Posted on 10/20/2010 8:19:20 AM PDT by Palter
A textbook distributed to Virginia fourth-graders says that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War -- a claim rejected by most historians but often made by groups seeking to play down slavery's role as a cause of the conflict.
The passage appears in "Our Virginia: Past and Present," which was distributed in the state's public elementary schools for the first time last month. The author, Joy Masoff, who is not a trained historian but has written several books, said she found the information about black Confederate soldiers primarily through Internet research, which turned up work by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history. Virginia education officials, after being told by The Washington Post of the issues related to the textbook, said that the vetting of the book was flawed and that they will contact school districts across the state to caution them against teaching the passage.
"Just because a book is approved doesn't mean the Department of Education endorses every sentence," said spokesman Charles Pyle. He also called the book's assertion about black Confederate soldiers "outside mainstream Civil War scholarship."
Masoff defended her work. "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write," she said. "I am a fairly respected writer."
The issues first came to light after College of William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff opened her daughter's copy of "Our Virginia" and saw the reference to black Confederate soldiers.
"It's disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship," Sheriff said. "It concerns me not just as a professional historian but as a parent."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Frederick Douglas reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels.”
If you gotta say it yourself, you probably ain't ...
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
There were indeed black CSA and it would be in the 1000s. I have several books on it.
1000s just from southern Louisiana alone including their own companies...one from a mulatto community uptown.
it’s just a fact not meant to imply much of anything to me other than indeed a fair number did fight for the South or were in the employ of white soldiers too often in exchange for freedom...Bedford Forrest did this for a fair number.
African Americans have a proud history of serving honorably in every war our country has fought.
Excellent post.
Those who want to believe the CSA Army was “integrated” really ought to read some of the debates in the Confederate Congress in early 1865 over whether blacks should be “officially” allowed into the army or not.
With the CSA collapsing around them and Richmond besieged, the Congresscritters still managed to work themselves up into a frenzy over the importance of maintaining white supremacy and the peculiar institution unimpaired.
When they did finally pass a law (February 1865?) allowing slaves into the army, with the owner’s permission, largely as a result of a plea to do so from RE Lee, they were still unable to bring themselves to explicitly guarantee freedom to the soldiers.
A ludicrous claim, easily refuted by modern DNA studies.
The opposite is true, of course: nearly every African-American has some percentage of "white blood" -- also easily proved by modern DNA analysis.
Pal, you've got some odd ideas rattling around in your brain.
Let's see if I can help clarify:
First of all, before the 1860 election, only a small minority of Northerners were truly anti-slavery.
The rest were happy to vote for the pro-slavery Democrats or "Dough-faced" & "moderate" Whigs.
Even in 1860, 60% of the US electorate voted for pro-slavery parties.
Only 40% voted for the anti-Slavery Republicans.
But how did even 40% vote Republican?
Did they somehow suddenly desire "cheap labor for canal and rail lines"?
No.
It was books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and the execution of John Brown at Harper's Ferry that galvanized America's conscience.
It was also the Sunday sermons in thousands of Northern churches over many years, even decades, which slowly, slowly focused Northern attention on the indefensible moral status of slavery.
Were politics involved?
Of course -- after all, Lincoln was a former railroad lawyer who promised Federal aid to build the Transcontinental Railroad.
But this had nothing to do with slavery, or the South.
Finally, it was the South -- not the North -- which seceded and which began shooting, so it's the South's motivations which matter.
That is especially so since Lincoln, along with most "moderate" Northerners, was fully prepared for slavery to continue, and die a natural death long term -- provided slavery was not allowed to expand into non-slave territories and states.
So why did the South secede?
Answer: because they could not tolerate the idea that slavery would become a dieing institution.
And the South's reasons were not just sentimenal longings to preserve their antebellum life-styles.
The immediate, focused reason was: only by expanding the territories, states and even other countries for legal slavery could the demand for, and therefore the prices of slaves be kept high and growing.
That's what the Civil War was all about.
The rest is just, well, blather.
“So why did the South secede?”
I go back to my original posting about the war being for control of the economic future of the country. I don’t have the stats at my fingertips anymore and congratulate you on having them.
But don’t call my ideas odd and expect me to back off. They come from way, way back in my lineage and reflect both the working man’s way of looking at CW I, mixed with a more elitist version provided by the winner’s version.
I don’t usually go into detail about myself, and certainly not on CW thread slugfests. I have my own version of how I see things, and it’s not like those opposed have not attempted to persuade me otherwise—all through my life.
I have both slavers and abolitionists in my background. The abolitionist end mostly won out, but I’m not fool enough not to see the parallels with what is still occurring in the US. I’ve looped around behind the States Rights movement, but I’m no Pickett and I’m bloody well dug in on my thinking.
