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."
Does it look familiar?
More information about this doctored photo and the revisionists responsible HERE
There were slaves in Northern States already.
Yes there were. What’s your point? The fact is that each of the northern states had a plan or timeline for the eventual abolishment of the practice. It is noteworthy to mention that zero of the southern states had similar plans - or even an incentive to discuss such plans.
I agree there were movements to keep the new states and territories slavery free.
Slavery would have ended in some states of its own weight. Crop changes such as those happening in Maryland from tobacco (still labor intensive) to produce farming (not so much) to support growing cities like Baltimore and Washington, D.C. had led to increased manumission.
The trend was also becoming established that laborers were cheaper to hire, required little to no initial investment (which would be forfeit in the event of misfortune), and could be replaced readily. What's more, you paid them, they found their own housing, food, and clothing, and medical care, unlike a slave where failure to provide all that would lead to less than optimal returns on (or a loss of) the owner's investment.
I'm not even being an apologist for slavery--I find the institution deplorable. I'm just saying that until mechanization came along to harvest labor intensive crops, slaves or field workers (illegal immigrants?) were part of the mix.
The whole illegal immigrant farm worker thing was started by that.
Sure people will say "greed", but when what you get for a crop won't support the farm and higher wages, you cut costs.
Thanks, FRiend!
Wouldn't you know, I was just hoping to give the devil his due, showing actual black Confederate soldiers, however temporary they proved, and however disrespected by Confederate authorities.
Now turns out the photo itself is fake, just like most everything else claimed by pro-Confederates.
Lesson learned.
Actual 1864 Union Army photo from Fort William Penn, Philadelphia, used to create recruiting poster:
This is the 1864 Union Army recruiting poster created from the photo above:
And here is a 2004 fake pro-Confederate photo purporting to show 1st Louisiana Native Guard in 1861, but actually just cropped from the original photo above:
By 1860, a handful, here or there.
Source for statistics on numbers of slaves.
Since the American Revolution, beginning with Vermont in 1777, every Northern state gradually abolished slavery, such that by the 1840 census, only about half of Northern states still reported a few dozen slaves each.
But by the 1860 census, only New Jersey still had 18 slaves, Nebraska 15 and Kansas 2.
In 1860, no other Northern states reported slaves.
But the huge issue for Northerners was the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision, which effectively made slavery lawful in every state, North or South, by ruling that Africans could not be citizens, and slave-holders could take their slaves wherever they wished.
That, along with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, helped spark the Northern revolt against Federal enforcement of slavery, which in 1860 elected its first President, Abraham Lincoln.
See my post #226 above.
In summary: Northern states had gradually abolished slavery beginning with Vermont in 1777, such that by 1860, very few remained.
But the Northern revolt against Federally enforced slave laws began with the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, shifting responsibility for returning slaves from Northern states to the Federal Government.
The Northern revolt then picked up steam after the 1857 Dred Scott decision, effectively making slavery lawful in every state, North, South, slave or allegedly "free".
That's what destroyed the old Whigs and ignited the new Republican Revolution, which elected its first president in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
Smokin' Joe: "Slavery would have ended in some states of its own weight. Crop changes such as those happening in Maryland from tobacco..."
Maybe, but probably not.
In fact, there seems to have been a firewall against abolitionism along the Mason-Dixon line.
To cite one example: Delaware.
Delaware had fewer slaves percentagewise than any other slave-state, had large numbers of free-blacks, refused to join the Confederacy, supplied far more troops to the Union than Confederacy, and yet, and yet...
Delaware refused to abolish slavery until forced to do so by the 13th Amendment.
Maryland was similar to Delaware in having many free-blacks and anti-slavery citizens.
But there was no pre-Civil War movement in Maryland to abolish slavery itself.
Finally, all the talk you hear about modern machines making slavery unprofitable us just nonsense.
What slaves by 1860 had fully demonstrated was that they could operate, or help build any machine their white masters could devise.
So there was nothing about machinery, per se which necessitated abolitionism.
Bottom line: slavery was a cultural thing, which only changing cultural values could abolish.
How likely was that in the Deep South? Never.
How likely was that in the Upper South? Maybe, someday, distant future.
