America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds

As we'll see later, many paid for it with their jobs.,/p>

I doubt that was the issue that got them canned, but the fact remains that it passed.

Was this before or after it was ratified by the previous congress and signed by the previous president? Remember, your answer to my question about how Lincoln pressured Corwin was "By getting him to write it."

This was after Lincoln's election but before his inauguration.

They had already seceded.

Yes, and they indicated they were not willing to come back in even if the amendment did pass. They turned the offer down.

That was the previous congress and the previous president, the one who was voted out in 1860.

It was after the election. Remember that there used to be a longer period between an election and the president/Congress being sworn in. AFTER the election....meaning they were not turned out by the voters for voting in favor of the Corwin Amendment. The election had already happened.

And enough states never ratified it.

Because the original 7 seceding states turned it down. It was a dead letter after that. This is about the 10th time I've had to remind you of that.

It was nothing.

It was the North's offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

It's relevant to the question of what the Civil War was about. The Corwin Amendment is irrelevant because it was never ratified.

What the war was about was MONEY. Plain and simple. In this case trade and tax policy. Had it been "about" slavery the North never would have offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment and the original 7 seceding states would not have turned down the offer.

Yes, because it was nothing more than dangling carrots until that happened.

No it did not. It passed the Congress and was signed by the president and Lincoln did offer it in his inaugural address. The original 7 seceding states were not interested. They didn't care if it passed or not. They wanted independence rather than perpetual protection of slavery within the US.

Was calling "the negro" "inferior" whose "best use" was as slaves "Citing violations of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the US Constitution"?

Did the Northern states not violate the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution?

In response to my question about the "Black Codes" in the North, you posted examples of discrimination against blacks before the CW. A link would have by itself would have been fine.

I cited numerous examples. The Black Codes were a series of discriminatory laws designed to make life unbearable to Blacks so as to drive them out and prevent others from settling in those states. I also provided a link to much more evidence about the Black Codes on the books in Northern states.

It was unnecessary any way. No one denies that there was discrimination in the North or says that everyone in the North was the good guys, but what about legal "black codes" as had been passed in the South.

I provided you plenty of evidence about the Black Codes on the books in the North. They were a model for later Jim Crow laws adopted in the South. Segregation was a Northern thing. It was part of Northern culture. It had not been part of Southern culture until after the war and after the occupation.

That's because it was about slavery. The fact that there were other grievances, and no one denies that, is moot. Most of the economic reasons were in some way related to slavery any way, since some of what they produced cheaply was by slave labor.

Ah but it was not about slavery. Slavery was an ancillary issue for the vast majority North and South. What touched everybody were the Tax and Trade policies. Its true that some of the export crops were produced in part by slave labor. That said, it could have just as easily been produced had there been no slaves and had they been sharecroppers instead - as they were after the war. Slavery was not the essential issue.

BTW, "states rights" was the argument later used by Democrats in the House to defeat the EP in 1864. We all know which states' rights they were talking about.

BTW, states' rights has been used to argue against all sorts of usurpation of power by the federal government since the time the Constitution was ratified and still is.

Just because the war was about abolishing slavery doesn't mean it was about abolishing slavery. Got it.

But the war was not about abolishing slavery. Just about everybody on both sides said so. Do not mistake an outcome for the intent from the start. The abolition of slavery was a development of the war. It was not the aim of the war.

It was for many. It was also a war to end slavery for the slaves who escaped and joined Union forces.,/p>

It wasn't for many more. It wasn't about that for the many slaves who served in the Confederate Army.

I'll demolish this nonsense later, but for now I'll leave you with the fact that the North voted for abolition.

You will never be able to refute that basic fact. Its clearly true. No serious historian even argues otherwise.

True, but it was passed in Congress and sent to the states where, unlike your Corbomite Maneuver or whatever it was called, it was ratified. He was assassinated before he could sign it.

I realize the Corwin Amendment is damned inconvenient for you and you'd like for it to go away since the fact of its existence demolishes your argument, but alas, you can't wish it out of existence. It happened.

There's a major problem with that. In 1864, the 13th Amendment was passed in the Senate but died in the House thanks to the Democrats, the party of Jefferson Davis. Later that year, Lincoln was re-elected and the Republicans gained huge majorities in both the House and Senate. The Republican controlled House then voted to pass the 13th Amendment.

LOL! The Democrats stood little chance once the Southern states had withdrawn. The 13th amendment was not passed until after the war - not during the war, AFTER it. Irrefutable fact.

So you see, Lincoln didn't have to sell abolition to the North, because the North voted for it.

Odd then that it did not pass until after the war given that the North was in favor of abolition as you say. Just like its odd that it took the North and the Lincoln administration 2 full years to discover what they had started the war over in the first place.

This was from Lincoln in 1854. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another," At the time he didn't believe the Constitution gave the federal government the power to abolish slavery, and said so over and over again. That is among the quotes you keep trying to prove your point with, but they prove just the opposite. When they got the power they did it, and that was with the full support of the Northern voters.

Here is what Lincoln really thought about the equality of Blacks:

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Abraham Lincoln

"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln

"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.” -Abraham Lincoln

“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas" ... Abraham Lincoln

"There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them" - Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address

So much for any claims that the North even wanted to interfere with slavery let alone wanted equality.

Yes. As my two references said, he didn't believe the North was serious about abolishing slavery which is why he didn't support them. I'm not sure how you think your references refute mine when in fact they corroborate them.

No, that's not the only reason he didn't support the North. He also did not support the North because he saw that their real aim was MONEY. They wanted to treat the Southern states like a colony denying them their right to self determination in the process.

If you're referring to the Corbomite Manuever, no. Unlike the EP it was never ratified.

Ah, well there you're wrong. The North passed the Corwin Amendment with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority in both houses of Congress, the president signed it and Lincoln endorsed it in his inaugural address. The North very much offered slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.

They did after the CW. They also freed the South's slaves. We've been over this.

Yes. AFTER the war. We have indeed been over this.

