Restricted "Faithful Slave" Monuments and "Lost Cause" Marketing...

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,839
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Lincoln’s AG should have tested it, after all he had 4 years to do so. Maybe Abe didn’t want him to because of how it might negatively affect his war effort. Or maybe Abe believed it was good law.
It was the Lincoln administration's inquiry that prompted the ruling. Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase had sent a letter to Attorney General Bates in regards to a schooner, the Elizabeth and Margaret, that had been detained by the revenue cutter Tiger because it had been "commanded by a colored man, and so by a person not a citizen of the United States." Chase noted that "colored masters" were quite numerous in the coastal trade and wanted a legal opinion on the question, "Are colored men citizens of the United States, and therefore competent to command American vessels?"

Attorney General Bates issued a 27 page legal opinion on November 29, 1862 that included "if this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance."

Bates concluded that "the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States..." The legal opinion was never challenged nor overturned so it remained law.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,954
Location
Midwest
Lincoln’s AG should have tested it, after all he had 4 years to do so. Maybe Abe didn’t want him to because of how it might negatively affect his war effort. Or maybe Abe believed it was good law.
What law? The only actual legal result of the case was that Scott was not a citizen so therefore could not bring suit. That's it. The decision itself had no enforcement component to it (as someone else here so deftly pointed out in an earlier thread, swaying my prior understanding of it).

Taney was not required to write an opinion in the ruling on how the decision should affect the law, but he did, and that was a blatant attempt to invite a follow-on challenge to any state's right to ban slavery. SvS was now a precedent useful in blocking any attempt by slaves or their representatives to defend the status quo in the free states.

A lawyer himself, Abe saw no need to wake that sleeping dog. At a minimum it would have been stupid (at counter purposes) for anyone in his circle to initiate a next round.
 
Last edited:

RobertP

Major
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
9,242
Location
on the long winding road
It was the Lincoln administration's inquiry that prompted the ruling. Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase had sent a letter to Attorney General Bates in regards to a schooner, the Elizabeth and Margaret, that had been detained by the revenue cutter Tiger because it had been "commanded by a colored man, and so by a person not a citizen of the United States." Chase noted that "colored masters" were quite numerous in the coastal trade and wanted a legal opinion on the question, "Are colored men citizens of the United States, and therefore competent to command American vessels?"

Attorney General Bates issued a 27 page legal opinion on November 29, 1862 that included "if this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance."

Bates concluded that "the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States..." The legal opinion was never challenged nor overturned so it remained law.
So, there was really no need for a 14th Amendment?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,954
Location
Midwest
So, there was really no need for a 14th Amendment?
Yes there still was a need, as Bates' spelled out in his own statement, excerpt "who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right."
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,874
Location
District of Columbia
It is not inconsequential, it is the underlining principle of almost everything you see or ever read about the Civil War. There is a great deal of "We were right" to make the other side look poorly. "The Lost Cause", "Faithful Servant", "It was all about slavery" phrases are 100% intended to say "We were right and you were evil!".

There was a real "The Lost Cause" and there is a real "The Righteous North" and they both are wrong. To ignore the importance of "We were right", and what that tangibly looks like, in Civil War history is missing one of the most important facts of all.
O_G,

I would also point you to post #114, which discusses the resistance to the proposed Mammy Monument for Washington, DC. The most prominent group in that resistance was African American women.

It wasn't about the North vs the South for them. I think they felt that a monument about their mothers and grandmothers taking care of somebody else's children, which said nothing about black women taking care of their own children, was not an honor, but rather, a source of revulsion. The North-South thing was not relevant.

- Alan
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

RobertP

Major
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
9,242
Location
on the long winding road
An amendment always trumps an AG's legal opinion that could be overturned if contested in a Federal court.
Lincoln’s party controlled Congress. They could have enacted Legislation at any time during the war that would have voided Scott. You know that. Why they didn’t is up for speculation but I suspect that any new law equating the two races would have been very unpopular to a majority of US citizens and harmful to the war effort. Why can’t you accept the obvious.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,839
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Lincoln’s party controlled Congress. They could have enacted Legislation at any time during the war that would have voided Scott. You know that. Why they didn’t is up for speculation but I suspect that any new law equating the two races would have been very unpopular to a majority of US citizens and harmful to the war effort. Why can’t you accept the obvious.
Whoa! I am not arguing for or against anything. I simply posted what actually happened and the well-known fact that a constitutional amendment does in fact trump an Attorney General's opinion You need to lighten up.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,127
Location
SF Bay Area
O_G,

I would also point you to post #114, which discusses the resistance to the proposed Mammy Monument for Washington, DC. The most prominent group in that resistance was African American women.

