Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Blue has a lot of fun with our LEFT. Clearly this is more Stephens-esque drivel.
Sorry, Stephens didn't write this one.
Quotes from Davis or Lee on the subject?
I think not.
You're kidding, right? With Lee's statement that slavery was the best condition for the black man and Davis saying that it took a superior race of white men to get him to accomplish anything? Think hard and then think again.
"In this enlightened age, there are a few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong form the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence." Robert E. Lee, in a letter to his wife, December 27, 1856.
Your DENIAL, I believe, runs through the North as a flash flood tributary!
You have to say something funny in order for it to be so.
B-Wulf
More like D-Wulf.
And BTW, wasn't that part of Arkansas under Yankee control for much of the war, according to that new guy who posted ?
You're denying this was from a Confederate newspaper? Well, I guess that makes sense from a fantasy point-of-view. Talk about DENIAL. Sorry, but it is what it is, a Confederate newspaper talking about not arming slaves.
And since Lincoln didn't shut it down, it had to have been a RADICAL UNCONSERVATIVE newspaper! (Note the use of the word CONSERVATIVE in the text... Rarely do I see CONSERVATIVES use the word themselves... Always I hear it from the LEFT...).
More DENIAL, but not unexpected when facing a historical source that blows up any valid argument you could provide.
But this writing?
Nothing Pro Negro. This slave state condition would be necessary for Lincoln men to ship them all back to Africky...
Nothing Pro-Confederate. At all...
Lincoln would have been satisfied, I think...
Beowulf
Pity is not the word I am looking for right now, but it will have to do.
The Pity is that you can NOT determine real history, even if it smacked you dead in the face or kicked you square in the a**. No, Pity is not the word I could use, for it would mean that you are simply mistaken, and not locked into a pattern of thought that you happily indulge in, no matter what the historical evidence, no matter how beyond reproach it would be.
LOST is a better word, but since you take such a path by your own choice, so that can't be right either.
Willful, contrived, enforced, and wholly embraced lack of historical fact, is something that you appear to work hard at, struggling to maintain this alternate reality at the risk of learning anything factual concerning history.
Loss. That's the word I'm looking for, and now I know exactly what I wish to say.
Your loss.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The implication of the site is that there were large numbers of black Confederate soldiers "in the ranks" an opinion I do not support, as it gives the impression that they were soldiers and only 13,000 got the chance to see combat.
I am beginning to question the number 13,000 ever saw combat.
The site is the one that is misrepresenting itself, as the numberous quotes by historians have been repeatedly disproven on this forum and elsewhere.
I stand by my post.
Unionblue
So you know how many Union negros saw combat then?. Which is same % the author used to estimate CSA negros who saw combat from those estimated to have served in the CSA mil.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
SEGREGATION IN THE NORTH When deTouqeville visited America he noticed that in the North whites worked exclusively on construction (unions pre- Civil War were started to keep Blacks from the jobs), but in the South he was shocked to see Blacks and whites working side by side. In the next few posts I'll examine the race codes pre and post Civil War. Will the rhetoric of the North match the facts? We'll find out.
Most people assume that school segregation was a phenomenon exclusive to the South. In his latest book, "Jim Crow Moves North: The Battle Over Northern School Segregation, 1865-1954," law professor Davison M. Douglas examines the untold story of northern school segregation between the end of the Civil War and the early 1950s. Douglas, the Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law, is a legal historian with an expertise on the interplay of race and law in American history. He recently sat down with the W&M News to discuss his book, which is being published by Cambridge University Press and will be available this month in stores.
Q: How did you become interested in writing this book? Douglas: I grew up in the South and had been interested in the southern civil rights movement since my childhood. In my first book, I examined school desegregation in the pivotal southern city of Charlotte, N.C. In the course of doing research for that book in the archives of the NAACP, I discovered a number of legal disputes in northern states during the first half of the 20th century involving school segregation. I had known that many northern communities had operated racially separate schools, but I had always assumed that such segregation was due to residential segregation. What I noticed in the NAACP archives, though, was that many northern towns segregated schoolchildren in a manner similar to southern towns, by establishing a white school for all of the town's white children and a "colored" school for all of the town's black children. Or by operating a single school with racially separate classrooms, racially separate playgrounds, and even racially separate American flags. The more I researched, the more examples I found of this kind of explicit segregation in the North. I realized that most of us don't know much about this aspect of our nation's history and so decided to write a book exploring the history of northern school segregation.
Q: The casual observer probably assumes that school segregation was just a southern practice. Why do you think the story of the north has not been told? Douglas: School segregation was so overwhelming in the South – every southern state had laws that mandated racially separate schools and compliance with those laws was 100 percent. By the same token, most northern states had laws that prohibited school segregation. Hence, most historians interested in studying school segregation have focused their attention on the South – and in the process have missed a really interesting story.
