These two very rare and
intriguing flags from the
Rare Flags collection are
juxtaposed to represent the
diametrically opposed
principals of abolitionists
and secessionists, embodied
in the form of the American
flag of their common
heritage. At the
outbreak of the Civil War,
our 34 states were split
between 19 free states and
15 slave states. With
South Carolina declaring
secession in December 1860,
and the first shots fired on
Fort Sumter in January,
1861, the national fabric
began to unravel as a series
of southern states followed
South Carolina and joined to
form the Confederacy.
Not until the final
decisions were made by the
four slave-holding border
states of Maryland,
Delaware, Kentucky and
Missouri in the late spring
of 1861 (all of which
ultimately remained a part
of the Union) were the
territorial lines
established between the
Union and the Confederacy.
In the North, passionate
Abolitionists sought to
separate their national
identity from the
slave-holding states and in
the South, passionate
Secessionists sought to
separate themselves from the
free states. On the
Abolitionist Flag, IAS-00400,
we find 19 stars,
representing the 19 free
states, and 7 stripes,
representing the original 7
free colonies of the United
States (excluding, from the
original 13 colonies,
Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, South Carolina,
North Carolina and Georgia).
On the
Secessionist Flag, IAS-00239,
we find 15 stars,
representing the 15 slave
states, and 11 stripes,
representing the original 11
states of the Confederacy.
Despite dating from the same
era, and being of the same
form of our cherished Stars
and Stripes, they could not
be more symbolically
different in the ideas they
embody. One could only
imagine what a fierce debate
would have erupted between
the two makers of these
flags, should they have met
each other face to face.
The term "exclusionary
flag", in which stars on the
American flag are
intentionally withheld from
the flag's design due to
political differences,
applies equally to both of
these flags.
An original
source describing the
practice of northern
Abolitionists removing stars
from the American flag is
found in The Legislative
Record Containing the
Debates and Proceedings of
the Pennsylvania Legislation
for the Session of 1864.
In a passionate debate about
compensation to loyal
Americans for damage caused
during rebel raids, State
Senator Daniel S. Boyer, in
discussing the definition of
a "loyal citizen",
questioned the loyalty of
Abolitionists of the
Republican Party, arguing
that they in fact did not
support a Union of all
states, but instead also
favored separation.
His debate highlights the
tensions between Union
Republicans and Democrats of
the era. At one point
in his debate, Senator Boyer
cited treatment of the flag
as an example of the
Abolitionist's viewpoint on
preserving the Union:
|
"The other night
when somebody
was charging
upon the party
in power that in
1856 and 1860
they manifested
themselves as
opposed to the
flag of their
country by
striking there
from fifteen of
its stars,
making it purely
sectional, thus
showing their
disposition to
dissolve this
Union--when the
charge was made,
members in their
seats responded
that it not
true. Now, sir,
I know from my
own certain
knowledge that
in my own county
in 1856 there
was not to be
seen a campaign
flag carried by
the Fremont
party with more
than sixteen stars
upon it--not
one; and when
they had an old
flag in which
they could not
get rid of the
obnoxious stars
they took black
or ink and
spotted them
out. Besides
that, every map
of the country
which was
circulated by
that party
during that
campaign
exhibited the
southern portion
of country the
blotted out. All
the States south
of Mason's and
Dixon's line
were blotted out
being a sort of
a Sahara where
slavery was
tolerate, where
flourished those
"border
ruffians" who
were attempting
to force slavery
upon the people
of Kansas." |
| |
Daniel S. Boyer
State Senator,
Pennsylvania
1864 |
One of the best sources
describing flags presented
by southern Secessionists
during the formulation of
the flag of the Confederacy
is the account of the
proceedings of the Committee
on the Flag and Seal of the
Confederacy, described below in
this passage from the Origin and Progress of
the Flag of the United
States by Admiral Henry
Preble.
|
"While a
committee had
the matter of a
permanent
government under
consideration,
the convention
discussed the
subject of a
national flag.
Various devices
were presented.
The
designers, in
many instances,
were patriotic
ladies, and many
of these designs
were but
modifications of
the grand old
stars and
stripes.
On the 9th of
February, Mr.
Memminger
presented to the
convention a
flag sent by the
young ladies of
Charleston, S.
C, as a model
flag for the
Confederate
States ; the
device was a
blue cross on a
red field, with
six white
five-pointed
stars or mullets
blazoned on the
cross. At the
same time he
presented
another, from a
gentleman, which
had fifteen
stars within
a cross, but the
cross upon a
different
ground.
On presenting
these flags, Mr.
Memminger said:
"Mr. President,
the idea of
union, no doubt,
was suggested to
the imagination
of the young
ladies by the
beauteous
constellation of
the Southern
Cross, which the
great Creator
has placed in
the southern
heavens, by way
of compensation
for the glorious
constellation at
the north pole.
The imagination
of the young
ladies was, no
doubt, inspired
by the genius of
Dante and the
scientific skill
of Humboldt.
But, sir, I have
no doubt that
there was
another idea
associated with
it in the minds
of the young
ladies,—a
religious
one,—and
although we have
not seen in the
heavens the "In
hoc signo vinces"
written upon the
laburnum of
Constantine, yet
the same sign
has been
manifested to us
upon the tablets
of the earth;
for we all know
that it has been
by the aid of
revealed
religion that we
have achieved
over fanaticism
the victory
which we this
day witness; and
it is becoming,
on this
occasion, that
the debt of the
South to the
cross should be
thus recognized.
I have also, Mr.
President, a
commission from
a gentleman of
taste and skill
in the city of
Charleston, who
offers another
model, which
embraces the
same idea of a
cross, but upon
a different
ground. The
gentleman who
offers this
model appears to
be more hopeful
than the young
ladies. They
offer one with
seven stars,—six
for the States
already
represented in
this Congress,
and the seventh
for Texas, whose
deputies we hope
will soon be on
their way to
join us. He
offers a flag
which embraces
the whole
fifteen States.
God grant that
his hope may
soon be
realized, and
that we may soon
welcome their
stars to the
glorious
constellation of
Southern
confederacy."
These remarks
were applauded,
and a committee
of one delegate
from each State
was appointed to
report a device
for a national
flag and seal.
Mr. Brooke, of
Mississippi,
offered a
resolution to
instruct the
committee to
report a design
for a flag as
similar as
possible to that
of the United
States, making
only such
changes as
should give them
distinction. In
his speech he
spoke of the
associations
which clustered
around the old
ensign,—associations
which could
never be
effaced.
"Sir," he
said, "let us
preserve it as
far as we can;
let us continue
to hallow it in
our memory, and
still pray that
' Long may it
wave O'er the
land of the free
and the home of
the brave.' "
His eulogy of
the old flag was
so full of Union
sentiment that
it was regarded
as treasonable,
and Brooke was
severely
rebuked. William
Porcher Miles,
of South
Carolina, the
chairman of the
committee,
protested
against the
resolution and
the utterance of
the mover. He
gloried more, a
thousand times,
in the palmetto
flag of his
State. He had
regarded, " from
his youth, the
stars and
stripes as the
emblem of
oppression and
tyranny." He was
so warmly
applauded that
Brooke, at the
suggestion of a
friend, withdrew
his motion. |
| |
George Henry
Preble
The Origin and
History of the
American Flag
1917 |
1 The Legislative
Record Containing the
Debates and Proceedings of
the Pennsylvania Legislation
for the Session of 1864, p.
221
2 The Origin and
History of the American
Flag, Vol. II, George Henry
Preble, Published by
Nicholas Brown,
Philadelphia, 1917. p.
502-503 |
