Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.
“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”
“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.
Pension records gleaned from the S.C. Department of History and Archives show no black Confederate soldiers received payment for combat service. And of the more than 300 blacks who did receive pensions after they were allowed in 1923, all served as body servants or cooks, the records show.
Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.
That repeal resulted in a handful of African-American units in states such as Virginia and Texas. But there were none in South Carolina, which prohibited African-Americans from carrying guns in the state’s service throughout the war for fear of insurrection, according to the archives.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
If I should run across it again, I shall try to remember to send you a link. The possibility exists that I still have it on one of my open tabs, but since i've got something like 266 open tabs, it's not always easy to find a particular one. I keep meaning to go back through them and bookmark or save particular websites, but I keep putting it off.
Not as naïve as you apparently.
Victors get to write the history. Lincoln had to be made into an intellectual giant surpassing Washington and Jefferson in greatness. We're all taught, us Yankees at least, from an early age to worship Lincoln. Your authors want to be liked to so they continue to heap praise upon the Great Leader. They include events that could be said to reflect well upon Lincoln and leave others out.
So let me see if I get this straight. Biographers like David Herbert Donald and Ronald C. White, as well as James McPherson and Doris Kerns Goodwin and just about every other biographer of Lincoln, have all conspired to hide the true facts of Lincoln's trip to Washington in order to make him look good? That the have all included the same bald-faced lie in all of their books - the Lincoln went to Washington alone and far from abandoning them in a dangerous city, Mrs. Lincoln and the children did not even leave Pennsylvania until Lincoln was in Washington and had been seen in public - in order to deceive people? Is that what you would have us believe?
My sources are mostly PRIMARY sources, that is things written by people who witnessed the events. When it comes to Lincoln I shy away from obvious Southern partisans, so while I have Pollard's Southern History of the War, I don't usually quote it as regards Lincoln. I feel the same way about current folks like DiLorenzo even though I'm not aware of any errors he might have made.
So is it your contention that each and every biography written about any individual, let alone Lincoln, is biased and not to be trusted?
Finally, I never said anything that I recall about Lincoln's arrival in Washington. I have written here and elsewhere about events during his travel to Washington.
In your reply 239 your claim was that Lincoln "abandoned his family on a train he believed would be attacked by his opponents. This is known as the "Baltimore Plot." It is unusual to find it indexed in any Lincoln biography unless it's one of Mary Todd." If not on the leg of the trip from Harrisburg to Washington then what part were you referring to?
Every time the subject comes up, I mention that Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson grew it larger, but we must never forget that Lincoln was the man who laid the foundation of our monster.
The 14th amendment continuous to do damage not contemplated by it's framers in 1868.
No worries. I often try to make a point to try to remind people of the damage done by Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson. In Lincoln’s defense, nobody at that time realized what would be the consequence of making the Federal Government so powerful. It was simply not anything people at the time could foresee.
I've read some of the things he had said on the subject. As the founder of the KKK, people think he was a horrible racist evil man, but in fact if you look at what he actually said, he comes across as a very decent man. He had no desire to do the things that the KKK later were known for doing, and he expressed regret that it turned into what it became.
Thank You. I would appreciate in knowing the full story.
I have looked at this issue, and the way it has been sold to us does not actually make any sense when you focus on the details. We have been told over and over again that the South wanted slavery in the Western territories, and that it was imperative that this not be allowed.
Looking at the Western Territories, Cotton won't grow at latitudes higher than Kansas, so the number one cash crop for slavery is pretty much impossible in all of the Western States. So what use then would slaves be in the Western States? Not much. The economics wouldn't work for large scale plantation farming, and in what other role could you have employed slaves to make a buck?
Slavery in the Western Territories wasn't practical, so why all the fuss over it? My current belief is the fuss was about political power in Washington. Slave states could be expected to vote together as a block, and at the time the NorthEastern coalition had the upper hand. They absolutely did not want any new slave states entering the Union because that would shift votes in congress back to the South.
Power. It was about Power, not any sense of concern for slaves. This explanation makes more sense than what we have been led to believe.
I’m certain, that presidents have no formal role in amendment processes;
No formal role, but Lincoln signaled his support for the amendment in his First Inaugural Address. He clearly said he would support the amendment protecting slavery.
1896, huh...?
Correct. That was when we would have achieved a Union of 44 states. (West Virginia wouldn't have been a state but for the secession.)
I’m also sure you know the Amendment formally abolishing slavery was ratified in 1865, by 27 states, including 6 of those 11 seceding states
If you think any of those formerly confederate states voted for that amendment of their own free will, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. They were ordered to vote for that amendment by the threat of continuous Federal Occupation of their states. They literally had a gun to their head and were told by Washington DC to vote for it or else.
