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."
Of course the "slave problem" was doing just fine in places like Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky and Delaware.
It wasn't causing any problems at all. No need to invade and murder people in those states because they were still licking their masters' feet.
The export numbers we have for 1860 vary depending on source.
There are only two sources...The United States Treasury and the Department of Commerce. Both tell the same story, a distinction but not a variance.
The exports from the US that bought taxable import goods in 1859 were worth $278,902,000 at the ports of exit from the US.
Of that amount, the value of Southern goods: cotton, tobacco, rice, naval stores, sugar, molasses, hemp, cotton manufactures (all originating in the South) was worth $198,309,000 (Statistical abstract of the US Commerce Dept., 1936 edition,pgs 435-439)
.... or about 71%.
Adams uses the figure of 87% which is the above amounts, plus the value of tariffs paid on overseas purchases made with cash by Southern governments and individuals.
Sorry that I overlooked this post at first. You are absolutely correct. Lincoln had promised in his First Inaugural to protect and defend Federal property. That meant that flag had stay over Sumter. Davis could not fully realize his complete separation from the United States as long as "that flag was still there". It was about that flag.
There were 27 Union States. By my math, they should have been paying 71% of the revenue to the Fed Gov, and the 11 southern states should have been paying 29%.
The reality was actually @$$ backwards. He is just quibbling over the most trivial aspect of these numbers and is refusing to address just how much money was lost to not just the Federal Government, but the Business interests of the North East who had Lincoln in their pocket.
It was with their backing that he won, (The North East always supports Liberal Presidents) and if he had to run without their backing, he would have lost.
A Copy of which, as a courtesy, I have posted below.
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
Nothing could have afforded Me so much Satisfaction as to have been able to inform you, at the Opening of this Session, that the Troubles, which have so long distracted My Colonies in North America, were at an End; and that My unhappy People, recovered from their Delusion, had delivered themselves from the Oppression of their Leaders, and returned to their Duty. But so daring and desperate is the Spirit of those Leaders, whose Object has always been Dominion and Power, that they have now openly renounced all Allegiance to the Crown, and all political Connection with this Country. They have rejected, with Circumstances of Indignity and Insult, the Means of Conciliation held out to them under the Authority of Our Commission: and have presumed to set up their rebellious Confederacies for Independent States. If their Treason be suffered to take Root, much Mischief must grow from it, to the Safety of My loyal Colonies, to the Commerce of My Kingdoms, and indeed to the present System of all Europe. One great Advantage, however, will be derived from the Object of the Rebels being openly avowed, and clearly understood. We shall have Unanimity at Home, founded in the general Conviction of the Justice and Necessity of Our Measures.
I am happy to Inform you, that, by the Blessing of Divine Providence on the good Conduct and Valour of My Officers and Forces by Sea and Land, and on the Zeal and Bravery of the Auxiliary Troops in My Service, Canada is recovered; and although, from unavoidable Delays, the Operations at New York could not begin before the Month of August, the Success in that Province has been so important as to give the strongest Hopes of the most decisive good Consequences. But, notwithstanding this fair Prospect, We must, at all Events, prepare for another Campaign.
I continue to receive Assurances of Amity from the several Courts of Europe; and am using My utmost Endeavours to conciliate unhappy Differences between Two neighbouring Powers; and I still hope, that all Misunderstandings may be removed, and Europe continue to enjoy the inestimable Blessings of Peace. I think nevertheless that, in the present Situation of Affairs, it is expedient that We should be in a respectable State of Defence at Home.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons, I will order the Estimates for the ensuing Year to be laid before you. It is [a] Matter of real Concern to Me, that the important Considerations which I have stated to you must necessarily be followed by great Expence: I doubt not, however, but that My faithful Commons will readily and chearfully grant Me such Supplies, as the Maintenance of the Honour of my Crown, the Vindication of the just Rights of Parliament, and the Publick Welfare shall be found to require.
