Posted on 03/17/2004 8:23:46 AM PST by Global_Warming
http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-1verbatim.php
Volume 9, Issue 1: Verbatim
Quotations on Black Confederates
Various Saints
Numerous Afro-Virginians, free blacks and slaves, were genuine Southern loyalists, not as a consequence of white pressure but due to their preferences. They are the Civil War's forgotten people, yet their existence was more widespread than American history has recorded. Their bones rest in unhonored glory in Southern soil, shrouded by falsehoods, indifference and historians' censorship.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.
There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the traitors and rebels.
Fredrick Douglass
To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear.
Charles H. Wesley
There are numerous accounts of black participation in the battle of First Manassas in the summer of 1861. Black combatants shot, killed, and captured Union troops. Loyal slaves were said to have fought with outstanding bravery alongside their masters. These reports also provide testimony to the fidelity of black Rebels in combat. One black soldier was moving about the field when ordered to surender by a Union officer. The Rebel replied, "No sir, you are my prisoner," while drawing a pistol and shooting the officer dead. He then secured the officer's sidearm and after the battle boasted loudly of having quieted at least one of "the stinkin' Yankees who cam here `specting to whip us Southerners." Another black Confederate who stood behind a tree allowed two Union soldiers to pass before shooting one in the shoulders, clubbing him with a pistol, while demanding the other to surrender. Both prisoners were marched into Confederate lines. An Alabama officer's servant marched a Zouave into camp proclaiming, "Massa, here one of dese devils who been shooting at us, Suh."
Charles W. Harper
I have no doubt that if Congress would authorize their [the black Southerners'] reception into service, and empower the President to call upon individuals of States for such as they are willing to contribute, with the condition of emancipation to all enrolled, a sufficient number would be forthcoming to enable us to try the experiment [of determining whether the slaves would make good soldiers]. If it proved successful, most of the objections to the measure would disappear, and if individuals still remained unwilling to send their negroes to the army, the force of public opinion in the States would soon bring about such legislation as would remove all obstacles. I think the matter should be left, as far as possible, to the people and the States, which alone can legislate as the necessities of this particular service may require.
Gen. Robert E. Lee
One cavalry officer related how he was held under guard by a shotgun-wielding black who kept the weapon trained on the Yankee's head with unwavering concentration. "Here I had come South and was fighting to free this man," the disgusted major wrote in his diary. "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head off."
Wayne R. Austman
For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union.
Horace Greeley
Some Negroes, however, soon became disillusioned because of the hardships they experienced during the early months of their freedom. Nine hundred freedmen assembled at Mobile on August 13, 1865, and by a vote of seven hundred to two hundred declared that the realities of freedom "were far from being so flattering as their imagination had painted it; that the prejudices of color were not confined to the South, but stronger and more marked on the part of the strangers from the North."
Robert D. Reid
Former mayor John Dodson . . . presented them with a Confederate flag, assuring them that when they returned they would "reap a rich reward of praise, and merit, from a thankful people." Charles Tinsley, a bricklayer and a "corner workman," acted as spokesman for the Negroes. His remarks in acceptance of the flag were brief: "We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability. . . . There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us; and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us."
Benjamin Quarles
Nor were runaways the only bondsmen who aided the Union war effort. Slaves who lacked opportunity to escape nonetheless found ways of contributing to Confederate defeat. At great peril to themselves, some slaves, concealed, fed, and directed runaways or escaped Federal prisoners of war on the journey to freedom. Others sabotaged farm and labor equipment or assumed an uncooperative attitude with owners and overseers, to slow down work and promote widespread insecurity among whites at home. In time such deeds paid great dividends, as Confederate troops deserted ranks to look after the welfare of loved ones at home.
Joseph T. Glattaar
Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.
Perhaps the group that had the strongest vested interest in seeing the South victorious were the black slaveowners. In 1830 approximately 1,556 black slaveowners in the deep South owned 7,188 slaves. About 25% of all free blacks owned slaves. A few of these were men who purchased their family members to protect or free them, but most were people who saw slavery as the best way to economic wealth and independence for themselves. The American dream in the antebellum South was just as powerful for free blacks as whites and it included the use of slaves for self-improvement. They bought and sold slaves for profit and exploited their labor just like their white counterparts.
Richard Rollins
After their capture one group of white Virginia slave owners and Afro-Virginians were asked if they would take the oath of allegiance to the United States in exchange for their freedom. One free negro indignantly replied: "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave from this same group, upon learning that his master had refused, proudly exclaimed, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave agreed: "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." On another occasion a captured Virginia planter took the oath, but slave remained faithful to the Confederacy and refused. This slave returned to Virginia by a flag of truce boat and expressed disgust at his owner's disloyalty: "Massa had no principles." Confederate prisoners of war paid tribute to the loyalty, ingenuity, and diligence of "kind-hearted" blacks who attended to their needs and considered them fellow Southerners.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.
Wednesday, September 10: At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 o'clock P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number. . . . They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde.
Capt. Isaac Heysinger
Forrest said of the black men who served with him, and this seems to be a direct quote: These boys stayed with me, drove my teams and better Confederates did not live. . . . Those [black Southerners] among us during the war behaved in such a manner that I shall always respect them for it. . . . I have always felt kind towards them and always treated them kindly.
Thomas Y. Cartwright
The public support and activities of Afro-Confederates, a minority within a minority, received considerable prominence. A Charlottesville newspaper reported an interview with Hames Ward, a slave who fled "Yankeedom" to warn his fellow slaves of abuse and racism in Union army camps and of blacks being forced to front lines during battles. He preferred being the slave of "the meanest masters in the South" than a free black man in the North: "If this is freedom, give me slavery forever."