There were comments made by some to that effect. I never said everyone in the North was the good guys. At the end they did it, with the support of the voters.

No, I'm afraid it was more than just comments. It was the numerous public statements of Lincoln himself. On Monday Feb 11, 1861 Congress passed the following resultion:

"Resolved that neither Congress, the People, nor the Government, of the Non-Slaveholding states have the constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in any of the Slaveholding states of the Union."

I see BroJoeK is spewing more historical illiteracy trying to equate Republicans of the 1860s with RINOs if they voted for something which makes his revisionist history fantasies inconvenient....like the Corwin Amendment for example.

Comparing Davis or Lee to a 2021 democrat is just stupid,

His laughable premise is that somehow the parties have never changed and have stood for the same things throughout their entire history.

Nevermind that you have to ignore that the Republicans started out as the party of the Northeast, of the establishment, of lavish subsidies for big business while the Democrats were the party of limited government and states' rights and fiscal responsibility.

Nevermind that the Northeast is totally Democrat controlled today while the South is overwhelmingly Republican.

He has to ignore all of the actual history as well as all observations about politics and culture in the US for the last several generations to pretend that. Yet somehow in his deluded mind, he manages it! Incredible. LOL!

When the Lost Cause "truths" are found to be lies, what do they want?

The *TRUTH* is that independence is a right. It is recognized as a right in our own founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and it was also acknowledged as a right by the failure to object to the ratification statements of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island.

The lie is that states did not have a right to leave. *THAT* is the primary lie of the war.

It's relevant to the question of what the Civil War was about. The Corwin Amendment is irrelevant because it was never ratified.

This statement is just whistling past the graveyard.

The passage of the Corwin amendment by the Northern states, and Lincoln's efforts to support it's passage, demonstrate that all claims of slavery as a motivation regarding the war are lies.

You know it proves the northern power block didn't care about slavery.

As i've said from the beginning, they cared about money, not people. Same as the bastards today. I just read John Kerry has 1 million invested in Uyghur slave labor forced to work by China.

These kinds of gutless Liberal bastards from the Northeast would denounce slavery in the strongest terms to anyone who's looking, but gloat about their profits from slavery in private.

Same then as now.

If you'll go back and read it again, you'll see my word "ludicrous" applied to my rehearsal of DiogenesLamps' arguments -- that slaves freed by Lincoln's 1862-3 Emancipation Proclamation should have been returned to their alleged "masters" after Confederate surrenders in April 1865 and before the 13th Amendment's ratification in December 1865.

I did not say that, and that would be incorrect. The 13th Amendment averted a legal claim that the slaves were not permanently set free by the Emancipation Proclamation. Rather they would have been legally subject to returning to the status of property after the war was over.

[Rehearsal. a practice or trial performance of a play or other work for later public performance.] Break a leg, and good luck at your next performance.

As I have informed you numerous times, the war was not over until the government declared it to be over. That is still a matter of public record.

The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).
It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

As you well know, the Confederacy did NOT surrender in April 1865. You may continue to make believe that General Lee surrendered more than the Army of Northern Virginia, but the historical record dismisses your ludicrous claim. The war ended in 1866, as the U.S. Supreme Court stated in The Protector.

But any suggestion that freed slaves should be returned to slavery after April 1865 flies in the face of Lincoln's Emancipation language:
[...]
Lincoln's words were clear, "forever free", so returning such freedmen to slavery, without due process, was a practical impossibility, even if legally conceivable.

When the ANV surrendered is irrelevant to the instant legal question. The relevant end of war date is in 1866, after the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment. It is your prejudiced thinking and blind addiction to Lincoln mythology which accounts for your statement. Lincoln's actions as Comander-in-Chief were imbued with no such authority as you attribute to them. The authority you would attribute to Lincoln is in direct conflict with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bigelow v. Forrest, 76 US 39 (1869), as cited, linked and quoted in my #485 to which you respond.

Lincoln's words were clear. It is also clear that not even Lincoln believed he had such a power. Absent lawful authority, the words are just words.

From the headnotes:

3. The act of July 17th, 1862, "to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes," and the joint resolution of the same date explanatory of it, are to be construed together.
4. Under the two thus construed all that could be sold by virtue of a decree of condemnation and order of sale under the act was a right to the property seized, terminating with the life of the person for whose offence it had been seized.
5. The fact that such person owned the estate in fee simple, and that the libel was against all the right, title, interest, and estate of such person, and that the sale and marshal's deed professed to convey as much, does not change the result.

Opinion of the Court at 351-52:

It is true, the cause in the district court was entitled, "United States against all the right, title, interest, and estate of French Forrest in and to all that certain piece, parcel, or lot of land" (describing it), but all this is descriptive not of quantity of estate, but of the subject of seizure, and that was land. The proceeding was required by the act of Congress to be in rem, and the decree condemned not the estate of French Forrest, but, using its own words, "the real property mentioned and described in the libel." The marshal was ordered to sell the said property, the boundaries of which were given in the title to the decree. Had the purchasers looked at that decree (and knowledge of it must be attributed to them), they would have seen that it was a decree of confiscation of the land, and they were bound to know its legal effect. It is therefore a mistake to argue that the plaintiff below was permitted to impeach collaterally the decree under which the marshal's sale was made, or that the judgment of the court in this case impeaches it. The argument assumes what cannot be admitted, that the decree of the district court established a confiscation reaching beyond the life of French Forrest, for whose offense the land was condemned and sold.
It has been further argued on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the plaintiff below was barred against maintaining his suit by the latter clause of the fifth section of the act of 1862, which enacted that it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or use of such property or any of it to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in the section. The agreed statement of facts, in lieu of a special verdict, finds that the plaintiff is one of the persons described in said section fifth; but it immediately explains this by adding, "that is to say, he acted as an officer of the army and navy of the so-called Confederate States from and after the passage of said act until April, 1865." Was he therefore barred from maintaining the ejectment? The land was not seized or condemned for any act of his. He had no interest in it when it was declared forfeited. He could not have been heard in opposition to the decree of forfeiture. That proceeding was wholly inter alias partes. If, therefore, he is not at liberty to assert his claim, he is denied the right to his property without trial, without any procedure in due course of law, and the practical effect of the bar is to assure to the purchaser at the marshal's sale the enjoyment of the property after his right has expired, and to give him by estoppel a greater estate than he purchased. No construction of the act of Congress that works such results can be accepted. It is plainly against the true meaning of the act. We have already remarked that the act and the contemporaneous resolution must be construed together. The latter declares that the act shall not be construed to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his natural life. It can do this neither directly nor indirectly. The punishment inflicted upon him is not to descend to his children. His heritable blood is not corrupted.

