to the rest of the world and 40% of American's probably can't find Ireland on a map.