It wasn't about the North vs the South for them. I think they felt that a monument about their mothers and grandmothers taking care of somebody else's children, which said nothing about black women taking care of their own children, was not an honor, but rather, a source of revulsion. The North-South thing was not relevant.

- Alan
Too often the Black South (40% of the South at the time of the Confederacy) gets ignored when things are simplified down to North vs South.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,954
Location
Midwest
Lincoln’s party controlled Congress. They could have enacted Legislation at any time during the war that would have voided Scott.
What? No they couldn't. Separate branch of the government even then.

And there wasn't any reason to "void" Scott v Sanford anyway. It hadn't mandated that a state had no right to ban slavery, it merely included an opinion that invited that challenge. It was not in the interest of Lincoln or the Republican Congress to stir the pot at that point. All the free states remained free, no action necessary.

The reason folks were so excited over SvS is because of the precedent that it did set; that black slaves or their representatives could not bring suit over the issue, thus widening the door for a successful legal challenge that could lead to re-establishing slavery in all the states where it had been banned.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,874
Location
District of Columbia
Lincoln’s party controlled Congress. They could have enacted Legislation at any time during the war that would have voided Scott. You know that. Why they didn’t is up for speculation but I suspect that any new law equating the two races would have been very unpopular to a majority of US citizens and harmful to the war effort. Why can’t you accept the obvious.
I'm not really sure what the controversy is. It was never in the Republican platform to address the issue of black citizenship. To the extent that the Lincoln administration addressed the issue, they went above and beyond their stated political objectives.
In 1862, US Attorney-General Edward Bates issued an Opinion on citizenship:

OPINION. ATTORNEY GENERAL' S OFFICE, November 29, 1862.
(To) HON. S. P. CHASE, Secretary of the Treasury.
SIR: Some time ago I had the honor to receive your letter submitting, for my opinion, the question whether or not colored men can be citizens of the United States. The urgency of other unavoidable engagements, and the great importance of the question itself, have caused me to delay the answer until now.

Your letter states that "the schooner Elizabeth and Margaret, of New Brunswick, is detained by the revenue cutter Tiger, at South Amboy, New Jersey, because commanded by a 'colored man,' and so by a person not a citizen of the United States. As colored masters are numerous in our coasting trade, I submit, for your opinion, the question suggested by Captain Martin, of the Tiger: Are colored men citizens of the United States, and therefore competent to command American vessels?"

The question would have been more clearly stated if, instead of saying are colored men citizens, it had been said, can colored men be citizens of the United States; for within our borders and upon our ships, both of war and commerce, there may be colored men, and white men, also, who'are not citizens of the United States.

In treating the subject, I shall endeavor to answer your question as if it imported only this: Is a man legally incapacitated to be a citizen of the United States by the sole fact that he is a colored, and not a white man? Who is a citizen? What constitutes a citizen of the United States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and, the records of our courts, for a clear and satisfactory definition of' the phrase citizen of the United States. I find no such definition, no, authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by' a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government...

...Finally, the celebrated case of Scott vs. Sanford, 19 Howard's Reports, 393, is sometimes cited as a direct authority against the capacity of free persons of color to be citizens of the United States. That is an entire mistake. The case, as it stands of record, does not determine, nor purport to determine, that question...

...upon the whole matter, I give it as my opinion that the man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, and, if otherwise qualified, is competent according to the acts of Congress, to be master of a vessel...

...your obedient servant, EDWARD BATES, Attorney General.​

In that opinion, Bates essentially says that people of color are citizens of the United States, if they were born in the US. Within the text of the opinion, Bates notes in some detail that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court did not technically have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of citizenship for free blacks, and therefore, the Court's ruling on that issue was not controlling.

- continues -

- Alan
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,874
Location
District of Columbia
Lincoln’s party controlled Congress. They could have enacted Legislation at any time during the war that would have voided Scott. You know that. Why they didn’t is up for speculation but I suspect that any new law equating the two races would have been very unpopular to a majority of US citizens and harmful to the war effort. Why can’t you accept the obvious.
- continued from above -

Many blacks of the time, including, for example, Frederick Douglass, hailed Bates' opinion, saying that finally, African Americans were recognized as US citizens. This is an excerpt from a speech by Douglass on July 6th, 1863. This is long, but the context provided in the earlier parts of the speech is useful for understanding the later comments.