BLACK LIFE IN THE LAND OF LINCOLN: ILLINOIS, INDIANA
The legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana's code when it organized as a territory. The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race. Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[1]
Like colonization, exclusion ordinances often were advanced by self-professed friends of the black race who saw only tragedy in attempts of the races to share the same land. Robert Dale Owen, speaking in Indiana in 1850, asked if any decent person desired "the continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and death." The rhetoric hardly is an exaggeration: during the constitutional debate in the state that year, one speaker had frankly acknowledged, "It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is no other way to get rid of them. ... We know how the Puritans did with the Indians, who were infinitely more magninimous and less impudent than the colored race." Not content with mere legislation, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon had anti-immigration provisions built into their constitutions. In Illinois (1848), in clause-by-clause voting, this clause was approved by voters by more than 2 to 1. Most of the opposition to it came from the northern counties of the state, where blacks were few. In Indiana (1851), it was approved by a larger margin than the constitution itself. In Oregon (1857), the vote for it was 8 to 1. The Illinois act stayed on the books until 1865. Such laws were seldom invoked, but they served blacks as grinding reminders of apartheid intentions and legal subjugation, and they offered white authorities and mobs excuses for harassment and violence against blacks. The Black Codes dealt with more than just settlement. Oregon forbid blacks to hold real estate, make contracts, or bring lawsuits. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and California prohibited them from testifying in cases where a white man was a party. When the Illinois state constitution was adopted in 1818, it limited the vote to "free white men" and excluded blacks from the militia.
On closer examination, even the designation of "free state" can be question in a case like that of Illinois. Illinois, as a territory where slaves were held, had been restricting the freedom of black residents since before it became a state. In December 1813, Illinois Territory prohibited free blacks to immigrate to the territory and decreed all who did must leave within 15 days after notice or receive 39 lashes. As a state, it maintained the black codes inherited when it had formed part of Indiana, and thus continued its system of what one historian has described as "registered and indentured slavery."[2]
[S]he permitted non-resident slave-owners to hire their slaves to citizens of Illinois for a period of twelve months, yet not give the slave his freedom; and justified her act with the excuse that laborers were wanted to erect mills and open up the country, and that salt could not be profitably manufactured by white men.[3]
When the legislature once attempted to alter the black law to strip out the provision that allowed slaves to be imported into the colony, the governor vetoed it. Furthermore, Illinois wouldn't even emancipate the few old slaves who had been in the territory since before 1787. Every person bound to service or indenture in the territory was to continue as such under state government, though children born of such persons were to be emancipated -- the boys at 24, the girls at 18. http://www.slavenorth.com/northwest.htm DENYING the PAST
As the reality of slavery in the North faded, and a strident anti-Southern abolitionism arose there, the memory of Northern slaves, when it surfaced at all, tended to focus on how happy and well-treated they had been, in terms much reminiscent of the so-called "Lost Cause" literature that followed the fall of the Confederacy in 1865.
"The slaves in Massachusetts were treated with almost parental kindness. They were incorporated into the family, and each puritan household being a sort of religious structure, the relative duties of master and servant were clearly defined. No doubt the severest and longest task fell to the slave, but in the household of the farmer or artisan, the master and the mistress shared it, and when it was finished, the white and the black, like the feudal chief and his household servant, sat down to the same table, and shared the same viands." [Reminiscence by Catharine Sedgwick (1789-1867) of Stockbridge, Mass.]
Yet the petitions for freedom from New England and Mid-Atlantic blacks, and the numbers in which they ran off from their masters to the British during the Revolution, suggest rather a different picture. Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish. In the rhetorical battle, New England backed the South right out of the American mainstream. The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."[1] "This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."[2] Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.
....The site is the one that is misrepresenting itself, as the numberous quotes by historians have been repeatedly disproven on this forum and elsewhere.
I stand by my post.
Unionblue
The point at hand is not whether there were blacks in the Richmond Howitzers or what Dr. Lewis Steiner saw or did not see...but your misrepresentation of the site- "65,000 armed, black Confederate soldiers"
There are many 'Black Confederate' sites. Only a few make the claim of 50,000-100,000 blacks enlisted as soldiers....yet it has become a common trick to apply this claim to all.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Lincoln Lovers have long ago used word games to hide the true history of the war. SLAVERY ENDED! Wait a second, what about apartheid after the war? Oh, that was reconstruction. I don't know anything about that. Weren't there Blacks that fought for the South, in the fields of battle and the plantations? Of course not! It's a myth!
The introduction of hatred of Blacks came from the North. To convince the gerneration that had been children during the war that Blacks were the enemy and establish the Democratic Party as sole ruler of the South, the Black Confederate, as well as the slaves that were raped by the North, and the slaves that fought the North on the plantations, had to be eliminated.
