Posted on 01/06/2006 12:05:39 PM PST by stainlessbanner
Based upon growing up (for a time) in the South I would bet 10% were black. Now we have the question of choice in the matter. Russian "soldiers" fought in WW2 with guns on their backs.
What, you don't think that the "Whenever Persons" is better than "Minute Men"?
The original mascot was offensive to womyn and persons who are habitually late, don't you know....
The idiocy of the public school establishment knows no bounds.
I am no more "stuck" on my position than I am stuck on any other historical issue which I have spent time researching. If someone can show me data that is accurate and from primary source material then I would be willing to consider it. Googling for history is a poor way to research. You will note that websites that support this claim of many black southern soldiers are all pro confederacy. Those that dismiss it outright are generally anti-southern. Here is my issue, I spent 6 years in college majoring in history, primarily Ante Bellum southern history and Civil War histoy. I live in Virginia and spend many summer weekends at battlefields, and my hobby is reading civil war history. I am no expert to be sure, but during all my reading I have never come across any credible evidence that more than a token number of blacks served as volunteers with the confederate army. I have never seen a picture of black confederate soldiers save a couple that were dubious at best. I have never read a letter or a journal of a confederate or union soldier mentioning black confederate soldiers. I have read extensively about the debates that took place which in the end completely rejected the notion of bringing free blacks into the confederate army. Please show me one primary source document of a black confederate soldier being taken prisoner, aside from one at Gettysburg that was famous because it was the only one on record. The fact these claims go from 6 thousand to 150 thousand simply confirm for me that there is no data out there and people are passing around the same urban myths from web site to web site. If you believe there were 150 thousand black confederate soldiers you are in a fantasy world.
"H.C. BLACKERBY, a distinguished member of The Company of Military Historians, frequently lectures at gatherings of educators, scholars, and serious students of Civil War history. His Great Civil War Stories, first published in 1961, admiraby fulfils Aristotle's dictum that Literature should both instruct and delight."
"Early on, during World War II, Blackerby had honed the twin-edged razor of his wit and his concern for fact while editing and publishing newspapers by and for the men in military service. Subsequently, while becomes a successful distributor of mass-market publications, Blackerby kept alive the flame of his concern for truth in historical writing--a concern sharpened by his Alabama background and his zest for facts that counter, preferably wittily, the untested generalizations of pendants and propagandists."
Pretty rich stuff there. Interesting that among all that smoke blowing, there's not a single mention of him being a professor or having any academic qualifications at all, much less being department chair at Tuskegee. By the way, saying that you're a member of the Company of Military Historians isn't much more impressive than saying you're a member of the National Geographic Society. Anyone who can fill out a form and send $45 can apparently be a member.
It is, as I said previously in this thread, particularly irksome to hear, not just any Yankee, but a Massachusetts man, call a Southerner hypocrite. As if the Yankees of Massachusetts even cared about the Negro Slaves. Perhaps they should have closed down the clandestine and illegal slave trade they where STILL engaged at the time of this confrontation.
Since you seem predisposed to bring up old incidents of perceived past slight against Yankees from Southern quarters to me, as if I have tried to be anything but a voice of reason on this thread, I will thank you for make'n my point FOR me. As I said earlier in this thread, many in this county simply didn't like Southerners. Since they usually didn't like blacks either I can only assume it was a cultural thing. If one is will'n to go through the trouble of find'n an old political cartoon to attack notions of Southern Chivalry and lump em all together with one ornery South Carolinian in a day and age where “supposedly” old grudges have ceased, imagine what it must have been like over a hundred and fifty years ago; and then you'll know at least one reason why the war was fought.
Far from being just some old political cartoon, the incident in question was real and took place in the well of the United States Senate. The cowardly attack was premeditated and grossly unfair, as the victim Sen. Charles Sumner, was both unarmed and seated when accosted. All because of some perceived slight the aggressor felt as a result of Sen. Sumner exercising his first amendment rights in the execution of his duties as the representative of the State of Massachusetts.
Our notions of Southern Chivalry are exploded when faced with the reality that Preston Brooks was celebrated all over the South for nearly beating a US Senator from another state to death. That event and its aftermath provide a clear window into the true nature of the Southern psyche of that time, especially in the cradle of secession.
As far as I'm concerned it would have been much better for this country if, when South Carolina declared Secession, the President of the United States immediately sent a Naval armada to Charleston, reduced that traitor filled city to rubble, then hung every remaining Confederate from the nearest tree.
