Posted on 11/26/2005 9:36:29 PM PST by Mier
While all the anti war cowards were screaming for Bush to cut and run and our willing accomplice main stream media acting like kids in a candy store. I heard someone on talk radio say that during the civil war Lincoln had his media detracters thrown in the bottom of a war ship until the war was over. But I can't find any facts on-line to back it up. Does any one know where I might go to find information on this? I mentioned this to a (left wing co-worker) and he thinks I made it up. I sure would like to prove him wrong! Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.
End it.
Hopefully, you had a happy Thanksgiving full of crap-free turkey.
Typical of a neo-confederate, though: Blame someone else for the institution that you fought a war to support, and which those New England boys died to eliminate. Always someone else's fault. Calhoun constantly blamed the North for his own region's inability to manufacture, or to invent. (Southern patents were a tiny percentage of the North's---another fine legacy of slavery).
Done
Only one White out of seventy owned slaves, methinks the other 69 fought the northern aggressor invasion for other reasons.
You of course are right, there was no Yankee greed? S/ While you deny, here is Sherman's own words. Kill them, confiscate their lands & property, colonize the south with northerners, drive the southerners out and deport them from America.
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ga/topic/military/CivilWar/shermanscheme.htm
"GENERAL SHERMAN'S COLONIZATION SCHEME
Confederate Veteran, Vol. IV, No. 11, Nashville, Tenn., November, 1896.
rotfl AT you!
go peddle your SELF-serving,LEFTIST, REVISIONIST propaganda on DU. they LIKE lies & DAMNyankee apologism there.
free dixie,sw
nonetheless, lincoln was a TYRANT, a STONE racist & a WAR CRIMINAL.
with all that academic preparation, you should have picked up at least a BIT of the TRUTH about lincoln & his pack of thugs. PITY that you did NOT.
free dixie,sw
Calling a dog a cat does not make it one. You may rant and rave---again, I note that the neo-confederates never seem to find evil in slavery, or in the institutionalization of it in the South---but it doesn't change the fact that you cannot defend the South without stooping to defend an immoral institution.
you give them too much credit for "brains". they deserve NONE, as they in general:
1. did NOT see that the coming of the Industrial Revolution to agriculture was about to KILL slavery as a PROFIT-making system,
2. didn't even figure out until the late WBTS period that they were about to lose their "investment in human flesh" AND
3. MOST of the slavers (both North & South) were DUMB enough to believe that lincoln & his cohorts would "be true to their word" & would,as promised by many members of the "union high command", would protect slavery PERMANENTLY! even lincoln said that he would support a Constitutional amendment to protect slavery PERMANENTLY!(lincoln's "word of honor" was about as reliable as wee willie klintoon's!)
finally, even a cursory reading of the FIRST PERSON accounts of former SLAVES, published in the "Slave Commentaries" of the 1930s WPA project, disclose that you are 100% WRONG about the treatment of probably over 95% of slaves.
your analogy to "children" is NOT well-taken, as the abusive parents do NOT have a direct profit motive in being decent to their children. sorry, but you are again WRONG, because abusive parents are only "garbage in human form", are psycotic and/or just criminals (too bad that we stopped "horsewhipping" child abusers!).
go do some more reading from other than REVISIONISTS & we'll talk.
free dixie,sw
mark
Still shouting and name calling. over and out.
IF what you said were TRUE, rather than FALSE, we southerners would not have had over 100,000-150,000 Black volunteers to fight for dixie freedom. do you REALLY think that those brave volunteers were TOO DUMB to know what they were fighting FOR??? (see BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY by the late H R Blackerby,PhD of Tuskegee University for more data)
free dixie,sw
EACH of them had committed robbery,arson,kidnapping, rape,theft of livestock and/or murder of UNarmed civilians in IT, KS & MO.(the KS "volunteer cavalry",redlegs & jayhawkers were really good at attacking the defenseless on BOTH sides!)
ALL of the men on the "kill lists" had their crimes listed thereon.
otoh, Fremont's victims were generally gulity of NO crime at all, except having been armed at the time of their MURDER.
free dixie,sw
Another lie. First off, it's H C Blackerby. The H C stands for Hubert Curtis. Under the name Curtis Blackerby, he published "Great Civil War Stories" in 1961. I actually bought a copy of "Blacks in Blue and Gray" (cheap) and nowhere does it indicate that Blackerby was a PhD, much less from Tuskegee. It doesn't say that he was chair of the history department there, as you've often claimed. It doesn't even say that he was black. Instead what it says is that, after working as an army newspaper reporter during WW2, he was a "publisher of mass market publications."
Here's one of them:
If you don't mind my asking, what were the political leanings (left, right, center) of the history faculty where you went to school and at the schools where you taught? That is, if you know or can hazard a guess.
I periodically see surveys that show that liberal arts departments are largely Democrat among those whose political affiliations are listed. Goes with the "liberal" in liberal arts, I guess. Here is a link to one such survey: Link.
It is not often I get to speak with a professional historian. What would you recommend in the way of history books on the Civil War?
First, don't ever, EVER, confuse "served" in the Confederate Army (or Navy) with serving as an actual soldier. As Blackerby tries to obscure, but eventually admits, the vast, vast, vast majority of blacks were never given a weapon. To say that 100,000---the highest number Blackeby accepts---"served" means that, at the utter, utter high end, perhaps 4,000-5,000 "fought." It's not clear that all of those were ever intended to fight by the CSA, or whether some, when, say, lines were overrun, picked up a weapon on the spur of the moment.
We do know that Confed propagandaizing of blacks was relentless, telling them that the Yankees were coming to kill them and rape them. Most, I'll admit, didn't believe this, because they had their own "information highway" and that's why they knew what was happening in the war.