... the difference between the fundamental ideas of the Confederate Government and those of the Federal Government (is that) one is based on the idea that colored men are an inferior race who may be enslaved and plundered forever and to the hearts content of any men of different complexion, while the Federal government recognizes the natural and fundamental equality of all men (applause). I say again we all know that this Jefferson Davis government holds out to us nothing but fetters, chains, auction blocks, bludgeons, branding irons and eternal slavery and degradation. If it triumphs in this contest, woe, woe, ten thousand woes, to the black man! Such of us who are free, in all the likelihoods of the case, would be given over to the most excruciating tortures, while the last hope of the long crushed bondman would be extinguished forever (Sensation).

Now what is the attitude of the Washington Government toward the colored race? What reason do we have to desire its triumph in the present contest? Mind, I do not ask what was its attitude towards us before this bloody rebellion broke out. I do not ask what was the disposition when it was controlled by the very men who are now fighting to destroy it, when they could no longer control it. I do not even ask what it was two years ago when McClellan shamelessly gave out that in a war between loyal slaves and disloyal masters, he would take the side of the masters against the slaves; when he openly proclaimed his purpose to put down slave insurrections with an iron hand; when glorious Ben Butler (Cheers and applause), now stunned into a conversion to anti-slavery principles (which I have every reason to believe sincere), proffered his services to the Governor of Maryland to suppress a slave insurrection, while treason ran riot in that State, and the warm, red blood of Massachusetts soldiers still stained the pavements of Baltimore.

I do not ask what was the attitude of this Government when many of the officers and men who had undertaken to defend it, openly threatened to throw down their arms and leave the service, if men of color should step forward to defend it, and be invested with the dignity of soldiers. Moreover, I do not ask what was the position of this government when our loyal camps were made slave-hunting grounds, and United States officers performed the disgusting duty of slave dogs to hunt down slaves for rebel masters.

These were all dark and terrible days for the Republic. I do not ask you about the dead past. I bring you to the living present.

Events more mighty than men, eternal Providence, all-wise and all-controlling, have placed us in new relations to the government and the government to us, what that government is to us today, and what it till be tomorrow, is made evident by a very few facts. Look at them, colored men. Slavery in the district of Columbia is abolished forever; slavery in all the territories of the United States is abolished forever; the foreign slave trade, with its ten thousand revolting abominations, is rendered impossible; slavery in ten States of the Union is abolished forever; slavery in the five remaining States is as certain to follow the same fate as the night is to follow the day. The independence of Haiti is recognized; her Minister sits beside our Prime Minister, Mr. Seward, and dines at his table in Washington, while colored men are excluded from the cars in Philadelphia; showing that a black man’s complexion in Washington, in the presence of the Federal Government, is less offensive than in the city of brotherly love. Citizenship is no longer denied us under this government.

Under the interpretation of our rights by Attorney General Bates, we are American citizens. We can import goods, own and sail ships, and travel in foreign countries with American passports in our pockets; and now, so far from there being any opposition, so far from excluding us from the army as soldiers, the President at Washington, the Cabinet and the Congress, the General commanding and the whole army of the nation unite in giving us one thunderous welcome to share with them in the honor and glory of suppressing treason and upholding the Star Spangled banner. The revolution is tremendous, and it becomes us as wise men to recognize the change and to shape our action accordingly (Cheers and cries of We will)…

Never since the world began was a better chance offered to a long enslaved and oppressed people. The opportunity is given us to be men. With one courageous resolution we may blot out the hand-writing of ages against us. Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letters U. S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder, and bullets in his pocket, and there is no power on earth or under the earth which can deny that he has earned the right of citizenship in the United States (Laughter and applause). I say again, this is our chance, and woe betide us if we fail to embrace it.

The Atty Gen opinion, and the end of the prohibition on black enlistment, led many African Americans to believe that the federal government was finally recognizing that African Americans had citizenship rights and privileges, as well as duties and responsibilities, on par with those of whites.

- continues -

- Alan
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,874
Location
District of Columbia
Lincoln’s party controlled Congress. They could have enacted Legislation at any time during the war that would have voided Scott. You know that. Why they didn’t is up for speculation but I suspect that any new law equating the two races would have been very unpopular to a majority of US citizens and harmful to the war effort. Why can’t you accept the obvious.
- concluded -

The Republican Party would add to its portfolio of legislation to afford civil rights to African Americans:

• Republicans who championed the 13th Amendment (abolish slavery), the 14th Amendment (give African Americans citizenship rights), and the 15th Amendment (black male suffrage rights).

• The Civil Rights Act of 1866: This act granted black citizens equal rights to contract, to sue and be sued, to marry, travel, and own property. It made all citizens subject to "like punishment, pains and penalties." Any person guilty of depriving citizens of their stated rights because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude could be fined, imprisoned or both.

