Blacks and the Confederacy

Townhall.com ^ | January 20, 2016 | Walter E. Williams

[Kaslin]

Last July, Anthony Hervey, an outspoken black advocate for the Confederate flag, was killed in a car crash. Arlene Barnum, a surviving passenger in the vehicle, told authorities and the media that they had been forced off the road by a carload of "angry young black men" after Hervey, while wearing his Confederate kepi, stopped at a convenience store en route to his home in Oxford, Mississippi. His death was in no small part caused by the gross level of ignorance, organized deceit and anger about the War of 1861. Much of the ignorance stems from the fact that most Americans believe the war was initiated to free slaves, when in truth, freeing slaves was little more than an afterthought. I want to lay out a few quotations and ask what you make of them.

During the "Civil War," ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "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 to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels" (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861).

"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, in his book, "The American Conflict").

"Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number (of Confederate troops). These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and 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" (report by Dr. Lewis H. Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission).

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia, newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity" had been "assigned to them" in defense of Virginia.

Those are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served as soldiers, freemen and slaves on the side of the Confederacy. The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite so simple as the nation's race "experts" make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag as their symbol, but racists have also marched behind the U.S. flag and have used the Bible. Would anyone suggest banning the U.S. flag from state buildings and references to the Bible?

Black civil rights activists, their white liberal supporters and historically ignorant Americans who attack the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic Southern black ancestors who marched, fought and died not to protect slavery but to protect their homeland from Northern aggression. They don't deserve the dishonor. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a black professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."

[rockrr]

I’ve always found it immensely amusing when lost cause losers seek the protection of the US Constitution in order to defend breaching it.

[cowboyway]

I’ve always found it immensely amusing when False Cause losers seek the protection of the US Constitution in order to defend breaching it.

[rockrr]

OK PeeWee - in your dimwitted universe perhaps.

[cowboyway]

First of all, no Constitutional guarantee is unconditional or absolute, all come with implied or expressed limitations. To pick one example: the right to free speech does not permit you to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. To cite another: habeas corpus may be constitutionally suspended if required for public safety during times of rebellion or invasion. But even with those limitations, our Founders well understood that government can grow to usurp power and become abusive of its citizens. They recognized that this was, in addition to mutual consent, an adequate reason for disunion, and indeed, qualified in their minds as a form of mutual consent.

But yet you side with disHonest Abe's incorrect opinion concerning the secession of the Southern States. The biggest problem with you False Causers is your boundless hypocrisy.

[cowboyway]

I guess you forgot about the poster boy for your statement: disHonest Abe.

[cowboyway]

Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it," writes Napolitano, for "the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . ." Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union." Judge Napolitano also reminds his readers that the issue of using force to keep a state in the union was in fact debated - and rejected - at the Constitutional Convention as part of the "Virginia Plan."

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway quoting: "Lincoln's 'actions were unconstitutional and he knew it,' writes Napolitano, for 'the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . .' "

This is not the only time the good judge's opinions were confused & disoriented.
A normally brilliant lawyer, in this case Napolitano here buys into the pro-Confederate Big Lie, namely that Lincoln started Civil War to prevent Southern secession.

That is not just a pro-Confederate Big Lie, it is an unspeakably outrageous lie, which takes no great historical expertise to puncture.
In actual historical fact:

• Lincoln started no war, period.
  
• Slavery did not start Civil War.
  
• Declarations of secession did not start Civil War.
  
• Forming a new Confederacy did not start Civil War.
  
• Electing a new Confederate President & Congress did not start Civil War.
  
• Approving a new Confederate constitution did not start Civil War.
  
• Even dozens of Confederate provocations, seizing major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. -- did not start Civil War.

What did start Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, soon followed by a formal declaration of war on the United States and military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
All that happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.

So, accusing Lincoln of starting Civil War is just like accusing President Roosevelt of attacking the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
It is an unspeakably outrageous Big Lie.

[cowboyway]

A normally brilliant lawyer, in this case Napolitano here buys into the pro-Confederate Big Lie, namely that Lincoln started Civil War to prevent Southern secession.

In other words, he's brilliant when you agree with him but when you disagree with him then he's confused and disoriented. The level of revisionism to which you've sunk is mind boggling.

hat did start Civil War was the Confederate military assault on Union troops

The revisionist gymnastics that you False Causers have to go through to justify disHonest's Abe's illegal war is shameful. Have you ever actually read a detailed history or do you just go to the NEA's website for talking points?

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "In other words, he's brilliant when you agree with him but when you disagree with him then he's confused and disoriented."

No, when the good judge understands & agrees with the facts of history, then he's brilliant, but when he does not understand or acknowledge the real facts, then he's confused & disoriented, just like you are, FRiend.

cowboyway: "The revisionist gymnastics that you False Causers have to go through to justify disHonest's Abe's illegal war is shameful.
Have you ever actually read a detailed history or do you just go to the NEA's website for talking points?"

