MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The History Page[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Message Boards  
  For New Members  
  On This Day....  
  General  
  American History  
  Ancient History  
  British History  
  Current Events  
  European History  
  The Civil War  
  War  
  World History  
  Pictures  
    
    
  Links  
  Militaria Board  
  Cars/Motorcycles  
  
  
  Tools  
 
The Civil War : The Stars and Bars
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameEssenceofYorrick1  (Original Message)Sent: 6/5/2007 5:35 PM
The “Stars and Bars�?so proudly flown by the Confederate troops in so many Civil War reenactments and movies, wasn’t the first of the designs to be used. The first flag was designed with seven white stars arranged in a circle on a field of blue; two red and one white horizontal stripes completed it. The seven stars represented the succession states; South Carolina (December 20, 1861), Mississippi (January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10, 1861), Alabama (January 12, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861) and Texas (February 1, 1861). This flag, as a whole, much resembled the first flag, presumably designed by New Jersey congressman Francis Hopkinson and commissioned by congress on June 14, 1777. Like the first flags of the United States, the flag of the Confederate States of America went through many changes. The first few battles of the war saw Confederate troops following an assortment of state and unit banners. The first flag design caused much confusion on the battlefield as it so resembled the Union’s colors. This flag, nevertheless, served as the official banner from March 1861 until May of 1863 and was known as the “Stars and Bars�?
From May of 1863 until shortly before Lee’s surrender on the 9th of April 1865, the second flag of the Confederacy was flown. This white flag embellished with the ‘Southern Cross�?on a field of red. The white highlighted blue cross was embellished with 13 white stars (four groups of three with one in the center). The additional stars represented Virginia (April 17, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), Tennessee (May 7, 1861) and North Carolina (May 21, 1861). Kentucky and Missouri never officially succeeded but were, nonetheless, represented by two stars. This design incorporated the flag of the First Tennessee Army, which had previously been used in the Confederate Navy. This flag could often be mistaken for the white flag of surrender, especially while hanging limp in the calm. This flag was known as “The Stainless Banner.�?BR>One month before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox the southern banner changed once again. A vertical red bar was added to the end of its predecessor. This flag, possibly because of the short time in use (1 month), was never given a nick-name,
These flags, representing state-loving ideals and leading brave men into battle are today all but forgotten. The naval jack of the C.S.A. has all but swept it from the minds of present day citizens. Although the war concluded 142 years ago, the struggle and its result are still of vital importance even today to Americans on both side of the Mason/Dixon Line. I, as an American, feel rather cheated that all of the text books we were exposed to harbored as many folk tales and fantasies as hard fact. The understandable fact that these books are often ‘tinted�?by sentiments from either the North or South can be accepted; the casual dismissal of facts can not.

Yorrick




First  Previous  24-38 of 38  Next  Last 
Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 24 of 38 in Discussion 
Sent: 10/7/2007 11:15 AM
This message has been deleted by the author.

Reply
 Message 25 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCurliestJimbertSent: 10/7/2007 11:25 AM
One for MarkGB
Jimbert
 
 
Edgehill Fight
Civil Wars, 1642
 
Naked and grey the Cotswolds stand
Beneath the autumn sun,
And the stubble-fields on either hand
Where Stour and Avon run.
There is no change in the patient land
That has bred us every one.
 
She should have passed in cloud and fire
And saved us from this sin
Of war--red war--'twixt child and sire,
Household and kith and kin,
In the heart of a sleepy Midland shire.
With the harvest scarcely in.
But there is no change as we meet at last
On the brow-head or the plain,
And the raw astonished ranks stand fast
To slay or to be slain
By the men they knew in the kindly past
That shall never come again--
By the men they met at dance or chase,
In the tavern or the hall,
At the j ustice-bench and the market-place,
At the cudgel-play or brawl--
Of their own blood and speech and race,
Comrades or neighbours all!
More bitter than death this day must prove
Whichever way it go,
For the brothers of the maids we love
Make ready to lay low
Their sisters sweethearts, as we move
Against our dearest foe.
Thank Heaven! At last the trumpets peal
Before our strength gives way.
For King or for the Commonweal--
No matter which they say,
The first dry rattle of new-drawn steel
Changes the world to-day!
 
 
 

 


Reply
 Message 26 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 10/7/2007 12:18 PM
Thanks JimBert.
Kipling's got a lovely rythm and meter to his poetry. Too right wing for modern academic approval.

Reply
 Message 27 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 10/7/2007 1:15 PM
Kipling is just about the only poet in which I have any interest.

Reply
 Message 28 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman8Sent: 10/7/2007 4:11 PM
I'd have thought you'd be a Browning fan, Mark. try his Rennaissance themed poems.
Got me through my English Lit 'A' levels.

