Posted on 12/09/2003 1:33:48 PM PST by albertabound
Most scholars agree the South had black soldiers, though they disagree on the numbers. Some interesting research is currently taking place on the topic.
If the NYT is against you, you must be alright.
We look back today and wonder at their short-sightedness, but we have the wisdom of hindsight. They could not imagine that, 140 years in the future, the black citizens of a unified US could become doctors, lawyers, justices of the Supreme Court, fantastically rich entertainers, the Secretary of State, or the National Security Advisor. And many of them were fighting for a beloved homeland that was being invaded by people of a different culture and different beliefs but no less racism than the whites in the South.
The Fugitive Slave Act 1850
Section 4
And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in their respective circuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation; shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.
Wrong answer Gustav! From the Southern point of view it was about a State's Right of FREEDOM of Self Determination. Slavery was merely a means to economic prosperity for the Plantation owner, however the Southerners were also trying to maintain an economic power parity with the greedy merchants in the North. The damnYankee inhabitants of the Northern States dispised the Southerners culture, thereby they were using slavery as an object to incite anger and hatred against the Southern people. The abolitionists were as zealous as a lot of Muslim extremists are today.
Under the Founders' you must remember that the State Governments had more administrative cognizance of their citizens, and Washington DC had only limited influence over a State's internal affairs. I think this slogan from a Confederate flag summed up the South's position best -
"WE CHOOSE OUR OWN INSTITUTIONS"
A lot of us still use that same lense.
There were few freed Blacks in the Deep South (check out the statistics if you want). There was a unit of "Colored" militia in Louisiana, but it wasn't mustered for action by the Confederacy. In time, that unit fought for the Union.
Many Whites who weren't enthusiastic about slavery were trying to avoid military service, so it's not likely that Blacks would have been clamouring to serve. Doubtless some -- slave or free -- worked for the army and might have picked up a gun at some point, but that there was no serious Black enlistment in the Confederate Army's fighting ranks.
Yep, the NYT is still getting it wrong. Most of the war criminals fought on the other side of the lines (i.e. Sherman, Grant, etc)
Not likely. Many of those Canadians' ancestors had needed to flee the thirteen colonies because they denied the right to break away from the empire. Maybe there was more to it than Schadenfreude or a feeling that the Yanks deserved their comeuppance or the desire to weaken a dangerous neighbor, but many a Canadian must have felt the rich irony or hypocrisy of supporting a "right" that his grandparents had denied and been persecuted for rejecting.
I didn't realize that winning was a war crime, billbears. But I guess it depends on ones point of view.
Exactly so. It's hard to deny the role of Schadenfreude when this very article has stuff like "Wolseley later told a friend that his good wishes for the South stemmed from 'my dislike of the people of the United States and my delight at seeing their swagger and bunkum rudely kicked out of them.' "
The Canadian elite, like the British upper-class, saw Southerners as having the same right to leave the Union as the original Thirteen Colonies had to break away from the British Empire.
Then what the hell were they doing in Canada? Weren't they in Canada precisely because they disputed the notion that the colonies had the right to break away?
Wait, I know - we can tell that they were serious about that right, because of the fact that they themselves shed the trappings of the British empire when they revolted for their own independence. Lemme just look that one up real quick. Hmmm. My sources must be incomplete or something - I can't find a date for the Canadian revolution, just a date when Canada became an autonomous federal state. By act of Parliament. With Royal approval, of course.
Essentially, what this article would have you believe is that Canadians believed in some sort of vague right to revolt if they wished - they just didn't wish to. But I highly doubt that any significant Canadian writers, politicians, or what-have-you of the period could be found expressing such sentiments. And why should they have? By 1864, the movement to Canadian confederation was underway, revolution was unecessary, and such talk would have been inflammatory to the very Parliament whose approval Canadians sought.
The reality is that the Canadians at the time didn't care about any such thing, particularly insofar as non-Canadians were concerned. Initially, sentiment was both anti-slavery and pro-North, but as the war dragged on, fear of annexation began growing in Canada. Any pro-South sentiments grew out of that, a simple fear for their own destiny - supporting the South was simply a way to counterbalance the North and preserve their own independence from the United States. It certainly wasn't because they were predisposed to the South, or to Southerners, or to secession, or any of that stuff - it was a simple political calculation on their part. Like so:
Britain sensed a strategic advantage for her five North American colonies in a divided Union. Canada might emerge as a dominant player if the Union dissolved into two smaller powers. Col. Garnet Wolseley was quick to see that during a tour of Canada as part of a general reinforcement of its defences.
Wolseley later became commander-in-chief of the British army. In 1862, he spent a month visiting the Confederacy. He argued in a letter to his superiors that Britain should grant the Confederate States diplomatic status because the division of the republic into two weak countries would strengthen Britain's North American hand.
Yep, that's your classic Canadian secessionist talk, isn't it? ;)
Just like Ft. Sumter, and the E.P.
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.