Posted on 04/05/2005 11:27:48 AM PDT by Crackingham
Confederate heritage groups got excited when Gov. Bob Riley's annual proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month dropped a paragraph saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The groups were pleased because they consider that description of slavery historically inaccurate. Their excitement, however, was short lived.
"It was a mistake," said Jeff Emerson, the governor's communications director, on Monday. He said he did not know how the mistake was made.
Emerson said the governor was unaware of the deletion until The Associated Press contacted his office. The governor quickly reissued the proclamation with the paragraph on slavery restored, and posted it on his Web site.
"That makes Bob Riley look very inconsistent and inept," said Roger Broxton, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund.
State Rep. Oliver Robinson, House chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, was pleased that Riley withdrew the version of the proclamation that makes no mention of slavery.
"To me, the members of the Black Caucus, and the majority of black citizens of Alabama that would be a disgrace," he said.
For many years, Alabama governors have signed proclamations designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. When Riley became governor in January 2003, he used the same proclamation as his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.
It contained a paragraph that says "Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "
No it isn't.
Go ahead and flame away, but my source is Civil War letters that I have read. I read a multitude of them some years ago from both Northern and Southern soldiers. The Northern Soldiers referred to their enemies as 'cessers'.
Never did I read a single word about slavery.
That sounds like a lot of PC injected into the argument if you asked me. Sure the elite of NY were interested, and in the parlors of Boston there were many concerned. But polite society does not pick up weapons and march across the Mason-Dixon line. The Northern guys in the trenches called the Southerners 'cessers'.
I would need to see some proof of other motivators to change my opinion... the letters tell a more accurate story than any university historian with an agenda.
If anyone has facts, please enlighten me if I'm wrong. Does anyone have letters or articles from the time?
TBP,
The facts of history say otherwise. Read the rest of the thread before you post.
Cute, he didn't own the slaves, his wife did, he had african americans, but he may or may not have owned them.
Kind of splitting hairs on the wording to avoid the obvious.
Thats, putting it mildly, a big stretch.
There was a bit of a priority list ahead of owning slaves, like not being executed.
How many in the 'Black Caucus' are communists, are racists? ... Is there a white Caucus in the House or Senate? How about a Yellow Caucus or an Hispanic Caucus or a Homosexual Caucus? ... er, drop that last one, they're always caususing.
Dude, did you read the Mississippi Declaration of Secession?
Certainly the war began over preserving the Union and many Northerners didn't give a damn for emancipation or for freed slaves.
However, that changed in the middle of the war.
Much as our current War on Terror did not begin as an effort to bring Democracy to the Middle East, but we have adopted that goal with time because it is seen as both a greater good to achieve and an essential part of a good victory.
yep.
You should demand a refund from whomever taught you that.
It's not clear if she owned them or if her father held title or when they were set free. There is no record of them being with either Julia Grant (Grant was in the field continually from 1862 until the end of the war) or with the Dent family past 1863, which was "Before" the end of the war. You will also note Dent family slaves saying that Grant told them long before the war, if they had belonged him, he would have set them free.
But the main point is that Grant obviously did not care for slavery, did not have any financial interest in it, freed, without compensation the one slave that he ever held title to, and recognized in the very days after the first shots were fired at Sumter, that slavery was what drove the Union apart and that it would have to be destroyed to unify the nation again.
The be able to see that simple truth in the confusion of April of 1861 was impressive, especially for a man not known for strident political views of any sort.
For you to paint him as some kind of hypocrite is .... well, hypocritical since most of the Southern leadership that you no doubt admire greatly, not only owned many slaves, saw no moral problem with it, and considered protecting slavery worth the cost of war.
See number 72.
No she did not. The Dent family slaves were emancipated early in 1863. Missouri outlawed slavery in January 1865. Post war the Grants didn't live anywhere that slavery was legal.
Gee, you think he might not have wanted that to be a sticking point before surrendering, or do you visualize him saying, "execute me, but grant me (post mortem) the right to own slaves, and do what you will to us, but let us own slaves", or do you think he may, just may, have had higher priorities then owning slaves, being the sticking point to ending the war.
It's well-known that negotiations at Hampton Roads in the last months of the Confederacy foundered on southern insistance that the institution of slavery be preserved by law.
Its neither well known, nor conceded, slavery was probably (at best) the least of the problems the confederacy was concerned about considering it was now being crushed, losing in every sense of the word, and may well wind up at the mercy of there fellow Americans whom they chose to leave, and whom now felt betrayed.
After hitting google, now its more debatable.
Half the sites have him owning slaves, another half say its his wife, (I am also aware of general shermans quote often attributed to Grant incorrectly).
Its pretty darn clear, that there were slaves, that he could call his property. Saying its his wifes, its like Kerry speaking at an enviornmentalist rally and getting into an SUV and saying, "well, no, its not mine, its my familys". (which actually did happen).
The "emissaries" were mostly Methodist ministers who would gladly assist runaways escape to Kansas or Mexico, but the Methodists did not preach insurrection that I ever heard of. There was a lot of hysteria in Texas that lead to the lynching of dozens of pro-Union (or anti-secession) citizens in North Texas, which was a majority pro-Union area.
Perhaps there are incidences of real uprisings in Texas that I'm not aware of.
But I think we agree that the over-the-top abolitionist rhetoric was of far more assistance to the ardent secessionists than it ever was in advancing the cause of abolition. Perhaps a lesson for the pro-life movement of today --- measure your words and deeds because they can be used against you.
You are welcome to believe whatever you'd like to believe. That's the beauty of America--any man can ignore the historical record if he really, really doesn't want to read it.
Understood,
I've seen to many historical documents ignore or contradict other historical documents, quotes from Grant in support of slavery, versus quotes from Grant opposed to Slavery, quotes from General Lee opposing slavery (though his record on slavery is clear, his wife inherited them, and he immediatley freed them, he never even had possession) to quotes from General Lee that supported the south (obviously but in some minds contradictory).
If this is the historical record on Grant and Jefferson Davis regarding slavery, its akin to a pcychic reading tea leaves and using gossip, innuendo, (but no logic) to try and piece together whatever one wants to hear, but shrouding it under the guise of "well known" to give credibility, bare in mind, I'm not a confederate sympathiser, I'm born, raised, and living in Brooklyn NY.
It is also indesputable that he had none at the end of the war, which is what got this particular Grant spat going.
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.