Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Black Confederate
RedState.org ^ | 21 May 05 | Tom Darby

Posted on 05/21/2005 1:31:37 PM PDT by CurlyBill

The Black Confederate

By: Tom Darby · Section: Diaries

Contrary to popular historical education and Southern revisionists, there is much evidence that African-American's served their country not only in the Union army but also in the Confederate army and navy. This evidence is found in the diaries, journals, newspaper articles and documents written by soldiers, officers and politicians.

Many institutions have set about to dismantle these findings by declaring them as `revisionist,' however the proof that these written accounts exist at all shows that slaves were present in the service of their state and country.

It was the commanders in the field who saw the greatest potential in the use of the African-American slave long before the politicians would admit their value. On January 2nd, 1864 Major General Patrick Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee, circulated a petition among several officers calling for the enrolling and arming of slaves into the Southern Army.

The petition read in part, "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter---give up the Negro slaves rather than become a slave himself." It was signed by three other generals, four colonels, three majors, one captain, and two lieutenants.

Politicians were horrified by the idea. Confederate Major General and political advisor to Jefferson Davis, Howell Cobb pointed out, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Davis had Cleburne's petition suppressed, yet the idea would not go away.

In February 1865, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Confederate President Jefferson Davis requesting authorization to fill his ranks with slaves, saying that they were already physically fit, and mentally conditioned to be well disciplined. In March, the Confederated Congress passed a bill that when to Davis' desk.

While it was awaiting his signature General Lee wrote the President again, "I do not know whether the law authorizing the use of Negro troops has received your sanction, but I respectfully recommend the measures be taken to carry it into effect as soon as practible." It was signed on March 13th and by the first of April, Colonel Otey, 11th Virginia Infantry, was assigned to duty in Lynchburg, VA, to recruit, muster and organize black units for the Confederate army.

Although this unit saw no action according to official accounts other records indicate they were drilling and standing by to defend the city. There are also historical documents indicating that thousands of slaves served in the Southern army as noncombatants in roles like cooks, teamsters and musicians.

And when called upon they would fight along side `freemen' who served in such outstanding state-militias like the 1st Louisiana Native Guard; Company A and F, 14th Mississippi Confederate Calvary; Company D, 35th Texas Calvary; or the 1,150 black sailors who served in the Confederate navy.

Finally, the first military monument in the US Capitol which honors African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument, erected in 1914. It depicts a black Confederate soldier marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is a white soldier giving his child to a black woman for safety.

We may never understand everything about those five remarkable years, but we cannot ever stop trying. And it is time to realize that the historical record has been obscured to the truth on the part of the African-American's role in the Southern Army as a soldier and sailor and to bring these facts to light as both a matter of pride and education.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; US: Alabama; US: Florida; US: Georgia; US: Louisiana; US: Maryland; US: Mississippi; US: North Carolina; US: South Carolina; US: Tennessee; US: Texas; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: blackconfederate; blackconfederates; civilwar; confederacy; confederate; dixie; goodblacks; historyrevisionism; notthishitagain; statesrights; thesouth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

1 posted on 05/21/2005 1:31:37 PM PDT by CurlyBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Ping!


2 posted on 05/21/2005 1:32:08 PM PDT by CurlyBill (Democratic Party -- Wimps without ideas whose only issue is to oppose Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill
shows that slaves were present in the service of their state and country

Well, yeah. They were slaves.

3 posted on 05/21/2005 1:35:11 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

A black fighting for the Confederacy is like a rich person fighting for Communism-it plain does not make any SENSE!


4 posted on 05/21/2005 1:38:49 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
"...like a rich person fighting for Communism..."

Perhaps illogical, but that does not make it untrue. Most of the people who are fighting for Communism are rich people.

Consider just the examples of Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton.

5 posted on 05/21/2005 1:45:08 PM PDT by NicknamedBob ("What's with Modern Music? If I want screaming and shrieking, I can go home to my family." - George)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

True enough.Guess its just a case of the absurd and paradoxical state of the human mind!
We are not a logical species.


6 posted on 05/21/2005 1:49:39 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
"Well, yeah. They were slaves"

Not all of them. I would suggest you look at the 1850 census records for New Orleans. Several Black Slave owners. This is the real hidden history of the pre Civil War South. Free Blacks also owned slaves.
7 posted on 05/21/2005 1:50:59 PM PDT by Bar-Face
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bar-Face

True of course, but the article makes reference after reference to use of slaves, not Freemen or black slave holders.


