Contraband Camps

[unionblue]

Battalion,

"No comedy was intended.
Strange that you would make that interpretation."

Precisely why you are so funny at times in your posts. You have no idea you are so.

Battalion, you're not even presenting half a loaf when you keep posting these clips, without background, without the complete story, without the context to view them in the historical background they deserve.

You wish, in my view, to downgrade the issue of slavery, as a cause for the war, so you must therefore deride any Union effort in order to make the South appear as a victim, not the instigator, of the war.

It simply won't work.

Almost all the board members here know your style, as you have been caught too many times hiding something by the way you cut and post your comments.

And your attempts to downplay slavery as an institution the South wanted to maintain at all costs simply won't work because there is too much historical evidence to the contrary.

Yes, the North overall was racist in it's attitudes towards blacks, free or slave, and yes most would have preferred to have sent every black, free or slave, out of the country back to Africa. The evidence of that attitude is also impossible to ignore in the face of historical evidence.

Slavery was a national sin, with the entire country involved in its condition and practice at various times in the history of the US. Many came to view the war as God's punishment to both the North and the South.

But to willingly ignore, to purposefully promote ignorance on slavery, to close one's eyes with a will, as it were, to this central, overriding and primary cause of the Civil War is to promote a lie.

As to Union attitudes and actions concerning contraband camps and their conditions, you have convinced me that there must be some truth to the idea that in particular instances, the conditions were truely horrible.

But I will never know the whole story, if there were any acts of kindness if there were any official efforts to improve conditions or how many former black slaves, no matter how terrible the conditions of such camps, fled back to their former masters, glad once more to be a slave.

Because you can't dare show that. More importantly, you won't show that, because you are not interested in an open debate, you are interested in defending a cause, at whatever cost, no matter what and at the expense of historical fairness and accuracy.

You dare not directly confront the many questions that have been put to you as you know an honest and direct answer would more than likely show this one-sided attack agenda. Its too late as already most of the other members here already know your agenda.

And it's a pity, as you seem to have ready access to large amounts of sources and historical data, yet you are not willing to share but a very small part that supports your agenda.

What a loss to the rest of us.

Unionblue

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Battalion, you're not even presenting half a loaf when you keep posting these clips, without background, without the complete story, without the context to view them in the historical background they deserve.

It's difficult to comprise a "complete story." The Federal government wasn't keeping an account of the dead.

If such information were out it wouldn't fit their "crusade against slavery" theme...
...your historians ignore this matter for the same reason.

Originally Posted by unionblue

Slavery was a national sin, with the entire country involved in its condition and practice at various times in the history of the US. Many came to view the war as God's punishment to both the North and the South.

God's judgement eh?

How do contraband camps fit that scenario?

[unionblue]

Battalion,

It is your stated purpose for having this thread, per your post#24 of this thread, is:

"The point is to expose the gross hyprocrisy of the North (both then and now) in claiming the war was for the benefit of the slaves-"

Now, two questions for you:

1. Why did the South secede?

2. Why did the North go to war with the South?

I'll give you a hint; Northern treatment of contrabands have nothing to do with either question.

Now as hard as it is for you to accept and believe, the answer to question 1. is as follows.

The South left the Union in order to ensure the safety and continuation of the institution of slavery. The South's leaders knew it, the men in the street knew it and the farmers and common citizens knew it and all that served in the Confederate armed forces knew it.

As for question 2. it goes like this.

The North went to war to preserve the Union. The average Union soldier cared little about the slaves or their condition. The North was no different from the South in its racists attitudes toward the black race, free or slave.

But what you always fail to take into consideration, Union troops knew that the war had been brought on because of slavery. There is no escaping this historical truth and frankly it is laughable that there is anything like 'my' or 'your' historians. (If it makes you feel better, I have no historians on my payroll nor do I or other 'Unionists' here on this board or elsewhere as far as I know, contribute to the Union-leaning historians organization.)

There is enough research out there for any serious student of the war to see that both Union and Confederate soldiers knew the war was about slavery. Did knowledge of this fact make anyone of them from either side less of a racist in their attitudes towards blacks? On the whole, no.

But Union soldiers come to the unescapable conclusion that unless the cause of the war was removed, it would come back all over again, thus their new-founded determination to eliminate the institution root and branch.

You are correct in your post#24 in saying the war was not for the benefit of the slaves. The South did not leave the Union to benefit the slaves and the North did not go to war to prevent secession for the benefit of the slaves.

But you refuse to see and to learn WHY the South left the Union and WHY the North finally came around to such acts as the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

In fact, Frederick Douglas was right when he made the statement that I use as part of my signature line.

