0

Group to host annual Confederate ceremony

A group performs at a previous Confederate Memorial Service. A similar event is set for Saturday at Confederate Memorial Park on Philema Road.

A group performs at a previous Confederate Memorial Service. A similar event is set for Saturday at Confederate Memorial Park on Philema Road.

ALBANY, Ga. -- Charles Lunsford has a unique perspective on the way historians and, indeed, most Americans, look at the Civil War.

"Anybody who would criticize the Confederate states for seceding from the Union and then celebrate the Fourth of July is a hypocrite," Lunsford, a national spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization for more than a decade, said Monday. "The spirit of the 1770s that led to the freedom of this country is the same spirit of the 1860s that led the Southern states to seek independence from what they considered a tyrannical government."

Lunsford and other members of the international SCV organization will celebrate Confederate History and Heritage Month in April, a celebration that will be highlighted locally with the annual Southwest Georgia Confederate Memorial Service Saturday at Confederate Memorial Park on Philema Road.

"The disagreement over causes of the war are not over disputed facts, but rather, over disputed interpretations," said Lunsford, who is retired now and lives in Madison. "Historians have researched the war extensively, but unfortunately they tend to pick and choose the facts they uncover that best fit their interpretation. That's why when I discuss or debate the war, I'm confident in the things I say.

"People can argue all they want, but they can't dispute facts."

Saturday's memorial service, which starts at 9 a.m. with a musical tribute by the Lee County-based band A Joyful Noise, will include the symbolic laying of a wreath in memory of veterans from each of the Confederate states and will conclude with musket and cannon salutes by historic re-enactors.

The Rev. John Weaver of Fitzgerald's Freedom Baptist Church, who served two terms as national chaplain of the SCV, will offer the event's keynote address.

"I enjoy the opportunity to speak at events like this," Weaver, who has been a pastor for 48 years, said Monday. "It gives me an opportunity to combine Biblical principles with historic truths. Many people don't understand the theological interpretation of the events that led to the war, but there is a study that focuses on the apostatized North trying to force its theology and culture on the South.

"It was written by a noted historian of that time: '(The Civil War) is a theological war between infidels and men of freedom.' So many truths of the war can be applied to biblical inspiration."

The state of Georgia, through Senate Bill 27 in 2009, officially designated April as Confederate History Month. Lt. Col. Thomas Nelson SCV Camp 141 Commander James King, of Albany, said the commemoration allows SCV members to carry out their organization's three primary functions: the preservation of the memory of officers and enlisted men who served in the Confederacy; preservation of Confederate graves, monuments, artifacts and mementos; and presentation of Confederate history in a fair and impartial manner.

"Since the victor of a war writes its history, that which is presented as American history has been and continues to be extremely biased in favor of the North, and many facts that reflect negatively on the North and positively on the South have been omitted," King said. "Northern politicians have used slavery since about 1830 to drive a wedge between white and black Southerners, and their efforts continue to this day.

"Dishonest Northern historians have used slavery as a weapon of choice against the defeated Confederacy to justify the North's vast number of atrocities against defeated Confederate veterans and civilians and to claim the moral high ground. ... Many Americans have been so effectively indoctrinated that any mention of the Confederacy brings an instant knee-jerk reaction and the comment 'It was all about slavery.' But due to unrelenting efforts by the SCV and other pro-Southern heritage groups, the truth is emerging."

Calvin Johnson, the chairman of the Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee of the national and Georgia SCV divisions, said Confederate History Month is set aside to recognize all Southerners who took part in the Civil War.

"Confederate History Month commemorates the men and women of the Confederate States of America who came from all races and religions that include Irish-born Gen. Patrick R. Cleburne, black Confederate drummer Bill Yopp, Mexican-born Col. Santos Benavides, Cherokee-born Gen. Stand Watie and Jewish-born Confederate nurse Phoebe Pember, who was the first female administrator of Chimboraza Hospital in Richmond, where she served until the end of the War Between the States," Johnson wrote.