You can have your opinions about who started the violence, but there were several different kinds, not all of which were physical. They’re still not, and we’re still in a slave society without calling it that. Color of skin isn’t the source by a long shot, and the slavers are Northern now mostly, as I see it.
Of course that's true, in a very general sense.
But there's no reason to be so general when the historical facts are clear and simple to understand:
Basically the Deep South, especially, saw the rise of Northern abolitionist anti-slavery Republicans in 1860 as a mortal existential threat to the prosperity and survival of their "peculiar institution" -- slavery.
That's why it was the South -- not the North -- which seceded.
But even though Republicans were the only abolitionist party (there were three others in 1860), their candidate, Abraham Lincoln, said nothing and promised nothing regarding abolition during the campaign.
Indeed, none of Lincoln's earlier anti-slavery remarks was "radical" enough to imply he intended to immediately abolish slavery in the South.
But what he had been adamant about was the North's refusal to allow slavery to expand into non-slave territories & states.
And that's what caused the Deep South to declare it's secession.
combat_boots: "But don’t call my ideas odd and expect me to back off. They come from way, way back in my lineage and reflect both the working man’s way of looking at CW I, mixed with a more elitist version provided by the winner’s version."
It might interest you to learn that I first heard a version of your ideas from a Marxist history professor, many, many years ago.
I thought it was nonsense then, and still do.
One problem is: it ignores the obvious -- the stated reason why the South seceded -- and it assumes what cannot be even demonstrated, much less proved.
So I keep it simple, and take our Civil War era ancestors at their own words, while ignoring Karl Marx's lunacies.
combat_boots: "You can have your opinions about who started the violence, but there were several different kinds, not all of which were physical.
They’re still not, and we’re still in a slave society without calling it that. Color of skin isn’t the source by a long shot, and the slavers are Northern now mostly, as I see it."
Of course, as long as you talk in broad generalities and vague metaphors (i.e., "slavers are Northern now"), then there's no way to disagree or discuss.
But if you ever decide to get specific, then I can help you learn the difference between historical facts and metaphorical fantasies.
;-)
Have your last word then.
I have my family’s history.
“historical facts”
combat_boots: "I have my family’s history."
Pal, we all have our family histories, some more exotic than others... ;-)
But none can possibly justify your claim that "we're still a slave society."
That is pure hyperbole and metaphorical exaggeration, at best.
At worst, it's Marxism -- which I would hope you are not suggesting, here on Free Republic.
:-)
Ah.........
And here I was thinking you were merely wanting to insult me & my family.
“we’re still a slave society”
No. I’m quite conservative.
What I meant was in reference to 1) being wage slaves; 2) the practice in the last 40 years, anyway, of paying out golden parachutes and obsene compensation/bonuses/options & stock to executives, which serves to divide people working at the same corporation into castes; and 3) the job environments of companies like Appe, Microsoft, etc., which pride themselves on ‘campuses’ that are more like plantations.
I view these business practices as the wholesale adoption of a slave mentatlity in practice by (usually) Northern corporate interests. The North may have won CW I, but it nevertheless liked the profit margin.
Having come from a family of small businessmen, these are just my observations over the course of my own working life.
And no, I don’t mind the guy/gal at the top making a lot of money.
I suspect it’s a corruption of “hoi toide,” which is an almost stereotypical example of the Virginia Tidewater accent (”hoi toide = hig tide for the unfamilar).
It’s emblematic of the landed gentry and the wealth of Virginia going back to colonial times, when religious dissenters settled in the Shenandoah Valley and beyond into what became West Virginia, with the Anglican establishment (literally the Established State Church) east of there.
It’s odd and fascinating, what a regional, dialectical term can tell you sometime, isn’t it?
just seen this mentioned on FOX.
There are many reports of union soldiers saying in their memoirs and reports that they were surprised to see blacks fighting WITH the confederacy.
Nathan Bedford forest was another one who had blacks fighting along side him.
surprised I was not pinged to this. Anyway just seen this on FOX and they had this guy on saying it is all a myth.
Hell will these people wake the hell up and understand there are many reports, memoirs out there which reads the union soldiers were surprised to see blacks fighting with the south.
Of course the guy saying it was a myth got round the fact that there were blacks fighting for the south by saying they were involved in the war effort for the south but they were not soldiers , a claim a poster has made on here time and time again
EXACTLY, case closed.
It really grates some that there were blacks fighting for the south, even today some blacks fly or have no problem with the rebel flag and yet some white do gooding liberal fools have a being problem with it
LOL.
Had to do a search on this to see if it were mentioned on here as I have just heard about this on FOX.
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.