An Act of Congress has more authority than any proclamation made under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief as a war measure.

I also provided the case of United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), wherein the United States actually had its claimed ownership of Arlington National Cemetery struck down in favor of its rightful owner. The seizure by a Government commission had been unlawful. Accordingly, the purchase of the land, sold by said commission, was struck down as null and void. The Government conceded and then purchased the property from the lawful owner, the heir of the lawful owner at the time of unlawful seizure.

To once again restate the position of Abraham Lincoln:

Lincoln wrote to Orville Browning, September 22, 1861:

What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply dictatorship.'' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases—confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure I have no doubt would be more popular with some thoughtless people, than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless position; nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S.—any government of Constitution and laws,—wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?

CW 4:531-32

And, of course, as was cited and quoted in my #485, Dr. Randall was President of the American Historical Association and one of the most critically acclaimed Lincoln scholars. The quote was attributed to Randall and blockquoted by indenting below the attribution, as shown below. It is an opinion of one of the foremost history scholars.

James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, 1951, at 382-385: (footnotes omitted)
Its legal effect is a different matter. Slavery existed on the basis of law; and if it were to be permanently abolished, this would have to be done by some process of law. Just what would have been the status of slavery if there had been no anti-slavery amendment, is a difficult question. While insisting that the freedom declared in his proclamation was irrevocable, Lincoln had doubts as to the manner in which the courts would treat his edict. He thought that it was a war measure and would be inoperative at the close of the war, but he was not sure. His attitude toward the Thirteenth Amendment showed how conscious he was of legal deficiencies in the proclamation, and these doubts were reflected in Congress where proposals to incorporate the proclamation into Federal law were presented by supporters of the administration.
One of the ablest lawyers of that day [Richard H. Dana] put the matter thus: “That an army may free the slaves of an enemy is a settled right of law. . . . But if any man fears or hopes that the proclamation did as a matter of law by its own force, alter the legal status of one slave in America ... he builds his fears or hopes on the sand.
It is a military act and not a decree of a legislator. It has no legal effect by its own force on the status of the slave. ... If you sustain the war you must expect to see the war work out emancipation.” And Secretary Welles of the Navy wrote in 1863: “What is to be the ultimate effect of the Proclamation, and what will be the exact status of the slaves . . . were the States now to resume their position, I am not prepared to say. The courts would adjudicate the questions; there would be legislative action in Congress and in the States also.” He added, however, that no slave who had left a “rebel” master and come within the Union lines, or who had served under the flag, could ever again be forced into involuntary servitude.
Hare, a reliable authority on constitutional law, is somewhat more positive as to the permanent effect of the proclamation. It was, he said, a mere command which could effect no change till executed by the hand of war; “but if carried into execution it might, like other acts jure belli, work a change that would survive on the return of peace.” Admitting the right of emancipation as coming within the jus belli, one could say that the liberated slave would be as secure in his altered status as contraband property, if seized, would be in its new ownership. This would apply only to those slaves actually liberated by the incidents of war.
Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You yourself, woodpusher, have not yet made that exact argument, you've merely said, correctly, that after the war the 13th Amendment was "a necessity", presumably to both clarify the legal status of freed slaves and to free those few still remaining to be freed in Union states like Kentucky & Delaware.

Of course, you leave out the last state to free its slaves, NEW JERSEY. You seem to have a fetish for that one.

Your presumption of the the reason for the necessity of the 13th Amendment is incorrect.

The 13th Amendment was a necessity because the proclaiming of slaves being changed from their status as property could not extend beyond the life of the person for whose offence it had been seized, and perhaps not beyond the declared end of the war.

So much for the words of the Proclamation. 13A was adopted while the war was in progress. The war ended on 20th of August, 1866 in Texas and on 2nd of April, 1866 in the other states in rebellion.

The historical facts speak for themselves and do not support your fiction.

Once again, the precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

The slaves did NOT return to a status of property between the April 1861 surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia and the December 1865 adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment because the war was still ongoing until 4/2/1866 or 8/20/1866, depending on the state.

The contraband slaves were not seized as part of anyone's estate, but as property described and condemned.

War measures apply during war. When the war is declared over, the war measures no longer apply. 13A, a sovereign act of the people, determined the legal status of all slaves and freedmen before the war was declared over. After that, no legal challenge could overcome the Thirteenth Amendment. While the seizure of other property was successfully challenged after the war was declared over, none of that property was affected by the Thirteenth Amendment.

The 13th Amendment was required before the war was declared over in order to avert any embarrassing legal challenge. Except as a war measure, property cannot be seized without giving the owner legal recourse to contest the seizure. When the state of war ends, so do the war measures, and the constitutional provision again prevails. A war measure can pretend to suspend or annul provisions of the constitution in perpetuity, but it questionable whether even a Supreme Court with five Lincoln appointees would uphold such an action of a dead Lincoln. His actions were unanimously obliterated in Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), and only a timely congressional revocation of the appellate authority of the Court averted a like opinion in Ex parte McCardle 71 U.S. 318 (1868) after the Court had heard the case but before it had issued an opinion.

Of course, you leave out the last state to free its slaves, NEW JERSEY. You seem to have a fetish for that one.

You're wrong. Thanks to the free traitors this country is again using slave labor to get its products cheap. The only difference is that instead of importing the slaves, we exported the plantations.

