Nice come back Potsy.
A Lincoln Coven member chastising me for not appreciating a Jeffersonian Republic, priceless.
Posted on 11/04/2010 3:13:46 AM PDT by markomalley
One tragedy of war is that its victors write its history and often do so with bias and dishonesty. That’s true about our War of 1861, erroneously called a civil war. Civil wars, by the way, are when two or more parties attempt to take over the central government. Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington, in 1776, wanted to take over London. Both wars were wars of independence.
Kevin Sieff, staff writer for The Washington Post, penned an article “Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers,” (Oct. 20, 2010). The textbook says that blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy. Sieff claims that “Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history.” William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff said, “It is disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship.” Let’s examine that accepted scholarship.
In April 1861, a Petersburg, Va., newspaper proposed “three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg” after 70 blacks offered “to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them” in defense of Virginia. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, “There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government.”
Charles H. Wesley, a distinguished black historian who lived from 1891 to 1987, wrote “The Employment of Negroes as Soldiers in the Confederate Army,” in the Journal of Negro History (1919). He says, “Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies (1,600) of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia.”
Wesley cites Horace Greeley’s “American Conflict” (1866) saying, “For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union.”
Wesley goes on to say, “An observer in Charleston at the outbreak of the war noted the preparation for war, and called particular attention to the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees.”
One would have to be stupid to think that blacks were fighting in order to preserve slavery. What’s untaught in most history classes is that it is relatively recent that we Americans think of ourselves as citizens of United States. For most of our history, we thought of ourselves as citizens of Virginia, citizens of New York and citizens of whatever state in which we resided.
Wesley says, “To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear.” Blacks have fought in all of our wars both before and after slavery, in hopes of better treatment afterwards.
Denying the role, and thereby cheapening the memory, of the Confederacy’s slaves and freemen who fought in a failed war of independence is part of the agenda to cover up Abraham Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts to prevent Southern secession. Did states have a right to secede?
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
You wouldn’t understand or appreciate a Jeffersonian Republic if it reached out and smacked you with a cluebat. Your exaggerations are so extreme that they are beyond comical.
You are pathetically delusional.
>>You say that like that would be a bad thing.<<
Just saying, just saying. Prolonging a verbal battle will surely ignite a real war.
Nice come back Potsy.
A Lincoln Coven member chastising me for not appreciating a Jeffersonian Republic, priceless.
You have a lot of nerve accusing Lincoln supporters of being a part of a coven considering that it was your confederate democrats that formed the KKK coven.
Look at the names of the confederate democrat KKK leaders: “Cyclops,” “Wizard,” “Grand Dragon.” The Imperial Wizard meets with “klaverns,” which sounds a lot like “covens.”
>>>... if you’re referring to the fact that upwards of 90% of all tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports, indicating that the overwhelming majority of all imports were destined for Northern consumers then you are correct and there was an imbalance. The North paid the bulk of taxes on imports.<<<
Approximately 80% of tariff revenues fell on the South, while about 80% of the expenditures of the revenues benefited the North.
Some good articles on the Morrill Tariff:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo17.html
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html
There was also a FR article/discussion at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069109/posts
I know enough about Abe to know that his administration was light as a feather compared to Jeff Davis's regime. Widespread suppression of domestic dissent does not bode well for the success of what was supposed to be a revolution of independence.
Not to mention the invasion of Maryland and the placing of the legislature under house arrest at Fort McHenry--also before a vote on secession could be made.
As was tobacco, which to my knowledge was never automated.
If 80% of the cost was born by the South then why was well over 90% of all tariff revenue collected in the North? In the year prior to the rebellion why did a single Northern port, New York City, collect 17 times as much in tariff revenue that did the busiest Southern port, New Orleans?
Some good articles on the Morrill Tariff...
You are aware that the Morrill tariff wasn't passed until after the South seceded aren't you?
A neat story, but like so many Lost Cause stories it's inaccurate.
"Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath . . . brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away . . . the court doth . . . order [that] the first serve out their times with their master according to their indentures, . . . and that [the] third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere." A Virginia Court Decision (1640) from Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (January 1898), vol. 5, no. 3, p. 236.
Hugh Gwyn was white. In addition, Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery in 1641, 9 years before your story. But 15 years after the Dutch had legalized slavery in New Amsterdam.
False.
I've seen similar claims made many times. I've never seen any real quantification. If you have some I'd really like to see it.
The closest I have seen confuse the trade deficit or surplus with the tariff taxes. Prior to the war, by far the largest export item from the USA was raw cotton. But the US has never had any taxes on exports.
It is quite possible that goods destined for the South were delivered by smaller coastal vessels after first clearing the custom house in NYC. This would be a decision of the ship owner and not necessarily the customer who's goods were subject to the tariff.
Do you have a breakdown of where the goods subject to the tariff ended up, or some other methodology?
Port of entry seems insufficient to determine who's ox was being gored by the tariff.
Hahahahaha! Denial won’t change the facts. If Virginia hadn’t pissed around so long, the invasion would have been a different story.
So if 80% of your goods are destined for Southern consumers then how much sense does it make to take those goods to a port hundreds of miles away, take them off the ship, tax them, put them on another ship, and send them to their ultimate consumers? Wouldn't it make more sense to take them directly to Southern ports if so much of it was going to wind up there anyway?
Do you have a breakdown of where the goods subject to the tariff ended up, or some other methodology?
Thomas Huertas did a 1979 study on how much money a confederate tariff would collect. In order to calculate that he examined Southern purchases of goods from overseas and from the North. The results are below:
The fact of the matter is that the South did pay a disproportionate percentage of the tariff. A disproportionately SMALL percentage.
I have not clue why you think I am under an “illusion.” You obviously, and I mean OBVIOUSLY, have not read a thing I’ve ever written and frankly owe me an apology. If you read one paragraph of “Patriot’s History of the United States,” you will see ZERO defense of Confederate democracts, then or now.
This was enough to finance the government for a month and a half.
Over 90% of Federal revenue came from tariffs.
Tariff revenue from the imports of goods purchased with the proceeds of the sales of Southern cotton were about to cease.
Direct trade with Europe was about to produce millions of dollars annually that would not pass through Union custom houses.
The people of the North were about to experience a major downfall. That is why a number of state governors were pushing Lincoln to attack the South.
Well I apologize for stating what your belief may be or not be based upon your post to me. I should have just stated that there are many who hold that illusion, in my opinion.
GRITS!!!!!
Now that’s the truth.
Thanks for posting. The inability of some to acknowledge the simple truth Williams has written is exactly the same as liberals who will not acknowledge the truth about...anything.
It is sad that so many good FReepers lose the ability to acknowledge truth when it comes to this one topic.
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.