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.
Much is said about the slaves coming into Federal lines, and many complaints are made because they are not promptly given up. Are they not in the Confederate lines, and are they not used to build fortifications and do the work of rebels, and in many instances used to man rebel guns, and fight against the Union?
The Liberator, July 18, 1862
Well-to-do Creole Negroes . . . carried themselves with a military bearing; as they informed a commanding general on a later occasion, they came of a fighting race: "Our fathers were brought here as slaves bacause they were captured in war, and in hand to hand fights, too. Pardon me, General, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Benjamin Quarles
I don't know how they knew that. 200 years later and I still believe that the Republican Party freed the slaves and began as the 'Abolition Party'...So I guess I could believe that 'Abolition' was just a cover for State's Rights, but that does not comport with the founding fathers and Christianty's anxiety over slavery.
Of course there was an economic issue, as there always is, but that does not negate the desire of white America to free the slaves.
"It's pure fantasy,' contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: 'It's b.s., wishful thinking.' Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. 'Of course, if I documented 12, someone would start adding zeros,' he says.
"These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls 'pseudohistory.' Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops -- as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.
"Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or cast-off uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense, many historians say.
"They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. 'It's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors,' says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. 'If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.'
"David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy plantation darkies.' Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a "mammy" monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to 'legitimize the Confederacy.'"
-- Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1997
Had there been the number claimed by the SCV and the League of the South, they were certainly shamefully treated after the war.
"After Lincoln's assassination in April of 1865, President Andrew Johnson alienated Congress with his Reconstruction policy. He supported white supremacy in the South and favored pro-Union Southern political leaders who had aided the Confederacy once war had been declared.
Southerners, with Johnson's support, attempted to restore slavery in substance if not in name. In 1866, Congress and President Johnson battled for control of Reconstruction. The Congress won. Northern voters gave a smashing victory -- more than two-thirds of the seats in Congress -- to the Radical Republicans in the 1866 congressional election, enabling Congress to control Reconstruction and override any vetoes that Johnson might impose. Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 that divided the Confederate states (except for Tennessee, which had been re-admitted to the Union) into five military districts. Each state was required to accept the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which granted freedom and political rights of blacks.
Each Southern state had to incorporate these requirements into their constitutions, and blacks were empowered with the vote. Yet Congress failed to secure land for blacks, thus allowing whites to economically control blacks. The Freedmen's Bureau was authorized to administer the new laws and help blacks attain their economic, civil, educational, and political rights. The newly created state governments were generally Republican in character and were governed by political coalitions of blacks, Northerners who had migrated to the South (called "carpetbaggers" by Southern Democrats), and Southerners who allied with the blacks and carpetbaggers (referred to as "scalawags" by their opponents). This uneasy coalition of black and white Republicans passed significant civil rights legislation in many states. Courts were reorganized, judicial procedures improved, and public school systems established. Segregation existed but it was flexible. But as blacks slowly progressed, white Southerners resented their achievements and their empowerment, even though they were in a political minority in every state but South Carolina.
Most whites rallied around the Democratic Party as the party of white supremacy. Between 1868 and 1871, terrorist organizations, especially the Ku Klux Klan, murdered blacks and whites who tried to exercise their right to vote or receive an education. The Klan, working with Democrats in several states, used fraud and violence to help whites regain control of their state governments. By the early 1870s, most Southern states had been "redeemed" -- as many white Southerners called it -- from Republican rule. By the time the last federal troops had been withdrawn in 1877, Reconstruction was all but over and the Democratic Party controlled the destiny of the South."
-- Richard Wormser
The fact that the whites in the south were able to reinstitute slavery in all but name is a big fly in the buttermilk over this "black confederate" crap.
It didn't happen.
Walt
Uncle Pompey, a cook with Confederates at the early battle of Seven Pines, in violation of orders, was advancing to the fighting front, when asked by another black:Kudos to Uncle Pomp."Whar's you gwine, Uncle Pomp? You isn't gwine up dar to have all de har scorched off yer head is you?" Uncle Pompey still persisted in advancing and shouldering a rifle, soon overtook his regiment. 'De Lor' hab mercy on us all, boys, here dey comes agin! Dar it is,' he exclaimed, as the Yankees fired an overshot, 'just as I taught! can't shoot worth a bad five-cent piece. Now's de time, boys!' and as the Alabamians returned a withering volley and closed up with the enemy, charging them furiously. Uncle Pompey forgot all about his church, his ministry, and sanctity, and while firing and dodging, as best he could, was heard to shout out: "Pitch in, White folks—Uncle Pomp's behind yer. Send all de Yankees to de 'ternal flames, whar dere's weeping and gnashing of—sail in Alabama; stick 'em wid de bayonet, and send all de blue ornary cusses to de state of eternal fire and brimstone! Push 'em hard, boys!—push 'em hard; and when dey's gone, may de Lor' hab marcy on de last one on 'em, and send dem to h-ll farder nor a pigin kin fly in a month! Stick de d—d sons of—! don't spare none on'em, for de good Lor' never made such as dem, no how you kin fix it: for it am said in de two-eyed chapter of de one-eyed John, somewhat in Collusions, dat—Hurray, boys, dat's you, sure—now you've got 'em goss! Show 'em a taste of ole Alabamy,' etc.
