Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
Segregation and Discrimination
Though accepted in the Union Army, these men still had to face segregation and discrimination. “The army was extremely reluctant to commission black officers — only one hundred gained commissions during the war. African American soldiers were also given substandard supplies and rations. At the beginning of black enlistment, it was assumed that blacks would be kept out of direct combat, and the men were paid as laborers rather than as soldiers. Black soldiers therefore received $7 per month, plus a $3 clothing allowance, while white soldiers received $13 per month, plus $3.50 for clothes. (The Civil War and Emancipation).” In 1864, the War Department eventually agreed to pay for African American soldiers equal to that of white soldiers. The differences between African American soldiers and the white soldiers can be seen in the photos. These differences include status, pay, and dress. African Americans rarely were promoted in the Union army. This is illustrated through many political cartoons and can also be seen in a number of photos. Overall, despite being allowed to fight African American men were not viewed to be on the same level as white men fighting in the army.
http://ows.edb.utexas.edu/?q=site/african-americans-union-army-during-civil-war
Thought you’d like a liberal link........
“The Atlantic slave trade was always highly profitable to its participants. “
Are you reading my replies to you? The Atlantic slave trade was not ALWAYS profitable, in fact, it didn’t even exist in 1860.
God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason.
Your gratuitous mention of supposed Jewish East Coast Families that controlled the shipping business puts you in the same league as Jeremiah Wright, and Lerone Bennett. Your anti-Semitism is showing.
Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805, Lt. Col. Parkhurst's Report (Ninth Michigan Infantry)
----------------------
I guess Col. Parkhurst is a liar.
Get over it. And try to refrain from the personal insults.
Or was it the idea of a black man tacking shots at a white man?
Tens of thousands of blacks served the rebel army in a supporting role, both willingly and unwillingly. You have no idea what this man's story was.
Wow. Only a hundred commissioned black officers in the Union Army. How many were in the rebel army, for comparison?
Fact: He did fight against your beloved Ceasar. He,unlike you,chose his side carefully.
No, are you willfully ignorant? Or is it possible that you are not aware that there were two units called the 1st Louisiana Native Guard? There was the short-lived Louisiana militia unit formed in May 1861 and was denied service in the confederate army. It was ordered disbanded in February or March of 1862. The second 1st Louisiana Native Guard was raised in September 1862 and incorporated into the Union Army where it was later re-designated 73rd USCT. The picture is of black soldiers wearing obvious Union uniforms - especially Union winter overcoats. I doubt overcoats were in much demand in Louisiana.
At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army, became it’s 3rd Sergeant.
I believe you're referring to the USS Constellation, one of the last U.S. ships to take a slaver. The Constitution had been laid up in 1855 and converted to a Naval Academy training ship in 1857.
ROTFLMAO!!!! You guys are never at a loss for a myth du jour, are you?
According to Lincoln's inaugural speech, it is unclear exactly what his policy was. If you'll remember, a lot of the newspaper editorials of the time noted that too. Lincoln said the following in the editorial:
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.
His wording is intentionally unclear, I think. What did occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government mean to him? Was he going to occupy and possess the many forts, armories, etc., then in possession of the Confederates and would not use force unless fired upon? He says "beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force ..."
So, force is OK to occupy and possess those properties and places he feels belong to the government? Sounds like it. His words don't seem to rule out the retaking of forts and the use of force if necessary to occupy and possess those forts.
After inauguration Lincoln started reinforcing the forts then held by Union troops, Fort Pickens, Fort Sumter, the fort in the Keys, Fort Monroe in Virginia (Buchanan might have done the reinforcing of Monroe -- I don't know who did it, but it was done). Once Lincoln secured these, he could turn his attention to other forts that might be hard for the Confederates to defend, like those near the mouth of the Mississippi. He could (and did later) attack those Mississippi mouth forts with his navy and that helped block shipping up the river. The Confederates had very little in the way of a navy to defend those forts.
As Lincoln's letter to Scott said, be ready "to either hold or retake the forts, as the case may require, at and after the inauguration." Forts occupied by Confederates were the cases that might require retaking. The war started before Lincoln could try to retake forts occupied by Confederates.
I had a meeting here in town this morning and now I'm heading to the car after I shut down the computer. Buh bye for a few days.
Oh be still my racing heart!!!! One black rebel NCO? So which 35th Texas Cavalry did he serve in? There is no mention in the OR of any 35th Texas Cavalry before December 1863 and after January 1864 so were they kind of home-defense units? Texas Rangers called up? Something like that?
Letter of Private Frank Bailey, 34th New York Infantry Regiment to his brother in Middleville, New York: - “West Point, Virginia, 12 May 1862 - I hear that the Rebels sent out a Regt. of ni**ers to fight our men and that they were as naked as when they were born, except the brogues on their feet, and they incited to all sorts of cruelty. It is said that they cut the throats of our wounded and then rob them of every article of any value. The soldiers are death on ni**ers now. If they catch a ni**er in the woods, and there is no officer near, they hang them without any ceremony. Now if this is true that the Southern chivalry as they style themselves put these ni**ers up to such deeds as this, may the curse of good light on them. It is worse than the English were in the Revolution to hire the Indians, but their race is about run when they stoop to such barbarism as that. Yesterday there was two ni**ers hung close by here by our men. One of them had $20.00 government note in his pocket. There is no mistake but the Rebels have black soldiers for I have seen them brought in as prisoners of war. I saw one who had the stripes of an orderly sergeant on his coat. I don't beliee in taking them prisoner, but kill them where ever they find them, that they may never more curse the land with their hateful presence.”
Get over history? That’s the best you can do?
I stand by my characterizations (not insults) of your position.
And try to actually address my facts and logic instead of replying with....nothing.
Okay, so the score is: United States: 100 black commissioned officers. Rebels: 1 black non-commissioned officer.
I’ll bet “our” sargeant was treated better by his fellow Cavalrymen than “your” officers were by their contemporaries.
How many slave rebellions were there during the war? Answer, I don’t know but if there was a slave uprising, there is very little evidence of one, even up to the last days of the war.
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.