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.”
I think your denial of history stems from your 21st century sensibilities. The slaves and freedmen that fought came from countries where slavery flourished and they were sold into slavery by their own people. Even if they themselves didn’t wish to be slaves, the idea of slavery in itself, wasn’t as abhorrent to them as you would believe. It was a fact of life and not a moral issue.
Most of the slaves, even while in servitude and without any real freedom, were not abused and they lived better lives that they had when they were free men in their own country. This is no excuse for slavery. It only illustrates the mindset in which they would want to take up arms to defend the threat the US government made to their own security and livelyhood within the southern states.
You have to verify, but I think She was the daughter of a white plantation owner. Her two all white half brothers sued and lost in court to take over her inheritance.
New Orleans had a lot of black slave owners.
Until mid-April - Yes
Because of reverse discrimination, there are employment opportunities that I cannot pursue.
yes, but would they want to marry me?
No, there are ethnic areas that would be ridiculous for me to try and live in.
There are parts of inner cities that I would not go in.
if I pay a lawyer.
No, I'm broke due to the welfare state.
You want to buy some?
No it was the Confederate democrats who were the tyrants. They fought to uphold slavery and fought against the rule of law. Their outlaw mentality had no respect for the rights of ALL but simply for their own libertine philosophy.
I have no denial of history at all. The disgusting libertine principles of the Confederate democrats were to uphold slavery and to usurp the rule of law for all.
Cute....childish.....but cute.
(thanks sionnsar)
Can you give us some details on this 'obscene spending'?
I always find it amusing when a supporter of a cause motivated by the perceived threat to the institution that kept a third of their population in bondage accuses someone else of tyranny.
It needed and had to be done away with, but it would have happened before 1900 without a bloody failed second war of Independence.
So another forty or fifty years of slavery was OK with you? Kind of hard on the slave, wasn't it?
Lincoln had no intention whatsoever of interfering with slavery where it already existed, and the Deep South knew this. They basically had a hissy fit because a Republican had been elected President and their dreams of eventually expanding slavery into the new territories and throughout the entire Union was symbolically threatened by this outcome.
If Abraham Lincoln was a "Republican In Name Only," what in the name of all that is reasonable is a "real" Republican supposed to be???
You neglected the Essex Junto and Hartford Convention in New England, when that region flirted with secessionism--and were accused of treason by "states' rights" defending Southerners.
This is what you said, “ Next maybe Williams could write an article about how blacks served in the KKK. Absolutely pathetic and shameful article.”
and
“The disgusting libertine principles of the Confederate democrats were to uphold slavery and to usurp the rule of law for all.”
You imply that Williams is wrong in writing in his article that slaves willingly served in the Confederate army. That is a denial of history.
I grew up in the south, but my ancestors fought in the Union army. I’m not going to deny history and put my ancestors on some moral high ground that they don’t deserve. Just because as a result of the war the slaves were freed, doesn’t mean that the Union army went to war to free the slaves.
The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of more slaves, but just like the US Constitution at that time, it still allowed slavery. So at the time of the Southern states’ succession from the Union the US Constitution upheld the disgusting libertine principles that uphold slavery and usurped the rule of law for all.
considering there were black confederates, even in my town to which their ancestors live here still then why or what is wrong with the article?
BTW
I’ve talked to blacks who did have ancestors fight in the confederacy so just wondering where your problem lies in the article?
just been reading about this and it says the yankees were so surprised to see black fighting for the confederacy, after that battle is became wildly known that blacks did fight west of the river of which was already known east of it .
If they were slaves how much choice did they really have?
The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of more slaves...
You may want to read it again.
How many people died and were wounded in America's Second War of Independence (aka the Civil War)?
Shouldn't your ire be directed at those who resorted to war to defend their institution of slavery?
what’s the betting that obama never told his daughters on his trip over to Africa about Johnson or how blacks caught blacks and then sold them to whites in Africa .
Johnson was so mean to his slaves that one of them ran away and asked the white neighbour to let his stay with him.
It was that time that Johnson went to court and had slavery legalised.
Funny how many teachers do not tell their kids this on Black history month or in history
I said, “The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of more slaves...”
Non-Sequitur said, “You may want to read it again.”
Ok, I did -
Article I, Section 9, clauses 1 and 2
Section 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
The Constitution upheld neither the principle of unilateral secession or slavery. My comments about Williams also had nothing to do with him writing about any facts but were directed at his disgraceful opinions. I remember hearing Williams espouse that individuals should have the right to sell their body parts based upon the concept of ‘ownership’ of these parts. I get the impression that he is not very far from supporting slavery himself being that he has such immoral views in regards to rights and ownership. I guess since he (and many here) want to argue that the ‘ownership’ of slaves was legal and an aspect of their liberty then they also would have no problem using slaves to harvest their organs as well. As I said the Confederate democrats disgust me.
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.