You forgot to quote anything or identify the famous author who is your source of authority.
Why would I? Everything is at the link. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to flood our generous hosts' resources with tons of spam repeating what can be found simply by clicking on the link and reading.
Here I come to save the day!
You would do better to save FR some bandwidth by just making your point without spamming the forum with other people's writings that happen to agree with you.

Actually, I quoted YOUR source, something you had failed to do.

Your quote is not from my #479 which starts:

https://cwmemory.com/2006/06/08/blacks-in-gray-or-enough-is-enough/
Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""
Just because someone can publish their beliefs in a book doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept their conclusions. It wasn't 300,000. It wasn't even near the 100,000+ slaves that escaped to join the Union Army.
Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin. Let us examine what you dragged up and brought in here. You are free to attempt to pass off this radical partisan as a serious scholar, whose words carry significant weight.

The above pertains to the hiding of your liberal source Kevin D. Levin, the radical progressive liberal from Boston.

It is woodpusher #480 (23 Oct 2021) which starts as below, and pertains to your other hidden, unidentified source of authority, Sam Smith.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
You forgot to quote anything or identify the famous author who is your source of authority. Here I come to save the day!
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/black-confederates-truth-and-legend
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
The Civil War was a fiery prism at the center of American society. Every life entered the prism at its own angle and was refracted in its own way.
By Sam Smith
All together now. Who the heck is Sam Smith?
Sam Smith
A native of Nashville, Tenn., and a graduate of the University of North Carolina, Sam Smith worked with the Civil War Trust’s K-12 educational programs. An award-winning board game designer, Smith has also written or co-written more than 50 articles on Civil War subjects, and is a frequent lecturer at the National Museum for American Jewish Military History.
As you quoted nothing from your appeal to authority, I shall quote from what he had to say.

And I proceeded to illuminate the discussion by quoting what YOUR SOURCE had to say in the article for which you provided a link, but withheld the name of the author and the entirety of the contents.

You did not even reference anything Sam Smith claimed. Let us try a Sam Smith claim.

After the Proclamation, the refugees in the contraband camps, along with free black people throughout the North, began to enlist in the Union Army in even greater proportion than Northern white men.

The operative word here is enlist. It seems many whites were engaged in the largest mostly peaceful protest in American history — against the draft. They were even hanging strange fruit from the lamp posts. Large numbers were being conscripted, because as Frederick Douglass put it, "they were willing to fight for the Union, but that they were not willing to fight for the freedom of the negroes; and thus it was made difficult to procure enlistments...."

Frederick Douglass, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass From 1817-1882 (1882), Chapter XII, HOPE FOR THE NATION.

The Proclamation itself was like Mr. Lincoln throughout. It was framed with a view to the least harm and the most good possible in the circumstances, and with especial consideration of the latter. It was thoughtful, cautious, and well guarded at all points. While he hated slavery, and really desired its destruction, he always proceeded against it in a manner the least likely to shock or drive from him any who were truly in sympathy with the preservation of the Union, but who were not friendly to emancipation. For this he kept up the distinction between loyal and disloyal slaveholders, and discriminated in favour of the one, as against the other. In a word, in all that he did, or attempted, he made it manifest that the one great and all commanding object with him, was the peace and preservation of the Union, and that this was the motive and main spring of all his measures. His wisdom and moderation at this point were for a season useful to the loyal cause in the border States, but it may be fairly questioned, whether it did not chill the Union ardour of the loyal people of the North in some degree, and diminish, rather than increase, the sum of our power against the rebellion: for moderate, cautious and guarded as was this proclamation, it created a howl of indignation and wrath amongst the rebels and their allies. The old cry was raised by the copperhead organs of “an abolition war,” and a pretext was thus found for an excuse for refusing to enlist, and for marshalling all the negro prejudice of the North on the rebel side. Men could say they were willing to fight for the Union, but that they were not willing to fight for the freedom of the negroes; and thus it was made difficult to procure enlistments or to enforce the draft. This was especially true of New York, where there was a large Irish population. The attempt to enforce the draft in that city was met by mobs, riot, and bloodshed. There is perhaps no darker chapter in the whole history of the war, than this cowardly and bloody uprising in July, 1863. For three days and nights New York was in the hands of a ferocious mob, and there was not sufficient power in the government of the country or of the city itself, to stay the hands of violence, and the effusion of blood. Though this mob was nominally against the draft which had been ordered, it poured out its fiercest wrath upon the coloured people and their friends. It spared neither age nor sex; it hanged negroes simply because they were negroes; it murdered women in their homes, and burned their homes over their heads; it dashed out the brains of young children against the lamp posts; it burned the coloured orphan asylum, a noble charity on the corner of Fifth Avenue, and scarce allowing time for the helpless two hundred children to make good their escape, plundered the building of every valuable piece of furniture; and coloured men, women, and children were forced to seek concealment in cellars or garrets, or wheresoever else it could be found, until this high carnival of crime and reign of terror should pass away.

- - - - - - - - - -

#489

We all know there were blacks who served in the confederacy in various roles and for various reasons. The problem is you haven't posted anything to substaniate your 300,000 estimate.

We all know I made no such estimate. I shall now make an estimate. I estimate that your level of desperation is about to break all bounds of reason.

