If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Posted on 02/26/2005 9:53:22 PM PST by SmithL
The month of February has begun and so has the celebration of Black History Month in the nation, schools and communities. Throughout this time, many noteworthy leaders, citizens, scientists and soldiers who fought in wars and conflicts will be recognized.
However, there is one group of African Americans who will receive no recognition again this year during this month. I am speaking of black Confederates who served and fought to defend their homeland from what they believed to be an armed invasion.
Advertisement
The South was home to some 4 million who lived there and had roots going back more than 200 years. Deep devotion, love of homeland and strong Christian faith joined black with white Confederate soldiers in defense of their homes and families.
A conservative estimate is that between 50,000 to 60,000 served in the Confederate units. Both slave and free black soldiers served as cooks, musicians and even combatants. The first northern officer killed in battle was Maj. Theodore Winthrop, who was shot by a black sniper of the Wythe Rifles of Hampton, Va.
The most amazing fact concerning black Confederates is that they served within the Confederate units alongside their white brothers in arms while their Union counterparts were kept separate in all-black units led by white officers (as portrayed in the movie "Glory").
In fact, it was not until 1950 that the U.S. military integrated its units at the start of the Korean War.
On Jan. 22, H.K. Edgerton, a former head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in North Carolina, was the keynote speaker for the annual Sons of Confederate Veterans dinner in Knoxville. Although his scheduled appearance to speak on southern heritage and black Confederates was published a week ahead in the local paper, not one representative of any established mainstream news media was present to record his comments.
Edgerton was the second African American to speak on black Confederates and other historical facts in the last five years whose comments were only heard by the attendees and went unpublished. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a professor at Southern University, stated: "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
For those who have been taught or misled to think the people in the northern cities were more tolerant and supportive of their black population, look up the Draft Riots of 1863.
Maj. Arthur Fremantle of the British Army was an observer for Queen Victoria and spent three months with the Army of Northern Virginia and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Freemantle kept a diary and had arrived in New York City just in time to personally observe and witness the worst riots in our history.
He included in his diary seeing gangs of white men chasing, beating and even hanging blacks. Some black men and women were even pulled from their homes and beaten. Police and militias were called out, and more than 1,200 people lost their lives during the three days of riots.
The rioters resented free blacks being excluded from the draft since they were not considered citizens. The motion picture "Gangs of New York" shows some of this violence.
In closing, I have written this article in the hope that it will ignite people to research, read, study and discover the true historical facts. For me to remain silent as an American citizen, Southerner, retired soldier and living historian and ignore the service and sacrifices of these forgotten soldiers is unacceptable.
I quote the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who said: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Many neo-Cofederates count as black rebel troops slaves who dug latrines, drove carts, and so forth for their rebel masters.
Amen. Moreover, as Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts and pundits are fond of pointing out, the Democrats are still in the enslavement business, trying to make an ever-larger segment of our population dependent on the Federal dole.
Well, see, that's my point: a tiger is a tiger. It doesn't change. The GOP is, for the most part, in the business of liberation today, as it was in the 19th century. The Dems today are still in the business of human bondage.
Oh, they meant a lot of things at the time. And a lot of what you quote comes under the heading of emotional propaganda, voted by angry Legislators, tired of being insulted by people who were supposed to be their fellow Americans, bound together by ties originating in the Revolution and the building of a Federal Union. But the precipitant for all of the venom on both sides, came from the Abolitionist attacks upon the South, the Constitution itself, etc..
Historians can certainly debate, whether the South over-reacted. But the Abolitionists precipitated the horror which followed. Before the Abolitionist movement gathered steam in the 1830s, Southern leaders openly discussed ways to end slavery. One of the reasons for recommending that you read the Webster speech is that he covers just that point. Practically no one thought slavery a good system, before the Abolitionists began to smear the honor of the Southern leaders.
William Flax
It was taken off the table as a Federal issue, by the Constitution, and the compromises that led to the Constitution. It never really ceased to be an issue at the State level, even after the Cotton Gin made it more profitable. It did, of course, become very awkward to discuss, once the Abolitionist fanaticism became a factor. No self-respecting Southerner wanted to be associated with being on the same side with those ranting pure hate against your State and your neighbors.
Had all Northerners who opposed slavery acted with the honorable intentions of a Webster, Southerners would have been able to consider reasonable proposals to phase out the system, without appearing to be turncoats.
But why are we off on this tangent? The point of this thread is that the Negroes who were loyal to the South have been ignored. Surely you will agree that it is an injustice to ignore loyalty, which is a virtue, whatever your opinion of any social system. As I pointed out earlier, Booker T. Washington cited that loyalty of the Southern Negro to the Old South, as a very strong reason why the Southern business community should hire Southern Negroes, rather than immigrants. It is a very significant fact of Southern History. See Booker T. Washington.
Having been taken off once, regardless of reason, then your arguement is that it can never be taken up again? I'm not sure I agree with that. By that token it could never be taken up and that slavery could, in theory, be legal today at the whim of a state legislature. Some issues belong at the national level regardless of the reason why they were bypassed earlier. And I suggest that when there is enough support of the people, as registered through the vote of 2/3rds of their Congressmen and Senators, to support it then any subject can be put back on the table.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
BTW...my sister-in-law is a direct decendent of the brother of the Matthew Broderick character in "Glory".
It's not the war being rehashed here. It's trying to make right the misunderstanding that blacks didn't take part in defending their land and their heritage during the civil war, and to educate us that Southern black slave owners and black property owners defended their "property" during the Civil war...and, then there is the misguided notion that Southerners were racist while northerners were not.
would you put me on your dixie bump, please?
My pleasure. Welcome.
"It was taken off the table as a Federal issue, by the Constitution, and the compromises that led to the Constitution."
Actually, it was the Dred Scott decision, not the Constitution or the Founders. The Constitution gave the federal government control of slavery in the territories and Congress exercised this control until the Supreme Court, totally Democrat t the time, changed that. It was the drive to return to the federal government's control over slavery which gave birth to the Republican Party.
Indeed, NATIONAL as opposed to state, contol over slavery superceded even the Constitution, because of the Northwest Ordinance (1787) that prohibited slavery in the Northwest territories.
The Republican party had several roots, and had contested the 1856 election two years before Dred Scott--as the number two party. Its roots were principally in the collapsing Whig party and the Know Nothing Movement.
But why do you persist in trying to keep a slavery debate going on a thread seeking to honor loyal Southern Negroes?
William Flax
If you can show on this thread where that assertion has been made, then please reference it. Otherwise you and your man of straw are going to have to play elswhere.
It is lunacy to honor people who did not exist.
that assertion was made by me, mac_truck, not elsewhere on the thread.
A bit of historical persective about where this story was first published:
When U.S. troops finally entered Knoxville, Tennessee, cheering residents lined the main street, waving American flags they had hidden at risk to their lives. Many rushed out to place Confederate flags on the ground for their liberators to walk on.
There are veritable oceans of eye witness accounts of the loyalty of Southern Negroes. You asperse an entire race by your denial. Again, just what do you imagine Booker T. Washington was talking about, when he cited that loyalty as a primary reason for the hiring of Southern Negroes rather than immigrants? (Booker T. Washington.)
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.