H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray: Afro-American Service in the Civil War, Tuscaloosa, AL: Portals Press (1979), pp.11-12.
That was all the Yankees that moved in - every knows Confederates were barred from holding office.
For 100 years?
Of course it didn't Walt. It's all a figment of our imaginations. Only Socialist writer (and ardent Clinton supporter just like you) McPherson knows the truth. Of course Jimmy Mac may have a bit of trouble explaining away photos
information by the Dept of Defense
and quotes from papers of the day
But you Asa, Jimmy, and the dwindling few who still believe keep on. Somebody has to...
Consider:
FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SECOND CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION
EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS
Mr. Wickham, of Virginia, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill. He was opposed to its going to a select committee. If it went to any committee it should go, in the regular channel, to the Committee on Military Affairs. He wished, however, this question of arming and making soldiers of negroes to be now disposed of, finally and forever. He wished it to be decided whether negroes are to be placed upon an equality by the side of our brave soldiers. They would be compelled to. They would have to camp and bivouac together.
Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle.-(Voice-That's so.)
The question being ordered upon the rejection of the bill, it was lost-ayes 21, noes 53. As this vote was regarded as a kind of test of the sense of the House upon the policy of putting negroes into the army, we append the ayes and noes-the question being the rejection of this bill authorizing the employment of negroes as soldiers:
Ayes-Messrs. Baldwin, Branch, Cruikshank, De Jarnette, Fuller, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, McMullin, Miles, Miller, Ramsey, Sexton, Smith, of Alabama, Smith, of North Carolina, Wickham, Witherspoon, Mr. Speaker.
Noes-Messrs. Akin, Anderson, Barksdale, Batson, Bell, Blandford, Boyce, Bradley, H. W. Bruce, Carroll, Chambers, Chilton, Clark, Clopton, Cluskey, Conrad, Conrow, Darden, Dickinson, Dupre, Ewing, Farrow, Foster, Funsten, Gaither, Goode, Gray, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Holliday, Johnston, Keeble, Lyon, Pugh, Read, Rogers, Russell, Simpson, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Snead, Swan, Triplett, Villere, Welsh.
If any number of black soldiers had been serving in the ranks of the CSA armies, how did it escape the notice of Congress?
It also escaped the notice of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and others:
Page 246, Confederate Veteran, June 1915. Official publication of the United Confederate Veteran, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Confederated Southern Memorial Association.
Gen. Howell Cobb, an unbeliever in this expedient, wrote from Macon, Ga., January 8, 1865: "I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one. :
Samuel Clayton, Esq., of Cuthbert, Ga., wrote on January 10, 1865: "All of our male population between sixteen and sixty is in the army. We cannot get men from any other source; they must come from our slaves... The government takes all of our men and exposes them to death. Why can't they take our property? He who values his property more than independence is a poor, sordid wretch."
General Lee, who clearly saw the inevitable unless his forces were strengthened, wrote on January 11, 1865: "I should prefer to rely on our white population; but in view of the preparation of our enemy it is our duty to provide for a continuous war, which, I fear, we cannot accomplish with our present resources. It is the avowed intention of the enemy to convert the ablebodied negro into soldiers and emancipate all. His progress will thus add to his numbers and at the same time destroy slavery in a most pernicious manner to the welfare of our people. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it ends in subverting slavery, it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, that we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our soldiers' social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ tl1em without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guarantee of military efficiency. We can give them an interest by allowing immediate freedom to all who enlist and freedom at the end of the war to their families. 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. In conclusion, I can only say that whatever is to be done must be attended to at once."
President Davis on February 21, 1865 expressed himself as follows: "It is now becoming daily more evident to all reflecting persons that we are reduced to choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or against us and that all the arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or those of the enemy."
Would Lee and Davis have had those points of view had there been any number of blacks in ranks?
There is no -credible- evidence of blacks in active rebel service.
"It's pure fantasy,' contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: 'It's b.s., wishful thinking.' Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. 'Of course, if I documented 12, someone would start adding zeros,' he says.
"These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls 'pseudohistory.' Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops -- as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.
"Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or cast-off uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense, many historians say.
"They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. 'It's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors,' says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. 'If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.'
"David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy plantation darkies.' Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a "mammy" monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to 'legitimize the Confederacy.'"
-- Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1997
AND:
"There seems to be no evidence that the Negro soldiers authorized by the Confederate Government (March 13, 1865) ever went into battle. This gives rise to the question as to whether or not any Negroes ever fought in the Confederate ranks. It is possible that some of the free Negro companies organized in Louisiana and Tennessee in the early part of the war took part in local engagements; but evidence seems to the contrary. (Authors note: If they did, their action was not authorized by the Confederate Government.) A company of "Creoles," some of whom had Negro blood, may have been accepted in the Confederate service at Mobile. Secretary Seddon conditioned his authorization of the acceptance of the company on the ability of those "Creoles" to be naturally and properly distinguished from Negroes. If persons with Negro Blood served in Confederate ranks as full-fledged soldiers, the per cent of Negro blood was sufficiently low for them to pass as whites."
(Authors note: Henry Clay Warmoth said that many Louisiana mulattoes were in Confederate service but they were "not registered as Negroes." War Politics and Reconstruction, p. 56) p. 160-61, SOUTHERN NEGROES, Wiley
There is -no- credible evidence that even a small number blacks served as soldiers in the rebel armies.