Richard Rollins, in Black Confederates at Gettysburg, noted,

This lack of interest in black Confederates began to change just a few years ago. Two scholalrly articles have appeared, the best of which, Arthur W. Bergeron's "Free Men of Color in Gray," graced the pages of Civil War History.¹² A few articles have also been published in magazines aimed at a larger general reading public.¹³ One book has alread been written and at least two others are in the works.
One scholar [woodpusher: Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.; see footnote 15] has estimated that up to 25% (65,000 out of 261,000) of free negroes in the South and 15% (600,000 out of 4 million) of slaves sided with the South at one time during the war.¹⁵ Whatever the actual figures, it will be difficult to conclusively prove any estimate.
12. Arthur W. Bergeron, Jr., "Free Men of Color in Grey," Civil War History XXXII (1986), 247-255. See also Mary F. Berry, "Negro Troops in Blue and Gray: The Louisiana Native Guards, 1861-1863," Louisiana History 8 (1967),165-190. Most of the latter is devoted to the Native Guards who were Union troops, not the Confederates. Alexia J. Helsley, "Black Confederates," South Carolina Historical Magazine 74 (July, 1973), 184-187.
13. J. K. Obatala, "The Unlikely Story of Blacks Who Were Loyal To Dixie," Smithsonian 9 (1979), 94-101; Wayne R. Austerman, ''Virginia's Black Confederates," Civil War Quarterly VIII (1987), 46-54; Greg Tyler, "Rebel Drummer Henry Brown, Civil War Times Illustrated February, 1989, 22-23; Scott E. Sallee, "Black Soldier of the Confederacy," < i>Blue and Gray 1990, 24-25; Greg Tyler, "Article Brings Notice To A Unique Rebel, Civil War Times Illustrated May/June 1990, 57,69; Edward C. Smith, "Calico, Black and Gray: Women and Blacks in the Confederacy," Civil War XXIIl (1990), 10-16; and Jeff Carroll, "Dignity, Courage and Fidelity," Confederate VeteranNovember/December 1990, 26-27.
14. H. C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray: Afro-American Service in the Civil War (Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Portals Press, 1973); Ervin Jordan, Jr., is working on Black Confederates in Virginia and Charles K. Barrow, of Atlanta, is researching a wider topic.
15. Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., quoted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Virginia' section, November 5, 1990, 1,7.

Ervin L. Jordan, Jr. made an estimate, as noted by Richard Rollins.

Blackerby is further cited at footnotes 16, 20, 47 and 50.

Arthur W. Bergeron, Jr., is Historian for the Louisiana Office of State Parks and formerly served as Curator at the Port Hudson State Commemorative Area. A native of Louisiana, he received an M. A. and Ph. D. in American History from Louisiana State University. He is a member of several professional organizations and was the recipient of the Charles L. Dufour Award of the New Orleans Civil War Round Table in 1993.

Dr. Bergeron is the editor of The Civil War Reminiscences of Major Silas T. Grisamore, C.S.A (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993), and author of Confederate Mobile, 1861-1865 (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1991) and Guide to Louisiana Confederate Military Units, 1861-1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989).

Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., is the Associate Curator of Technical Services, Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library. He specializes in Confederate history and is the author of The 19th Virginia (1987), Charlottesville and the University of Virginia In The Civil War (1988), and Black Confederates, Afro-Yankees: The History of the African-American Experience in Civil War Virginia (forthcoming). He earned a Bachelor of Arts cum laude from Norfolk State University and was a three-time recipient of the Floyd W. Crawford Award for Distinguished Historical Scholarship. He received a Master of Arts from Old Dominion University.

Richard Rollins is Vice-President of MidRange Software Solutions and Editor of Rank and File Publications, Redondo Beach, California. He received a Ph.D. in American Intellectual History from Michigan State University and taught at Michigan State, Ohio State University, Carroll College, and the University of Southern California. He is the author of The Long Journey of Noah Webster and The Autobiographies of Noah Webster (1989), and editor of Pickett's Charge: Eyewitness Accounts (1994) and A Day With Mr. Lincoln: Essays in Honor of the Lincoln Exhibit at the Huntington Library (1994). His essay on “Black Confederates at Gettysburg” originally appeared in Gettysburg Magazine in 1992.

I'm not sure how that measures up to your invoked authority of the famous and renowned Kevin D. Levin and Sam Smith.

H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray, 1st Ed., 1979, in Appendix C at page 121.

Records indicate that 300,000 or more blacks served with Confederate armies part of the time. Some were soldiers. Others served in many ways, from horsehoers to guards.

H.C. Blackerby at 39:

A single volume can tell but little of Confederate black heroism, most of it living only in tradition. The honor roll is long, while torn and tattered, in bits and pieces, here and there, hidden in musty archives, in diaries, in family records, in old cellars and attics.
Memorials honoring the war service of blacks to the Confederacy can be found in Virginia, in Mississippi, in South Carolina, and elsewhere.
The loyalty of blacks to the Confederacy continues to embarrass blacks and whites. It was only natural that blacks reacted to the war as whites did, and if history is told as it was it will be recorded (if we dismiss the technicalities) that there may be as many black sons and daughters of the Confederacy as there are whites. But if it be insisted that only those duly enrolled and armed blacks qualify as Confederates, there are tens of thousands of Negroes who are living descendants of blacks in gray.

Blackerby at 40 makes an interesting point:

That most blacks supported the Confederacy is apparent if we count the number of memorials honoring blacks’ service to the Confederacy standing in the former slave states as contrasted with no monuments in the Lincoln states extolling Union black soldiers. The granite and marble shafts pointing heavenward to the angels while paying homage to the blacks who served the Lost Cause are in their rightful places.

As for documentation, apparently you have not bothered to look at Blackerby's book before dismissing it. For Louisiana Black Native Guards, see page 101 et seq. For Black Confederate Pensioners, see Appendix C.

See also, Ricardo J. Rodriguez, Black Confederates In The U.S. Civil War, A Compiled List of African-Americans Who Served the Confederacy, JAR Press (2010), pp. 2-224.

wardaddy to BroJoeK, post #350: "And this notion 1860 democrats are the same as today’s loons is Glen Beck And Levin and Shapiro neocon nonsense propagated to deflect charges of racism against the GOPe from media and progressives"
Given the context, that does sound like Mark Levin.
woodpusher to TwelveOfTwenty, post #479: "Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin."
I found no place where TwelveOfTwenty mentions someone named Kevin Levin, but woodpusher goes on & on & on about Levin as if he were relevant to someone, somewhere, somehow...

You been smoking with Hunter again?

