Disgraceful article. Shame on Williams. The Confederate democrats absolutely were fighting to destroy the rule of law and to deny United States citizens equal rights to representation for all. Their succesors (the progressive democrats) continued to do the same. Next maybe Williams could write an article about how blacks served in the KKK. Absolutely pathetic and shameful article.
Pardon me for asking, but exactly how is truth ever to be considered “disgraceful” or “pathetic and shameful”?
Skipping the question of accuracy and just calling something "shameful" and wishing it would be suppressed or go away is itself shameful - the desire to erase uncomfortable truth in the interest of ideology is the m.o. of authoritarians everywhere.
The brother against brother part of the war was not just brothers across enemy lines. There is a very good reason the South still flew the Confederate flag with pride until these last few years and it was not because they were proud of slavery but of the real reasons the war started and what they were fighting for. Ask yourself why murdering outlaw man like Jesse James became a hero and their exploits followed with such zeal if the South was so wrong.
So the real shame is the revisionist history that says the war was started and fought over slavery.
If it was all about slavery then why were 5 of the states that fought on the Union side slave states?
The Confederates didn’t want to take over the US government, they wanted to succeed from the Union and form their own country and government where a state’s rights were not interfered with by an over-reaching central government.
On another thread about the original article, I posted no fewer than THREE scholarly sources by academics who have proven that there were significant numbers of blacks in the CSA-—probably 100,000-—and while most did not fire weapons, some did. It’s not an issue up for historical debate, really, despite the lib-tards’ reaction to it.
Disgraceful article. Shame on Williams.
Republicans need to stop defending Lincoln because he was a Republican. He was a tyrant.
Slavery was just a crux to his narcissism. It needed and had to be done away with, but it would have happened before 1900 without a bloody failed second war of Independence.
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.
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?
Bullcr*p.......Nobody is going to swallow your Yankee revisionist manure. The Democrats of that day were conservatives.