DO NOT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE! IT MUST NOT BE TRUE!
If we listen to yankees, these pics were photoshopped- A CENTURY BEFORE PHOTOSHOPPING EXISTED!
Before statues and stories were cleaned up to eliminate the Black soldier- one statue put one in!
They deny these comments were ever made: "We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability. There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us, and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us."
-- Charles Tinsley, Free Black, Pocahontas, Petersburg, Va.
"Realizing that many free Black households would be in want following the departure of their husbands on voluntary work, the Petersburg City Council voted family assistance funds for wives and children left behind. Such assistance continued for the length of the war."
-- Minutes of the Petersburg City Council April 23, 1861, office of the clerk of the City Council, City Hall, Petersburg, Virginia.
"A ladies group on Bollingbrook Street sewed a banner for the labor corps and in a ceremony held in front of the Petersburg Court House on the morning of their departure Attorney John Dodson, a former mayor, presented the flag to the men about to leave. Dodson promised the men that they would "...reap a rich reward of praise and merit from a thankful people. Charles Tinsley, a bricklayer, who spoke for the group, replied":We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability. There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us, and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us." On April 25, 1861 over three hundred free Blacks, and a few slaves "volunteered" by their owners, left Petersburg by train for labor service on the fortifications of Norfolk with their own Confederate flag, and leader."
-- From Petersburg in the Civil War, War at the Door, William D. Henderson
"We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability. There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us, and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us."
-- Charles Tinsley, Free Black, Pocahontas, Petersburg, Va.
But a few tell the truth: Black Confederate Soldiers by Walter Williams
DURING OUR WAR OF 1861, ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government." Dr. Lewis Steiner, a Union Sanitary Commission employee who lived through the Confederate occupation of Frederick, Maryland said, "Most of the Negroes ... were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army." Erwin L. Jordan's book "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" cites eyewitness accounts of the Antietam campaign of "armed blacks in rebel columns bearing rifles, sabers, and knives and carrying knapsacks and haversacks." After the Battle of Seven Pines in June 1862, Union soldiers said that "two black Confederate regiments not only fought but showed no mercy to the Yankee dead or wounded whom they mutilated, murdered and robbed." In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them" in defense of Virginia. Erwin L. Jordan cites one case where a captured group of white slave owners and blacks were offered freedom if they would take an oath of allegiance to the United States. One free black indignantly replied, "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh ******." A slave in the group upon learning that his master refused to take the oath said, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave said, "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." One of the slave owners took the oath but his slave, who didn't take the oath, returning to Virginia under a flag of truce, expressed disgust at his master's disloyalty saying, "Massa had no principles." Horace Greeley, in pointing out some differences between the two warring armies said, "For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union." General Nathan Bedford Forrest had both slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, General Forrest said of the black men who served under him "(T)hese boys stayed with me ... and better Confederates did not live." It was not just Southern generals who owned slaves but northern generals owned them as well. General Ulysses Grant's slaves had to await the Thirteenth Amendment for freedom. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, General Grant said, "Good help is so hard to come by these days." These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States. The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor.
Let's see, the North lied about slavery in the North. It lied about reconstruction. It lied about the suspension of habeus corpus and shutting down of newspapers and arrests without trials of thousands.
Gee, ya think they lie about Black Confederates, too? Reconstruction begins- with the removal of the Black Confederate!
Don't fall for Lincoln apologists word games either- since the time of the Greeks and Romans. all who march into battle, are subject to the rules of war and the military.
lol A bunch of black guys standing in front of a plain structre with guns.. wearing BLUE!! You got us! Apparently not only did the CS army have black soldiers... they were more well equipped that and their white counterparts! It all makes sense now... LMAO!! Not to mention none of those articles has a single source...
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Beat me to it Dred. A photo of a USCT company passed off as black confederates. The first set of "quotes" (both cut from the same "news" article -- note the similarity) was reported shortly after Virginia seized US Navy facilities at Norfolk. The timing of the article and its publisher makes the writer's motivation suspect. Note also that the reported group is a labor gang. Although it might be possible that 300 freedmen and slaves volunteered to work on fortifications, it is a single source newspaper report.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
lol A bunch of black guys standing in front of a plain structre with guns.. wearing BLUE!! You got us! Apparently not only did the CS army have black soldiers... they were more well equipped that and their white counterparts! It all makes sense now... LMAO!! Not to mention none of those articles has a single source...
Okay, so aside from the b/w photo of negroes wearing (Blue? Or is it that godawful Green, which would be the same shade in B/W, that they got from dying out the Blue...)
and the lack of a primary source.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
?
Linear Mode