My Lords, and Gentlemen, in this arduous Contest I can have no other Object but to promote the true Interests of all My Subjects. No people ever enjoyed more Happiness, or lived under a milder Government, than those now revolted Provinces: the Improvements in every Art, of which they boast, declare it: their Numbers, their Wealth, their Strength by Sea and Land, which they think sufficient to enable them to make Head against the whole Power of the Mother Country, are irrefragable Proofs of it. My Desire is to restore to them the Blessings of Law and Liberty, equally enjoyed by every British Subject, which they have fatally and desperately exchanged for all the Calamities of War, and the arbitrary Tyranny of their Chiefs.
:)
: )
Unless you happened to be a Southern boy - in which case, you decided to fight back.
In my mind, the Civil War was the final, incredibly violent resolution to the 100 year long political conflict between Federalists and Jeffersonians.
On the other hand, I still be believe that, without the underlying issue of slavery, Lincoln could have never motivated, or coerced, the Northern states into a four year mutual blood bath against the South.
Re: PeaRidge (#158) and the evil Capitalist theory of the Civil War
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
There is a stark difference between “Capitalists,” who completely understand that war destroys wealth, and “Profiteers,” who exploit war for personal gain.
For a fraction of the money spent on the Civil War, a Capitalist would have built rail lines and modern roadways into the South, shipped in coal and steel and industrial machinery, and opened a vast new market for the goods and services already available in the North.
I figured the brighter amongst you would realize something was odd by that point. :)
Your analogies fail. Your comparisons of Obama the Fruitcake to Lincoln is a failure. Your comparison of Lincoln to King George the III is a failure. Your analogy of the Revolutionary War to the Civil War is pathetic. I know that your roommate (who was black) brought you to some great epiphany about Lincoln the Tyrant, that opened your eyes to the Truth. But from my perspective? You are extremely narrow minded. Try this. When a thread is about the Civil War, please contribute things that have to do with the Civil War. The Civil War was a unique situation. And please don't bring the 14th Ammendment. I know well enough by now that that is where you are headed.
You mean "Don't confuse me with facts, my minds is made up!"
I've pointed out before, the Founding document of our nation contains within written permission to leave any government which is not to their liking.
In 1860 they exercised that right. In 1861, the Federal Government initiated a campaign to violently refute the right upon which their own power was founded.
They rejected the foundation of their own government, but everyone was okay with it.
And people wonder how the US Government departs so heavily from the constitutional requirements imposed on it. Yeah, they've already "been there, done that. "
There you go again. I can always tell a narrow minded self proclaimed historian when they speak of "burned witches". We didn't burn them. We hung them (except the one that we crushed with stone). Though in fact there were no witches. That is why it is referred to as the Witchcraft Delusion. Point of fact, they were convicted based upon "spectral evidence".
Pot, meet kettle....
Considering there was a draft on both sides one has to conclude that most soldiers were "forced to serve".
Your smug attempt to make a clever point kinda falls flat doesn't it, Richard Noggin.
Nice cut and paste from Wikipedia. Do you have any original ideas, Catfish?
Wrong again, Opie.
disHonest Abe's illegal invasion "introduced us to a state of war".
That is likely true. It was part and parcel of the propaganda to induce people to shed their blood on behalf of a group of people they hated (they really hated black people) all the while murdering and slapping the Federal chains on their brothers.
It was in fact a mania, drummed up by liberal agitators and backed by New York/New England Business interests. (same as today)
What else could have done it? What else could have turned people into invaders and destroyers of people who did them no harm?
It was a mania.
There is a stark difference between "Capitalists," who completely understand that war destroys wealth, and "Profiteers," who exploit war for personal gain.
For a fraction of the money spent on the Civil War, a Capitalist would have built rail lines and modern roadways into the South, shipped in coal and steel and industrial machinery, and opened a vast new market for the goods and services already available in the North.
You are suggesting that it was these Capitalists' money which was being spent. No, it was the FedGov money that was being spent, and they were probably making profit outfitting the Union Armed forces. That large sums of money was being wasted was not as large of a concern to them because it wasn't THEIR money that was being wasted. It was the people's money, and poor people's lives that was disappearing. Not them or theirs.
They could buy their way out of the conflict with $300.00. Indeed, this formed the bases of the Riots in New York and Chicago. Slaves were selling for $1,000.00 + dollars at the time, and poor folk were lamenting that their lives were not worth as much as those of slaves.
