Kalamata you like to talk about how you discovered new things about the civil war that gave you your current take on it. I have also discovered new things later in life. One was when I took the family over to Gettysburg for the 150th Anniversary. They had many wonderful re-enactors and informative discussion panels.
One of those panels was discussing the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate government’s policies of capturing and selling into slavery any blacks they came across. They had many contemporary news articles with stories in local papers about blacks, free blacks, citizens of the state of Pennsylvania and the United States of America that this happened to.
So you see the US Army was an Army of liberation. Freeing men, woman, and children wherever they advance. Many times slaves themselves would escape their local plantations when they heard that this great Army was near to them.
The Confederate army was an army of enslavement. Citizens, who happened to be black, would run in fear from this army. If that doesn’t tell you anything about the difference between the two then you are truly blind.
We had already moved out of the state by then, but we visited Gettysburg several times after I began to delve into Civil War history beginning in the early 2000's.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "One of those panels was discussing the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate government’s policies of capturing and selling into slavery any blacks they came across. They had many contemporary news articles with stories in local papers about blacks, free blacks, citizens of the state of Pennsylvania and the United States of America that this happened to."
Slavery was a complicated issue that cannot be objectively cherry-picked. One thing that IS history, according to these Lincolinites, is Lincoln clearly did NOT fight the war over slavery:
"To one who approaches the problem with the view that the North fought the war to suppress slavery in the South, the disclaimers of such a purpose by the Washington government may seem surprising. Lincoln made such a disclaimer in his inaugural of 1861, putting this topic first in his address. Referring to Southern apprehension on this point he said: "There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed. ... It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.' "In announcing this policy of hands off as to slavery in the states, Lincoln was acting in harmony with the program of his party, for the Republican platform of 1860 declared that "the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to... control its own domestic institutions ... exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend...." As noted in a previous chapter, Congress uttered a similar disclaimer in the Crittenden resolution (July 22, 1861), in which it was announced that the war was not being prosecuted with the intention of overthrowing the "established institutions" of the states."
[Randall & Donald, "The Civil War and Reconstruction." Rev 2nd Ed, 1969, p.370]
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "So you see the US Army was an Army of liberation. Freeing men, woman, and children wherever they advance. Many times slaves themselves would escape their local plantations when they heard that this great Army was near to them."
Are you aware of the plights Union Generals Freemont and Hunter when they attempted to emancipate Southern slaves? You can find those on pages 371-372 of the above reference.
When the troops did "emancipate" the blacks, it was not necessarily out of compassion. Even in the Army blacks were second-class citizens:
"The attitudes of a good many soldiers on this matter were more pragmatic than altruistic. They understood that every slave laborer who emancipated himself by coming into Union lines weakened the Confederate war effort. It also strengthened the Union army. "I don't care a damn for the darkies," wrote an Illinois lieutenant, but "I couldn't help to send a runaway nigger back. I'm blamed if I could. I honestly believe that this army [in Tennessee] has taken 500 niggers away with them." In fact, "I have 11 negroes in my company now. They do every particle of the dirty work. Two women among them do the washing for the company." Another Illinois soldier, an infantry sergeant, wrote from Corinth, Mississippi, in 1862 that "every regt has nigger teamsters and cooks which puts that many more men back in the ranks. ... It will make a difference in the regt of not less than 75 men that will carry guns that did not before we got niggers."
[James M. McPherson, "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War." Oxford University Press, 1998, p.119]
You can cherry-pick history till hell freezes over, but you will never erase the suppressive Northern Black Codes – the ones that were introduced by Republican "reconstructionists" into the South. Modern day black historians are becoming more and more aware that "Jim Crow" was an invention of the North, and not the South.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "The Confederate army was an army of enslavement. Citizens, who happened to be black, would run in fear from this army. If that doesn’t tell you anything about the difference between the two then you are truly blind."
There is little doubt that you are blinded by your own ignorance.
Mr. Kalamata
My father took my brothers and me to the Centennial at Gettysburg in 1963. I’ll never forget it. Saw Eisenhower there. Watched a re-enactment of Pickett’s Charge. It was a 10 day event. One of my brothers went back to the 150th.