Discussion Most Absurd Civil War Claims

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
I hate to contradict you but as much as I respect and admire Lee, the last thing he could EVER be defined as was an abolitionist. What you are referring to is his reluctant concurrence in the waning days of the war to solicit slaves of fighting age to fight under the Confederate flag; in return at the successful conclusion of the war they would be manumitted. Not they and their wives, or they and their children...or brothers/sisters...parents....just themselves. That policy may be many things but it was not abolition.

That is a good description of the bill that barely passed, but Lee did ask for something different then they ended up with. Immediate freedom for the soldiers themselves for service and after the war freedom to their extended families for the honorable discharge of duties. One can also read into his comments a level of support for their families being given (at least a limited form of) citizenship with his comment about them being given the privilege of southern residency.

Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.

We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org...r-to-andrew-hunter-on-employing-negro-troops/
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
McPherson. Not exactly an unbiased source, but at least he admits that letters from slaveholders are overrepresented (x2).

Slaveholders in the Confederate army- 1/3
Slaveholders in his collection of letters- 2/3

"Nonslaveholding farmers are underrepresented in the Confederate sample. Indeed, while about one-third of all Confederate soldiers belonged to slaveholding families, slightly more than two-thirds of the sample whose slaveholding status is known did so."
— James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (1997), p. ix.

Any numbers on how many Confederate soldiers were against slavery and slaveholding?
Probably some. I doubt McPherson was looking for them...

"The people of North Carolina regard this struggle as one for self government and not for slavery or a slaveholders' Confederacy."

Richmond Enquirer, November 14, 1864:

View attachment 391506
View attachment 391507
So, perhaps we have no accurate number of Confederate soldiers who were against slave holding because there weren't very many?
 

GwilymT

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
That is a good description of the bill that barely passed, but Lee did ask for something different then they ended up with. Immediate freedom for the soldiers themselves for service and after the war freedom to their extended families for the honorable discharge of duties. One can also read into his comments a level of support for their families being given (at least a limited form of) citizenship with his comment about them being given the privilege of southern residency.
One can read a lot into his comments. One can not conclude that Lee was an abolitionist.
 

Friction Primer

Private
Joined
Aug 15, 2019
Ref: Absurd Civil War Claims
As a young boy with relatives living near Gettysburg, I was told stories about the Great Battle. One, in particular was gruesomely portrayed, until I later learned it was entirely false. To whit: I was told that a famous General (Reynolds) was shot on his horse on the first day of the Battle, and that he exclaimed as he died, "Egad, I am killed!".
 

ShoreDutyCSN

Private
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
The Union troops were goodhearted, brave men who fought for freedom while loving God, mom and apple pie. The Confederates as the private soldier is seen was OK, but he defended the terrible onus of slavery while munching cornpone... That also applied to Rhode Island PLANTATION. And all the unfreed slaves that Lincoln seemed to miss with his emancipation proclamation. You're a slave up north. Too bad. Slave in another country, except it isn't, you have the chance to escape.

The notion of the Guerilla fighters for the CS are considered bloodthirsty killers! Terrible depravity! Mass murder! Andersonville!

I'm a proponent of fear as a military fact, as opposed to some sort of theory. To quote a movie I won't mention by name, "I know, you're looking at the heads. Sometimes he goes to far. He's the first to admit it!"

Sounds like some sort of fast coming apocalypse, right Maj. Willard?

Bill Anderson was crazy. But no wonder the James and Youngers were so good at their post war vocation. Quantril was crazy like a fox in my opinion, for at least a while before the war ended and everyone split. Ya know, 'cause they were not real soldiers. SO you can shoot them on site.

These men are terrible! Scalps on a bridal! Mass murder! The horrid actions of partisans!

Salacious, huh? Makes for great copy.

Lincoln told Sheridan to pick an entire valley clean and burn it. He let prisoners starve, freeze to the point of death or even disability. Prisoners were tortured at Camp Douglas in the same vein as WW2 concentration camp. Hanging and shooting prisoners. Having prisoners look for torpedoes in roads. Telling troops 'not' to burn whole cities.

Oh and Sherman's relation, Ewing, made sure that to this day part of Missouri is still called the Burned District.

People write books about this.

Anyway, I just thought I'd get all wound up and on my high horse, holster my Colt Navy, and ride away into the sunset to do something deplorable!
 
Last edited:

Fairfield

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
That also applied to Rhode Island PLANTATION.
Aside: the term plantation in New England doesn't mean what it does in the south. In this part of the country, a plantation was a colonizing settlement--such at the Plimouth (Plymouth) Plantation. Rhode Island has pretty much dropped the term because of the confusion with the southern term. Maine still has dozens: a Maine plantation is a self-governing unit that has less control than a town. Quite different.
 

ShoreDutyCSN

Private
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Aside: the term plantation in New England doesn't mean what it does in the south. In this part of the country, a plantation was a colonizing settlement--such at the Plimouth (Plymouth) Plantation. Rhode Island has pretty much dropped the term because of the confusion with the southern term. Maine still has dozens: a Maine plantation is a self-governing unit that has less control than a town. Quite different.
Plantation might mean something different now. Not when they were founded. How ever I do remember a slave being accused of witchcraft in Salem... and I do believe that all that Connecticut tobacco leaf and filler was not picked by plantation owners.

