Is the Abbeville Institute a Reliable Source for Information Related to the Civil War?

Status
Not open for further replies.

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Just to follow up...
I wish that this was not the case.
I agree that the story of the old south need to be told, and that there is a risk that the critical role the south played in the creation of the US will be forgotten. And a similar "northern tradition" of the war will end up as the exclusive version in the school books.
(Like how Lincolns fought the war to free the slaves... obviously not the case)

Before the civil war the south was for a long time the region that was pushing the country forward and southerners in the early 19th century was central to what happened.

But doing so with a clear political agenda just undermine the work.
(no matter what political standpoint you come from)

And there are people who do good work on this. Shane Anderson got 3 post on their site... based on work he also shared here.
Like the topic about what newpapers wrote about black confederates.
(As Andersonh1 unless Iam mistaken?)

I often disagree with his interpretation and some times his (historical) "method".
But When he give a quote or numbers or similar I trust that it is correct and he have certainly helped me get a more nuanced view on some topics. (Like black confederates)
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
And there are people who do good work on this. Shane Anderson got 3 post on their site... based on work he also shared here.
Like the topic about what newpapers wrote about black confederates.
(As Andersonh1 unless Iam mistaken?)

I often disagree with his interpretation and some times his (historical) "method".
But When he give a quote or numbers or similar I trust that it is correct and he have certainly helped me get a more nuanced view on some topics. (Like black confederates)

That's me, and Abbeville has published several articles that I've submitted on their blog. I have no problem with anyone questioning my method. When they asked me to write a short bio, I chose the term "amateur" precisely because I'm not a trained historian, I'm just exploring sources and learning and sharing as I learn. I'm glad to hear there's been some value in it for you.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I am very familiar with the content of the articles in question. There is, apart from the Black Confederate trope invented in the 1970's, a collection of the references at the Gore Center at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro TN that contain the foundations of their "history." In the early 1900's schools all over the South received free pamphlets & books from the United Daughters of the Confederacy, etal. Small white children were taught lessons from Your Friend the Klan & books extolling the black propaganda of the Lost Cause. This deliberate rewriting of history was done by people who knew better. There is no more informed condemnation of them than John Singleton Mosby's.

It was the "holy mission" of the UDC to rehabilitate their dead heros who had marched off explicitly to "secure slavery for a thousand years" & convert them into more palatable mystery to a amorphous lost cause. (This is not my opinion, it is literally what the ladies said.) From the 1970's onward, when I first developed an interest in Civil War History, I have had to unlearn the counterfactual narrative passed on to me in my youth.

There is a recently published scholarly book on the appearance of the Black Confederate phenomena. I read through a friend's copy. The dates, articles, speeches & advocates of that phenomenon are exhaustively documented. There is no on the other hand on that subject, it is bogus root, stem & branch.

My opinion:

To be frank, from day one I have been stunned that anybody would actually believe anything as preposterous as black Confederate combatants. The whole idea flies in the face of enlightened self interest. Would slaves actually go to war to guarantee the right of white men to buy & sell their children, have unfeddered sexual access to their women folk & beat them bloody at a whim? Of course, the answer is no, h-ll no! Apparently, waining interest in UFO's left a vacuum that needed filling explains the continued defense of that absurd canard.

I personally have come to terms with my family's slaveholding past. I do not judge them with my 21 Century morals. I accept that they sincerely believed God himself had ordained them as guardians of inferior races. It is profoundly insulting to make out like they went to war to protect an amorphous state right. They were informed, explicit in their beliefs & determined to protect slaveholding with their lives. To say otherwise is akin to blasphemy.

That is my opinion.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
It was the "holy mission" of the UDC to rehabilitate their dead heros who had marched off explicitly to "secure slavery for a thousand years" & convert them into more palatable mystery to a amorphous lost cause. (This is not my opinion, it is literally what the ladies said.)
Where is that quote by the UDC?- "secure slavery for a thousand years"

They were informed, explicit in their beliefs & determined to protect slaveholding with their lives. To say otherwise is akin to blasphemy.