It was an exercise in sock puppetry, with Washington DC pretending the States were going along with this of their own volition.
and btw, how do you arrive at the number of 44 needed Union states...?
3/4ths of the states are required to ratify a constitutional amendment. 11 states opposed would require 33 states to override. The Union would have to have 44 states to make this possible.
Global Warming? Also an attempted power grab.
IMO comparing who’s liberal and who’s Conservative in the 1860s, today’s Democrats, today’s Republicans vs. Democrats and Republicans in the 1860s is a waste of time. Go ahead it you like. But remember, it was a Republican administration in the early 1860s that passed legislation to build the intercontinental Railroad system, the Homestead Act, the Morrill Land Grant College act, the first income tax and the first conscription act in the United States. Your view may be that these are “conservative, Republican agenda items, others could argue that they were liberal to the max.
A standardized, intercontinental railroad system just made sense - then as now. The democrat solution, as practiced in the south, resulted in an inferior patchwork series of unconnected regional lines of different gauges that hindered productivity.
And I would hasten to add that, although both the union income tax and the conscription acts technically started “up north”, they were quickly emulated and expanded upon by the con-feds. Good for the goose?
Giving away public assets to a private business when private business wont take the risk. Wasn’t that the deal with Solyndra during the Obama years. Of course then the Liberals gave public money a private business to support “green energy” project that private business would not risk without Government backing. In the case of the transcontinental railroad, it was giving away millions of acres of Public land to private business to build a railroad that on their own they wouldn’t risk without Government backing.
The Confederate Conscription Act was passed in April 1862.
The Union Conscription Act was passed in Mar 1863.
Hi.
If you Google “Virginia Black Confederate soldiers, “ there are a good number of pics, and written history.
5.56mm
thanks
By threatening to sever the financial jugular of New York.
My goodness, has it only been a week since you were posting this same crap on the “On This Day in 1863” thread? How time flies.
In theory. In practice, the Northern states only contributed 28% of the export products, and therefore only 28% of the returning imports could be bought from revenue produced by northern exports.
The South was producing ~73% of the exports that were paying for the imports, and at 1/4th of the population of the North, the financial burden of the Tariff was substantially higher on their population than it was on the Northern population.
I think that is very much a wrong conclusion. It wasn't just the money lost to the Federal treasury that was the issue here. The South, by becoming independent, was going to wreck a huge swath through northern industry.
New York was the hub of Import shipping because there was no benefit to going to other ports. The Tariff costs were the same, and a port such as Charleston was 800 miles further journey. Additionally New York had mostly sewn up the cotton trade and shipping for all Southern produced products.
What was going to happen was that 200 million dollars per year was going to get cut out of the New York economy and moved to Southern ports. It would there be used to finance other industries that would later compete with Northern industries. Furthermore, low tariff products would be shipped up the Mississippi to eventually supply all the Western States which would have then come into the economic orbit of the Confederate states. That would have eventually led to them becoming part of the Confederacy instead of the Union.
I've just briefly touched the various ways in which an independent South posed a very serious financial threat to the existing power structure of the North, and it is more the threat to the Northern Power Barons finances that caused there to be a war than the immediate threat to the Federal Treasury. Remember, Lincoln was heavily backed by the Wealthy men of New York. Lincoln had to have that war or these same wealthy men would have been very badly hurt financially by the consequences of an independent South.
Everything I said was also said in various newspaper editorials from the time period.
Nor the Morrill Tariff Act, but this:
Land-Grant College Act of 1862, or Morrill Act, Act of the U.S. Congress (1862) that provided grants of land to states to finance the establishment of colleges specializing in “agriculture and the mechanic arts.” Named for its sponsor, Vermont Congressman Justin Smith Morrill (1810–98), it granted each state 30,000 acres (12,140 hectares) for each of its congressional seats. Funds from the sale of the land were used by some states to establish new schools; other states turned the money over to existing state or private colleges to create schools of agriculture and mechanic arts
You are looking at the wrong document. To find out where secession is articulated to be a natural right given by God, go to the mother of the US Constitution; The Declaration of Independence.
There was no need to articulate a right to secession in the Constitution. Coming along 11 years after the Declaration, the principles articulated in the Declaration were clearly remembered and understood in 1787.
In fact, it makes no sense that a nation which created itself under the premise that secession is a natural right of a people, could deny such a right in any other case.
Indeed, Lincoln himself twice articulated the position that people had a right to independence if they wanted it.
On what basis? That the Constitution didn't specifically allow for it? Well English Law didn't allow for secession either, but our people articulated the belief that the laws of nature, and of nature's God allows for it, and therefore it was legal.
I don't know why we would argue natural law for our own independence, and deny natural law for other people's independence. That doesn't even make sense. It is hypocritical.
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.