Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.
“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”
“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.
Pension records gleaned from the S.C. Department of History and Archives show no black Confederate soldiers received payment for combat service. And of the more than 300 blacks who did receive pensions after they were allowed in 1923, all served as body servants or cooks, the records show.
Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.
That repeal resulted in a handful of African-American units in states such as Virginia and Texas. But there were none in South Carolina, which prohibited African-Americans from carrying guns in the state’s service throughout the war for fear of insurrection, according to the archives.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
And Lincoln only expanded on what George Washington started.
And Washington only expanded on what Jesus started.
So, turns out, it's all Jesus' fault??!
Don't be ridiculous.
Actually, if those seven states had not seceded, there would have been no Morrill Tariff. The Senate vote to pass the Morrill tariff was 25 for and 14 opposed. Had the 14 Senators from SC, GA, FL, AL, MI, LA, and TX been in Congress when the vote was taken, and assuming they would have voted no, the vote would have been 25 yea, 28 nay, the act is not approved.
Again you're just playing word definition games.
Of course, by their own declarations, slavery was a root cause of secession, indeed the root cause.
But slavery did not force Jefferson Davis to assault Fort Sumter, nor did it cause President Lincoln to respond by calling up 75,000 militia.
During the war slavery did prevent Confederates from using large numbers of African Americans in battle and it caused the Union army to emancipate "contrabands" while enlisting freed blacks in Union infantry regiments.
Were those "root causes"?
Well... if not in April 1861 then by April 1865 everyone fully understood that Confederate surrender would mean immediate and uncompensated emancipation of Confederates' slaves.
So Confederates fought harder to protect what they had, while Northerners fought for something new:
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!"
So, in no way was it "all about money".
Just so we're clear, I read Lincoln's words to say that we should not "find new places for [slavery] to live in, when it can no longer exist in the old".
That seems to me to express perfectly the opinion of Republicans as late as early 1861 -- slavery where it's lawful should not be interfered with, but also should not be allowed to expand into new territories or states.
And you disagree with what, exactly?
Well said.
Thanks for that clear & brief summary.
I've never understood that logic before.
Chase believed the 14th amendment already punished former-Confederates and therefore further punishments would amount to double jeopardy.
Hmmmmm...
I don’t disagree with that. But slavery in the Confederacy was not new. But if slavery was not to be interfered with where it was lawful, how was the war about slavery?
Still not a soldier?
The way to tell who was considered a soldier and who was not is to look at the pension files. If they awarded a pension to your or your family, you were a soldier.
I find the author’s statement that blacks didn’t serve in South Carolina hard to believe.
I have seen Civil war photos of Black units (unknown configuration), from VA, GA and TN. They were fed and paid same as the Whites (for the most part).
If they survived, they were given their freedom.
If SC didn’t have Black units (as the North did), then I learned something new today.
5.56mm
Reread my post #143 and tell me, in what way is it not clear?
That Confederates seceded & fought to protect slavery is indisputable as is: that Unionists fought to preserve the Union first and also to free slaves.
And you've known this since you were a child, so why pretend to make an issue of it here?
and you know that Lincoln was a tyrant, usurped the Constitution and Sherman was a war criminal. Buchanan stood by and did nothing when the first states seceded, because he knew the federal government had no legal right to retain them by force. If South Carolina’s secession meant anything, they could not allow the federal presence sitting in their harbor to remain. Maj. Anderson should have simply struck the colors and departed along with his men. Lincoln wanted war and he got it. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a publicity stunt to provoke a slave rebellion in the South, thereby drawing resources away from the battlefield, where the Union had been getting it ass kicked for two years. To the victor, goes the history. Please continue to deify the man, who gave you what we have now, an overbearing and bloated federal government.
Actually Buchanan sent a message to congress in Dec of 1860 stating that he believed Secession was illegal, but also that the federal government had no right to force states to remain in the Union. Once again showing what a spineless bastard he was and cementing him as the worse president in our nations history.
Yup. The mythology of devolved government on which our country was founded, but go right on ahead with your fantasy.
Can someone show me in the US Const. where secession both defined and is made unconstitutional?
Not necessarily. A soldiers pension records would contain the date of enlistment and date of discharge. The Virginia pension record for someone like General Jackson’s, body servant (a slave) shows dates of service, but no specific enlistment date or discharge date.
And therein lies the rub. Could Lincoln have negotiated the Southern states back into the Union? Quite possibly, but we will never know, because he chose a deliberately provocative act.
like firing on fort Sumpter
An opposing view: Descendant of black Confederate soldier speaks at museum
Black Confederate veteran to get proper memorial at Blandford
Black Confederate soldiers overlooked during Black History Month
Black Confederate-flag supporter irks some on march to Texas
Black Confederates
Black man supports Confederate flag in march
Black Man Was a Rock Hill Leader Before Integration (Belonged to KKK? a redshirt? in 1870s SC
Black service, on both sides, in the Civil War
Blacks join Confederate Army heritage group
Blacks, Jews Fight on Side of the South
Former Slave's Family Sees Him Honored At Last (Chris Columbus in Florida)
Confederate group, blacks to clean up cemetery [NC] - more comments
Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War? Novel on blacks in Confederate South
DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVEOWNERS
Minorities During the War Between the States: Collected Resources
Natchez(Ms)conference explores Free Blacks in the Antebellum South (Imagine That)
Ohatchee marker to have names of black and white Confederate vets
Quotations on Black Confederates
UDC marks another black Confederate grave (pt1)
UDC marks another black Confederate grave (pt2)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2621133/posts?page=161#161
Firing at the ship of another country resupplying foreign troops on your soil. Funny, that was done at bunch of places a little less than 100 years prior, no one seems to have a problem with that.
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.