Posted on 07/19/2006 7:28:41 PM PDT by Pharmboy
That's right. The first American hero to give his life for Liberty was a black man.
And while we're on the subject, historians of the RevWar note that more American blacks than whites died during the Revolution. How? The Brits offered freedom to the slaves, and thousands came to their side. Some fought, but the great majority of them were put into camps where thousands died of smallpox, typhus, etc. The Brits just wanted to disrupt our side, and had no plan for them.
If he was present at "The Tea Party" it would have been in spirit only since the Boston Massacre occurred 4 years earlier. ;~))
Yes indeed--I didn't date things out when I responded to that poster saying I didn't know about the Party, but he was certainly active in the Sons of Liberty circles in Boston.
Thank you for the ping.
A worthy project, that I'll watch with interest...
True. I thought somebody might correct me, and I knew full well I should have used the first fatality, but what the heck.
Thanks for the Ping. Go to the Peabody, Mass historical society for the black people from South Danvers, Peabody, who fought in the Revolution. Also look for the Little Bills from Marblehead who got Washington across the Delaware, Glover my butt.
Not really though it is a nice myth the Defenders of the Slaverocracy try and push. Until the very end of the war the leaders of the Confederacy were totally opposed to any such thing since it undermined the ideology supporting the attack on the Union. For the South the war was fought for ONLY one reason, slavery.
You're mistaken. Blacks did fight for the Confederacy. The South didn't just fight for slavery. Yours is the popular myth. The South fought the Civil War for the same reasons they almost didn't stay part of the Union after its founding. Political, economic, and social differences between the North and South were plenty of reasons for secession. Slavery was only one part of the total concern.
Any blacks "fighting" for the Slavers were a tiny number although there were plenty of valets for the aristocracy, ditchdiggers, cooks, teamsters etc. When United States armies appeared ANYWHERE in the South they were inudated by slaves trying to escape the Tyranny of the Whip and the Lash.
Of course, the Slavers provoked the RAT Rebellion over slavery that was what they said themselves not just me. NONE of the other concerns would have provoked a decade long conspiracy to secede. There was no "tyranny" and the Slavers did not even wait until Lincoln took office before attacking the US.
There was NO "almost didn't stay part of the Union after its founding" except in your mind. And the South controlled the federal government for almost the entire period prior to the RAT Rebellion.
But these threadbare falsehoods are all the DS's have to try and defend the indefensible.
I didn't claim they fought in large numbers. I also didn't claim that slaves fought either.
I said blacks, and I meant blacks, and free blacks did fight as combat soldiers for the Confederacy. And while most were support personnel, there were still volunteers among the blacks to fill those roles, and to fill combat roles.
Denying it is not going to change the fact that there were some. Yes, more fought against the South than for. Yes, many slaves fled the South the first chance they got. But, that doesn't change history - and your insistence does not rewrite history.
The South had greater, long standing grievances with the North, over tariffs, taxes, trade, and divisive social differences than the North's threat of emancipation. Emancipation was a symbol for both the North and South, and became most relevant AFTER the war had started. But it was not the single, sole issue around which the question of secession revolved.
Even free blacks were not allowed to form regiments to fight for the Confederacy unlike those formed to fight for the United States though some mulattos may have tried to pass as white and join. Slaver leaders were unalterably opposed to Black soldiers since they would contradict the entire theory of slaver culture. This idea was maintained until the very end.
There have been many posts attempting to prove your claim none have been successful except to those who want it to be true.
There was NO threat of emancipation that was a Slaver lie. Abolitionists were NEVER in charge of the federal government even after the War started.
The ONLY reason the Slavers attacked the US was because of slavery. Emancipation was not an issue for the United States until well into the war and was not popular among many of those fighting to preserve the Union. The war was not fought between those wanting to get rid of slavery and those wanting to keep it but between those wanting to preserve the Union and those wanting to keep slavery. Read what the Slaver leaders said. They were very clear and totally unapologetic about it. At least in that they were honest.
Nor was the tariff much of an issue though the apologists keep trying to claim it was. Tariffs were universally acceptable as a means of financing the federal government and had always been. And the rate in 1860 was not at a historic high or going up. It is simply another attempt to excuse an unprovoked attack upon the United States by pretending that the Slavers had a just excuse for their idiotic attempt to destroy the Union.
There are too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your post to bother responding to.
yes--this was very sad... i never learned this when studying U.S. History in school, and i absolutely loved the subject... i learned this recently as i was teaching my own son U.S. History...
You can never trust state schools for history of any sort, especially American history. That's why--even though my kids went to public school--I home school them in American history.
Yeah right.
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.