TwelveOfTwenty #466 (21 Oct 2021) to woodpusher #462

And what records? There are any number of resources that would dispute that number. I've listed a few below.
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend
Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865)
Here's one blogger that isn't impressed.
Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""
Just because someone can publish their beliefs in a book doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept their conclusions. It wasn't 300,000. It wasn't even near the 100,000+ slaves that escaped to join the Union Army.

TwelveOfTwenty did not identify the author [Kevin D. Levin] of his cited article, nor did he cite or quote anything therein. Perhaps he thinks he is issuing homework assignments. There was an embedded link. I looked at what it was, something you apparently could not be bothered with. I responded to TwelveOfTwenty.

woodpusher #479 (23 Oct 2021) to #466

https://cwmemory.com/2006/06/08/blacks-in-gray-or-enough-is-enough/
Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""
Just because someone can publish their beliefs in a book doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept their conclusions. It wasn't 300,000. It wasn't even near the 100,000+ slaves that escaped to join the Union Army.
Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin. Let us examine what you dragged up and brought in here. You are free to attempt to pass off this radical partisan as a serious scholar, whose words carry significant weight.

I provided the link to the article in immediately readable, unembedded form so any reader would know exactly what the link was, and know the purported authority. I then provided lots of information from Kevin D. Levin clearly confirming him to be a highly partisan progressive writer, notably from the pages of the failing magazine, The Atlantic.

TwelveOfTwenty responded with his #489 (25 Oct 2021)

You forgot to quote anything or identify the famous author who is your source of authority.
Why would I? Everything is at the link. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to flood our generous hosts' resources with tons of spam repeating what can be found simply by clicking on the link and reading.
Here I come to save the day!
You would do better to save FR some bandwidth by just making your point without spamming the forum with other people's writings that happen to agree with you.

When citing something as a source of authority, the name of the author and at least a cite to the specific content relative to the conversation is necessary if one is to make any point at all. Leaving that off just further demonstrated that much of his posting is pointless drivel sourced to such as the radically progressive, liberal Kevin D. Levin without proper attribution, hopeful of sliding it past.

Then along comes bumbling BroJoeK, off his meds, in need of a nap, his cognitive Biden issues brought forward, posting this ridiculous rant:

BroJoeK #512 (26 Oct 2021) replying to wardaddy #505

wardaddy to BroJoeK, post #350: "And this notion 1860 democrats are the same as today’s loons is Glen Beck And Levin and Shapiro neocon nonsense propagated to deflect charges of racism against the GOPe from media and progressives"
Given the context, that does sound like Mark Levin.
woodpusher to TwelveOfTwenty, post #479: "Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin."
I found no place where TwelveOfTwenty mentions someone named Kevin Levin, but woodpusher goes on & on & on about Levin as if he were relevant to someone, somewhere, somehow...

Just how hard did you not look? All you had to do is look at the linked article at #466 or #479. In addition, what you nominally responded to, by wardaddy, is lacking any mention of your rant material. Take your meds, take a nap, and try to improve your effort.

wardaddy #505, to which your #512 nominally responded, made no mention of woodpusher, any Levin, or TwelveOfTwenty.

To: BroJoeK
If you really are a professor per your sychophants assertion then you’re a simpleton lacking intellectual curiosity
Comparing Davis or Lee to a 2021 democrat is just stupid
It’s like arguing gender today
Not surprising for a leftist
I doubt you’ve shed blood or sacrificed for much...you don’t have time..you live here
I could be wrong ...you can claim anything here
You could be Audie Murphy
In my view the radical Republicans whose boots you lather were the equivalent of today’s nut jobs on the left
Their peers and history calls them RADICAL REPUBLICANS for a reason
505 posted on 10/25/2021, 12:16:46 PM by wardaddy (Too many uninformed ..and scolds here )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

- - - - - - - - - -

FLT-bird to woodpusher post #492: "This is typical of the PC Revisionists here. They claim to be conservatives.....yet they happily get in bed with open and avowed Leftists like Levin to make their arguments."
And yet nobody except Lost Causers on this thread mentioned either Mark Levin or a Kevin Levin, but somehow that name "Levin" drives our Lost Causers nuts.
Sounds like obsession.

Looks like delusion.

For the aforementioned reasons, take your meds, take a nap, and try harder. Your delusions and fantasies about Lost Causers appear to have seized control of one of your two brain cells.

This is typical of the PC Revisionists here.

Very much on point.

After the North largely completed its campaign of gradual emancipation, selling its slaves to Southern owners at full market value, i.e. ethnic cleansing; the recently interred Whigs rebranded as Republicans and found an issue to divide the nation, and the Democrat party, enabling them to win power as a minority.

Something their revisionist history does not explain is why African Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats. Revisionists cannot explain why they abandoned, nay ran away from, the Republican party.

Nor can the Revisionists explain why one of the shortest, if not the shortest list of books, is a list of gushing praise biographies by Black authors.

Nor can they explain the scarcity of statements in praise of Lincoln before he died, was immaculated, sainted, and entombed in a memorial fashioned after the Parthenon in Athens, fit for a Greek God. To find a statement favorable to Lincoln while he was alive, they seem to reach for Frederick Douglass, 1876 eulogizing dead Lincoln.

Southerners have always been conservative. When the Democratic party was overrun by liberals, conservative Southern Democrats switched party affiliation to Republican. The Southerners did not change, the Democratic party did.

Frederick Douglass, writing of the Emancipation Proclamation, said, "it may be fairly questioned, whether it did not chill the Union ardour of the loyal people of the North in some degree, and diminish, rather than increase, the sum of our power against the rebellion: for moderate, cautious and guarded as was this proclamation, it created a howl of indignation and wrath amongst the rebels and their allies. The old cry was raised by the copperhead organs of “an abolition war,” and a pretext was thus found for an excuse for refusing to enlist, and for marshalling all the negro prejudice of the North on the rebel side. Men could say they were willing to fight for the Union, but that they were not willing to fight for the freedom of the negroes; and thus it was made difficult to procure enlistments or to enforce the draft."

If it were an abolition war from the outset, how to explain this reaction?