You don't have to accept it and you can keep right on trying to prove it was about something else, but you are going to have to keep dealing with it as long as there are those who read history, ALL of it, without picking and snipping the parts of it they like and deleting whole chapters of it they don't.

Unionblue

[trice]

Unionblue,

Originally Posted by unionblue

The South left the Union in order to ensure the safety and continuation of the institution of slavery. The South's leaders knew it, the men in the street knew it and the farmers and common citizens knew it and all that served in the Confederate armed forces knew it.

I agree that this is why the South seceded. The various state secession conventions made no bones about it as they released their formal declarations on the causes of secession. Only Texas (with their additional claim that the US had not honored the obligation to protect them from Indians and bandits as provided in the annexation) raised another serious reason for secession. Certainly the leaders of Southern secession (men like Rhett and the rest of the Fire-Eaters) were adamant in insisting that they were seceding over slavery.

Originally Posted by unionblue

The North went to war to preserve the Union. The average Union soldier cared little about the slaves or their condition. The North was no different from the South in its racists attitudes toward the black race, free or slave.

Before the attack on Ft. Sumter, the largest single opinion in the North seems to have been that there was no "right of secession", but that there was also no Federal power to use force to compel the seceding states to remain. (This is also in line with several Supreme Court decisions of the day, such as Kentucky v. Denison.)

On the day the news of the bombardment of Ft. Sumter arrived in any particular area that attitude disappeared; men scrambled to sign up; and an unrelenting anger against those who had fired on the flag burned bright. That blow is what brought the North to war.

There was in 1860 a strong opinion in the country that slavery should come to an end, and certainly should not be allowed to expand. But if it were not for the actions of the seceding states from December 1860 to April 1861, no Northern state would have supported a war to free the slaves.

In that sense, this war was to preserve the Union. By their violent actions, the seceding states threw away any chance of a peaceful separation and turned themselves into rebels in the eyes of the rest of the country.

Regards,
Tim

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by unionblue:
The North went to war to preserve the Union. The average Union soldier cared little about the slaves or their condition. The North was no different from the South in its racists attitudes toward the black race, free or slave.


Neil; I submit "The average SOUTHERN soldier cared little about the slaves or their condition."

When you average it out, civil war.


You gotta admit, taking on the US Army (after they organized a bit) took some fortitude and resolve. That's the part we Southerners honor today, not to mention our Union ancestors who had their goal of stopping the carnage, preserving peace and restoring the nation somewhere in the back of their minds. Killling yanks and rebs got to be a distraction there for a while.

[cash]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Neil; I submit "The average SOUTHERN soldier cared little about the slaves or their condition."

Actually, as Chandra Manning shows quite persuasively, the average confederate soldier cared very much about keeping the slaves enslaved, whether he owned slaves or not.

Regards,
Cash

[unionblue]

Larry,

You quote above:

Neil, I submit "The averarge SOUTHERN soldier cared little about the slaves or their condition."

Sorry, Larry, at one time I believed that and I even think you may find some earlier posts of mine on this board that may say this. I no longer believe this.

I have come to the unescapleable historical fact that the great majority of Southerners believed that slavery had to be kept intact and knowingly went to war to do so.

It is partially based on the book cash mentions, but my other research and books have led me to this personal conclusion even before it came out.

And no, Larry, I do not admit that taking on the US Army, a small and scattered force that posed no serious threat to the South, took fortitude and resolve. It took fear and arrogance, fear over what possible emancapation of the slaves might bring and arrogance that their fears and concerns trumped the laws and concerns of the majority of the nation's people.

This is not to say they were not brave nor good people and felt real concern over losing their way of life. Slavery was legal and they had been told all their lives there was nothing wrong with it. But they brought on a war over fear of losing this institution and the safety they thought it brought to them, their families and their way of life.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Larry,

You quote above:



Sorry, Larry, at one time I believed that and I even think you may find some earlier posts of mine on this board that may say this. I no longer believe this.

I have come to the unescapleable historical fact that the great majority of Southerners believed that slavery had to be kept intact and knowingly went to war to do so.

It is partially based on the book cash mentions, but my other research and books have led me to this personal conclusion even before it came out.

And no, Larry, I do not admit that taking on the US Army, a small and scattered force that posed no serious threat to the South, took fortitude and resolve. It took fear and arrogance, fear over what possible emancapation of the slaves might bring and arrogance that their fears and concerns trumped the laws and concerns of the majority of the nation's people.

This is not to say they were not brave nor good people and felt real concern over losing their way of life. Slavery was legal and they had been told all their lives there was nothing wrong with it. But they brought on a war over fear of losing this institution and the safety they thought it brought to them, their families and their way of life.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil, while your logic, articulation, courteous manner, and knowledge of the war and the associated politics remain impeccable, you still, like my 91 Sanoma, have a few blind spots with regards to the rear view.