KY, MS, MY, DE and WV (with gradual abolition plan...) were ALL slave states until the end of the war.

These are very easy to find facts.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
From what I've read, this wasn't always the case. In fact, the 1913 Reunion (the one with all the photographs of hand shakes), the animosity came to a head when a Confederate veteran insulted Abraham Lincoln--which caused a Union vet to challenge him to a duel. A general melee broke out and 7 of the veterans wound up in the hospital with serious injuries. I guess that we never learn.
How do you insult someone that's been dead 48yrs? I would imagine he merely offered a historical opinion:wink:
 

Fairfield

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Plantation might mean something different now. Not when they were founded. How ever I do remember a slave being accused of witchcraft in Salem... and I do believe that all that Connecticut tobacco leaf and filler was not picked by plantation owners.

KY, MS, MY, DE and WV (with gradual abolition plan...) were ALL slave states until the end of the war.

These are very easy to find facts.
AFAIK the meaning has always been that. The Plimouth (Plymouth)Plantation dates back to 1620. You are referring, of course, to Tabitha of the Salem Witch trials in 1692/3. She was one of the fortunate ones because she was released. There really isn't any such thing as a "plantation owner" in New England because the term refers to a municipal entity--not a private one. The two regions (north and south) simply use the same word differently. I'm not talking about all those other states--I was only commenting on New England plantations.
 
AFAIK the meaning has always been that. The Plimouth (Plymouth)Plantation dates back to 1620. You are referring, of course, to Tabitha of the Salem Witch trials in 1692/3. She was one of the fortunate ones because she was released. There really isn't any such thing as a "plantation owner" in New England because the term refers to a municipal entity--not a private one. The two regions (north and south) simply use the same word differently. I'm not talking about all those other states--I was only commenting on New England plantations.
You are absolutely correct about the original meaning of "plantation" in the New England colonies/states:

plantation -​

noun

a large farm or estate in a tropical or semitropical zone, for the cultivation of cotton, tobacco, coffee, sugarcane, etc., typically by enslaved, unpaid, or low-wage resident laborers.
a group of planted trees or plants.

History/Historical.
1
. a colony or new settlement.
2. the establishment of a colony or new settlement.

Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plantation
 

ShoreDutyCSN

Private
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Now look, I'm just debating here. If you think I'm coming off like dork, let me know.

The semantics of what is and what isn't a plantation in respect to entity itself is non-point. My wife is from Massachusetts and I know the NE gets all sorts'a up in arms when you even bring up slavery existence. Being that there were a lot abolitionists in those places. There were abolitionists in the south too.

The thing is if slavery existed in the north, as it did, what was the rationality of saying all slaves in states that in rebellion are free? The only reasoning that I could even come up with is two fold:

1. There were politicians who were not as enlightened as Abolitionists. They didn't want to lose their place as it's tough to have a place in DC when there was corruption and no one to "fact check" your lies.

2. And/Or There were going to be reprisal trials and Lincoln was wanting to look like a good guy. I will say he was a great nationalist but a shabby Constitutionalist at best. Maybe he wasn't so warm and huggy.

And if you at the record the US troops during reconstruction was viscous, Period.

This war was about slavery yes. It was economics. What's more it's the propaganda. Maybe not the Big Lie. Perhaps the Big Misrepresentation.
 

Fairfield

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
I know the NE gets all sorts'a up in arms when you even bring up slavery existence.
In the beginning, all colonies had slavery but some developed one way while others went another. There's no shame in that. Slavery in the north ended pretty much before 1800. If we all walked in lock step, we'd never develop at all. Perhaps the great difference is that of the time it took. It is that which makes a one-to-one rationale impossible. But we all got to the same place in the end and that's ok.
 

ShoreDutyCSN

Private
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
It true. But if you remember from grade school that if you point a finger, there are four pointed back at you. But the question still has never been answered for me. Past your wise observation.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
The thing is if slavery existed in the north, as it did, what was the rationality of saying all slaves in states that in rebellion are free? The only reasoning that I could even come up with is two fold:
Assuming you are talking about the Emancipation Proclamation.
Rational is that President could only exercise that power in relation to war power as commander in chief and powers granted by congressional acts (see Confiscation Acts of 1862). The result was President only had legal authority to take “property” in areas in rebellion
 

ShoreDutyCSN

Private
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
look at the document. It is very clear that the states in rebellion had freed slaves. But he also admitted The CSA was another country... except when it favored the Union.
 

Fairfield

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
It true. But if you remember from grade school that if you point a finger, there are four pointed back at you. But the question still has never been answered for me. Past your wise observation.
I am saying that you cannot equate a society with slavery in the 1600's with a slave society in the 1800's. It is hardly an "oranges to oranges" comparison. Maine, for instance, has had a history with blacks that goes back to early times (some of my black friends insist that the blacks were actually here first because they were with Portuguese fisherman). We have been the beneficiaries of productive black citizens who have made contributions to maritime, medical, religious, etc. operations. But there have been other states that kept blacks in degrading, grinding servitude and a form of enforced childhood--thus depriving themselves of brains, foresight and ambitions equal to their own.
 
Top