8 posted on 05/21/2005 1:55:57 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610; NicknamedBob

Don't forget Soros.


9 posted on 05/21/2005 1:56:50 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Yes they were slaves but they did not have to fight. In fact for most of the war it was officially forbidden to arm the slaves. Most slaves in the front came as body servants to officers and enlisted white solders. There are more than a few accounts of the master running away while the "body servant" slave stayed and fought. They were free to return home when the master deserted but most chose to stay and serve. The article seems to imply the officers were behind arming the slaves and it is true for the people he cites but many officers did not approve, but the white enlisted men would cover for the Black slave who wanted to stay and fight. When the officer was around the slave would pretend to be about his business, cleaning weapons etc. but when the fighting started he would join his comrades. There is much testament from Union solders caught by surprise by a slave fighting for his country, The SOUTH.
10 posted on 05/21/2005 1:59:20 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Re: "We are not a logical species."

Not so fast. You have an advantage that the slave did not; you know the outcome of the war.

It is possible to consider the best chances for earning your freedom was to fight for the South and be granted your freedom as a reward, while the success of the North was by no means certain, at least in the minds of those living at the time. Even many in the North thought the South could win the war and there were a few moments when the political will was very precarious. Many credit the force of will of Lincoln with getting the Union through those periods.
11 posted on 05/21/2005 2:07:31 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
There is much testament from Union solders caught by surprise by a slave fighting for his country, The SOUTH.

How could that be? Did the slave have citizenship? No, of course not. Therefore, it can't by definition be his country.

Statements like that are unbelievable. Just a cursory knowledge of the law of the land should prohibit one from even making that argument!


12 posted on 05/21/2005 2:09:53 PM PDT by rdb3 (One may smile and smile and still be a villain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill

Most people dont realize that Slavery in the southern states was about MORE than mere Race. There were free, black slave owners, thousands of them. Slavery was a way of life for many back in Africa. Not all blacks were slaves in the US South. Some blacks owned slaves. This fact is astounding to many, confusing for some, and leads to a cognitive dissonance in others..


13 posted on 05/21/2005 2:09:56 PM PDT by Paradox (In my heart, I will always be something of a Liberal, in my head, a Conservative. Head wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

I don't doubt those facts, and they are certainly belong in any body of research on the subject. The significance of such facts may be subject to debate, though. What might be helpful is personal accounts of those volunteers (or conscripts, as the case may be) in the form of diaries or letters that indicated their motivations. Maybe being on the front line with a gun was preferable to being "back home" for one reason or another. Maybe the promise of freedom or some level of privilege in the Confederacy was another. And of course, there had to be a certain number of true believers, for whatever that's worth.


14 posted on 05/21/2005 2:11:53 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Most people dont realize that Slavery in the southern states was about MORE than mere Race. There were free, black slave owners, thousands of them.

An honest acknowledgement of history shows that to be true. There were many black slave owners. It's not a secret.

Slavery was a way of life for many back in Africa.

True, but what has that to do with this nation? Answer: Nothing.

Not all blacks were slaves in the US South. Some blacks owned slaves. This fact is astounding to many, confusing for some, and leads to a cognitive dissonance in others..

Somehow I missed being in a state of cognitive dissonance about this. I wonder why that is.


15 posted on 05/21/2005 2:14:13 PM PDT by rdb3 (One may smile and smile and still be a villain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Did the slave have citizenship? No, of course not. Therefore, it can't by definition be his country.

Helsinki syndrome, perhaps?

16 posted on 05/21/2005 2:15:39 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
How could that be? Did the slave have citizenship? No, of course not. Therefore, it can't by definition be his country.

Brilliant!

Any black man or woman who voluntarily fought for the Confederacy was a damn fool.

17 posted on 05/21/2005 2:16:43 PM PDT by Petronski (A champion of dance, my moves will put you in a trance, and I never leave the disco alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
A black fighting for the Confederacy is like a rich person fighting for Communism-it plain does not make any SENSE!

It's an historical fact that blacks did fight for the South. They didn't have them at division strength as did the North, but they served none-the-less.

As for sentiment, Shelby Foote tells of a slave that accompanied Lee's army into Pennsylvania that thought PA looked like a nice place, but he preferred "home."

The Civil War was as complicated as are human beings, a blending of meanness and greatness as Bruce Catton described.