That is my opinion.
That's what I was always told until I started looking more closely at the motives behind the war.

"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price."
Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads."
Richmond Dispatch Feb 17 1863

"the North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money."
Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Spot on.

Bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

That well describes the person in question. He regularly denounced those he disagreed with as "liars," etc.
He's now in exile.
Cash could be abrasive but he was also very knowledgeable about the history. I miss his contributions, as well as a few other posters that don't seem to be here anymore.

Here is his blog for anyone interested: https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/
 

Red Baron

Private
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
I am very familiar with the content of the articles in question. There is, apart from the Black Confederate trope invented in the 1970's, a collection of the references at the Gore Center at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro TN that contain the foundations of their "history." In the early 1900's schools all over the South received free pamphlets & books from the United Daughters of the Confederacy, etal. Small white children were taught lessons from Your Friend the Klan & books extolling the black propaganda of the Lost Cause. This deliberate rewriting of history was done by people who knew better. There is no more informed condemnation of them than John Singleton Mosby's.

It was the "holy mission" of the UDC to rehabilitate their dead heros who had marched off explicitly to "secure slavery for a thousand years" & convert them into more palatable mystery to a amorphous lost cause. (This is not my opinion, it is literally what the ladies said.) From the 1970's onward, when I first developed an interest in Civil War History, I have had to unlearn the counterfactual narrative passed on to me in my youth.

There is a recently published scholarly book on the appearance of the Black Confederate phenomena. I read through a friend's copy. The dates, articles, speeches & advocates of that phenomenon are exhaustively documented. There is no on the other hand on that subject, it is bogus root, stem & branch.

My opinion:

To be frank, from day one I have been stunned that anybody would actually believe anything as preposterous as black Confederate combatants. The whole idea flies in the face of enlightened self interest. Would slaves actually go to war to guarantee the right of white men to buy & sell their children, have unfeddered sexual access to their women folk & beat them bloody at a whim? Of course, the answer is no, h-ll no! Apparently, waining interest in UFO's left a vacuum that needed filling explains the continued defense of that absurd canard.

I personally have come to terms with my family's slaveholding past. I do not judge them with my 21 Century morals. I accept that they sincerely believed God himself had ordained them as guardians of inferior races. It is profoundly insulting to make out like they went to war to protect an amorphous state right. They were informed, explicit in their beliefs & determined to protect slaveholding with their lives. To say otherwise is akin to blasphemy.

That is my opinion.
You make the assumption that all planters beat and raped their slaves.I am not justifying slavery,but that is a ridiculous assumption and not accurate. Most slaves did not leave the south once freed. They sharecropped for many of the same planter families.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
You make the assumption that all planters beat and raped their slaves.I am not justifying slavery,but that is a ridiculous assumption and not accurate. Most slaves did not leave the south once freed. They sharecropped for many of the same planter families.
I do not make any assumptions on the treatment of slaves. Within an arm's length of where I sit are punishment logs from plantations, Tennessee Slave Statutes, lawsuits filed by slaveowners seeking damages for the maltreatment of slaves leased to others, Supreme Court of Alabama decisions regarding slavery & slaves who sued their masters (yep, that was a thing), detailed information from the files of the Bill Gates of the slave trade Franklin's slave trading operation that would gag a buzzard & the testimony of my g-g-grandma about the 14 slaves she had in 1860. So, you might want to read the journal of Fanny Kimible & Mrs. Chestnut on the subject of mixed race slaves in the households of planters. That is the least nauseating way to learn about the sexual exploitation of slave girls. If you want to go for the real eye opener, the "Fancy Girl" (a marketing term for mostly light skinned girls sold as sex slaves, literally) market in New Orleans is a bad dream on steriods. I think you will find as time goes on that I am a facts is facts kinda man. If I am expressing an opinion or speculating, I clearly indicate it.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Where is that quote by the UDC?- "secure slavery for a thousand years"

That's what I always told until I started looking more closely at the motives behind the war.

