"Those People Part 2" by Clyde Wilson

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have too many boats, still don't get the "angry." I tried to remove the comments (not because they are untrue) but to stop the anger.... Even if untrue it is not a mistake of my making. When I joined I never thought this. Banter, maybe a joke or two but not ...

Yes, it is a mistake of your making. Take responsibility for your own actions. You still owe many apologies.
 
I have too many boats, still don't get the "angry." I tried to remove the comments (not because they are untrue) but to stop the anger.... Even if untrue it is not a mistake of my making. When I joined I never thought this. Banter, maybe a joke or two but not ...

Representing nine times as many deaths being from disease as combat as "90% of (USCT) recruits died of disease" is at best a failure to communicate clearly.

It's not a mortal sin, but it is your writing that lead to people wondering if you were seriously arguing that.

I don't especially want an apology, but I would like to see you acknowledge that instead of trying to make this about everyone being a mean meanie.
 
I have too many boats, still don't get the "angry." I tried to remove the comments (not because they are untrue) but to stop the anger.... Even if untrue it is not a mistake of my making. When I joined I never thought this. Banter, maybe a joke or two but not ...

Will LeRoy,

I don't care if you are an admiral with a fleet of boats.

Folks here are who they are and welcome to the planet Earth where not everyone will accept an unsupported opinion or a misquoted source.

You want this to get better? You want to 'stop the anger?'

Then quit throwing more fuel on the fire and man up.

When you have an opinion you should have sources and documentation to back it up, as this forum is in the habit of providing such during debates on various topics of the Civil War. It's the practice here and anyone who says they can't spare the time or have no inclination to provide such, are pretty much immediately dismissed as not worthy of honest debate.

I say this not to insult or to wound, but to explain.

Now, if you wish to keep moaning about how insulting the forum is here or that you no longer with to post here, my advice is to fish or cut bait. Either engage in honest debate, take your lumps when you are not agreed with or provide solid evidence that your views are supported in the historical record.

No one has problems here with honest mistakes because we have all made such in our time here.

But the constant beating of one's chest gets a tad boring after awhile. You seem to have potential for a good debate. Why not give it a try or why not do what you have said (repeatedly) and leave the forum?

I would rather you stay, but at least make it a worthy attempt.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Unionblue,
First of all I am no fishermen Sir,
I am a yachtsman.
I have AT YOUR REQUEST stated the source already and supply
the link below if it escaped you.
Page one, line 16, as follows:
" 9:1 Ratio of African American Civil War troops who died of disease to those that died on the battlefield, largely due to discriminatory medical care"

The problem may lie within your inability to accept said source
and thus you due me unjust as it's messenger Sir.
I cannot understand a rancorous attitude or it's
commingling of what appears to be an invitation.

Once more I REITERATE the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/death-numbers/

The source is besides the statement originally recalled in Ken Burns documentary
THE CIVIL WAR.
which you may choose or not choose to believe.
What is important here is, the statement does not originate with me.
If you have a problem -take it up with Ken Burns.
Perhaps if I may suggest you might read the sources w/ credits at the end.
I no longer possess the doc so I cannot satisfy that.

Now that I have gone to these lengths to quench your
request, I will add I do not beat my chest
so much as you beat a dead horse Sir.
Sincerely
Cadet Will LeRoy
 
Unionblue,
First of all I am no fishermen Sir,
I am a yachtsman.
I have AT YOUR REQUEST stated the source already and supply
the link below if it escaped you.
Page one, line 16, as follows:
" 9:1 Ratio of African American Civil War troops who died of disease to those that died on the battlefield, largely due to discriminatory medical care"

The problem may lie within your inability to accept said source
and thus you due me unjust as it's messenger Sir.
I cannot understand a rancorous attitude or it's
commingling of what appears to be an invitation.

Once more I REITERATE the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/death-numbers/

The source is besides the statement originally recalled in Ken Burns documentary
THE CIVIL WAR.
which you may choose or not choose to believe.
What is important here is, the statement does not originate with me.
If you have a problem -take it up with Ken Burns.
Perhaps if I may suggest you might read the sources w/ credits at the end.
I no longer possess the doc so I cannot satisfy that.