18 posted on 05/21/2005 2:20:54 PM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill
I was just reading this article about HK edgerton, a black confederate historian and historical activist and found a portion appropriate for this discussion:

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/blackrebel.htm

(snip)

Edgerton blames the media and the educational system for creating the perception that exists today regarding southern history. "This is a continuation about the lies of the Christian southern white folks during the Civil War. African Americans in this country don't know a thing about that war and that time. They see that flag and someone says slavery and it all falls apart and they think of Southern Christian white folks as being evil."

"We can't let the stars and stripes get away that easy. Never were the stars and bars flag flown over a slave ship. And you want to know why? Because it's a Christian Battle Flag that was emulated after St. Andrew, Jesus Christ's first disciple. In 69 A.D. in Petro, Greece -- now a part of Russia -- St. Andrew was jailed because of his teaching and preaching of Jesus Christ, his Lord and Master, and he was told he was going to be crucified on the cross. He begged that persecutor not to nail him to that Latin cross in the shape of "T" because he was not worthy of being punished the way Jesus Christ had been nailed. So he begged to be tied in an X-shape to the cross and the persecutor did what he asked him to. That X is a Greek symbol to CH, the first two letters in Christ's name. When St. Andrew was on the cross he continued his teaching of Christ and all the folks started believing him and for three days he remained on that cross teaching and after three days they begged the persecutor to take him down and when he did, St. Andrew came down off that cross and died, and he became a martyr and a saint.

"When (Civil War Confederate ) General Beaureguard decided they needed another flag, he chose the cross of St. Andrew for these reasons. Most Southerners, in fact, did not want to do away with the stars and stripes because they didn't feel they had done anything wrong. They thought it was the north who was eradicating the Constitution.

"And as for President Lincoln, our American hero, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In march of 1861 Abraham Lincoln called all those black leaders in his office and he told them -- Even if I set you free you'll be inferior. You need to get out of the country because I will colonize you. Lincoln proposed the 13th Amendment, being the only President ever to do so. That amendment said Congress would never have the power to interrupt an institution of state. He told the southerners they could keep the slaves if they paid the North a 42% tariff. The South agreed to a 10% tariff but not 42%. So, who I am supposed to blame the institution of slavery on?

"At that time, one of the richest men in the world, John D. Rothchild told his family to put all their money into the Confederacy and described Lincoln as a crook. He said the slaves in the south were better off than the slaves in the north who had to work for next to nothing in the cotton mills.

"The attack on the Confederacy doesn't get the attention it deserves. These blacks today have no idea what took place back then. (Blacks) earned a place of dignity in that war. If it wasn't for Africans that war would have lasted four days, not four years. We made all of the implements of war, we fought, we participated -- not one slave insurrection happened during that period of time. They did not have whips and guns forcing them to be there. God and his infinite wisdom brought these people here. He brought about a love between master and slave that has never happened before. If you search this empirically then you will know the only one who cared about the African was the man in the south. But we don't want to face that.

19 posted on 05/21/2005 2:21:37 PM PDT by Rebelbase (The Republican Party is the France of politics--Lazamataz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
... Yes they were slaves but they did not have to fight. In fact for most of the war it was officially forbidden to arm the slaves. Most slaves in the front came as body servants to officers and enlisted white solders. There are more than a few accounts of the master running away while the "body servant" slave stayed and fought. They were free to return home when the master deserted but most chose to stay and serve. The article seems to imply the officers were behind arming the slaves and it is true for the people he cites but many officers did not approve, but the white enlisted men would cover for the Black slave who wanted to stay and fight. When the officer was around the slave would pretend to be about his business, cleaning weapons etc. but when the fighting started he would join his comrades.

If you have evidence of that, post it. Otherwise the more likely interpretation is that "cleaning weapons etc." was the slave's work, whether on not he on occasion picked up a gun.

There is much testament from Union solders caught by surprise by a slave fighting for his country, The SOUTH.

Again, if you have evidence of Union troops coming upon Blacks and being fired upon them, then post it. There are stories of Northerners taking navvys and sappers digging trenches for combat soldiers. That was a plausible mistake. There are also stories of Union troops being pinned down by snipers whom they took to be Black. The problem is that in the darkness and chaos and from a distance it would be hard to tell just what the race of a sniper was.

20 posted on 05/21/2005 2:27:28 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
What country do you think he was a part? He was a slave in the Union as well. By your line of reasoning he wasn't a part of the Union either.

I'm sorry but I think your line of thinking is the stupid one. There is no logic to it, all feelings and emoting.
21 posted on 05/21/2005 2:28:34 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bar-Face
Black Slave owners

Talk about messing up a reparations claim.