Walt
The Valor of Black Confederates
Levin Graham, a free colored man, was employed as a fifer, and attendant to Captain J. Welby Armstrong (2nd Tennessee). He refused to stay in camp when the regiment moved, an obtaining a musket and cartridges, went across the river with us. He fought manfully, and it is known that he killed four of the Yankees, from one of whom he took a Colt's revolver. He fought through the whole battle, and not a single man in our whole army fought better" (New Orleans Daily Crescent, 6 December 1861, cited in Rollins, 1994).
More documented evidence to dispel your myth. A bit before 1865 I'd say. And I want to thank you personally for the disdain you show to memories of these brave soldiers who stood with men against a worthless tyrant
When did all the Yankees leave?
To hear y'all talk we never have. Regardless, blaming it all on the Yankees, while typical, is sheer nonsense. All those 'sable warriors' and that was the thanks they got.
Not for long. But I guess you missed this:
" Between 1868 and 1871, terrorist organizations, especially the Ku Klux Klan, murdered blacks and whites who tried to exercise their right to vote or receive an education. The Klan, working with Democrats in several states, used fraud and violence to help whites regain control of their state governments."
What black rebel soldiers there were -- and there were no more than a handful -- were shamefully treated after the war.
Walt
No.
Alexander Stephens held the same seat in Congress after the war that he had held before the war.
You knew that was a lie when you wrote it.
Walt
US Constitution, Amendment XIV § 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You knew that was a lie when you wrote it.
So you consider all those receiving Confederate pensions and attending Confederates reunions to be liars. Have you no shame? The men fought for their country, and you denigrate their service.
What was shameful was Lincoln wanting to reward black Union soldiers with a free boat ride to Panama to dig a canal.
If memory serves, the Republicans in power instituted military governments in the South, and forced them to rewrite their constitutions, and then approved of their new governments filled with carpetbaggers. Loyal Confederates, with few exceptions, were not allowed to hold public office.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You knew that was a lie when you wrote it.
I know you lied and got caught. Aleck Stephens did serve in the Congress after the war, in the same seat he held before the war.
Walt
The same southerners who implemented those laws prior to the war. The same southerners who held office and supported the rebellion during the war. The same southerners who had supported the rebellion and who held office after the war. The Black Codes were in place long before reconstruction, and the Jim Crow laws were enacted after reconstruction. And both were designed to deny any semblance of rights to free blacks, including those bazillions of free blacks y'all claim served the confederacy so loyally and so well. Southern appreciation for their sacrifice is duly noted.
Check you selective memory again, 4CJ. The Black Codes were implemented before Reconstruction and the Jim Crow laws were enacted by the unreconstructed rebs after reconstruction ended. Sort of a 'thanks for your service, not get back in your place' smack in the head for all those black former confederate soldier you claim existed, huh?
McPherson lacks the credibility to make such a statement.
James McPherson: Left Wing Extremist
Any freeper who has visited a thread discussing Abraham Lincoln, the great war in which he participated, or practically anything pertaining to American history between 1850 and 1870 has likely encountered the posting of commentary by Princeton University historian James McPherson, author of The Battle Cry of Freedom. On any of these threads McPherson himself is a controversial figure. To supporters of Lincoln and the North, McPherson is adored and his book is, as one of his supporters recently put it, a "highly-balanced, factual account." To supporters of the South and critics of Lincoln, McPherson's book is a heavily pro-northern account tainted with political bias and historical revisionism. Though conflicting appraisals of McPherson have been going on between the two sides for years, I only recently became curious about McPherson himself. Having an opportunity to weigh in, I decided to do a little research on the guy's background simply to find out who he was and what his issues were. Almost immediately and with but a single internet search I discovered not only was McPherson a liberal regular in the world of academia, but he also has ties to the left's radical and socialist elements.
Having seen McPherson characterized as balanced, objective, and even implied to be conservative, or at the least moderate or politically neutral, it became obvious somebody wasn't telling the whole story. Accordingly, I decided to compile the information found on Professor McPherson's radical left wing ties and introduce them as a whole into the record.
James McPherson: Defender of Bill Clinton
During the second term of his presidency, scandal plagued Democrat President was impeached by the United States House of Representatives for his extensive criminal activity in office including his obstruction of justice and repeatedly perjuring himself under oath. During the debate over impeachment and the judiciary hearings regarding what to do with Clinton in light of his crimes, liberal academia rushed to the defense of their embattled president. Not the least among them to line up on Clinton's side was James McPherson of Princeton University. McPherson's activities on behalf of Clinton are many:
On December 8, 1998 professor Sean Wilentz of Princeton, who had co-authored with Arthur Schlessinger the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and purporting his actions to have not merited impeachment, testified on Clinton's behalf before the House Judiciary Committee. The Daily Princetonian in the article linked here reported on Wilentz's testimony. The article also mentioned that James McPherson had been invited by the Clinton White House to testify on Clinton's behalf along with Wilentz. McPherson could not testify because the time conflicted with his classroom committments. McPherson nevertheless weighed in stating that the Constitution's requirements for impeachment "mean public offenses" along with the implication that Clinton's offense had not been a public offense.
James McPherson himself signed the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and opposing his impeachment as is documented here. The petition asserted that impeachment of Clinton would "undermine" the United States Constitution and "leave the presidency permanently disfigured." Regarding the charges agaisnt Clinton, it stated "the current charges against him depart from what the (Constitution's) Framers saw as grounds for impeachment." The petition ran in newspaper advertisements across the nation paid for by the liberal group People for the American Way. It was also frequently cited by Clinton's defense in support of his acquittal. When asked about his signature in the article here, McPherson stated that Clinton's impeachment "might come back to haunt the country" and that he had signed it once and would sign it again. The list of signatures on the document reads like a whose who of liberal academia including Arthur Schlessinger and Julian Bond.