"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price."
Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads."
Richmond Dispatch Feb 17 1863

"the North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money."
Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861
That is exactly the government line that had to be printed in Charleston. The law in South Carolina made publishing any counter argument to slaveholding or secession punishable to the furthest extent of the law. Mail was censored, as well. There was absolutely no chance of reading anything of a counter argument in those papers. Fortunately, we have access to millions of soldier letters & journals written by Union soldiers. People who have read thousands of them, thankfully not me, report that it was saving the Union that motivated soldiers early on. After they came into contact with slaves & the practice of slavery, the tone of the letters changes dramatically. Aboluttion becomes the major reason they give for fighting. I study the Army of the Cumberland, largely manned by Midwesteners. My reading of soldier letters & journals supports that evolution. The regimental history of the 9th Michigan, who camped &. fought in my front yard, is a particular example.

If you look at the context of my entry, the "secure slavery for a thousand years" was a rallying cry in 1861. Perhaps you prefer "Slavery is our God!", which I always thought was a bit much. You seem to like the Charleston papers, google any one of them during the years preceding the war. You will find that the quotes I have chosen are quite moderate.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Well now! That IS an interesting thing! Please expand and give examples! That alone will make for an interesting discussion and something I've never heard of.
Go to the Smitsonian website. The article on Isaac Franklin, 'Tracing Slavery's Trail of Tears' from a couple of years ago is excellent. All the archives of the largest slave trading operation in the U.S. still exist & are preserved by the N.P.S. Just when you think it could not possibly be worse, you realize that you had no idea what worse is. You can tour the house, Belmont, his extraordinary wife Adalecia built in Nashville. She was perhaps the richest woman in America after the C.W. Her bio reads like pot boiler fiction.

You can google lawsuits involving the treatment of slaves in several states. What I like about lawsuits is that they are stripped of all superfluous trappings. Damage done to leased slaves is recorded in detailed medical reports. The masters are suing for damages in civil court, not for assault in criminal court, albeit that does happen. The Alabama Supreme Court cases brought by slaves against their masters are especially interesting. One decision stated that a slave's humanity did allow him to defend himself against an attempted homocide by his master that resulted in the death of his assailant. There was nothing simple or straightforward about the peculiar institution.

My granddaughter Zoie is here working on homework. She browsed through some of stack of references collected for a lecture I gave about slavery in Middle Tennessee. The pages in the back that described punishments dealt out to slaves shocked her greatly. She suggests you have a barf bag handy.

Only a few weeks ago, I discovered something about slaveholding that I had no idea was a major factor in slave marketing. The Reverse Underground Railroad is about the most disgusting thing I have ever read about. Zoie's barf bag suggestion applies.

Thank you for your interest.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
If you look at the context of my entry, the "secure slavery for a thousand years" was a rallying cry in 1861. Perhaps you prefer "Slavery is our God!", which I always thought was a bit much. You seem to like the Charleston papers, google any one of them during the years preceding the war. You will find that the quotes I have chosen are quite moderate.
I checked two news archives (each spanning about two hundred years; every paper-not just Charleston) and did not find your quotes. If you have a source please post it.
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I checked two news archives (each spanning about two hundred years; every paper-not just Charleston) and did not find your quotes. If you have a source please post it.
I have to admit, this is a waste of time. It took me one google search to come up with reference after reference to the extreme nature of language used by people singing the praises of slaveholding in the most extreme language imaginable.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
All historical interpretation is biased in different ways. But if you are political active you need to be open and honest about it.
I disagree with most of your interpretations on many of the subjects we've discussed over the last couple years. HOWEVER, I 100% agree with these statements.