Indeed, if the war were started to abolish slavery, and had the Union been successful at the first Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas), and proceeded to overrun Virginia, capture Jefferson Davis, and secure an unconditional surrender of the Confederate states, the war would have been over in a day. The slaves would still have been slaves, and there would have been no possibility of a war measure authorizing their seizure as contraband, with subsequent freeing by their new owner. The Union would have been preserved, but with the peculiar institution. In a war to abolish slavery, immediate and total victory at war would not have produced that result.

It took them 2 full years to suddenly and magically discover that they had been fighting about slavery all along.

The whole "about slavery" narrative was nothing but propaganda put forth after the fact so they could tell the families of all those voters in the North who had family members maimed and killed that they had had a moral cause all along. They didn't dare tell them the truth which is that they started a war for money and empire at the behest of their corporate supporters which they thought was going to be a cakewalk, but which instead turned into a bloodbath. Nobody wants to hear their son or father or brother was killed so that some corporate fatcat could line his pockets even more than he already had.

Bottom line: nobody here is arguing Leftist politics, we're only asking you guys to stop lying about the Civil War.
How hard could that be?

Take your meds, take a nap, and try harder.

I did not bring the radical progressive Kevin M. Levin in here. I responded to the use of such a source without proper attribution by TwelveOfTwenty at #466, trying to slip it past me as a credible source.

Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""

As presented, without author or citation to anything in the text at the link.

Kevin M. Levin tweet

I must have blocked close to 300 people over the weekend. It turns out that people who admire Nathan Bedford Forrest don't like Jews. Who would have thought?
7:45 AM · Sep 19, 2021·Twitter Web App

Of course, anyone who admires Forrest hates Jews because... reasons.

Of course, anyone who admires U.S. Grant must really, really hate Jews. Because, Grant is the General who ordered all Jews expelled from his military district.

Had such progressive garbage not been served up as an appeal to authority, it would not have needed a cleanup.

And Hunter was relieved of his command.
Not that I agree with the decision legal or otherwise, but it was for insubordination.

Sauce please.

At his own request, Gen. David Hunter was relieved from command of the department of West Virginia, August 8, 1864.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hunter

On August 1, Grant placed Maj. Gen Phil Sheridan in command of the effort to destroy Jubal Early's army. The Shenandoah, Maryland, and Washington DC area all fell under Hunter's military department, but Grant had no intention of allowing Hunter any direct command over the campaign against Early. He therefore informed him that he could retain department command on paper while Sheridan did the active field campaigning. Hunter however declined this offer, stating that he had been so beset by contradictory War Department orders that he had no idea where Jubal Early's army even was, and he would rather just turn everything over to Sheridan. Grant immediately accepted and relieved Hunter of his post.

This notion southerners hates Jews is a fantasy pushed by Hollywood akin to the other one that Appalachia mountain men are worlds most likely to rape other men where in reality they are likely least likely...but hey....why worry about fact when juicy stereotypes are better except when they stereotypes go the other way

Any Jewish person secular or not can examine antebellum history and the CSA in short order and learn that Jews had more freedom and rights granted by Christian southern states to them than ever in jewish world diaspora.

From Natchez to Charleston

The nations largest Jewish communities were New Orleans and Charleston

Not by accident

And Jews in the confederacy ...

The progressives and neocons here know this ....especially I assume the professor does

But they choose to ignore ...

But in fairness....where have elements in the south butted heads with opportunistic and leftist Jews....

The stereotypes of some carpetbaggers....I don’t know how deserved that was....frankly ...but I grew up hearing that from folks who survived the tail end as children

Freedom Riders...yes ....the Klan associated freedom riders with Jewish leftists and reacted.....in a way supported by few downs here.....nobody liked Schwerner or Goodman and viewed them as lefties but nobody supported killing them...i recall conversations about that and other civil rights folks....Vernon Dahmer....a killing my family was intimately involved with helping resolve and seek redress for his survivors....

It’s a reality a lot of freedom riders were Jewish college lefties and it was dangerous for them...Sam Bowers klan were killers ....no question of that ...Dixie mafia with politics thrown in...

Now we have the SPLC ...not a Jewish organization but fairly heavy with leftist Jews and others who like the progressives here associate southerners with about any pejorative flavor of the day they fancy

It’s a two way street to me ....twins looking east and west

It’s serves a political purpose for progressives and neocons

One of my best pals here suggested I read a book to help with my ignorance with Bros Macphersonn/Zinn cuts and pastes about TBLU...the big lead up

After eight chapters on audiobook today ....driving north from Nashville to the top of the ring finger

It dawned on me....the war wasn’t about slavery or states rights as much as it was simply about power

A means to power for a group who’s power had ebbed and saw this as a means to regain it especially since they had always assumed they were the superior moral center of the nation from the time they set foot here

That’s my first glance assumption it may morph...

Never knew Washington and Tom were as intense as they were on their disdain for slavery ...if not for Haiti...a nation I’d wager I know better than anyone on this forum....things might have gone smoother .

Love this book...

Of course, anyone who admires Forrest hates Jews because... reasons.

Not everyone, but it's not likely that was his own experience. If he got insulting responses, why shouldn't he mention that?

Grant had Jewish friends and business partners and wanted to appoint his friend Joseph Seligman Secretary of the Treasury. Those who want to argue that the Confederacy wasn't all about slavery might reflect that Grant wasn't all about anti-Semitism.

Grant died on Thursday, July 23, 1885. The following day, the Philadelphia Jewish Record declared in its Friday edition, "None will mourn his loss more sincerely than the Hebrew…and tomorrow in every Jewish synagogue and temple in the land the sad event will be solemnly commemorated with fitting eulogy and prayer."

But why are you posting to me when I haven't been active on this thread and have already told you not to post to me?

I did not bring the radical progressive Kevin M. Levin in here. I responded to the use of such a source without proper attribution by TwelveOfTwenty at #466, trying to slip it past me as a credible source. Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough"" As presented, without author or citation to anything in the text at the link.