Good catch, by the way, referring to the number of Blacks that owned slaves in pre-war Orleans Parish. That little nugget of info never sees the light of day.

22 posted on 05/21/2005 2:31:50 PM PDT by Founding Father (A proud "vigilante." My money goes to support Minutemen, not Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

I have heard that blacks were paid the same as whites in the confederate army, not so in the union army. granted confederate money probably was worthless anyway, but I guess it was the thought that counts :p


23 posted on 05/21/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by Kewlhand`tek (What the hell was that? I hope it was outgoing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
I'm sorry but I think your line of thinking is the stupid one. There is no logic to it, all feelings and emoting.

Hold on. I answered a post of yours using sound logic and acknowledgement of the law as my basis. Yet here you move this to the personal level by saying that my line of thinking is "stupid," and that I'm "emoting," even though what I said was dispassionate.

Imagine that.


24 posted on 05/21/2005 2:32:21 PM PDT by rdb3 (One may smile and smile and still be a villain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"Somehow I missed being in a state of cognitive dissonance about this."

Well, if you were in a state of cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't know it, would you? In fact, you could be in one now...

25 posted on 05/21/2005 2:32:50 PM PDT by NicknamedBob ("What's with Modern Music? If I want screaming and shrieking, I can go home to my family." - George)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
Well, if you were in a state of cognitive dissonance, you wouldn't know it, would you? In fact, you could be in one now...

That's cute.


26 posted on 05/21/2005 2:35:08 PM PDT by rdb3 (One may smile and smile and still be a villain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill

This article only talks about slaves that we can assume were forced to fight for the Confederacy. What is even less well known is that there were free blacks that fought for the CSA. In New Orleans during the Civil War there were quite a few black free tradesmen. When Union General Butler attacked New Orleans, residents defended the city composed of both white and black CSA soldiers. They were defending their city from attack. Butler occupied the city and imposed martial law, with its attendant rapes and pillaging of the fair city of New Orleans. He it was who said that any woman you see can be assumed to be a 'lady of the evening' and you could have your way with her. The false impression that New Orleans girls are tramps lingers to this day.


27 posted on 05/21/2005 2:38:15 PM PDT by sportutegrl (Huh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Re: "The significance of such facts may be subject to debate"

Yes I can agree on this, which is the value of a thread such as this, if we can get the feelings police from high jacking it. "Boo hoo hoo you are siding with the South the Union is great and anything that questions that must be stomped out or silenced." I have noticed it is white Northerners who are most prone to this type of thing.

The sort of thing you are talking about is available. One of the good things to come out of the social programs of the Depression. Out of work journalist //sigh// were employed to interview the elderly former slaves. Some criticize this body of work but at least one of the journalist was a black woman. I hear she got a slightly different take on things. I have never seen her work so I do not know.

There is a good book on the subject written by a black professor at the University of Virginia by the name of Jordan. His book is Afro Americans and Black Confederates in Civil War Virginia. I am pretty sure it is still in print. His book was limited to the 4 years of the war and just in Virgina but what a gold mine. Lot of fascinating stories dealing with all aspects of slave life. He was trying to figure out why a slave would fight for the South.

His conclusion? It was their country same as the white man.
28 posted on 05/21/2005 2:45:24 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: x

Re: "If you have evidence of that, post it."
and Re: "Again, if you have evidence of Union troops coming upon Blacks and being fired upon them, then post it."

From post #28 please see it for more details. Hear is a snip:
There is a good book on the subject written by a black professor at the University of Virginia by the name of Jordan. His book is Afro Americans and Black Confederates in Civil War Virginia. I am pretty sure it is still in print. His book was limited to the 4 years of the war and just in Virgina but what a gold mine. Lot of fascinating stories dealing with all aspects of slave life. He was trying to figure out why a slave would fight for the South.

His conclusion? It was their country same as the white man.


29 posted on 05/21/2005 2:48:49 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Re: "Hold on. I answered a post of yours using sound logic and acknowledgement of the law as my basis. Yet here you move this to the personal level by saying that my line of thinking is "stupid," and that I'm "emoting," even though what I said was dispassionate."

Gee what was I to make of this "Statements like that are unbelievable. Just a cursory knowledge of the law of the land should prohibit one from even making that argument!"