Comments

MRKIA 1 year, 4 months ago

THIS WAR CAN'T BE FOUGHT AGAIN, GET OVER IT. I'VE NOT READ ANYTHING HERE THAT INDICATES THAT THESE REVERED SOUTHERNERS WERE ON THE VERGE OF GIVING THEIR SLAVES THEIR FREEDOM. THIS WAR RESULTED IN THE END OF SLAVERY. FOR THE NORTH AND BLACK FOLKS THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

0

Abytaxpayer 1 year, 4 months ago

MRKIA way to prove the point"Many Americans have been so effectively indoctrinated that any mention of the Confederacy brings an instant knee-jerk reaction and the comment 'It was all about slavery.' But due to unrelenting efforts by the SCV and other pro-Southern heritage groups, the truth is emerging."

Your so well informed! Did your own research did you? Thats ok non of the Sheepeople do....Was the cool-aid good?

1

FryarTuk 1 year, 4 months ago

I hope the speaker will discuss fully the Cornerstone Speech aka the Confederate Speech of GA's Little Aleck who also was the VP of the rebel states' confederacy.

0

GeeGee 1 year, 4 months ago

The south was not as romantic as they make it sound today. My great grandfather was a Civil War soldier although my family owned no slaves. They duped most of these brave souls that fought. If it was all over slavery, then why did only 1% of the folks in the south actually owned slaves. There is more to it than we are told. It was over money. Slaves like today was what they wanted you to think. The slaves rights had been fought about for 30 years between the north and the south. Lincoln pushed the war. If he had not been President there would have never ever been a war.

1

FryarTuk 1 year, 4 months ago

I agree with a lot of what you say. Excepting your remarks re. Lincoln which would be difficult to argue with reason & facts.

0

Bulldawg 1 year, 4 months ago

Cue the dueling banjos music. The Civil War was not just about slavery. GeeGee is right, only about 1% of southerners actually owned slaves. The Civil War was mainly about ecconomics. The north wanted to ruin the southern ecconomy by buying cotton and other southern commodities at cut rate prices to hurt the southern ecconomy. The north did not approve of slavery, so the north used the ecconomy as a tool to make the slave states consider ending slavery.

1

VSU 1 year, 4 months ago

But didn't the north have slaves too? Wasn't the north the ones that sold the slaves?

1

Sister_Ruby 1 year, 4 months ago

Yes they did own and sell slaves.

The Civil War was about States Rights. THAT war continues.........

1

Conf3d3rat343var 1 year, 4 months ago

Not for fame or reward Not for place or for rank Not lured by ambition Or goaded by necessity But in simple Obedience to duty As they understood it These men suffered all Sacrificed all Dared all – and died

0

Cartman 1 year, 4 months ago

Slavery was nearing an end regardless of secession. But the victor gets to write the history books. The South was politically dominated by the more populated Northern states who outnumbered in Congress. The real issue was whether we were truly a collection of several sovereign and independent states or one central union comprised of subservient states. The argument over the time-table for the end of slavery just happened to be the issue of the moment. After congressional debate, argument, and compromise - the Yankees decided to just impose their will. The Southern states refused to sit there and take it. So secession commenced and the fighting began.

1

DRTexas 1 year, 4 months ago

Excellent post. Let's break it down some more for some of the folks who only know the talking points. The North had the monopoly on manufacturing. This was an issue in at least two ways. One was that they could dictate what they would pay for raw materials and what they would sell the finished product for. Another that you don't hear about is the fact that the factories had been "staffed" by African slaves until the Irish started immigrating en-mass and demanded that they deserved the jobs more than Blacks or they would burn down the factories. Thus bolstering the cause of Abolisionists, who were actually a small but vocal minority, even though the white immigrants didn't care what happened to the slaves, as long as they had jobs. So, many northern slaves were "freed"(turned out in the streets) so that the factory owners could preserve their business. See. No racism there! Southern business interests wanted to build a manufacturing base closer to home. They wanted the freedom to control more of their own assets. The banking and manufacturing industries were all in the North. They were a tight group, and refused financing to Southern business interests. These Southerners then turned to French banks for financing. The paid for Northern politicians legislated against any foreign financing except for the Bank of England. Which had ties to the Northern banks and refused loans to the Southerners. The only way the South could get to the point that they could control their own destiny was to leave the Union of American States.
This would leave the North without the tobacco and cotton that they depended on. So the new President declared the Confederation would not be allowed to leave the Union. The war was on. Slavery had VERY little to do with the war. It was used as an after thought, and as a rally call. Much like the whole "Weapons of mass destruction" to get the masses behind another war. It had MUCH more to do with money and power. It has been suggested that Emancipation was an attempt to get the Southern slaves to revolt and attack from behind enemy lines.