When the Senate considered whether or not to remove Clinton during January and February of the following year, McPherson continued to speak out on Clinton's side. Before the vote was taken, McPherson stated that a senate vote to remove Clinton "would cripple the executive branch . . . weakening the presidency for years to come." During Clinton's senate trial, McPherson argued the same line while giving a lecture at Kent State University. To make his case he pointed to Andrew Johnson complaining that Johnson's impeachment had weakened the presidency so much that it didn't regain the strength it had under Lincoln for another 35 years. During the same lecture McPherson continued to make his case on Clinton's side by praising Clinton's rhetorical abilities and comparing them to Abraham Lincoln. According to McPherson, Clinton had the same "gift" of connecting to the people that Lincoln did, and that is why Clinton remained popular in polls at the time.
McPherson continued his defense of Clinton as an historian by accusing those who sought to impeach Clinton of a "personal vendetta." Showing a pro-northern bias, McPherson, in the same interview, contrasted what he called the personal vendetta against Clinton with Andrew Johnson's impeachment, which he claimed was not personal (Johnson's impeachment is almost universally considered a fraudulent show trial over purely political differences between Johnson and an unconstitutional act the radical northern Congress had passed). The quote appeared in McPherson's interview on the World Socialist Web Site, which he appears on frequently and has published several articles. The quote in its entirity states "There was enormous substance to the issues involved in the impeachment of 1868 in a way that I think was totally absent from the Clinton impeachment. That was a personal vendetta, and in Johnson's case, I don't think it was personal." McPherson continues, asserting "The major difference is that the impeachment of the 1860s concerned really serious matters of substance, and the 1990s' impeachment was a more personal vendetta" and making sure to point out that Andrew Johnson was never impeached over what he calls "personal behavior." Elsewhere in the same three part interview, McPherson took jabs at conservatives classifying "groups, like the anti-abortion people" as "extremes on the Right."
James McPherson: the Socialist Pacifica Radio Network
On Nov. 3rd, 1999, Professor James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom, appeared for a lengthy political discussion about the candidacy of George W. Bush on the "Democracy Now" program of the socialist Pacifica Radio Network. The topic of that particular show was a discussion devoted to accusations of white supremacy alleged against Bush by the show's two socialist hosts.
Pacifica radio is a multi-city socialist affiliated radio network headed up by Mary Frances Berry , the socialist Democrat chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Berry is perhaps best known as instigator of the 2000 florida election "voter disinfranchisement" show trial hearings and ensuing "reports" from the commission accusing Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris of denying the right to vote to minorities. Berry's report was drafted on statistical models by a former paid consultant to Al Gore. Berry is also known more recently for waging a political battle against George W. Bush's appointees to the commission by refusing to seat them.
"Democracy Now," one of Pacifica's most popular programs, is a left wing political talk show that was, at the time McPherson appeared on the show, hosted by Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman. The program is one of the top political discussion outlets for the radical left in America. It has in the past featured among its guests MIT Professor and leftist guru Noam Chomsky, Socialist presidential candidate David McReynolds, socialist and black panther activist Angela Davis, and radical Democrat congressman and reparations activist John Conyers. Pacifica itself is practically the exclusive domain of the radical left. With almost no exceptions, it's guests range from left to far left and its shows are hosted by open marxists and other radicals.
The first host McPherson appeared with, Juan Gonzalez, is an vietnam era activist and organizer who helped found the 1970's era "Young Lords" political movement, a Latino affiliate modelled after the Black Panther Party and formed under the guidance of imprisoned Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Gonzalez' "Young Lords" organization was a socialist latino liberation movement that dedicated itself to the abolition of capitalism, dissolution of the United States military, implementation of worldwide socialism, and assisting "Brothers and Sisters around the world" who are under assault by forces opposed to communism. The "Young Lords" movement staged "liberation" events in the early 1970's to preach socialism to crowds carrying banners reading "Viva Che!." It is also considered one of the organizational precursers of the Puerto Rican FALN movement of Clinton pardon fame.
The second host McPherson appeared with, Amy Goodman, is a socialist activist and was featured as a guest speaker at the 1997 Socialist Scholars Conference of American held in New York. She appeared at this socialist convention along side several noted socialists including Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders and other affiliates of the Progressive Caucus, the congressional wing of Democratic Socialists of America.
Also appearing on the program as a guest with McPherson was Ed Sebesta, a leftist "homosexual rights" activist and rabid anti-confederate campaigner. Sebesta is an extreme south hater who advocates radical anti-southern activism on his political website. Among the positions he supports are boycotting consumer products with the word "plantation" in their names, prohibiting federal cemetary maintanence of confederate soldier graves, a blanket removal of confederate monuments, and the removal of all street names that are in honor of confederates. Sebesta is also a major McPherson fan and recommends McPherson's book as a #1 read for anti-confederate activists on his website. Sebesta has devoted much of his recent energy attempting to brand republicans with the accusation of racism and was on the show with McPherson exclusively to make allegations of white supremacy against George W. Bush. Among the Republicans Sebesta has attempted to smear are then Texas governor and now president George W. Bush, current Texas governor Rick Perry, and attorney general John Ashcroft. Sebesta was a major promoter of disinformation about Ashcroft and the Southern Partisan interview during the Senate confirmation hearings.
