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.”
Bullcr*p.......Nobody is going to swallow your Yankee revisionist manure. The Democrats of that day were conservatives.
Noni:
The only thing we choose to ignore is the “victors” warped version.
In favor of loser myths.
You are intellectually challenged, and socially inept.
......and IGNORANT.
No....just the truth, rather than the “Ken Burns” revisionisms
Of course it is.
Yes, to some extent. Obviously it was a cost. If it made a good uncompetitive to sell in the US, it wasn't sold. If the seller wanted to accept a smaller profit margin, he could absorb some of the cost to remain competitive.
Now explain how the south, buying a portion of imports proportional to their population, paid a wildly disproportionate amount of the tariff.
Lazy - relying upon the blood, sweat, and tears of others for their own enrichment. Dishonorable - showing contempt for the rule of law. Selfish - only interested in their own ambitions and indifferent to the consequences of their actions. Scurrilous - willing to do anything, no matter how underhanded in order to achieve their aims.
>>>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.<<<
Note that nearly all Southern congressmen opposed the tariff, and nearly all Northern congressmen supported it. That, in itself, should provide some insight into which region the tariff hurt or helped.
>>>I’ve never seen any real quantification.<<<
I posted the following link in an earlier post:
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html
The following excerpts from that link provide additional insight:
“The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South.”
. . .
“In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.”
The article states that Lincoln signed the tariff into law a few days after inauguration. But most sources state Buchanan signed it a couple of days prior to the inauguration (which I believe is correct). No matter. Both supported the tariff—Buchanan because it helped Pennsylvania.
The article states accurately that Lincoln campaigned for the Morrill Tariff, so his views were well known to the Southern states prior to his election.
“Now explain how the south, buying a portion of imports proportional to their population, paid a wildly disproportionate amount of the tariff.”
Would you rephrase that question so that the premise does not override any reasonable answer.
Like what? What agricultural machinery did they depend on Europe for? What consumer goods did they import in such massive quantities?
Sorry pal, but your numbers stink to high heaven.
The 35th US Congress (1858 to 1860) ended with 237 members, of whom 116 were Democrats.
Of those 116 Democrats, almost 2/3 -- 76 -- were Southerners.
Now add to those: another 15 Southern Congressmen of the allied American Nativist, "Know Nothing" Party.
In other words, as of 1860, the South's 76 Democrat congressmen controlled the 116 Democrats, and with another 15 "Know Nothings" made up an absolute majority of the House of Representatives' 237 members.
Point is: as of 1860 nothing could pass Congress which the South was determined to oppose.
Furthermore, President "Dough-Faced" Buchanan was also a Democrat and highly sympathetic to the Southern cause.
So this whole notion that the South was somehow being run roughshod over by some massive Northern government is ludicrous.
The real truth is: the South effectively controlled the Federal Government from the founding of the Republic until the day it walked away in secession.
I am aware this number is frequently tossed around, but I am afraid I find it very difficult to swallow.
Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected at the port of entry. They are essentially a sales tax and like all sales taxes are paid in the long run by the consumer.
In 1860 the slave states had about 9M people and the free states about 22M. Of the 9M, about 4M, the slaves, lived by definition in the most extreme poverty and consumed very little.
This means that if the above statement is true, 5M people, or 16% of the US population, managed to consume 87% of the goods on which tariffs were charged.
I hope you will forgive me if I find it more than a little difficult to agree that the average white person in the south consumed between 5x and 6x as much in tariffed goods as the average white northerner.
No...they were not. They were the conservatives of their day. Talk about underhanded, I suggest you read up on the radical Republicans...like Ben Wade.
yep..it is
Yes...they were.
Which National Battlefield is the only location administered by the National Parks Service where the Confederate Flag is allowed to be flown?
And why?
Most of the Union and Confederate dead were buried in a series of mass graves scattered across the battlefield. When the war ended, the Union bodies were moved to a newly created cemetery (what is now the Shiloh National Cemetery), but the federal government refused to allow the Confederate dead to be removed from the burial trenches. There are five known trenches, with at least two others located somewhere in the park. The largest is located near White Oaks Pond and it contains the remains of over seven hundred Confederates. It is at this spot that the Stars and Bars are flown.
I'm heading to Shiloh next Wednesday, and I'll take and post a picture of this.
I suspected burial sites might have had something to do with the flag flying. Hope you have a enjoyable trip to Shiloh.
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.