Reply
 Message 29 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamebry760Sent: 3/9/2008 4:23 PM
I would dare to say you have a narrow mind to say this

Reply
The number of members that recommended this message. 0 recommendations  Message 30 of 38 in Discussion 
Sent: 3/9/2008 6:36 PM
This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

Reply
 Message 31 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 3/9/2008 8:57 PM
#29. "I would dare to say you have a narrow mind to say this."
 
Well, dare or not, I say you are a ponce.
What the hell's wrong with praising Browning? Have you ever read him?
So, b*gger off.

Reply
 Message 32 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknametommytalldogSent: 3/12/2008 12:29 AM
Flash, I have read John Browning.
 
T-Dog

Reply
 Message 33 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameFlashman191Sent: 3/12/2008 11:25 AM
As in .30 MG maintenance manual? Or better still, "headspacing the .50 BMG in 16 greasy motions - new bestseller"
 
No, T-Dog.
This is Robert Browning.

Reply
 Message 34 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknametommytalldogSent: 3/12/2008 12:15 PM
Flash, you Brits are so "civilized."
 
T-Dog DaDa, President for life, Tall Dog Lodge

Reply
 Message 35 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname-TinCanSent: 4/9/2008 12:51 PM
Normal,
 
      Are you sure about that? The convention on secession  voted to stay within the Union and Gov. Jackson was forced out of the statehouse and set up shop somewhere else in the state. He made Sterling Price commander of the Missouri State Guards and his "government" was reconized by the Confederacy on Oct.30, 1861. However, the yankees set up their own government and it was reconized by the federal government. So, Missouri is sort of like Kentucky in that they say they were part of the Confederacy, but legally they were not. 

Reply
 Message 36 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 4/9/2008 5:54 PM
TC, I am pretty sure, but I will go check and see if I did indeed pass on eroneous info and spoke out of turn.

Reply
 Message 37 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameNormalParanoiaSent: 4/9/2008 6:52 PM
Tin Can, here is what I was able to find.
 
As you may have read, both Kentucky and Missouri proclaimed neutrality early in the war. In the case of Missouri, that neutrality was broken when US forces under General Nathaniel Lyons arrested the Missouri State Guard at their summer encampment, and imprisoned them in St. Louis. His forces then proceeded up the Missouri river to Jefferson City, forcing the State government into exile. This began a civil war between the Missouri State Guard and the United States forces. The Missouri government retreated to the town of Neosho in the southwestern corner of the state. The legislature went into a special session, and on 31 October 1861 adopted an Ordinance of Secession. On 28 November 1861 the Confederate Congress passed an Act admitting Missouri as the 12th state of the Confederacy.
 
 

Missouri's neutrality was tested in a conflict of over the St. Louis Arsenal. The Union Army under Nathaniel Lyon seized the arsenal and moved its supplies to Illinois. At the same time, Governor Jackson called up the Missouri State Militia under Brig. Gen. Daniel M. Frost for maneuvers in suburban St. Louis at Camp Jackson. These maneuvers were perceived by Lyon as an attempt to seize the arsenal. On May 10, 1861, Lyon attacked the milita and paraded them as captives through the streets of St. Louis and a riot erupted. Lyon's troops, comprised mainly of German immigrants, opened fire on the attacking crowd killing 28 and injuring 100.

The next day, the Missouri General Assembly authorized the formation of a Missouri State Guard with Sterling Price as its commander to resist invasions from either side (but initially from the Union army). William S. Harney, Federal commander of the Department of the West, moved to quiet the situation by agreeing to the Missouri neutrality in the Price-Harney Truce. However Abraham Lincoln overruled the truce agreement and relieved Harney of command and replaced him with Lyon. On June 11, 1861, Lyon, in a meeting with Jackson, demanded that Missouri honor Lincoln's demand for troops from the state. Jackson refused and Lyon said he would enforce the order. After Jackson was escorted from the lines, Lyon began a pursuit of Jackson and Price and his elected state government through the Battle of Boonville and Battle of Carthage (1861). Jackson and the pro-Confederate politicians fled the state and set up a government-in-exile recognized by the Confederacy, but powerless inside Missouri.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War

In the fall, Jackson's government set up a provisional capital and convened in the town of Neosho, Missouri. On October 28, the legislature took up a bill for Missouri's secession from the Union, citing various "outrages" committed against the state and the overthrow of its government by Lyon. The bill was passed on October 30 and on October 31, it was signed by Governor Jackson.

The Neosho Secession Ordinance has long been a source of mystery for historians due to the unusual circumstances surrounding it. Ironically, the authority to secede had been vested by the legislature in the State convention. It is unclear whether the legislature had the authority to secede without the direction of the convention. Questions remain unresolved to this day as to whether Jackson's secessionist government or Gamble's provisional government was the legitimate government of Missouri. Jackson supporters claimed their status as the popularly elected government of Missouri to bolster their legitimacy, whereas Gamble had control of the old state capitol and had also been placed in office by a body elected by the state to determine the state's place in the Union.