2

ASUALUM 1 year, 4 months ago

The opinions or views of this topic is going to vary greatly. Depending on which racial group you involve some may say it was based on slavery and as we can see others feel it was another alternative motive behind the Civil War. Me personally, being an educated African American male, I feel like it was caused by the best of both perspectives. Some may agree and the majority may not agree. Reason being, Slavery helped boost the economies of both sides until the emergence of the Irish and other nationalities. But, before that, it was the African slaves who did the work. Now some of you have stated, "1% of Southerns owned slaves" Well if you think about, during those times, that was more than enough to assume that slavery very well existed here in the Southern states at a high percentage, especially when you had planatations owning multitudes of slaves at time. Yes, the Northern states participated in the owneship of slaves as well, but just from a more refined perspective. Meaning, Northerners didn't view African as animals nor were there treated as such. Most of the Northern slaves were allowed the opportunity to obtained a form of education, they weren't made to work sun up to sun down on the scorching sun, nor were they forced into inadequate living conditions, but they worked!!!! My point is, both the sides wanted the upperhand of the economy and they knew that without African Slaves neither would succeed in having the upper hand.

1

Abytaxpayer 1 year, 4 months ago

ASU a little off subject. Do you know the reason minimum wage was pushed into law? Southern companies with mostly black workers were moving into the north and low bidding on big construction jobs. Northern owned companies (mostly unionized) pushed min wage to block Southern companies with blacks from finding work in the North. They wanted you to be free to work just Not in their cities.

1

ASUALUM 1 year, 4 months ago

Pardon the typos, at lunch and typing before I head back to WORK!

0

Abytaxpayer 1 year, 4 months ago

Most of us here don't count typos. It is the different ideas we want to debate, not typing skills.

1

MRKIA 1 year, 4 months ago

@ABY: WHAT I STATED IN MY FIRST POST DOESN'T LEAVE MUCH ROOM FOR DISPUTE. NONE OF THE SLAVEHOLDERS HAD ANY INTENTION OF FREEING THEIR SLAVES. THAT'S COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD. THE SLAVES GAINED THEIR FREEDOM AS A RESULT OF THE CIVIL WAR. THAT ALSO IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD. THE SOUTH'S ECONOMY WAS BEING BUILT ON THE BACKS OF SLAVES. WHY PAY YOUR EMPLOYEE WHEN YOU CAN OWN THEM? WHO PICKED THAT COTTON AND TOBACCO?

0

FryarTuk 1 year, 4 months ago

Had there been no cotton gin there would have been no slavery. Had there been no slavery there would have been no civil war. The age old issue of following the money.

0

RedEric 1 year, 4 months ago

The value of slaves was exceeded only by the value of land. The existence of slavery slowed the mechanization of farming. Northern farmhands who went to war were replaced by machine and had no job if they survived the war. There were many reasons for the war and it will be debated for a long time to come. The northeast liberals still think they run this country and I don't think it is a recently acquired attitude.

0

Abytaxpayer 1 year, 4 months ago

@ Mr

The Emancipation Proclamation (1862) was strictly a political move to punish the secessionist states of the Confederacy, which were economically dependent on slavery. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to continue in states than did not secede from the Union, or who were willing to return.

While is it factual that Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned against the expansion of slavery, if the states of the Confederacy had negotiated their position (as the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware did) instead of seceding (1861), slavery might well have continued for another generation in the United States.

The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation did not really free (all) slaves, nor did it make slavery illegal (everywhere), and was not passed as a result of winning the civil war, but as a political move early in the conflict to facilitate the Union using slaves, both economically and as soldiers, to win the war. It did, eventually (1865), provide the legal framework used to free nearly all of the 4 million -odd slaves in the US after the war, but that decision was very controversial, and was why Lincoln was assassinated (1865).

0

Sister_Ruby 1 year, 4 months ago

One thing is clear in the rear view mirror "white folks should have picked their own cotton." or else brought in 15 million Mexicans who are quite happy to work from dawn to dusk doing unskilled labor.

0

Sign in to comment