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."
How about you respond to that particular point? That is the only point that really makes a hill of beans, isn't it?
I don’t remember if you were around when swattie was fighting for the lost cause (if you weren’t you missed a truly bizarre individual). Amongst his many, many unattributed (and unattributable) claims was that there was a standing army of “100,ooo- 150,ooo” (whatever the heck that was!) all-volunteer black troops within the confederate forces.
As a matter of fact there is an epic battle between he and some of the rest of us over the book “Blacks in Blue and Gray” by Hubert Blackerby that swattie insisted supported his contention. The problem with making wild claims is that they are so easily refuted. (You can see the action here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2324846/posts?page=22#22).
I actually bought a (used) copy from Amazon and it comports with your post #84. Which leads us all the way ‘round the barn and back to where we began this silly voyage - the goofy agitations and strawmen of the lost cause losers.
DiogenesLamp: "Love of country.
If your government orders you to fight, and threatens to hang or imprison you if you don't, that's pretty good motivation..."
"Love of country" is correct, the rest is nonsense.
Remember, the Fire-Eater Slave Power started declaring their secessions in December 1860, and immediately began provoking war with the Union by dozens of forceful seizures of major Federal properties (forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.), threats against Federal officials and firings on Union ships.
Each of these events was accompanied by waves of outrage in the North, and calls for military action against secessionists.
All such calls for military action were resisted by outgoing doughface Democrat President Buchanan, who was highly sympathetic to the Slave-Power and took no actions to stop them.
But the calls continued with each new Confederate outrage, and after Fort Sumter's surrender (April 14, 1861), President Lincoln responded by calling for 75,000 troops "to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union."
But, as it happened, the very first Union troops mustered went directly to Washington, DC, to defend the capitol against the perceived threat of Confederates assaulting and seizing it.
By the time of the first Confederate soldier killed directly in battle, (Big Bethel, June 10, 1861) over a dozen Union troops had died, dozens more wounded and hundreds captured and held as POWs in Texas.
These all served to arouse Northern outrage against the Confederacy, and drove enlistments in Union militias.
But in early 1861, the existence of slavery in the South was not an issue Northerners cared much about.
You have misquoted me here. I did not say "Income Taxes, property taxes," Somehow you've ran together a quote from someone else.
I did say "Since I believe it was BroJoeK that came up with the 50% number..." but I said nothing about where the revenue came from.
Import tariffs were mostly collected in major Northern ports like New York, Philadelphia & Boston.
Which is a DELIBERATELY MISLEADING thing to say. Since New York was by far the most active port, since virtually the entire shipping industry for the United States unloaded there, and since packet shipping carried all imported products from one American port to another, (Because there was a law forbidding foreign ships from doing it. Another example of how the FedGove favored the NorthEastern shipping interests. ) yes, New York collected the vast bulk of all the tariffs for imported products regardless of what was their eventual destination.
and the biggest exports were Southern agricultural products, most notably, cotton and tobacco.
And there is the money shot.
and how Lincoln could not live without revenues from Southern crops.
Slavery. The word you are looking for is "Slavery". Those crops were grown by slaves.
That's why Lincoln started the war, so they claim.
Incorrect. That is but one of the contributing factors as to why Lincoln started the war. He probably cared less about the losses to the Federal treasury than he did having all those New England businessmen on his @$$ for the loss of their revenues.
Eastern, Northern & Western products -- from fish & forestry to dairy, beef and manufactured goods -- made up at least a third to half of total US exports.
They could get all those things in Europe. They couldn't get much cotton or tobacco in Europe, and that's why the industry was so lucrative at the time.
As for the claim that "Lincoln started the Civil War", that's just stuff and nonsense. In fact, the Confederacy for months provoked war, started war, formally declared war and sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri, all before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.
Lincoln was planning to start the war back in December of 1960. Pea Ridge posted the letter to a Union General that Lincoln sent him before Lincoln ever assumed the powers of office.
In 1941, as FDR declared, a state of war with Japan began when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Likewise in 1861, a state of war began when Confederates assaulted Fort Sumter.
Because the loss of 3,000 men and the destruction of many billions of dollars worth of military assets and port facilities is exactly like blowing up some rock walls and killing no one.
When a man wants to beat his wife, a slap in the face is all the justification he needs to do it.
John Breckenridge's Southern Democrats in Maryland narrowly defeated John Bell's Constitutional Union (former Whigs plus "Know-Nothings").
Indeed, Constitutional Union was the heart of Maryland political views, which had previously elected Know-Nothing Thomas Hicks as their governor.
Hicks was largely responsible for keeping Maryland in the Union, despite some strongly held Confederate sympathies.