Now that I have gone to these lengths to quench your
request, I will add I do not beat my chest
so much as you beat a dead horse Sir.
Sincerely
Cadet Will LeRoy

(Sigh.)

I've went to your website and viewed the following bullet comment:

* 9:1 Ratio of African American Civl War troops who died of disease to those that died on the battlefield, largely due to discriminatory medical care.

So, for every 1 African American soldier killed on the battlefield, 9 died of disease. That about right?

So you can see where most people on this thread had a problem with the section of your post#1386 where you stated the following:

"Nine out of ten colored soldier died in recruit camp from common diseases yankee doctors refused to treat because of equal prejudice and ignorance shared with the South."

You see, don't you, that the comment from the website never mentions "recruit camp" it merely states the ratio for African American deaths for the entire war for battlefield deaths and disease. This is where people had the problem.

It don't float the boat.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Last edited:
Buying slaves for the army, have any sources for this? And were they still slaves while in the army? And still waiting for something backing up the claim that Union doctors wouldn't help me in the USCT.. Its a funny thing around here, when people make claims they are expected to back them up or state that its their opinion...

Wilber, he may be alluding to the following: In December 1863, nearly a year after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Lincoln administration authorized and encouraged Loyal slave owners in the exempted Border states to enlist their slaves as substitutes for themselves and other Whites. The slave owner was compensated $300.00 per slave for the loss of his property and the slave became a freedman upon enlistment.

Kentucky's governor wrote a letter to Lincoln objecting to the federal recruitment of Blacks in the state under the grounds that it was a violation of a state's right and that Blacks were not essential to suppressing the rebellion.

On February 8, 1864 Secretary of War Stanton responded by letter to Lincoln justifying the practice. Stanton first outlined the government's authority to recruit Black soldiers under the Act of 17 July, 1862, and then articulated the benefits of doing so which is partially detailed in the following excerpt from that letter:

"Fifth.-- Inasmuch as two classes of persons might be comprehended in the enlistment -- namely, slaves and freemen -- the same provision is made which is found acceptable, as being fair and just, in Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Virginia, for compensating owners for their property or interest in the labor or service of colored persons enlisted. The enrollment act fixed the maximum value of a white recruit to the United States at $300. The same sum is fixed by the regulations as the maximum value of a colored person held to service in a slave State, but subject to examination by a board of valuation; and a certificate of enlistment is required to be given, in order that the owner may claim and receive compensation for his property or interest in the service of the person enlisted-- It will thus appear that to the State of Kentucky, as to other States, the following benefits are derived by enlisting persons of African descent:

First.-- The State receives credit for each man as a recruit, and is to that extent relieved from military burden.

Second.-- The white population is relieved from liability for military service to the same extent.

Third.-- White soldiers are relieved from the greatest danger of war -- pestilence and disease in a hot season, on the banks of the Mississippi and the Southern seaboard, while the Government receives the services of a soldier who is always fit for duty, and almost, if not entirely free, by constitutional and natural causes, from such danger and vicissitude.

Fourth.-- Compensation is secured to persons having any interest or property in the services of the persons enlisted.

Fifth.-- The military force of the country is enlarged to the extent that colored troops may be procured, and its powers to suppress the insurrection, put an end to the war, diminish expense, and restore the blessings of Union and peace are enhanced beyond calculation, because such soldiers are seldom unfit for service by disease, require little hospital care or expense, and are comparatively free from the danger of pestilence."
Edwin M. Stanton to Abraham Lincoln, February 8, 1864
 
I have too many boats, still don't get the "angry." I tried to remove the comments (not because they are untrue) but to stop the anger.... Even if untrue it is not a mistake of my making. When I joined I never thought this. Banter, maybe a joke or two but not ...
Pretend to take a Northern point of view and you should get along fine --well, maybe except for three or four. :lee:
 
I am told.... That I'm not qualified to make an opinion or state anything as I read it....
That I'm not allowed without sighting the exact yankee passage of validation to speculate on the truth...
Well I don't find that to be banter or just humorous, so let me get serious,
The South is never coming back and the fruits of the slave trade are forever rubble and ashes and the truth buried under propaganda.
All this is true but you cannot expect to ride a high horse without feeling a few thorns under your saddle from those who do recall what really happened and passed it down.
There were many in the South who saw no purpose for the industry of slaves. They drove down the price of labor and cotton yet in the North, the cotton fed textile factories were booming.
The CW has all the ear marks of mass murder for what was essentially a bad business decision backed by a bad government who then drafted it's citizens to fight.
The blood on the hands of the Yankee was for the scorched ground policies that starved and killed thousands of innocent black and white people. It pushed one of the most opulent societies in the world back into the stone age.
If the South was wrong then, certainly it has some of the same attributes adopted in it's contemporary state.