Perhaps the biggest mystery of Neosho is whether or not Jackson's legislature had a quorum to permit it to convene �?a mystery that has prompted many historians to dismiss the Neosho government as a "rump" legislature, though the evidence required to make a conclusive determination is scant.

The controversy exists for two reasons. First, surviving letters from earlier in the fall indicate that the vote was delayed until the end of October to obtain a quorum, which had been lacking. Second, the journals of the legislature that would contain that information disappeared sometime during the war. The Senate journal was rediscovered in recent years among artifacts at the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield, but the House journal has never been found.

[edit] Evidence

In addition to the Senate journal, evidence of a House quorum has been speculated about on several grounds. Records of the secession bill itself show that Speaker of the House John McAfee presided over the session that adopted the bill. Clerk of the House Thomas H. Murry's signature also attests to the document's engrossment. The bill is also known to have been sponsored in the House by legislator George Graham Vest.

Reports of a quorum and even vote totals for both bodies also appeared in some newspapers. Their reliability, however, is unknown. The Charleston Mercury reported the session as follows:

"The meeting of the Missouri State Legislature, which passed the ordinance of secession at Neosho on the 2d inst. Was well attended - a full quorum being present, including 23 members of the Upper and 77 of the Lower House; 19 of the former and 68 of the latter constitute a quorum. The ordinance of secession was passed unanimously, and without a dissenting voice. It was dispatched to Richmond by a special messenger to the President, leaving Memphis yesterday morning en route." (November 25, 1861)

One of the earliest historical accounts of Missouri's role in the Civil War written by former Confederate Col. John C. Moore, who also states that a quorum was present at the session:

"In every particular it complied with the forms of law. It was called together in extraordinary session by the proclamation of the governor. There was a quorum of each house present. The governor sent to the two houses his message recommending, among other things, the passage of an act "dissolving all political connection between the State of Missouri and the United States of America." The ordinance was passed strictly in accordance with law and parliamentary usage, was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, attested by John T. Crisp, secretary of the senate, and Thomas M. Murray, clerk of the house, and approved by Claiborne F. Jackson, governor of the State."

The absence of a House record, however, will likely continue to surround the mystery of Missouri's secession ordinance until documentation, if any exists, is found.

Acting on the ordinance passed by the Jackson government, the Confederate Congress admitted Missouri as the 12th confederate state on November 28, 1861.[7]. The Jackson government subsequently named Senators to the Confederate Congress. It was driven into exile from Missouri after confederates lost control of the state and Jackson died a short while later in Arkansas. The secessionist government continued in exile, eventually setting up a legislature in Marshall, Texas until the end of the war. At the war's conclusion, the successors to the provisional government continued to govern the state of Missouri.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_secession

 

So now here is my orginal statement...........................

Yorrick, I have to point one small mistake in yer post.  The great State of MO, did in fact ceed the Union, the lawfully elected government of the state voted to ceed the Union.  The federals, however moved in and set up their own military government and declared marshall law.  Which sent the MO, state government in to exile down south.  MO also had some units that fought in the western theatre.  Once MO, had cedded the Union. The Confederate Congress had voted and recognized them as the 12 state of the Confederacy. 
 
As the last article link points out there is still some controversy as whether the elected government was within' their right or not to cede.  So in the end I think it might be up to the reader to decide whether or not it was a lawful seccession.  Which ya already know what side of the argument I am gonna fall on    My orginal statement was a sumerisation of how I fall on the debate, but if ya have the time read the links and not just the quick burbs I posted.  It goes into more detail how they proclaimed themselves neutral and their neutrality was broken by the Union forces.  I would love to hear yer opinion and see if ya think the elected government was within' it's right or not though.  I think this is one of the areas where folk can read the same exact thing and come away with different opinions and neither side perhaps be wrong as the facts support both opinions.  Either way I am most curious to see how ya interpet it my friend.

Reply
 Message 38 of 38 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname-TinCanSent: 4/9/2008 8:44 PM
Very interesting post Normal.
 
        Ok, here is my take on the subject. As you know in 1861 Governor Jackson called together a convention on secession. The convention president was Sterling Price, this convention, which to my mind represented the legal State of Missouri, voted AGAINST, secession from the United States. Jackson and Price, not liking the outcome, threatened to take the State over to the Confederacy reguardless of the vote. Jackson appointed Price the commander of the Missouri State Guards with orders to seize federal property in the state. General Lyons moved against the Confederates before this could happen and forced Jackson to abandon the state capitol.
      So he goes to Neosho and convenes another convention of like minded people and they pass a secession ordiance which is approved later on by the Confererate Congress. However, this  convention is not representative of the whole State and therefore it's ordiance, to my mind, is not legally binding. Kentucky and Maryland did much the same thing. I see it as an absence of a formal Ordiance of Secession that the other 11 states passed thru their duly elected Legislatures.

First  Previous  24-38 of 38  Next  Last 
Return to The Civil War