Posted on 11/04/2010 3:13:46 AM PDT by markomalley
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.