You wrote: " I have come to the unescapleable historical fact that the great majority of Southerners believed that slavery had to be kept intact and knowingly went to war to do so. " We, surprise, continue to disagree on this one. Being a bit biased, I still think I'm right. I base my opinion on as much genealogical and historic research as I've been able to muster these last several decades. While I don't disagree that there were folks running around such as you describe, I'm just as confident that my own southern ancestors, blue and gray, weren't overly impressed with the slavery issue, one way or the other.

I don't believe a majority of southern soldiers had been told all their lives "there was nothing wrong with it ". More than you admit in the south perhaps rarely if ever discussed slavery. There was no need to if you didn't own slaves, couldn't afford to even want any, didn't personally know or had met one, and weren't effected by the economics of the plantation system. Subsistance farmers, the VAST majority of the southern force, came from that background. As much as many northerners might like to imagine and weave into their arguments trying to blame slavery on the south, without accepting that it was a national disease and very bad habit, we didn't all live on or even near plantations. Cotton won't grow in granite. Now, for those uppity southerners who could read and discuss the issues of the government, I must believe they concluded that slavery was not a good thing. That doesn't mean those concerns or conclusions were carried into battle. In the south, slavery was slowly (key word) diminishing well before the civil war began. A southern soldier was shooting at a blue uniform, mostly because it was shooting at him.

My point about fighting against the US Army had to do with the period from about 1863 'til war's end in 1865. Yes, it took the US Army a while to get organized and up to strength. After all, they had lost many of their better commanders to the Confederate cause. Aside from Mexico, as you well know, this was not a military nation just prior to the time our favorite ruckus commenced.

Please continue to espouse your slightly innaccurate, overly generalized conclusions. I learn much from them and you have many times given me reason to think, at least to the extend I'm capable. I treasure your 'friendship' and hope we can continue to generate enough thought for ourselves and others who may read this mess, to make this worthwhile. The American civil war and the soldiers caught up in the conflict, from whatever background and choice of reason, deserve no less.

[unionblue]

Larry,

Blind spots? I have blind spots?

Larry, I have no problem that we disagree on why Southerners, even nonslaveholding ones, went to war. That we are both biased on some issues is not much of a shocker either, after all the posts we have exchanged since we have been members of this board.

I will admit that you have much to be confident about your own research into your ancestors and their attitudes towards slavery, the causes of the Civil War, etc. I have no access to that personal history and have no cause to doubt your word as you have never done me false or tried to twist history or mislead me about that history. I accept without reservation that you have given me the truth on the matter of your ancestors.

But that's where we part ways. And I am very sure you are not surprised over that.

As for the idea that a majority of Southern soldiers had NOT been told all their lives that there was nothing wrong with slavery, what do you base that observation on? And I totally disagree that slavery was 'rarely discussed.' That's just plain impossible, what with it being the central issue of contention in the years leading up to the war and during it.

Did they talk about it every second of every day? No, just like you and I do not talk about the war in Iraq every second of every day. But it something that we discuss and have opinions on. Just because these folks grew up in a rural setting or worked a farm and had no slaves of their own does not mean the did not have feeling or views on it or that it never came up. Again, what were all those slave patrols about?

Those Southerners had to have a reason to join the army and shoot at that fellow in the blue uniform before the shooting started. They didn't plow one day and fire at yankees the next.

And the debate, continues.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Neil, could it be myopia rather than blindness?

More minor debate:

You wrote: "As for the idea that a majority of Southern soldiers had NOT been told all their lives that there was nothing wrong with slavery, what do you base that observation on? And I totally disagree that slavery was 'rarely discussed.' That's just plain impossible, what with it being the central issue of contention in the years leading up to the war and during it."

Guess the key word here is majority. Substantial is also a good word. I have full confidence that slavery was very likely not a daily topic in the hill country of Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and Kentucky. Do I know for sure. Of course not, aside from impressions drawn from reading accounts of daily life and attitudes in general. Daily survival was a topic of discussion without a doubt. Slaves to a man with no slaves or use for them was about as exciting as Vanderbilt football before diversity set in.

You also typed:

"They didn't plow one day and fire at yankees the next."

The ones who were lucky enough not to have their guns stolen by raiding parties certainly did. I will concede that a few, like two of my Union ancestors, did in fact go through a sign up period and a bit of advanced training. Great grandpa Rouse had been through two years with the 48th Virginia Infantry before taking the oath in late April 1864. He was already trained.

War came on folks from all directions. Some were more ready than others. Let the debate draw to a slow walk. I'd rather just discuss and hone my skills at helping you see through the shadows. I welcome your corrections and attention to detail. You see much truth through your Blue eyes. It's just the details that often cause the fog.