As much as it strings play a song of denial, the CW was the biggest FUBAR in our history.
People like to say, "What was learned" Well, nothing if you cloak it in a false doctrine/ history that says freed black men fought a war when it was really an army of paid employees and slaves who fought it.
The idea "neighbor against neighbor," goes out the window when you read about Sherman's march through Georgia.
Surely it was nothing short of an act of terror against non combatants. Certainly not the child safe story of a moral mission to free an oppressed people.
All news papers since their existence are political in nature and have little to do with truth. Money paid for their ink, not morals and therefore to say it was all documented is bogus. Most people living during the CW were hand to mouth and many were illiterate.
Consider the Yankee illusion of painting every Southerner as plantation owning pimp who beat people like animals.
What would you think of someone who today who beat even his horse or dog? No doubt you won't be attending their ball or want what they sell. Most certainly it did happen and with opulence you have alcohol abuse so nothing would be surprising. But was the average Southerner a rich, sadistic savage???

Consider a household today and how odd it would be to buy a stranger from some other country who speaks no english and is from a strange land where murder is as common as a thunder storm. Would you invite them to come into your home and live with your wife and kids? Even at your beckoned call, this person would not be common place in a society that sold this to you at a years income.
This is logical thinking not an argument, or yankee stamped confirmed fact.
What I learned from the CW is that a powerful and innovative people killed untold thousands of innocents to get at a bad business practice. But you cannot afterward wave a moral flag over their graves and say it was to free the same people you abused...
Slavery was not as common in the Southern household as Yankee history pretends. Census's reflected that fact.
The causes for the war in the politicians mind was one thing but most did not even read at that time.
Then you add to it the fact the union army purchased slaves to fight the war... This does not elevate the "freedom fighters" theme. The questions remain clear to me on the subject;
*How much was the North paying union slave masters for slaves to fight a war against citizens who for the most part had no slaves or wanted anything to do with the plantation.
*Were the "freemen" paid the same to enlist as "individuals " that the army paid a union slave owner?
How many slaves/ black soldiers died because of Northern white doctors were too prejudice to treat them? So what if it wasn't 90% like PBS/ Burns is quoted. Even if ten percent, it makes a huge statement of the union's mind set.

Rest assured I do not mean to take up the lost causes Southern businessmen but the truth be known, I find that the North was surely no less prejudice than the South. The real reasons for the war may never be found .
Instead of burning and looting the South perhaps a more civilized North might have boycotted slave cotton but the hundreds of millions that northern textile plants made would have forced Lincoln out. Perhaps making war on any and all slave ships on the high seas might have made bigger moral statement but then the 4 million African Americans may never have reached our shores. But then we must accept that today's black would not be here.

When I read how the North sent the union army and a huge flotilla up the Red River to attack the South and that in turn forced my great great grandpa to leave his pregnant wife to go fight off Northern aggression. I needed to know he was not the savage that Yankee history portrayed him.
When I read how general Bank's showed up on a steamboat carrying cotton speculators assured protection by Northern ironclads, I doubted them but when yank warships stole cotton as they looted and burned every town, farm and ranch in the country side I asked myself: Who was really the savage here.
Oh, BTW... Keep the misquotes going. They endear me to my purpose.
 
Certainly not the child safe story of a moral mission to free an oppressed people.

Maybe you should take your crusade to wherever this "child safe story" is being peddled because it's not being peddled here.

Well at least not by anyone other than folks like you who promote it in order to advance their strawman arguments.
 
It's just a theory but it seems the "crusade" is always evoked following a war no matter which side you speak of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top