He seeks to emphasize a handful of (unproven) reports of "black snipers" and a few (very few) instances of black volunteers who actually saw combat in a Confederate uniform---but has no reliable statistics on how many were truly "soldiers" (ie, were trained with weapons and expected to fight.
He ignores ALL evidence of Confederate military people and civilian leaders terrified of arming blacks.
He grudgingly admits that the overwhelming number of these "troops" were laborers, diggers, cooks, and musicians. I don't have the book---sent it back to the library---but as I recall he even had the actual occupations of many of these "troops" listed, and only one or two were even remotely likely to have a weapon.
But since you're so fond of numbers, how about this: in the North, 178,000 black troops enlisted---half of them from seceded states. Large numbers of them had weapons and training, and many regiments saw combat.
Equally important, however, is the fact that 100,000 WHITE southerners, including the 1st U.S. Alabama Infantry, the 1st U.S. Mississippi Mounted Rifles, the 4th U.S. Arkansas Infantry, the 2nd U.S. Florida Cavalry. It's worth noting that not only did more blacks in the North actually fight (again, most coming initially from seceded states) but about ten times more southern WHITES actually fought for the North than blacks held a weapon for the CSA.
Now here's the cherry on top of the whipped cream: neither the Southern whites nor the northern blacks fighting for the North received anything more than their monthly pay---but ALL (repeat, in case you Rebs have trouble with the truth, ALL) blacks serving in the CSA in ANY function were given promises of emancipation for their service. That's a no brainer if I'm a southern black, no matter how much I hate the Rebs, cause I can at least be free to leave later . . . if they planned to keep their word. (I certainly don't think they would, but that's just me.)
At UCSB, from 1981-1983 (I was only on campus one year), the majority of faculty were "New Deal" Dems, with 4-5 ultra radical leftists, including Wilbur Jacobs the Indian historian and Roderick Nash, the environmental historian. There were, at best, 2-3 "conservatives," but they kept quiet. Miracle of miracles, my advisor there, W. Elliot Brownlee, was a Wisconsin grad and a liberal, but to his great credit he let me "do my own thing" and graded me on what I knew, not how I towed the line. (Maybe that's why my dissertation was voted one of the three best in the country by the Economic History Association). At the school I now teach, the 16-member faculty has perhaps two registered Republicans (me included), a Kennedy Dem who usually votes Republican, and the rest ranging from moderate leftists to ultra libs.
On the Civil War, the literature is now so vast, you almost have to decide which battle you want to study. Shelby Foote's massive five volume series is great, but I'm partial to Allan Nevins' more sweeping "The Ordeal of the Union." It's "old-time history" at its best. People gush over "Battle Cry of Freedom," but I've never liked that. Then there is a libertarian view in "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeff Hummel---good, but deeply flawed.
Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants" is terrific from the southern viewpoint, and anything by T. Harry Williams or McFeeley on Lincoln and his generals is good for the nothern viewpoint. But you MUST see Richard Bensel's work, "Yankee Leviathan," which analyzes liberty in BOTH the north and south (excluding the slavery issue) and concludes that in some 150 separate points of comparison, a white northerner was much "freer" than a white southerner.
One more thing: having shown you the overwhelming differences between blacks and whites who actually fought for the north vs. the handful of blacks who actually held a weapon for the south, it is as irrelevant on EITHER side as pointing out that Americans fought for Hitler (at the Battle of the Bulge); that Spain gave a whole division to Hitler; that Poles, French, Bulgarians, and even a few Brits fought for Hitler. It's a silly argument. Some people are so blind they can't even see their self-interest when it is stabbing them in the face.
DAMNyankees just CANNOT admit that Blacks served as VOLUNTEERS because it points out that the WBTS was about FREEDOM for dixie (rather than the war being a crusade against slavery & all that other hokem & bilgewater, which is regularly vomited up by the DYs!) & that those FREEMEN were fighting for the LIBERTY of their country!
may i also gently point out that you are DEAD WRONG about Blacks being offered their freedom for enlisting. that is a REVISIONIST LIE, propounded in the mid-1960s by those who would dismiss the BRAVE & HONORABLE service of NON-whites (like MY ancestors, for example!).
NO slaves volunteered for service with the CSA, as they were obviously not free to take the oath of enlistment. SOME slaves (less than 1,000, perhaps a few as 200), in point of fact, were FREED to take the oath.
btw, PLEASE come here to VA, come with me to the VFW & LOUDLY proclaim that mechanics,signalmen,enginemen, gunners,drivers,nurses,cooks,seebees,etc. are NOT real soldiers/sailors/marines! then DUCK! (i might just get you out alive & all in one piece.)
this "not real soldiers" NONSENSE is more smoke,mirrors & (in all too many cases) KNOWING LIES propounded by the LEFTISTS/south-HATERS & REVISIONISTS to DEGRADE & DENY that >100,000 Blacks VOLUNTEERED for duty in the CSA forces. furthermore, the LARGE number of Blacks who were lifelong members of the UCV & other CDA veterans organizations points out the DISHONESTY of those specious claims! (the VETERANS themselves would NOT have tolerated POSEURS as MEMBERS of the UCV!)
face it LS, what you're posting is FALSE! whether you like it or not, you have either swallowed the REVISIONISTS bait/hook OR you know better & are trying to cover-up the INCONVIENIENT facts.
fwiw, as a "mixed-blood", i've spent much of the last 30 odd years researching "non-white" participation in the CSA forces. fwiw, i'd bet that i know a GREAT deal more on that one,admittedly narrow, subject than you do.
as the preceding "claims" of yours have been trounced & exposed as FALSE, would you like to offer another theory????
free dixie,sw
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.