The Black Confederate

RedState.org ^ | 21 May 05 | Tom Darby

[LibertarianInExile]

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

Could you tell the soldiers in the U.S. Army who aren't U.S. citizens that? I'm sure they will appreciate the knowledge that the U.S. isn't and never will be their country.

As there are foreigners in the U.S. Army today, there were during the Civil War blacks fighting for the South because they anticipated being granted their freedom--not because they had it, because they wanted it. There were blacks fighting for America during the American Revolution given the same incentive.

[LibertarianInExile]

"I was thinking of why some Scots and Irish would immigrate over here became slave masters and if they were oppressed in their own lands why would they come over here and engage in oppression. You would think they'd be motivated to treat people in ways they were not treated back home."

Child abusers are very often people who were abused themselves.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I just wonder why people bring up the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves in the South as if that changes anything."

Because it is interesting, counterintuitive, ironic. It is just the sort of thing that makes history a passion for some people. I hated history in High School because all life was rung out of it. This is life it has twists and turns that are unexpected. Hollywood makes millions selling stories to people who want entertainment. Fictions writers make millions selling fake stories to people. Here is real life for free and it belongs to all. Why would we want to know about it.

[cyborg]

true

[cyborg]

You have a point. History is fascinating and best pursued on one's own time. I had a very good history education in school but nothing like reading on your own.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

"Conventional wisdom" about what went on in the Old South runs right alongside the lines of the Feminists' rhubarb

Another piece of conventional wisdom about the old South that people don't realize is that ol' Dixie was not united at all behind the rebellion. A lot of independent-thinking Southerners, especially in the highland areas, had no use for the Confederacy. The numbers of white Southerners who were fervent supports of Lincoln and the cause of the old Union was many times more than the number of black Southerners who fought for the CSA.

[norton]

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

Re read the article, look under militia, cavalry, Navy, and 'outstanding'.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I had a very good history education in school but nothing like reading on your own."

I could not agree more. I developed a real interest in the role of Blacks in the South after living in Petersburg Virgina. I found Black Hx month in school sooooo boring and so useless but the stuff that never makes it in the Public school system has so much more to it. Virginia has better history classes than most but I had never heard of Joseph Jenkins Roberts. A Free Man of Color who became the first Black man to be Governor of a U.S. territory and then went on to be the First President of an Independent Nation in Africa. (Liberia) Which until recently was the only successful democracy on that Continent (post European Imperialism).

Some of the human interest stories out of Petersburg will keep you fascinated for several lifetimes. You can not understand Southern history without examining the role both races played in shaping events. Slave owing Blacks and slaves fighting for the South can tell you more about why the South fought than all the reading about the lives of rich men. When people want to shut that down they close off understanding Why.

[norton]

NO ONE in this thread, or on FR that I'm aware of, has even hinted that slavery was not an evil institution. Rather, that we can't measure a system that existed since we bagan walking on two legs from today's perspective. Oh, maybe we can, since it still exists throughout the world.

Since 'we are all immigrants' is a popular saw these days, take a look into your family tree and let me know how many 'servants' 'indentured servants' or simply 'laborers show up in the record. Bet we've all got some.

Finally, maybe Mark in the old south can help out here, I've heard of slaves being armed for both hunting and property defense, I've been told of slaves hiring out to work in the community and sharing the wage with their 'msters' (hate htat word) and I know that many slaves HAD to be better educated than most around them because they administered the plantation's business.

[cyborg]

I never did make that accusation about anyone on this thread. I do notice that in many threads about black people and slavery and that many freepers are quick to point out that blacks owned slaves as if that make slavery okay OR absolves the white establishment of the time of any guilt.

[norton]

"..if the offer had been made mid war, there may have been a different outcome."

Can't agree, once the die was cast the North could not end the war by anything other than victory or defeat.

Whatever the South's motives, the North was fighting to regain or retain the geography and to institutionalize it's dominance over the resources of the South.

[norton]

"It didn't have to free all the slaves. That could come later just as it did. Fight the war, win the war and free the slaves. Mission accomplished."

It also didn't create the slave rebellion that was it's sole purpose.