Maybe once that cup of blood had been spilled and the South had it's nose busted right good it would have come to it's senses..just like you did.
I know it happened. What I don't understand is why you care so particularly, was he kin or something? Even republican presidential candidate Stephan Douglas (who was not immune to Sumner's personal attacks), said Sen. Sumner would probably get shot for what he had said about Sen. Brooks, and his uncle, who he accused of taking a mistress and who he ridiculed for a speech impediment while the latter was not even present to defend himself. Things like this got people killed in those days you know. It would have been better if Brooks HAD simply challenged Sumner to a dual, though I rather think if he had shot Sumner, you would still call it dishonorable. Hell, I probably would have beat the tar out of him too if he said stuff like that about me and my family. Course, I'd probably just go at him with my fists and forget the rod, or the pistol.
That event and its aftermath provide a clear window into the true nature of the Southern psyche of that time, especially in the cradle of secession.
I rather think it, like the violence committed by “Old Osawatomie Brown” a few days latter when he hacked up five bound men with a sword, provide a window into the true nature of the Human psyche. But you know, everyone has to dehumanize those they disagree with; either that or themselves. If you feel the need to dehumanize a whole culture, well... you are in ironic company let me tell ya.
As far as I'm concerned it would have been much better for this country if, when South Carolina declared Secession, the President of the United States immediately sent a Naval armada to Charleston, reduced that traitor filled city to rubble, then hung every remaining Confederate from the nearest tree.
A lot of Yankees felt like that, some of em before SC seceded. I assume, however, that you aren't including women and children in such an application of “justice,” though if you don't mind me being just a little condescending, that might be ascribing to much humanity to someone who clearly is gonna disagree with me.
However, if Lincoln had done what you think “would have been much better for this country,” Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware absolutely all would have gone out before the dust cleared. And Washington would have been occupied before Lincoln could have even made the call for an army of 75,000 troops to invade the South; let alone protect Washington. Are you sure that would have been the best thing for this Country?
My intention was not to demean in anyway the patriotism of our Native American brothers. My intention was to show that even the American and Texas flags can be found offensive if people try hard enough ( ie: are just plain silly)
Are any southerners involved in drug smuggling today? Why don't they close it down? What slave trade existed by the 1850s was highly illegal and slavers risked being hanged. That said, it was also highly lucrative, so some amoral greedheads engaged in it. The US navy, along with the British navy, worked to suppress it. Ship owners in Baltimore were arrested by federal agents in 1839 after the Brits turned over evidence that they were slaving. But just about any ship could be rigged to carry slaves, and once a ship leaves port, what control did anyone in that time have on where it went?
Serving and being on the front are two different things. In WW2 it took three soldiers to support every one on the front line. I would never have put black soldiers on the front line if I was a CSA General. They would of served in the rear with the gear. There are more than a few pictures that would seem to be authentic. Yes many sites are pro Southern does that automatically make them more suspect than the pro Union?
OK! Peace out!
As for the Compromise measures of 1850/51, those advocating their adoption (e.g. Clay and Webster) presented them as a “final adjustment” of the slavery issues. These measures were accepted by the people of the South on that basis. When the compromise measures weren’t honoured by the Northern people, the people of the South felt betrayed, and had reason to doubt the sincerity of any future compromise proposal.
Unfortunately, things like the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision gave Northerners the idea that the Compromise of 1850 wasn't going to be the final answer to the disputes over slavery. Those changes which hurt the interests and expectations of the free states and did more to break down the Compromise than anything anti-slavery forces did in the Fillmore or Pierce years. Southerners clearly resented the refusal of Northern authorities to return runaway slaves, but in the big picture of regional politics, it wasn't anti-slavery forces that disrupted the Compromise of 1850.
Isolated local refusals to return a slave on demand wouldn't have amounted to much if not for provocations like Kansas-Nebraska or Dred Scott. And John Brown himself first attracted public attention in the struggles over Kansas. So it's not as though the Northerners were unprovokedly striking out against the South in the years after 1850. Much of what the Republicans said and did was in response to Southern pressures for the expansion of slavery into the territories.
Most historians would agree that John Brown's raid had a great effect on what happened in 1860-1. But it wasn't some sort of deus ex machina, some unmotivated force from outside that compelled otherwise unwilling Southern leaders to push for secession against their inclinations. It did something to win over waverers and affected the tactics of the proponents of secession, but there was a hard core that was seriously thinking about separation for sometime. John Brown didn't convince them.