McPherson appeared along side the two socialist wackos Goodman and Gonzales as well as Sebesta. During the course of the show from which transcripts are available online, he took an anti-south position. Among McPherson's positions were the assertion of his support for the removal of confederate symbols from the Georgia and Mississippi flags, criticism of Republicans who opposed their removal, and direct accusations of white supremacy against two national confederate veterans ancestry groups. Perhaps most amazing was McPherson's seeming abstention from rebutting the absurd charge of white supremacy being waged against Bush by the other three clowns. Among McPherson's statements from the Pacifica broadcast are the following two excerpts:
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that."
"I think, I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden agenda, not too, not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several southern states."
James McPherson: The 'World Socialist Web Site'
A Google web search reveals 27 "hits" for James McPherson on the World Socialist Web Site, www.wsws.org. The World Socialist Web Site is the official internet home of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). The site lists its purpose as providing documents of analysis and study "from the heritage of the socialist movement" (apparently McPherson's many articles on this site are among those documents). The site itself proclaims to be involved in a movement to solve economic and social equality struggles, which it claims are "inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook."
The organization that runs the website, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), is the direct descendant of an international socialist organization founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938. It has affiliate third party political organizations in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Germany, among others.
The World Socialist Web Site has a profile devoted to McPherson under their history section. McPherson's profile is linked their history index along side their other history pages. It is identified as "James McPherson: Historian of the American Civil War" and is one of many sections of mostly socialist themes. Among the others are "Marxism and the fundamental problems of the 20th century," "Leon Trotsky" and "The Struggle for Social Equality." Among the items under McPherson's profile are several of his publications including a three part exclusive interview with the organization that runs the site.
In addition, a mini-biography of a profile of McPherson is given on the World Socialist Web Site located here. This biography is by David Walsh, a socialist activist and arts editor for the World Socialist Web Site. In it, Walsh clearly identifies McPherson as a friend to socialists, stating "Nearly 40 years ago Professor McPherson arrived at a conception of the American Civil War, based on the work of the best of his predecessors and his own researches, as a revolutionary struggle for equality and democracy and he has not, I think, ever deviated from that view. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that the last several decades have not been favorable for progressive social thought" (my emphasis added). The rest of Walsh's mini-biography lavishes McPherson with praises for viewing the war as a "social movement" of "liberation" and proceeds to quote one of the north's strongest advocates during the war itself, Karl Marx, to show that the granddaddy of communism's view is consistent with McPherson's. The article does concede that McPherson is generally a political in his writings, but nevertheless maintains the title "progressive" - the famous euphemism used by leftists to refer to themselves and their allies in terminology with less inflamatory connotations than "leftist," "communist," or "liberal."
...Now, all that being introduced into the record, excuse me for just a moment while I express my doubts in the objectivity of ANY individual who willingly appears on an openly socialist radio talk show during a discussion devoted to smearing George W. Bush. Allow me to express my doubts in the fairness of ANY individual who actively defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment while accusing those who favored it of having but a mere "personal vendetta." Allow me to express my doubts in the claims of political balance for ANY individual who openly associates with and publishes material on the official website of an international marxist political party that openly advocates the lenin-style revolutionary overthrow of western capitalism. Allow me to also express concerns over the left wing political bias of persons who willfully associate themselves with such an entity as Pacifica or with the socialist activists on Pacifica, or with a socialist political party, or with the Clinton Administration in its defense against the greatest presidential scandal in American history. But that is not near the sum total of reasons that cast doubt upon claims of McPherson's "balance"...
James McPherson: Modern Left Wing and Anti-Confederate Activism:
Aside from his openly socialist affiliations, involvement with Democrat and leftist modern political causes as well as anti-confederate activism in modern times appear on McPherson's record. They amply demonstrate McPherson's anti-southern bias in his own personal politics on things such as the modern confederate flag controversy and his pro-Democrat political affiliations. Broken down by category, here is a sample of McPherson's politics:
McPherson's modern anti-south and anti-confederate biases -
In addition to his calls for the removal of publicly displayed confederate imagery and in addition to his labeling of century old civil war geneology groups such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy as "white supremacists," McPherson's anti-south political biases are both publicly recorded and numerous:
"One's stance on the [confederate] flag, I think, does reflect some degree of commitment for civil rights - or lack of commitment" - James McPherson, quoted by the Associated Press, February 28, 2000
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that." - James McPherson, quoted on the socialist Pacifica Radio Network's "Democracy Now" show, November 3, 1999
Modern confederates are "people who reshape Civil War history to suit the way they wish it had come out." - James McPherson, review of "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz
"For a lot of people, especially blacks, but not only blacks, the symbols of the Confederacy, or memorializing those who fought for the Confederacy, are- the Confederacy is seen standing for slavery and for treason. That is for rebellion against the United States, war against the United States, war to try to break up and, in the minds of those who fought on the side of the North, to destroy the United States. And I think it seems in the minds of many to be a travesty to memorialize them." - James McPherson, December 18, 1995 interview, NPR
The Plain Dealer covered a speech by McPherson in a May 5, 2000 article, reporting McPherson to hold the belief that "it's likely slavery in some form would have persisted into the 20th century" were it not for the war. McPherson continued, asserting that had it not been for the war, this "might have given rise to a South African-type apartheid which could have continued to today."
"[Southerners] need to face up to the historical reality, if only to come to terms with the problems of their own society" - James McPherson, referring to persons who disagree with Northern versions of the conflict's history, U.S. News and World Report, 9/30/02
McPherson on Slavery Reparations -
James McPherson hosted a University seminar to discuss the issue of slavery reparations on April 14, 2001 at Washington University in St. Louis. The event's calendar announcement, may be found here. According to the calendar, the session was titled "40 Acres & a Mule," hosted by McPherson. The event's description reads "This class will address the question of whether decendents of slaves (or other African Americans) are owed reparations for slavery. Prof. McPherson will provide some historical background on the debate after the Civil War about granting every freed slave '40 acres and a mule.'" Details of what sides McPherson took during the seminar are not reported, but it should be noted that seminars of this nature on the reparations issue have been held on college campuses across the nation in recent years, almost exclusively to give a platform and audience to the pro-reparations cause.
McPherson's support of today's liberal Democrats, espousal of left wing policy, and criticism of the GOP -
The February 6, 2000 Baltimore Sun reported in an article about former Democrat senator and presidential candidate Bill Bradley that Bradley had "assembled a " futures group" of thinkers who would meet several times a year to discuss the major problems of, and opportunities for, the United States in the last decade of the century." On the small six member list of this "select group" was James McPherson. Others included Richard Rorty, an ultra-left post modernist philosophy professor, and Cornel West, an ultra-liberal "black studies" professor and leading slavery reparations advocate.
"He's very good at creating a positive image. Just last week, he made a quick visit to the fires in Idaho. People appreciate that he cares about these things." - James McPherson, praising Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, August 14, 2000
"There is a real irony here because the Republicans went out of their way to avoid real conflict or the appearance of conflict. The public is aware of that, so what is the point of watching the convention or caring about it?" - James McPherson commenting on the Republican National Convention, New Hampshire Telegraph, August 4, 2000
In the April 2003 edition of "Perspectives," the magazine of the American Historical Association, McPherson published a lengthy diatribe espousing the continuation of "Affirmative Action" in response to the University of Michigan case before the Supreme Court.
According to William Ferris, who was Bill Clinton's director of the taxpayer funded National Endowement for the Humanities, McPherson has been an outspoken advocate of securing and increasing government funding for the humanities through the program.
As reported in the October 4, 2002 Daily Princetonian article entitled "Faculty members sign petition opposing war against Iraq", James McPherson was among 12 of the school's professors who signed a petition criticizing Congress for not asserting its authority over the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. McPherson also authored a thinly veiled "historical" article in 2003 entitled "The Fruits of Preventive War." It was designed to cast the notion of preemptive war negatively by, among other things, associating it with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
What I wrote was: "Confederates were barred from holding office - yes or no." What part of the 14th Amendment DON'T you understand? Would a remedial reading class help?
It seems the Yankees had decades of experience to bring to the table when the capetbaggers invaded:
They were chained, and ordered below; where the sight of hundreds of wretches, stolen, wronged, wretched as themselves, only showed them that they were lost forever.No tongue can depict the horrors of that passage. No imagination can form even a faint outline of its sufferings. Physical torture wrought its work. Humanity was crushed within them; and they were presented for sale, more than half brutalized for the brutal market.
Robert J. Cottrol, ed., "Memoirs Of Elleanor Eldridge", From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (1998), p. 37
The trade was made, and we two boys were sold for one hundred pounds a head, lawful money,—yes, sold by a man, a minister of the gospel in Connecticut, the land of steady habits.*** The other thing was, he was fond of using the lash. I thought so then, and made up my mind if I ever was the strongest I would pay back some of it.
Robert J. Cottrol, ed., "Life of James Mars, A slave Born and Sold in Connecticut", From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (1998), p. 61, 62
"I found prejudice so great in the North that I was forced to come down from my high position as captain, and take my whitewash brush and wheel-barrow and get my living in that way."
Robert J. Cottrol, ed., "Life of Geoge Henry", From African to Yankee: Narratives of Slavery and Freedom in Antebellum New England, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe (1998), p. 205
In the year of our Lord 1855, I turn my attention to the subject of public school rights. I find myself paying a heavy tax, and my children debarred from attending the schools for which I was taxed.But it's not as if the Yankees changed their ways after the war:
Ibid. p. 208
In 1870 we petitioned the Honorable General Assembly to repeal that section relating to "Equal School Rights," and it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. They failed to report on it.
Ibid., p. 210
What I wrote was: "Confederates were barred from holding office - yes or no." What part of the 14th Amendment DON'T you understand? Would a remedial reading class help?
Are you suggesting that Aleck Stephens was not a confederate, or that he didn't hold office in Congress after the war, or what exactly?
You said:
"Confederates were barred from holding office - yes or no."
That was a lie. You'd think you'd have enough sense to let it go.
Walt
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Black Codes were actually an antebellum construct that came out of yankeeland. Desiring to preserve their lily white populations, yankee states placed severe restrictions on free black residents than most southern states placed on them. In fact, the Ohio River was a statutory Berlin Wall to free blacks before the war because most of the states to its north barred blacks from settling or even doing business in their territory. As a result, the largest free black populations before the war were in slave states.
As for repayment of the black confederate veterans, that may be found in pension records and the accounts of confederate veterans reunions from the late 19th century through the 1930's when increasingly fewer veterans were still alive. Many white confederate veterans fought long and hard to get pensions established for the black ones, and several sponsored their applications. The blacks were also universally honored at the reunions. There was a large one at Gettysburg, I believe, during which the yankee organizers shunned the black confederates and failed to provide them with housing during the reunion so some southern whites gave up part of the space that had been allotted to them.