Unfortunately, plenty of folks don't feel the same way. There are several well respected professional historians, who typically leave the activist part, out of their bio. They pretend to be unbiased yet, have tunnel vision to their ideological assumptions, & are actually quite close minded.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Where is that quote by the UDC?- "secure slavery for a thousand years"

That's what I was always told until I started looking more closely at the motives behind the war.

"The army of the North fights for national ambition, fanatical hate and the profits of Southern trade. The army of the South fights to avert from the Southern people a tyranny most hideous and most abhorred. We must nerve ourselves to hear of a day of carnage. The attack has probably been made by our troops. They must carry the enemy's earthworks with the bayonet. The loss may, and probably will, be fearful. But, if we triumph, the victory will be worth the cost. Never was cause more just and holy than ours. The patriot owes his life to his country in the hour of her extremity; and, while we strike for independence, we must be willing, ungrudgingly, to pay the price."
Charleston Mercury, June 27, 1862

"The North is fighting for self-preservation as much as for Southern subjugation, the latter of which is now chiefly desired, because it involves the former. The time when, possessed of devils, it sought to exterminate the South in a fit of foaming, diabolic frenzy, has long since passed, and, in spite of Lincoln's proclamation, the clear, distinct object of the great mass of that nation in the further prosecution of this war is to save themselves from the overhanging avalanche of ruin which the success of the Southern cause must precipitate upon their heads."
Richmond Dispatch Feb 17 1863

"the North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money."
Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861

I don't think it is appropriate to examine what Southern Newspapers accused the United States of committing all sorts of blasphemy and sacrilege to search for the motives behind the War of the Rebellion, but it is rather appropriate to examine what the first six slave states seceded from the Union said about their causes for unilateral secession which led to the war.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization..."

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
January 9, 1861

"...all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

"He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction...On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
December 24, 1860

" In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. "

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
February, 1861

I haven't seen any plausible argument that why the war wasn't about the perpetuation of slavery through Southern independence. The Confederates weren't shy about their motives at the time. I don't see any reason why I should ignore them and trust organizations like the Abbeville Institution instead.
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Supreme Court of Alabama decisions regarding slavery & slaves who sued their masters

This is perhaps one of the most weirdest aspects of slavery. Slaves in slave states were technically private properties and the idea was that (please correct me if I am wrong) since they were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. Yet, some of them were definitely allowed to file a suit for their freedom and other matters. So slaves were actually properties? persons? citizens? What were they? I think It shows how inconsistent the institution of race-based chattel slavery was in those days.
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
This is perhaps one of the most weirdest aspects of slavery. Slaves in slave states were technically private properties and the idea was that (please correct me if I am wrong) since they were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. Yet, some of them were definitely allowed to file a suit for their freedom and other matters. So slaves were actually properties? persons? citizens? What were they? I think It shows how inconsistent the institution of race-based chattel slavery was in those days.
You have put your finger on it. As Justice Tunney (sp?) said, "No black man has aright that any white man has to honor." Yet, Jim Key, a slave in Shelbyville TN, was acknowledged as a blood member of the family. Google him and prepare to be amazed. It was no secret that house slaves, in particular, were the children of white men in the family. The moral dilemma of owning close relatives, i.e., children, half siblings, aunts and uncles was a vexing one. It says a lot about the mind of the slaveholder who fathers children with his aunt, half sisters and his own daughter. His father was empregnating the same women at the same time. I have come to the conclusion that a modern person is culturally unequipped to understand the mind of a slaveholder.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I don't think it is appropriate to examine what Southern Newspapers accused the United States of committing all sorts of blasphemy and sacrilege to search for the motives behind the War of the Rebellion, but it is rather appropriate to examine what the first six slave states seceded from the Union said about their causes for unilateral secession which led to the war.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization..."