Indeed, had Lincoln not been on the ballot in Maryland, John Bell's Constitutional Union party would most likely have carried the state.
Maryland Governor (1858-1862), Know-Nothing Thomas J Hicks:
And nobody disputes that black slaves were forced to serve the Confederate Army.
And that is what this thread is about, FRiend.
I remember it was an exercise in futility, and so I got to the point I just scrolled over the long winded stuff you would right.
I think I need to go back to that.
The posters on this thread cannot even agree on what the article is about. I put some of the blame on the author of the article. I don't like the way he lays out his thoughts. He does have one main point, but he is all over the place in presenting it. The title is, "Blacks and the Confederacy" with an accompanying photo of the Confederate battle flag. The author is saying that it is wrong, for blacks, to want to do away with that flag. He says that many of the ancestors of those blacks fought under that flag and that to dishonor that flag is to dishonor their own ancestors.
Anthony Hervey is the latest casualty of the recent unpleasantness. It seems to me that Hervey had a fair perspective on the unpleasantness. The thugs who ran him off the road are obviously products of the current distorted culture.
I remember when that happened this summer. I wouldn't have thought of it again unless the article above was posted. But, it is a very good illustration of the extent to which a certain faction of our times will go to "replace" our true heritage with their own purposeful revision.
Now that I am thinking more about it this morning, as my first cup of coffee gets cold, the death of Anthony Hervey is an absolute travesty. I hope a Confederate Battle Flag flies above his gravesite.
Although, a day doesn't go by anymore without these types of travesties.
The Northern capitalists decided that this situation was all Lincoln's fault. Until he was elected, everything had gone fine; but now-following the election-seven Southern states had seceded from the Union, and nobody knew how many more might follow. If Lincoln wanted the continuing support of the capitalists, he would have to bring those Southern states back into the Union, now!
And this makes perfect sense. That same North Eastern big money Cabal is still running our system today. I guess the civil war made them realize how much power they had, and they haven't stopped using it since.
Today in Modern America, the nation is run by the movers and shakers primarily in New York and Boston, and to a lesser extent Los Angeles, followed by places like San Fransisco and lately the Mafiosos in Chicago.
These are the international business interests who have been tearing apart our societal fabric and making the US more desirable to a "World Government" that doesn't have to put up with pesky stuff like armed Americans with principles.
You are merely parroting alexander stephens. Have you memorized the Cornerstone speech? stephens was a disgusting example of a human being.
Just hoping to stay on-topic -- note the thread is titled "Blacks and the Confederacy" so I think it important to compare & contrast those with blacks in the Union Army.
DiogenesLamp: "The most significant thing Walter Williams said was that the war was not fought to end slavery.
How about you respond to that particular point?"
A lot of ridiculous plays on words and obfuscations of meanings.
SO, while it's not so accurate to say the Union first fought to abolish slavery, it is certainly accurate to say Confederate leaders fought to the bitter end to preserve it.
Fox's order plainly stated that his mission was to reinforce Ft. Sumter.
Show Lincoln's direct order that countermanded his written order of April 4.
And emblematic of the mindset of the southern slavocracy.
Which of that was factually incorrect?
Thinks, IMO a nice recap of those issues.
Start with “This effectively ended the slavery problem for the Union states”.
It ended nothing but the state of uneasy truce between the hot-heads of either side. It added immeasurably to the tensions between neighbors and the insurrection introduced us to a state of war.
The slave problem was still there and wouldn’t be resolved until the passage of the 13th amendment.
BroJoe, recall that SmoJoe did say his “county”. He didn’t say the whole state of Maryland. He also provided a link to a whole bunch of interesting electoral maps.
We don't care what their reasons were. We only care about what the UNION reasons were because *THEY* were the ones that insisted on fighting this war. Defenders have no choice but to fight, it is only the aggressor's motives which matter.
You want to keep the topic focused on the South's reasons for leaving, because it is the only moral angle you have to work with. Once the discussion is properly focused on WHY DID THE NORTH STOP THEM FROM LEAVING, does it become apparent that the Union was in the wrong.
So let's reform the question. Why did the North stop them from leaving? By what moral pretext did the North have the right to force them back into a government of which they no longer wished to be a part?
And how is it different from what England attempted to do?
"Holier than thou" is emblematic of the mindset of the North Eastern puritans who first burned "witches", and then turned their attentions to other social causes of the day.
Perhaps just the simple fact that as al stephens spewed his evil, the flag of the Unites States was still flying over Fort Sumter? Do I really have to spell out the discrepancy between the words of stephens that you parrot and what Lincoln and davis were locking horns over?
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.