• The Reconstruction Act of 1867: This act allowed former slaves to participate fully in the political arena. As a result, African Americans sat in constitutional conventions, helped draft state constitutions, and supported new comprehensive programs for state education in the South.

• The Enforcement Act of 1870: This act stated that all citizens otherwise qualified to vote in any election should not be denied the vote because of race. States could set up prerequisites for voting, but all persons were to have equal access to the vote.

• The Civil Rights Act of 1871: This act set up a system of federal supervision of elections within the states in order to stop illegal voter registration practices.

• The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: This act was intended to protect black citizens against intimidation by illegal action, such as by the KKK, in cases where states could not, or would not, provide protection.

• The Civil Rights Act of 1875: This act entitled all persons the "full and equal enjoyment" of public accommodations, such as hotels, transportation or theaters. It granted blacks the right to sue for personal damages, and allowed any qualified person to serve as a juror. This was the last piece of civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress until 1957.​

Again, the Republicans never said that they were going to address the issue of Black Citizenship (or emancipation, for that matter) in the 1860 election. I don't know that anybody is claiming that the Republicans were this serious exponent of Civil Rights for non-whites when the war began; they weren't. They evolved into it. African Americans like Douglass were very happy for this evolution. The Republicans of the era are responsible in large part for the citizenship rights that African Americans have today.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Stiles/Akin

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
2,146
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Wow that was some expensive marketing. A few thousand for a monument for the lost cause. What exactly was the goal? Why would someone raise money for a slave monument in a time when every dollar counts to try to convince you of anything?
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,951
Location
NC
I hate to break it to you but the world doesn't revolve around the South. Most people outside of the South don't base their historical views on how anything will make the South look or not. They just don't think about the South at all.
I never said it did. But you cannot deny almost all of the negative labels are slanted towards the South when there is ample wrong doing to go around.

I don't see how only faithful servants are being honored simply because a few monuments exist. Modern history almost entirely focuses on rebellious slaves such Frederick Douglass, Harriett Tubman, and the Underground Railroad. That is basically all the names of slaves most people know from the time period (if they even know that).

Tubman and Douglass give an excellent perspective on slavery, but they are not the entire story even remotely. They were extremely political individuals and helped promote the Republican political platform of the era. They are great examples to show "We were right and you were evil". Is that an honorable motivation to promote them?

I think we just see the Civil War differently. It was a political war to achieve economic and political dominance. After the War, it became a struggle to show who was right and try to make sure history remembered their side as being right and justified in all they did. Modern history has turned it into an issue of race.

That is the Civil War in a nutshell.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,850
I think they felt that a monument about their mothers and grandmothers taking care of somebody else's children, which said nothing about black women taking care of their own children, was not an honor, but rather, a source of revulsion.
It is 'a source of revulsion". One wonders how many Black mothers sacrificed their own health and the health of their own children because they were forced to take care of the 'master's' children.
I recall reading with disgust the autobiography of China's last Emperor, Pu Yi, where he noted that as a baby he was nursed by a woman whose child died of malnutrition: she was literally feeding the young Manchu prince milk that should have gone to her own child. Were some enslaved Black women forced into the same dilemma?
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,874
Location
District of Columbia
Wow that was some expensive marketing. A few thousand for a monument for the lost cause. What exactly was the goal? Why would someone raise money for a slave monument in a time when every dollar counts to try to convince you of anything?
The thing is, many whites did appreciate their faithful slaves. They believed that life was good when there were faithful slaves. They wanted this perfect world of slave loyalty to be commemorated.

In volume two of his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter XXVI, former CSA president Jefferson Davis wrote:

The forefathers of these negro soldiers (enlisted by the Union army) were gathered from the torrid plains and malarial swamps of inhospitable Africa. Generally they were born the slaves of barbarian masters, untaught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, and, sold by heathen masters, they were transferred to shores enlightened by the rays of Christianity.

There, put to servitude, they were trained in the gentle arts of peace and order and civilization; they increased from a few unprofitable savages to millions of efficient Christian laborers. Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches.

Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this life-long relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence.

Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other.

The tempter came, like the serpent in Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom."​

These monuments were a way to commemorate the good old days of "strong mutual affection." Apparently, free negroes were not as affectionate.

- Alan
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,127
Location
SF Bay Area
I never said it did.
Maybe not, but you do keep suggesting and implying many views about "faithful slave" monuments and "Black Confederates" are really about attacking the South, so I stand by my point. Many people care far less about attacking the South than you seem to think.

