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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 next last
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?")
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)
Comment #51 Removed by Moderator
To: cyborg
"...why people bring up the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves in the South as if that changes anything..." It is usually brought up in response to someone saying that the only logical thing for a slave to do is to support the invader.
Sadly, as evidenced even by today's headlines, people are not always logical about welcoming an invader, even if that invader is on a mission to free them.
The fact that free blacks owned slaves simply points to the widespread philosophical acceptance of slavery as an institution. Many were the arguments that the slaves were better off as slaves, than they had been in their primitive lives. This even has a familiar tone to it in that our civil masters think that they can decide what is good for us better than we can decide it for ourselves.
52
posted on
05/21/2005 5:34:22 PM PDT
by
NicknamedBob
(Our civil masters think they can decide what is good for us better than we can decide it ourselves.)
To: NicknamedBob
okay I understand. I think.... thanks.
53
posted on
05/21/2005 5:46:00 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
To: stand watie; nolu chan; TexConfederate
54
posted on
05/21/2005 6:04:15 PM PDT
by
CurlyBill
(Democratic Party -- Wimps without ideas whose only issue is to oppose Republicans)
To: MacDorcha; JohnPigg; smug; TexConfederate1861; peacebaby; DixieOklahoma; kalee; dljordan; ...
To: cyborg
"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?"
There seems to be some confusion about what the draft riots were. Here's a report:
Draft Riots, in the American Civil War, mob action to protest unfair Union conscription. The Union Conscription Act of Mar. 3, 1863, provided that all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 45 were liable to military service, but a drafted man who furnished an acceptable substitute or paid the government $300 was excused.
A defective piece of legislation enforced amid great unpopularity, it provoked nationwide disturbances that were most serious in New York City, where for four days (July 1316, 1863) there occurred large-scale, bloody riots. Many elements in New York sympathized with the South, and the war had aggravated long-standing economic and social grievances.
Aroused by the statements of Gov. Horatio Seymour and other Democratic leaders that the conscription act was unconstitutional, the populace was incited to action. Laborers, mostly Irish-Americans, made up the bulk of a tremendous mob that overpowered the police and militia, attacked and seized the Second Ave. armory containing rifles and guns, and set fire to buildings.
The reason they rioted, apart from a trouble-making Democrat, was
because they were
again being treated like property.
I was drafted, too. I was changed into a piece of property, owned by the State, and that was a very uncomfortable feeling.
56
posted on
05/21/2005 7:24:10 PM PDT
by
NicknamedBob
(Our civil masters think they can decide what is good for us better than we can decide it ourselves.)
To: NicknamedBob
Not sure why I brought up the draft riots. I didn't intent to but that's still good info you posted. I've not seen Gangs of New York. 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.
57
posted on
05/21/2005 7:32:38 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
To: cyborg
"...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."
Not every human being reacts to temptation and opportunity the same way.
It is very common among immigrant groups that some seem to think the rules of civilized behavior no longer apply. It is happening still today.
That is not the only way that people from a "lower-class" situation view through a broken prism the workings of mature society, others have a perverse attitude about business ethics. Most enjoy their new freedoms, but do not immediately appreciate their new responsibilities.
58
posted on
05/21/2005 7:43:54 PM PDT
by
NicknamedBob
(Our civil masters think they can decide what is good for us better than we can decide it ourselves.)
To: NicknamedBob
good points to think about
59
posted on
05/21/2005 7:46:11 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
To: cyborg
The thing that impresses me is the number of ways I have realized that all the things we were fighting over then are still being fought over today.
That is really sad.
60
posted on
05/21/2005 7:57:17 PM PDT
by
NicknamedBob
(Our civil masters think they can decide what is good for us better than we can decide it ourselves.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-120 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson