Posted on 01/20/2016 5:03:47 AM PST by 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."
In the manner that a bullied kid eventually gets tired of playing "Keep Away" with a bully, and ends up punching him.
To say the taunted kid "started it" is as childish as it is dishonest.
Rioting in Baltimore when the Mass. and Penna. Militias marched into (invaded) Maryland. Not low lifes, but businessmen were throwing bricks and cobblestones at the invading troops.
Rioting in Baltimore when the Mass. and Penna. Militias marched into (invaded) Maryland. Not low lifes, but businessmen were throwing bricks and cobblestones at the invading troops.
Speaking of education, if you actually read them, you will see that none of the original 7 and eventual 11 Ordinances of Secession mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.
I hardly see how pointing out that the Union also had black troops has any great relevance to the cause of the war, which in my opinion, is the most significant point in Walter William's column.
That there were black Union soldiers does not really dismiss the fact that there were black Confederate soldiers.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
set the state by recognizing the existence of "such persons" while setting a timeline for the eventual prohibition of further importations.
Then Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 (also known as the "Interstate Rendition Clause" or "Fugitive Slave Clause:) created the sanction:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.You are correct that the weasel-words do more to merely note the presence of a condition rather than specifically enumerate a right, but (as I said) this is my understanding of how it is interpreted.
Since I believe it was BroJoeK that came up with the 50% number, and since he is on your side, I will let him explain it to you.
This would be one of those "admissions against interest" and therefore you know it is likely to be the truth.
But I notice you are now focusing on how this is possible, rather than objecting to the idea of the Federal government being primarily funded by slavery.
At some point, if you are being honest, you will have to acknowledge that the Federal Government was funded to some level by slavery. You will also have to note that the Federal government was not so morally pure that it would reject money directly traceable to the labor of slaves. Indeed, it wholeheartedly embraced that money.
The primary objection by the Federal government was to it's loss of money and power; That such lucrative assets were no longer under it's control. Again, they could have stopped slavery in Maryland a lot quicker. They already had plenty of troops there.
"Our men are not moles, and can't dig under the earth; they are not birds, and can't fly through the air. There is no way but to march across, and that they must do. But in doing this there is no need of collision. Keep your rowdies in Baltimore, and there will be no bloodshed. Go home and tell your people that if they will not attack us, we will not attack them; but if they do attack us, we will return it, and that severely." A. Lincoln
IMO Davis fire on Fort Sumter not because it was a military threat, but because the American Flag over that fort was an affront to the concept of the Confederate States of America.
“How dare the U.S. continue to show its flag in our country.”
I would liken it to how the Cubans might view the U.S. flag over Guantanamo Bay. They only real difference is the Cubans are not willing to start a war over it. Davis was.
So long as it did not exceed this level which you have mentioned above, you will consider it kosher?
Very good. Very good. :)
do not understand your reply?
I am in awe of your brilliant display of wit, facts, and reasoning! Just awesome! :)
Tell me if I've got this right:
Lincoln = Obama the Fruitcake
Lincoln = King George the III
Is it then safe to come to the conclusion that you are trying to say that:
Obama the Fruitcake = King George the III?
Well, well, well. I do believe non-sequitur is back.
Well, it appears that Little Miss Snark and her sewing circle have joined in the fun. Maybe that’s not the right kind of circle, but, you know what I mean.
When one has a gun pointed at one, one does not waste a great deal of time wondering whether or not it is loaded. One presumes that it is, or soon will be.
As long as that fortress overlooked the entrance of Charleston South Carolina (the primary port in the Confederacy) it would always induce worry and concern as to what it might do.
A more apt analogy for what Ft. Sumter represented would be a "Sword of Damocles".
Lincoln suckered him.
And of that, I have become convinced. Lincoln was a very shrewd operator and had an amazing talent for manipulating and predicting his opposition's moves. He did it in the courtroom and he did it in his election races quite a lot.
But in the case of the civil war, he was too smart by half.
No real answer to the question, I guess.
The "problem" had completely ceased to exist.
On the 4th of February, 1861, the Confederate Congress, composed of delegates from the six southern states met at Montgomery, Alabama and completed their secession movement by adopting their own constitution.
This effectively ended the slavery problem for the Union states.
At this time there were 27 Union states, all with stable legislatures and courts. Their commerce was continuing and there was business as usual. In northern ports such as Boston and New York, ships were sailing their regular routes to Europe, and many continued their commerce with Southern ports.
Newspapers were printing, banks were lending, legislators were occupied, roads and canals were open, and the Federal government was operating.
It is likely that you find "it impossible to believe" because you have not learned of the influence of tariffs, Northern governors, and politicians' influence on Lincoln.
If you are going to argue this issue, you need to catch yourself up.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Though the word "slave" isn't mentioned in the US Constitution, that clause was put in there specifically to guarantee the return of slaves fleeing their masters.
It makes it virtually impossible to create a "free" state, and indeed, George Washington himself kept slaves in Pennsylvania after it had become a "free" state by simply rotating them in and out from his other plantations in other states.
Since the "free" states were constitutionally obligated to recognize the property rights of slave owners, how are you going to keep slave owners from coming into your state?
They had a right to do that under the US Constitution.
No, the problem was baked into the cake from the very beginning.
Thanks, but, I gotta “return to sender”. I think you meant this for Bull Snipe?
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.