Also on the "rail lines" the bigger issue wasn't really how to get stuff shipped, it was the difference in tariff prices potentially steering massive amounts of Commerce into South Carolina instead of New York.
Listen, New York is fabulously wealthy because it is located in the perfect spot to intercept shipping and trade from vast areas, such as the interior of the Nation. It was one of the closest ports from Europe, and with those laws that precluded foreign shipping from carrying cargo between US Ports, Foreign shipping had no choice but to make one stop at US Ports to unload cargo, and New York was the perfect spot. (Though Boston and Philadelphia also got a lot of trade.)
The Southern Confederacy Tariff duties were far smaller than those imposed in New York. Suddenly there was a massive profit motive for European shipping to land at Charleston South Carolina. Suddenly it became worth a lot of money to sail 800 miles further to the south.
The entire reason New York was wealthy was just threatened, and in a massive way, by an Independent Southern port with much lower tariffs.
Pea Ridge posted a letter printed in a Newspaper of the times that points out what a threat these low tariff's were to both the Fed Gov and the New York/New England shipping interests.
Do not underestimate the resourcefulness or vindictiveness of a group of wealthy men who's income stream is threatened.
Certainly Lincoln's telegraph to South Carolina Governor Pickens on April 6, 1861 reflected his orders of that same date to his Fort Sumter relief commanders.
PeaRidge: "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."
This site lists a whole series of orders, including the April 4 you've quoted, but also orders from April 6, which support Lincoln's message to South Carolina Governor Pickens.
"Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of this mission -- disposing of your force in such a manner as to open the way for their ingress, and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling, by force if necessary, all obstructions to provisioning the fort and reinforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition, a reinforcement of the garrison will also be attempted."
But of course, it was the Confederacy which first provoked war, dozens of times, then started war at Fort Sumter, then formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), then sent military aid to pro-Confederates in Union Missouri, then raised up an additional 400,000 troops (on top of their original 100,000) and ordered military supplies from abroad.
The Union merely responded to these Confederate acts of war by defeating them, unconditionally.
DiogenesLamp: "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? "
But of course, FRiend, you well know, the Union did nothing to stop secessionists from declaring their departure and forming a new Confederacy.
Neither outgoing doughface Democrat President Buchanan nor incoming "Black Republican" President Lincoln lifted a finger to stop the Fire-Eater secessionists.
War only began after the Confederacy provoked, started, declared and made war against the United States.
DiogenesLamp: "And how is it different from what England attempted to do?"
Just like Confederates in 1861 the Brits in 1775 abolished their old Massachusetts Bay compact, formally declared war on the colonies, and began to seize military supplies & property which didn't belong to them.
Only many months after Brits declared & started war against colonists did Americans finally declare their independence (July 4, 1776).
That's why I've always argued that if you wish to compare our Founders to Confederates, then Confederates must play the role of 1775 Brits, and our Founders that of the 1861 Union.
In short: 1861 Confederate assault to seize Fort Sumter equates to the 1775 British march to seize American arms at Lexington & Concord.
This site shows US exports by category from 1860 through 1891.
The total for 1860 is $316 million, of which $191 million (60%) was cotton.
But this other site shows total 1860 imports were $362 million, of which those $191 million in cotton exports paid for 53%.
Bottom line: there's no denying that 1860 Southern cash-crops were hugely important to the US economy, however, they were not the only game in town.
And when push came to shove, Congress was soon able to find other sources of revenue to make up for import duties previously supported by lost export Southern cash-crops.
See my post #197 among others.
In 1860 exports of cotton totaled circa $191 million.
Total imports for that year -- on which tariffs supported Federal revenues -- were $362 million.
So, we could reasonably suggest that cotton supported 53% of total imports, and therefore 53% Federal revenues.
Of course, if you exclude this or add that, then you can change the percentages -- my only point is that Southern cash-crops were not the only game in town, as proved by the Federal government's quick adaption, after 1861, to life without them.
Whose picture should be next to 'scalywag' in the dictionary. He ordered the State Militia to muster their arms at their armories and wait for the call to arms...which he never issued, even as the State was being invaded.
Fascinating. There’s not a single word in your post that is accurate.
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.