Of course, I have several books here covering this subject, including:

1. Bruce Catton, "The Coming Fury"
   
2. Russell McClintock, "Lincoln and the Decision for War"
   
3. William Freehling, "The Road to Disunion"
   
4. William Cooper, "We Have The War Upon Us"
   
5. James Huston, "Calculating the Value of the Union"
   
6. William Freehling, "The South vs the South"
   
7. Shelby Foote, "The Civil War, vol. one, Fort Sumter to Perryville"
   
8. John Fredreiksen, "Civil War Almanac"

All are easily available at reasonable prices from Amazon.

And your outrageous claim that "Lincoln's war" was illegal is laughable in light of the fact that on May 6, 1861 -- before a single Confederate battle death -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, and sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.
But any discussion of "illegality" ends long before that point, with repeated Confederate provocations for war, culminating in it's military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

So the real question is not why did Lincoln accept the Confederacy's war, but rather, why did Jefferson Davis & company rush so blindly & foolishly into it?

[cowboyway]

No, when the good judge understands & agrees with the facts of history, then he's brilliant, but when he does not understand or acknowledge the real facts, then he's confused & disoriented, just like you are, Friend.

Wow. Just when I didn't think that your dung pile could get any higher......

Of course, I have several books here covering this subject

I'm sure the NEA would approve of your reading list.

And your outrageous claim that "Lincoln's war" was illegal is laughable in light of the fact that on May 6, 1861

The truth will set you free:

The Jersey City American Standard wrote, "there is a madness and ruthlessness' in Lincoln which is astounding . . . this unarmed vessel . . . is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South, which act by the pre-determination of the government is to be the pretext for letting loose the horrors of war." The Providence Daily Post also wrote, "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor."

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway quoting Napolitano (2006): " The Providence Daily Post also wrote, 'Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.' "

And, by that same logic, some have accused President Roosevelt of attacking the Japanese and launching WWII at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
How? Analogous to Lincoln, FDR was also warned that moving the US fleet to Pearl Harbor could provoke a Japanese attack, and yet Roosevelt did it anyway.
Is FDR therefore responsible for WWII?
No, the decision for starting war in 1941 belonged strictly to the Japanese, just as in 1861 it belonged to Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

I have not read Napolitano's book, doubtless it's brilliant in overall analysis, and possibly even misrepresented in your quotes here.
But regardless, the historical fact remains that Jefferson Davis made the foolish decision to start war against the United States.
Yes, Lincoln accepted the Confederacy's war, but certainly did not start it.

[rockrr]

If the book is anything like the myopic mess at pokie’s link then it isn’t worth wasting time on.

[cowboyway]

No, the decision for starting war in 1941 belonged strictly to the Japanese

Why don't you take that leap that most of you libtards take and compare the Confederacy with Nazi Germany.

and possibly even misrepresented in your quotes here.

There was a link in my post. (Unlike you, I don't copy from others and post here pretending that it's my own writing.) You can read the entire passage. You can buy the book. Ain't gonna change what I posted which is that honest people in lincoln's time and honest people today recognize that disHonest Abe was a tyrant and a war criminal.

You dung pile is growing to Biblical proportions.

[cowboyway]

Don’t you have a Bernie Sanders rally to attend?

[rockrr]

Nah, I went to one to taunt the all the losers and saw you there sheering him on.

[cowboyway]

Thinking about your evening wear in that reply, were you?

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Why don't you take that leap that most of you libtards take and compare the Confederacy with Nazi Germany."

The only real similarities are:

1. Both Hitler & Davis stupidly & unnecessarily declared war on the United States, resulting in their utter defeat and unconditional surrender.

2. Like the Southern Slave-Power, Hitler also sought to enslave "unter-menschen", albeit with considerably more cruelty than any US slave-master.

Other than those, no comparisons.

cowboyway: "Unlike you, I don't copy from others and post here pretending that it's my own writing"

Anything I quote has quote marks around it, and some indication of where it came from.
If you wish more details on anything, I'll be happy to provide them, just ask.

cowboyway: "Ain't gonna change what I posted which is that honest people in lincoln's time and honest people today recognize that disHonest Abe was a tyrant and a war criminal."

No, only dishonest Democrats, Dough-faces & Copperheads pretended such rubbish.
Everyone else well understood that it was Confederates who first provoked war, started war, formally declared war and sent military aid to pro-Confederates in Union states.

cowboyway: "You dung pile is growing to Biblical proportions."

You dung pile is growing to Biblical proportions.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "If the book is anything like the myopic mess at pokie's link then it isn't worth wasting time on."

I generally admire the good judge, and therefore tend to doubt that his views are being accurately presented here.
Napolitano's review of the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision seems to me highly unlikely to lead him to trash Lincoln or the Union cause.
So I suspect there's a problem with quotes out of context.

Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America

[cowboyway]

If you wish more details on anything, I'll be happy to provide them, just ask.

If I'm ever in the need for even more revisionism and lies than the crappola that you've already posted I'll let you know.

[cowboyway]

therefore tend to doubt that his views are being accurately presented here

Do you own research, professor. You appear to have ample free time on your hands.