[Mark in the Old South]

That was in reference to slaves not Black citizens. The use of the term citizen can be misleading since there is a historical classical meaning and then there is the common usage. Since use of the term can be misunderstood as to how the writer intended it is might be better to use the tern countryman. In that use of the word a slave is a member of a country though his status in low an his rights limited but the same would apply to women (who are not citizens in a classical use of the term) as are children, even those born to a position of privilege. In fact there are host of people who do not have the classical status of "citizen" but are part of a country and may even be a major influence in the culture of a society. Sparta was overwhelmingly slave and dealing with the was the single greatest cause of that country's character. Citizen no but you can not pretend they were not there. Of course Sparta is an extreme but even Athens had a slave majority. Classically citizens were very limited in who they describe. I suspect using the common use of the term or picking another word would be better than having a debate grind to a useless halt over semantics.

[norton]

Not absolution but sharing of a history, which is something we all should pay more attention to.

[Mark in the Old South]

I do not see how these two statements are in disagreement:

My statement: "..if the offer had been made mid war, there may have been a different outcome."

Your response: "Can't agree, once the die was cast the North could not end the war by anything other than victory or defeat."

My statement indicates the (by no means certain) victory for the South and so does yours or did you slip in the words "or defeat" to confuse me? :-)

[norton]

maybe I misread your statement, looks to me like you indicated that had the South offered to end slavery in '62 the war would have ended...
My belief is that nothing would end the war except for capitulation by one side or the other.
Also, at 'mid-war' the South was looking pretty good on the battle field and yielding anything would not be on the table.

[Mark in the Old South]

No I do not think that would have ended the war. I believe subjection of the South was the goal long before the war started. I do not think the South would have required capitulation of the North even if that was possible but I do believe the North could have been worn down. My "what if" not only would have provided the South with many more fighting men. Still but not as much as some think, remember they were having enough trouble feeding the ones they had. And someone would still need to work the fields or all would starve.

The real value would have been the result in European Capitals. The biggest obstacle to international recognition would have been removed, popular support was already with the South and obtaining loans and supplies would have been easier. One more event like the Trent affair and England would have moved on the South's behalf. But none of that happened because slave owners did not want it and as a result they lost everything.

[Non-Sequitur]

That was in reference to slaves not Black citizens.

On the contrary, I suggest that you read the Scott v Sandford decision yourself. Taney ruled that blacks, free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States and had no rights as such.

[Mark in the Old South]

Sorry free men of color voted, took people to court, owned property. These were the events of the day and recognized by the state governments. Even slaves took their masters to court and won their freedom. Dred Scott is a good example. He won his case in the Slave-holding state. It was only in the SCOTUS that he lost, but nothing new there SCOTUS says it is okay to kill babies. SCOTUS has been wrong before and continue to be wrong even now. The current notion of the all powerful court is a very modern notion and just as destructive today as it was then. I could not care less what the case said it wasn't being followed by the state and local courts.

The list of bad SCOTUS rulings would be too long to list. Dred Scott, Plussey, Roe etc etc etc. When the court reforms it's wicked ways it will have greater respect.

[Alia]

Good point. I have also learned that not all "northerners" sided with Lincoln's approach to this matter, either.

What I perceive, through many years' arguments on this subject? Northerners appear to emit the impression that should they in anyway engage in learning of "non-stereotypical" stories about the Old South and the Civil War -- that in some way, they'd be submitting to supporting "slavery". Stories about particular of the abolitionists most certainly put me in mind of modern day "Anarchy/Ruckus" activists' antics.

Over the years, just out of curiosity, I had wondered -- given how every one MUST put somewhere in any opinion on "slavery" or "The Civil War" their hearty dislike and disapproval of slavery -- as a "safety disclaimer -- against the near Salem hysteria of predictable outcry -- how such an argument would run.

But then, I view the feminist theory that married women with children "are as slaves"; and that any traditional homemaker is only an "indoctrinated indentured servant of the oppressor patriarchy"; and, I understand why the need for such a "disclaimer" still MUST be said in these modern times. Just for one single example.

I look at every single group allied and associated with the Democrat party, and their rhetoric is always along the lines of "freeing the slaves". Feminist, Gay, anti-capitalists, globalists, poor, homeless, minority, socialists, even the educrats "freeing the children from the evilness of their parents". And, I understand why the history of the Civil War and of the Old South must be kept alive. And the richness of the stories be told on and on. It's because, if the word "slavery" continues to be so disgustingly abused, slavery will return. And the old South does not wish that.

The liberals continue to abuse the word "slavery" and continue to abuse truth and history in order they might use a very painful time for all in America's history to extract a political and economic advantage to themselves for the newer-aged so-called abolitionists masquerading in these times. When history is altered, revised, shut-down and censored, freedom for all becomes a battle.