How likely was that in Border States like Delaware & Maryland? Could be, by end of 19th century.
If someone had devised a machine to pick cotton, there would have been a wholesale manumission overnight. Because it was expensive to keep slaves. For the same reason the automobile overtook the horse: you don't have to feed the machine when it isn't working. There was another trend that made it convenient for the North to remove its negroes, that of immigration from Europe. Why own a slave when you can work the Irish cheap, keep them living in poverty and desperate for work so they will work for nothing, and do the most dangerous jobs out of desperation--jobs no slave would be given, because they might be killed and deprive the owner of their investment.
It wasn't a question of abolition, but economics. Just as the war was a question of economics.
But in 1860 there was no doubt -- none -- in the minds of Deep South slave-holders about the economic values of slavery.
They said so, often and proudly.
From Mississippi's Declaration of Causes for Secession, January 1861:
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "
In 1860 next to land itself, slaves were the US's single biggest asset class, valued at over $4 billion, far more than all the Northern industry or railroads combined.
By 1860, Deep South economic growth had been continuous and unparalleled for 20 years, enhancing slave-based prosperity which went back to the earliest settler days.
Southerners were fully aware of their economic and political powers, and were determined to do nothing to jeopardize them, until...
Until the election of 1860 brought "Black Republicans" like Abe Lincoln to office in Washington, DC...
So it looks like you can’t produce that “Lincoln” telegram you were so sure about.
I can recall several other of your assertions from other threads that you were sure about, but proved wrong.
I am sure I can speak for others here when I ask that you respect the posters and readers by being factual.
Projection.
Your post #217.......
I am not the one here attempting to use data....you are.
And again I am telling you that you are using the wrong data.
There were other Lincoln apologists that posted here like #3Fan and WhiskeyPapa that when in error would post all sorts of babble to cover up.....and you are doing exactly the same thing.
Grow up.
This coming from someone who is unashamedly factual about nothing, as I've demonstrated over and over again.
PeaRidge post #210: "That failing, you must have some confusion.....on April 8, 1861 President Lincoln sent a dispatch by courier to South Carolina Governor Pickens advising that he would re-supply the fort."
As somebody claiming to have suuuuuuuuch respect for fine details of history, you might at least get dates right.
The order from the Secretary of War Cameron to Capt. Talbot was dated April 6, not April 8.
History does not tell us how Talbot received his orders (i.e., via telegraph?), or where he was at the time of receipt (in Charleston, SC?).
The New York Times report of April 6 on this, while quite explicit in some matters, is quite vague on Talbot's whereabouts.
But history does tell us Talbot delivered his message on April 8 and General Beauregard so notified the Confederate government in Montgomery, Alabama.
It’s a shame that we often have to rely on newspapers for validation of events. It’s a blessing that we don’t need to rely on lost cause losers for anything except amusement ;’}
But of course, you are attempting to use data to exaggerate the importance of Southern cash-crops like cotton to the entire US economy, and to Federal revenues.
That's what this whole discussion is all about.
So I'm certainly not denying the importance of cotton, simply trying to put it into its proper perspective.
The fact is that cotton exports of $191 million in 1860 were enough to pay for 53% of total imports of $362 million.
Since the overall tariff rate in 1860 was roughly 15%, that generated Federal tariff revenues of $52 million.
Those are facts, which you can only obfuscate by adding this or deleting that.
Of course, I agree that cotton was not the South's only export.
Tobacco & other products paid for additional 5%+ of imports, making the total approximately 60% of US 1860 imports paid for by Southern cash-crops.
So what, exactly, is your problem with this?
PeaRidge: "Grow up."
Grow up.
;-)
Contrary to your prostrations that history does not tell us about Talbot, you can find all the answers that you say do not exist right here:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:505?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
That information is from Lincoln’s collected works.
You can easily find the same in the Official Records of the war.
You are exerting a lot of energy trying to make a difference into a distinction that neither is relevant nor real.
You say: So what, exactly, is your problem with this?
The problem is your misuse of the data and exaggerated, inaccurate conclusions.
You've been masturbating to Trump videos again, haven't you.
How cute! A bromance between a couple of False Causers!
Winky, winky!
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.