But you cannot deny almost all of the negative labels are slanted towards the South when there is ample wrong doing to go around.
I can in fact deny it. How about start asking people in the South and even many other places what they think of Californians? Maybe ask Southerners about "Yankees", maybe "carpetbaggers." I certainly believe there is ample wrong doing to go around, which is why I don't play a blame game. It's all what the current subject is about. if we're talking about slavery it's going to obviously and objectively focus on the South since that's where most of the slaves were.. If we're talking about industrial worker mistreatment well that's going to go to the North and some other regions. You can guess what the topic of this thread is and how it's naturally going to focus on one region mostly.

White Southerners are not the victims here and it's more than a bit ironic that you're turning a subject about how some slave monuments weren't particularly respectful and about actually honoring the slaves as people into how White Southerners are wronged with negative labels. I mean you get that right? How ironic this is? I mean, of course the worst crime in honoring slaves is how negative labels are applied to White Southerners. Yeah, that's what this really should be about lol.

For some reason every time the topic of honoring and respecting slaves comes up it has to end with how horribly White Southerners were and are picked on. No irony at all.

I don't see how only faithful servants are being honored simply because a few monuments exist.
I never suggested such. My point was that those faithful servant monuments are focused almost completely about honoring slaves in how well they served their White masters. I'm not talking about non-faithful slave monuments... It is in the title and that's what I'm talking about. I think there are plenty of great other monuments out there.

Modern history almost entirely focuses on rebellious slaves such Frederick Douglass, Harriett Tubman, and the Underground Railroad. That is basically all the names of slaves most people know from the time period (if they even know that).
From an individual perspective yes, though the "faithful slave" narrative certainly is out there as a generalization and that's the topic of this thread. Likewise Slaves were nearly 40% of the Confederacy but certainly don't have 40% of Confederate or southern monuments. Maybe you didn't read all the things I actually said but I spent most of my time talking about honoring the rest of the slaves, the ones we have some names too but many we will never have. Them as a people and a culture.

Tubman and Douglass give an excellent perspective on slavery, but they are not the entire story even remotely. They were extremely political individuals and helped promote the Republican political platform of the era. They are great examples to show "We were right and you were evil". Is that an honorable motivation to promote them?
Well I'm glad you're here to correct Tubman and Douglas on how slavery was. Why trust Black slaves from the time when we have a modern White Southerner to tell us how it was. Again you realize the irony right? I can't imagine you don't, I really can't.

I think we just see the Civil War differently. It was a political war to achieve economic and political dominance. After the War, it became a struggle to show who was right and try to make sure history remembered their side as being right and justified in all they did. Modern history has turned it into an issue of race.
Actually I think we see the Civil War similarly, at least in summary. Of course the first group that wanted to achieve economic and political dominance was the South who seceded to gain it absolutely and completely within their power. Then the North followed suit and all the followed in an attempt to return to some sense of normality.

As far as after the war... wow. So it had nothing to do with the 40% of the Confederacy, of the South that was now free. About their struggle for gaining any form of equality with some allies in the North, with some who exploited in the North, and plenty who wanted to reinstate something close to slavery int he South.

It's telling that your summation is devoid of the very significant factors involving the completely change in Black status as a result of all of this. I'm sorry but it was turned into a race issue when one group seceded claiming in their own words to defend racial slavery and even more so when the result of the war was the freeing of that race. No modern history needed, the actual objective undeniable facts are enough. Your attempt to remove race from this explains a lot.

That is the Civil War in a nutshell.
That's a very narrow view of the Civil War.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,127
Location
SF Bay Area
The thing is, many whites did appreciate their faithful slaves. They believed that life was good when there were faithful slaves. They wanted this perfect world of slave loyalty to be commemorated.

In volume two of his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter XXVI, former CSA president Jefferson Davis wrote:

The forefathers of these negro soldiers (enlisted by the Union army) were gathered from the torrid plains and malarial swamps of inhospitable Africa. Generally they were born the slaves of barbarian masters, untaught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, and, sold by heathen masters, they were transferred to shores enlightened by the rays of Christianity.

There, put to servitude, they were trained in the gentle arts of peace and order and civilization; they increased from a few unprofitable savages to millions of efficient Christian laborers. Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches.

Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this life-long relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence.

Never was there happier dependence of labor and capital on each other.

The tempter came, like the serpent in Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom."​

These monuments were a way to commemorate the good old days of "strong mutual affection." Apparently, free negroes were not as affectionate.

- Alan
I don't know if have seen a single sentence be more un-American than this

----
The tempter came, like the serpent in Eden, and decoyed them with the magic word of "freedom."
----
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top