Well, we know that Aleck Stephen was elected to Congress after the war, we know that he was an official in the insurgent government, so your statement, you being familiar with these facts -- was a lie.
And you don't have the sense enough to let it go.
Walt
Really.
Well blacks could vote in 5 of the free states prior to 1860. In how many of the so-called seceded states could they vote in 1860? 1865? 1875? 1900?
You make a good Dr. Geobbels for the traitors.
Walt
If that is true (and given your track record of willful deception and your known inability to cite credible sources, I am disinclined to take your word for it that it is), it was also the case that AT LEAST five northern states would not even allow blacks to legally set foot inside their borders prior to 1860 (Source: Abstracts on the laws of the several states pertaining to negroes, Record Group 160, National Archives and Records Administration). Illinois, Oregon, Iowa, and some others all fit in this category and your fake god Lincoln did not object to it when his own state legislature enacted the anti-black provisions.
Part I of the Amendment:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
The final clause: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
I'm not the one that looks like a moron for being able to comprehend the English language.
What did that have to do with blacks voting? I'd declare a squack alert except that I'm not sure what your current definition of 'tu quoque' is.
Nonsense. Confederates were barred from serving in political office - unless the federal congress removed the disability. Barring any evidence that multitudes of former politicians were recipients of such acts, it couldn't have been ex-confederates drafting such legislation. Additionally, the governments were military, and elections/constitutions were approved by the President and Congress (devoid of southern representatives).
It wasn't a Southern thing.
Again, you are deliberately avoiding fact and misstating the circumstances. The Black Codes were in place in every southern state by the fall of 1865, long before the 14th Amendment was ratified or Reconstruction was imposed. Jim Crow laws were enacted almost as soon as reconstruction ended. Section 3 of that Amendment only prevented those who had held federal or state office prior to the rebellion and who had sworn to uphold the Constitution as a part of that office from holding office again without approval of Congress. Approval that was apparently freely granted. So your claim that 'it was them Yankees what done it' is ridiculous.
It wasn't a Southern thing.
It most certainly was. Before the rebellion...during the rebellion...and after the rebellion as well.
Just as the Northern states were rife with their own Black Codes, long before 1865.
Jim Crow laws were enacted almost as soon as reconstruction ended.
Which ended when, and what politicians were in office? In the intervening period while ex-confederates could serve, what multitude of Jim Crow laws were passed?
Section 3 of that Amendment only prevented those who had held federal or state office prior to the rebellion and who had sworn to uphold the Constitution as a part of that office from holding office again without approval of Congress.
The Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws, and also prohibited "Bills of Attainder" - no trials were held to convict anyone of the punishment imposed. The Supreme Court agreed in Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. (71 US) 277 (1867) and in Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. (71 US) 333 (1867). If it was illegal/unconstitutional in 1867, it certainly was after that.
Approval that was apparently freely granted. So your claim that 'it was them Yankees what done it' is ridiculous.
Nonsense. Point to the legislation removing the prohibition from masses of Confederate legislators. Post the proof of your assertion.
It most certainly was. Before the rebellion...during the rebellion...and after the rebellion as well.
Before - both North & South had Black Laws. During ditto. After - the south was ruled by Union military, carpetbaggers and scalawags - ex-Confederates were disbarred from office.
It was now a Yankee thing.
Not denied, but if you were a Yankee then GOP would be calling a tu quoque alert on your ass. But since you're a reb then you fall under the alternate definition of the term. Regardless, Northern pre-war Black Codes were also matched in severity by pre-war southern Black Codes which prevented free blacks in virtually all southern states from living near, competing with, travelling among, or even associating with southern whites and were meant to keep blacks in what the overwhelming majority of southerners saw as their proper place, in bondage. Most southern states had laws on their books forbidding free black emigration into the state, or from freeing the existing slave population. So the Black Codes that you blame on them devil Yankees had a long and honorable tradition on southern society. It was, in all respects, a 'sothern thang'.
Nope. That is where one attempts to excuse another by stating that the other did it as well, which excuses the actions of the first.
I do not deny the south's complicity, but pointed out the northern historical record is rife with "Black Laws" - it was not just a southern thing. It wasn't even an American thing - some African villages were comprised of up to 75% slaves.
...pre-war southern Black Codes which prevented free blacks in virtually all southern states from living near, competing with, travelling among, or even associating with southern whites and were meant to keep blacks in what the overwhelming majority of southerners saw as their proper place, in bondage.
Huh???? "free blacks" ... "their proper place, in bondage"??
Most southern states had laws on their books forbidding free black emigration into the state, or from freeing the existing slave population.
Yall didnt want them, nor did you want them in the territorries. Where were they to go?
A question which troubled southern states no end. The Mississippi legislature seriously debated an act requiring all free blacks in the state be forcibly deported to Africa. This was after they enacted a law similar to the one in Virginia which required that all slaves freed in Mississippi had to leave or else be sold back into slavery. So apparently they were not concerned where the free blacks went, so long as they went.
A better question would be exactly what blacks voting had to do with my original comment about blacks being barred from even living in several northern states. Wlat introduced the issue of black voters (a claim which, BTW, he has not cited nor substantiated as of yet) as an apparent non-response to my prior statement about the horrendously discriminatory black codes employed by yankeeland for decades before the civil war. Thus it is incumbent upon him to either challenge or explain for my original argument. Simply noting his failure to do so and restating my original argument before him is subsequently my right in this debate as well.
So in other words, you have no answer for the fact that blacks were legally barred from taking up residence in at least 5 yankee states prior to 1860?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.