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
January 9, 1861

"...all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

"He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction...On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
December 24, 1860

" In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. "

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
February, 1861

I haven't seen any plausible argument that why the war wasn't about the perpetuation of slavery through Southern independence. The Confederates weren't shy about their motives at the time. I don't see any reason why I should ignore them and trust organizations like the Abbeville Institution.
You have hit the nail square on the head. Among historians, slavery is recognized as 80 percent of the cause of the war& the other 20 percent doesn't matter. It is simple enough to read what the fathers of secession wrote for decades leading up to the war. It is also easy enough to read the mountains of words those same men wrote in the 1880's to obscure the real reason they went to war. I find the unabashed slavery is our right, out god given duty version refreshingly honest.

The only question I have about anyone who claims to believe the manufactured lost cause version of events is: 'Why?' The real history is so much more challenging & infinitely convoluted.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I am very familiar with the content of the articles in question. There is, apart from the Black Confederate trope invented in the 1970's, a collection of the references at the Gore Center at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro TN that contain the foundations of their "history." In the early 1900's schools all over the South received free pamphlets & books from the United Daughters of the Confederacy, etal. Small white children were taught lessons from Your Friend the Klan & books extolling the black propaganda of the Lost Cause. This deliberate rewriting of history was done by people who knew better. There is no more informed condemnation of them than John Singleton Mosby's.

It was the "holy mission" of the UDC to rehabilitate their dead heros who had marched off explicitly to "secure slavery for a thousand years" & convert them into more palatable mystery to a amorphous lost cause. (This is not my opinion, it is literally what the ladies said.) From the 1970's onward, when I first developed an interest in Civil War History, I have had to unlearn the counterfactual narrative passed on to me in my youth.

There is a recently published scholarly book on the appearance of the Black Confederate phenomena. I read through a friend's copy. The dates, articles, speeches & advocates of that phenomenon are exhaustively documented. There is no on the other hand on that subject, it is bogus root, stem & branch.

My opinion:

To be frank, from day one I have been stunned that anybody would actually believe anything as preposterous as black Confederate combatants. The whole idea flies in the face of enlightened self interest. Would slaves actually go to war to guarantee the right of white men to buy & sell their children, have unfeddered sexual access to their women folk & beat them bloody at a whim? Of course, the answer is no, h-ll no! Apparently, waining interest in UFO's left a vacuum that needed filling explains the continued defense of that absurd canard.

I personally have come to terms with my family's slaveholding past. I do not judge them with my 21 Century morals. I accept that they sincerely believed God himself had ordained them as guardians of inferior races. It is profoundly insulting to make out like they went to war to protect an amorphous state right. They were informed, explicit in their beliefs & determined to protect slaveholding with their lives. To say otherwise is akin to blasphemy.

That is my opinion.
You seem to ignore they enlisted to the US while the US clearly held slaves not only in the CW but anytime they served the US back to the US revolution. They also ran away to serve foreign nations such as GB, who also held slaves at the time..So it is simply fact that blacks repeatedly has served slave holding nations that continued to be slave holding nations....so they did fight for slave holding nations

The reality is slaves who ran away to serve were seeking individual freedom. The same as those running away in peacetime individually or with the UGR......I find it hard to believe they had many allusions about the fate of those they choose to leave behind.
 

Rhea Cole

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
You seem to ignore they enlisted to the US while the US clearly held slaves not only in the CW but anytime they served the US back to the US revolution. They also ran away to serve foreign nations such as GB, who also held slaves at the time..

The reality is slaves who ran away to serve were seeking individual freedom. The same as those running away in peacetime individually or with the UGR......I find it hard to believe they had many allusions about the fate of those they choose to leave behind.
I don't ignore anything that sheds light on this subject. Until the confirmation of the 13th Amendment, slavery was legal in the U.S. During the Battle of Nashville in Dec 1864, the 13th USCI, self-liberated men from my county, made an attack on Hood's right flank that drew written words of praise from Confederate defenders. That same week, slaves were sold on the courthouse step in Nashville to settle debt. The two events bracket my understanding of the peculiar institution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top