I think you draw too solid a line between the elections of 1856 and 1860, and attribute too much to Brown and too little to the working of time, but I'd have to do more research to be sure. I do know that however much Brown's raid horrified Southerners, it didn't in itself convince the Upper South to rebel. Those states voted against secession before Sumter.
And it's also possible that had there been no John Brown, radical propagandists would have created something very much like him. The Texas fires of 1860 were built up into a horrifying tale of a conspiracy to free slaves by an ambitious editor. Admittedly this was after Brown's raid, but it indicates that the fears of slave revolt ran deep in antebellum America.
Ultimately, however, the decision to secede (and thus go to war, although these two things are not the same thing) was a complex one. There were a number of reasons, some directly related to protecting the investment of Southerners in that form of “property” others not directly related, and some not related at all. And the key thing is that any particular individual could have felt any or all of these reasons. And some of those reasons are completely honorable.
I suppose so, but national or sectional or individual honor is a tricky concept. Few nations or peoples ever will consider that they went to war for "dishonorable" reasons. Even the most self-interested or mercenary wars have found justifications in national honor. Britons could believe that the Opium Wars were honorable, and indeed, a war for national honor. Indeed, it sometimes seems like the only way for a country to lose its honor is to be defeated.
I sympathize with the argument about group honor. Northerners fought for honorable reasons as well, and not, as some would have it, simply to rob or crush the South, but it would probably be more useful to argue about whether political positions and wars were wise or just or constructive, rather than whether they were honorable or not, since every battle of material interests can be turned into an affair of honor. Moreover, countries and people can be quite reckless and irresponsible and yet still believe that they have acted honorably.
Gawd have mercy son, where did ya learn yer American history? The Little Giant, was a Democrat NOT a Republican, and who the halo is Senator Brooks?
However, if Lincoln had done what you think “would have been much better for this country,” Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware absolutely all would have gone out before the dust cleared.
Lincoln? Who said anything about Mr. Lincoln? The President of the United States when South Carolina seceded was a corrupt invertabrate Democrat named James Buchanan. If he had upheld his oath of office there never would have been a Civil War. But I'm sure that such a concept is unfathomable to someone who is as sloppy with their understanding of history as you seem to be.
Don't let your lack of understanding of a subject ever get in the way of your expressing your opinion on it though, that might actually require you to think...
Yes, my mistake, that should have read “Even Democrat presidential candidate Stephan Douglas,” not republican. I apologize for the confusion. As to the second line, that's a product of late editing. Originally it read "...Sen. Butler and his nephew Rep. Brooks..." But I didn't like the way that ran because I wanted to mention Butler second so as to emphasis the nature of Sumner's comments. I just screwed up when I shortened it is all. Again, I apologize for the errors, it was too early in the morning for me (almost as early as this in fact), and I was rushing to get it done.
Lincoln? Who said anything about Mr. Lincoln? The President of the United States when South Carolina seceded was a corrupt invertabrate Democrat named James Buchanan.
I'm sorry, when you said the navy should have bombarded Charleston I thought you where referring to the fleet Lincoln HAD sent but which didn't do anything. After all it is unlikely that at the precise second of South Carolina's declaring of itself seceded from the union their could have been any kind of military response. Lincoln was not officially president, as you point out. But, he was president elect. And once in office he did eventually send a fleet down. But they didn't arrive before the attack began on the Fort, and I'm pretty sure they stayed outside the harbor the whole time.
If there are anymore areas of misunderstanding please point them out to me. I don't have anyone to proof-read my posts, not this early anyway, and I do make mistakes. I hope you will understand, and give me the courtesy of accepting my explanation and apology so that we can debate the points at issue more effectively and without misunderstanding.
No it doesn't, although it is very difficult to find people who still cling to the mythology and issues of an era they way southern sympathizers do. As to Blacks serving in the rear as opposed to the front lines, once again the story changes. The evidence being presented claims they fought on the front lines. The quote by Frederic Douglas, thrown out continously, speaks about them marching with rifles. It's why I question the validity of the data, it seems to change in the telling.
free dixie,sw
thought you'd want to know.
free dixie,sw
they are, in the main, ANTI-nationalist.
free dixie,sw
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.