No you did not use the word stupid that is true but I differ with your implication that you were using logic. I notice you did not answer my question. I will recap. From your post I gather you think the slave was not a citizen of the South and could not have fought for the South willingly. But the slave was also a slave in the Union so where does that put the slave using your line of reasoning?
30 posted on 05/21/2005 2:56:37 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
A black fighting for the Confederacy is like a rich person fighting for Communism-

Really? I am not sure that the outcome of the Civil War actually advanced the cause of Blacks in America. Remember the Army was segregated as late as 1948. I firmly believe that slavery as an instituition was moribund and the Civil War aroused animosities and hardened positions.

31 posted on 05/21/2005 2:57:37 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (What's 17% of 155 words?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
the article makes reference after reference to use of slaves, not Freemen

"And when called upon they would fight along side `freemen' who served in such outstanding state-militias like the 1st Louisiana Native Guard; Company A and F, 14th Mississippi Confederate Calvary; Company D, 35th Texas Calvary; or the 1,150 black sailors who served in the Confederate navy."

32 posted on 05/21/2005 2:58:18 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

A bigger paradox (sorry I couldn't resist) was the white slaves. Yes folks they were real, they were not a myth.


33 posted on 05/21/2005 2:59:32 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Mark in the Old South
There is a good book on the subject written by a black professor at the University of Virginia by the name of Jordan. His book is Afro Americans and Black Confederates in Civil War Virginia. I am pretty sure it is still in print. His book was limited to the 4 years of the war and just in Virgina but what a gold mine. Lot of fascinating stories dealing with all aspects of slave life. He was trying to figure out why a slave would fight for the South. His conclusion? It was their country same as the white man.

I just bought this book a few weeks ago. It's excellent. Fairly scholarly and well-researched, but not tedious. He is a black scholar himself, so he didn't have some League-of-the-South ax to grind.

People don't seem to understand this. Whether you're black or white, slave or free, you love the land in which you were born. You see an invading army burning and pillaging its way across the countryside, threatening to destroy your home, and you may well pick up a gun and fight, even if your position has not been wonderful.

Remember also that not all black slaves were suffering in the forests of Georgia. In northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley, for instance, some of them had relatively light work (by the standards for all rural people of the period) and in many cases even farmed their own acreage or ran their own side businesses, without having to worry about where their clothing or food would come from, because the master would always provide it. That's not a bad deal, especially if you haven't been raised on ideas of equality and freedom, and it's not surprising that a lot of blacks didn't want to rock the boat. Some of them even objected to emancipation, as it required initiative, independence, and a willingness to take care of onesself in an age that offered no social safety net.

So in some respects it's not surprising that certain blacks may have taken arms against the Union.

35 posted on 05/21/2005 3:10:56 PM PDT by Capriole (I don't have any problems that couldn't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

"I feel the institution of slavery was a moribund one"
Probably so.Might have lasted another forty years or so at the most.Yet thats small consolation for those who had to live under that yoke and wait till slavery died a natural death.
All the people who say life was no paradise for Northern blacks are quite correct.That does NOT excuse the peculiar institution in the South,however.
And,yes,there were quite a few free blacks who owned slaves.Why is that a surprise?Blacks can be just as cruel and capricious to their own folks as whites can!Most of the slave owning blacks were mulatto offspring of white masters and slave women.They often inherited that attitude of"I'm better than those field n*****"since I have white blood.
Hell,you see that attitude TODAY among lots of blacks.Just go to any urban high school in the country!


36 posted on 05/21/2005 3:11:40 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

Knock it off.


37 posted on 05/21/2005 3:17:15 PM PDT by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

Something else to consider also. The whole world had just come out of a period of serfdom in which, essentially, everyone other than the "nobility" were slaves.

That slavery existed in the aftermath of that concept might have been considered a step upward.

Many of the people fighting, on both sides of the War Between The States, were the Irish and Scots. Why were they here? Because they were treated like property where they had been. Unwelcome property, at that!


38 posted on 05/21/2005 3:23:25 PM PDT by NicknamedBob ("What's with Modern Music? If I want screaming and shrieking, I can go home to my family." - George)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
Glad you like the book. I have to say it is the book I most often recommend (outside the Bible). Some of the stories I was dying to know more. Two of my favorite:

The slave woman who was an overseer for her white master living in Virginia. She was sent to run his plantations in Alabama. A slave woman, literate, no white master or boss for a thousand miles. Yet she had to interact with everyone that a typical plantation manager has to deal with in the middle of a Civil War. Transportation of crops, markets, supplies, budgets, I doubt these things could have been effectively managed by her master so far away in the 1860's. What a great move that could be made into if Hollywood wasn't so PC.

The other story was about a slave with a reputation for a temper. It seems the overseer ordered him to do something to which the slave attacked him. The other slaves had to pull him off the man to save the overseer's life. When it was brought to the master's attention he fired the overseer and made the slave who attacked him overseer.

It seems overseers were not liked by anyone slave or master. It seems to have attacked the worst sort. Neither Washington nor Jefferson ever had an overseer who lasted more than a year.
39 posted on 05/21/2005 3:24:23 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: Riverman94610
I notice you're getting a few interesting replies. There might be couple more elements here. Defending your home, the people you know, the land you love, from forces which are foreign to you.

Slavery may have been the moral motivation for Northern troops. But there were many dynamics in that war.

41 posted on 05/21/2005 3:43:39 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill

bizarre thread I have to say


42 posted on 05/21/2005 3:46:47 PM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

I am just wondering what the draft riots were all about then. If a group of people came from being treated like property then why treat other people like property? That's just strange to me. Well shouldn't be. No one wants to be a slave, and when afforded the first opportunity to be a master, human nature has opted for that route.


43 posted on 05/21/2005 3:49:40 PM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610

It doesn't make sense in today's mentality BUT I can easily see how a slave would fight for the Confederacy, something they're familiar with than the Union side.


44 posted on 05/21/2005 3:50:29 PM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Mark in the Old South

It's true what you say Mark but doesn't take away from the point that slavery was wrong. After all, not all Jews were in the holocaust and in fact hunted down other Jews in Germany, Poland and elsewhere. Yet, I've never heard anyone say the same about Jews.


45 posted on 05/21/2005 3:52:52 PM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Might have lasted another forty years or so at the most.Yet thats small consolation for those who had to live under that yoke

You make a valid point, one I was aware of. You are assuming that the life of a freedman during those forty years was markedly better than a slave's in the period before.

On balance, I am not sure that the Civil War even accomplished the goal of advancing the cause of Black Americans. The costs in terms of blood and treasure aside, all the other effects of the War, were, imho, distinctly negative.

46 posted on 05/21/2005 4:07:57 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (What's 17% of 155 words?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Re: "It's true what you say Mark but doesn't take away from the point that slavery was wrong."

I quite agree. I very strongly agree but exploring history and it's odd ironies is not the same as justifying something. So many make that leap of logic. If "A" is true and "B" is true that does not make "A" = "C". Slavery is bad, true. Some slaves fought for the South, true. So if you say "B" is true you must be for slavery, not true.

There is a value in understanding the "why" of a slave fighting for a government that legalizes his status. For example blacks fought in WWI and WWII yet at home they were mistreated, Why did they do that? Some have pointed out the slave of 1850 was in some ways better treated than the free black in 1910. I do not justify slavery near as much as I criticize Jim Crow. It was horrible in 1910. All the worst sort of court ruling come from that era until the Warren court which seems determined to out do them. Why do children fight and kick and scream at social workers taking away child abusers. Why do smart adult women attack police when the man they love is in trouble for beating her. Heck she might have even been the one who called the police, but just ask a policeman what often happens on such calls.

I think some are just lazy. The teacher who is made uncomfortable by the subject maybe because they just do not know enough yet are afraid of that leap in logic so they respond in a manner that is a leap in logic itself.
47 posted on 05/21/2005 4:14:32 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: seamole
Re: "The assumption was naive. White Southerners chose in 1864 to become slaves themselves rather than give up their Negroes to freedom."

I agree with you, assuming your point is the White Southerner waited until it was too late before they were willing to give up slavery. It was too late, if the offer had been made mid war, there may have been a different outcome. Still you missed something. The quote used said "every PATRIOT will freely give up the latter (slavery)" What was naive was an assumption they had more patriots than they in fact possessed.
48 posted on 05/21/2005 4:21:04 PM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

This brings to mind another distinction...the Constitution never said blacks were three-fifths of a person. It referred to 'all other Persons' which in context meant those who were not Free men or indentured/temporary servants. I can't speak to the political status of antebellum free blacks, but according to the document they were entitled to full representation.

That compromise actually turned out in favor of abolition, as it denied the South greater political power commensurate with its large slave population.


49 posted on 05/21/2005 4:30:12 PM PDT by MIT-Elephant ("Armed with what? Spitballs?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

Well okay I understand. I just wonder why people bring up the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves in the South as if that changes anything. I see it done a lot in FR and wonder why that happens. Is it a response to liberals or something?


50 posted on 05/21/2005 4:41:03 PM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson