This poem (and, no, not written by the same author, whose poem I posted on April 21… and not to fret, I’ll be telling you more about the author of that poem, soon) comes from the Memphis Bulletin (as reprinted in the Staunton Spectator. You remember… the Unionist paper in that town…) April 23, 1861. Note, this was printed on the 23rd… 6 days after Virginia’s secession.
The following lines were suggested by seeing an old man intently gazing at the American flag as it floated from the dome of one of the hotels in Memphis – “I live,” he said, “in Mississippi, where they won’t let that flag be raised, but I love that flag. I bore it through the Indian wars, and at New Orleans, under General Jackson. I am sixty-nine years of age. I was born and raised in this State. My father, an old Revolutionary soldier, was one of the earliest settlers. My country had been very good to me, and gave me the land I love. My country I love. I love Tennessee. I am sorry I ever left her. I want to live where that flag waves. I don’t like the people of Mississippi; THEY CALL ME A TRAITOR, NOW.
I have borne that flag in early years,
To conquer a savage foe,
Whose ravaging deeds on our then frontier
Brought terror, death and woe.
And now we suffered toil and pain,
Tis the history will tell you how;
Yet those, whose peace, whose wars did gain,
Can call me a traitor now.I bore that flag at New Orleans,
Which city’s doom was thought.
Beyond the power of patriot means
Ere the glorious Eighth was fought;
But when I saw to the stripes and stars
The British lion bow,
I little thought, in my grateful prayers,
To be called a traitor now.No pelican flag was heard of then;
No moon’s lone star was found;
No palmetto bush, with its shaggy stem,
And the serpent coiled around;
But the stars and stripes alone remained,
And pray – - – you tell me how
That he, who bore that flag unstained
Can be called a traitor now?Oh, had I remained in my native State,
Where my chieftain’s grave is made,
Or had I been doomed to a similar fate,
And my bones near his been laid;
Or had he been spared for his country’s good,
Those friends who in arms by him had stood,
Should be branded traitors now.But why, in my age, am I this assailed?
To my name why apply this stain?
Have I to my country ever failed,
Or to society proved a bane?
No! No such change or kindred crime,
Can be stamped on my furrowed brow.
But because rebellion I must decline,
They call me a traitor now,But yet, in my heart, I can’t despair –
My country, so free and pure,
Whose toils and triumphs I helped to share,
For ages will yet endure.
When madmen cease, and calm react
And reason their minds endow,
They’ll then these cruel words retract
That make me a traitor now.
Moving, no?
The irony… considering today, how, to some, treason is an unacceptable tag in regard to Southerners who opted for secession, and yet, Southern secessionists who formed the Confederacy had no problem calling this fellow a traitor, then. By the way, if you aren’t aware, this is where division within Southern families often occurred; fathers who were sons of American Revolution vets, and perhaps vets themselves of the War of 1812… and who felt strongly against secession. Many sons who eagerly embraced the “new flag” of the Confederacy, did so to the dismay of many a Southern father.
Yet another layer of Southern Unionism about which some may be unaware.
Scott Manning
April 24, 2011
Robert, you have to admit there is a difference. I have heard Washington and other “founding fathers” referred to as traitors. Yet, the tag is meant as a badge of honor nowadays. However, the traitors of the Revolutionary War won their independence whereas the traitors of the Confederacy did not. As such, the former can where the tag as a joke, but for the latter, it is a sticky subject. Obviously, when white Southerners seceded, they believed they were fighting for a righteous cause and the “traitor” tag had that same badge of honor feel to it. Lee often referred to the war as one for independence. Yet, when they failed to gain their independence, the tag was no longer honorable. I doubt the author of this poem was proud to call himself a traitor in May 1865.
Robert Moore
April 24, 2011
Scott,
Yes, I’d agree, the difference being that the person who wrote the poem only became known as a traitor (and I imagine by a specific number who eagerly embraced secession and the new Confederacy) years after his efforts in earlier wars, and only because his section of the country had seceded.
I also agree that “traitor” is a sticky subject to maneuver about. In either war, the Revolution or the Civil War, those who rebelled took a risk, and they knew that if they lost, not only would they be labeled as traitors, they stood the chance of severe repercussions. In the Revolution, the rebels won, and became patriots… to those who felt likewise in their cause. In the Civil War, the rebels lost, and, at least to those who thought differently than those who took the risk, became traitors.
On the other hand…
“Obviously, when white Southerners seceded, they believed they were fighting for a righteous cause and the “traitor” tag had that same badge of honor feel to it.”
For some yes, but I wouldn’t say that applies to all. There are examples (Georgia comes to mind… thanks to something Craig Swain told me quite a while back) where debates were held over the issue of treason, and how they could circumvent that. Were they, therefore, building up some degree of insurance, in the event of failure? I would say that some were well aware that what they were doing was traveling down the treason highway, but think that there was enough confidence in enough of them that they would be successful, that treason wasn’t high on the list of concerns, initially.
“I doubt the author of this poem was proud to call himself a traitor in May 1865.”
In this, I’m confused. Are you thinking that he was proud to call himself a traitor in 1861? I think this isn’t aligning with the difference that I see, and I have to ask… are we seeing the same differences? I don’t see this as a “proud to be called traitor” poem that we would later find in something like ““O, I am a Good Rebel”. Rather, I see the author of this poem feeling betrayal and shock in being labeled a traitor, after years of being seen as something to the opposite.
Scott Manning
April 24, 2011
Robert, good stuff.
“Are you thinking that he was proud to call himself a traitor in 1861?”
“Proud” is probably the wrong word. I read it as the author talking about the traitor tag as a point of irony. It has the same feel to it as when we refer to Washington as a traitor. However, by 1865, the label had more truth than irony to it. Hence, I doubt the author would write similar words.