Seriously? Are you still whimpering about "trying to slip it past you"? I provided a link. You know, that thing you can click on to see the contents of the op-ed, the author, and anything else you want to see about it?

I haven't seen a lot of support from your friends on this. Even they must know how ludicrous your claims are.

Go back to your founder of a failed comic book company if you can't handle reading and opposing point of view.

At his own request, Gen. David Hunter was relieved from command of the department of West Virginia, August 8, 1864.

OK, I got him crossed with someone else. I stand corrected. At least the Confederacy didn't get hold of him or he would have been executed by order from Jefferson Davis.

The above pertains to the hiding of your liberal source Kevin D. Levin, the radical progressive liberal from Boston.

How am I hiding anything? I posted the link, and you figured out how to click on it to see who wrote it and what he said.

And I proceeded to illuminate the discussion by quoting what YOUR SOURCE had to say in the article for which you provided a link, but withheld the name of the author and the entirety of the contents.

How did I withhold anything? You clearly knew how to click on a link, so everything was there for you to read. Why to I need to flood FR's bandwidth when all you have to do is click on the link to see what's there and who wrote it?

You did not even reference anything Sam Smith claimed. Let us try a Sam Smith claim. "After the Proclamation, the refugees in the contraband camps, along with free black people throughout the North, began to enlist in the Union Army in even greater proportion than Northern white men."

What is it you think I need to reference here?

The operative word here is enlist. It seems many whites were engaged in the largest mostly peaceful protest in American history — against the draft. They were even hanging strange fruit from the lamp posts. Large numbers were being conscripted, because as Frederick Douglass put it, "they were willing to fight for the Union, but that they were not willing to fight for the freedom of the negroes; and thus it was made difficult to procure enlistments....The attempt to enforce the draft in that city was met by mobs, riot, and bloodshed. There is perhaps no darker chapter in the whole history of the war, than this cowardly and bloody uprising in July, 1863. For three days and nights New York was in the hands of a ferocious mob, and there was not sufficient power in the government of the country or of the city itself, to stay the hands of violence, and the effusion of blood.

This was in New York City. It proves what, besides that Frederick Douglas was disgusted at what he saw in New York City?

Anyway, let's look at some numbers. About 75% of military aged white men in the South served in the Confederate Army, while about 50% of military aged white men in the North served in the Union Army. For the Union, that came out to about 2.2 million. The Union Army wasn't hurting for white men, regardless of what happened in New York City.

All of the numbers on both sides are estimates.

About 100,000 whites from Southern states joined the Union forces.

Here are some links. Hint. If you click on them, there shouldn't be any problems with my sources being hidden from you.

CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL: Unionism

Size of the Union and Confederate Armies

On a side note, both armies had to deal with desertions. The Union Army had a problem with desertions early on, due to its poor military leadership.

So you see, this is much more complex than just quoting what happened in New York City, or pasting numbers from a book you agree with.

This in no way meant to dimish Frederick Douglas' reporting on what he saw.

As for documentation, apparently you have not bothered to look at Blackerby's book before dismissing it.

I did read all of your post including that. I would have expected that my summarization and rebuttal on key parts would have made that clear.

Yes, and they indicated they were not willing to come back in even if the amendment did pass. They turned the offer down.

There was nothing to offer. It was voted on by the previous congress and signed by the previous president, mostly democrats. By 1865, most of them were competing with the freed slaves they tried to keep in chains for whatever jobs were available.

It never got close to 3/4 ratification by the states, even if you added the slave states which by then were not part of the Union anyway.

It was like the Jefferies tubes on the Starship Enterprise marked GNDN (Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing). It went nowhere and did nothing.

So keep posting the Corwin Amendment if you have nothing better to do. You're only wasting FR bandwidth.

It was after the election. Remember that there used to be a longer period between an election and the president/Congress being sworn in. AFTER the election....meaning they were not turned out by the voters for voting in favor of the Corwin Amendment. The election had already happened.

Most of them were kicked out in 1864 after voting against the 13th Amendment, and the Buchanan administration is considered one of the biggest failures of all time.

Repeats snipped.

Did the Northern states not violate the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution?

IOW, make slavery legal, and rescuing slaves will be illegal by classifying the slaves as fugitives. Is that your point?

I cited numerous examples. The Black Codes were a series of discriminatory laws designed to make life unbearable to Blacks so as to drive them out and prevent others from settling in those states. I also provided a link to much more evidence about the Black Codes on the books in Northern states.

I didn't dispute there was discrimination. I only said that it wasn't necessary to post all of that, given that I have already admitted this on several occasions. Try reading my posts before replying to them next time.

Ah but it was not about slavery.

It was for the escaped slaves who joined the Union forces.

It was for the voters who voted out the Democrats for refusing to ratify the 13th Amendment, and voted for Republicans who would ratify it.

It was for the Republicans who, acting on their mandate, voted to ratify the 13th Amendment.

And it was for 100,000 Southern white men of military age who chose to join the Union forces.

Repeat snipped.

BTW, states' rights has been used to argue against all sorts of usurpation of power by the federal government since the time the Constitution was ratified and still is.

That in no way refutes the fact that the democrats used "states rights" as an argument against ratifying the 13th Amendment.

It wasn't for many more. It wasn't about that for the many slaves who served in the Confederate Army.

No reply needed.

LOL! The Democrats stood little chance once the Southern states had withdrawn. The 13th amendment was not passed until after the war - not during the war, AFTER it. Irrefutable fact.

No one disputes that. Why you keep dredging that up is beyond me. Part of the problem is it was blocked by the Democrats before the voters in the North elected enough Republicans to get it ratified.

Odd then that it did not pass until after the war given that the North was in favor of abolition as you say. Just like its odd that it took the North and the Lincoln administration 2 full years to discover what they had started the war over in the first place.

Not really. The Republicans favored abolishing slavery but understood they couldn't do it within the framework then in place. They said that. Lincoln said it. You've quoted him on it, even below.

[My Previous] "This was from Lincoln in 1854. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another," At the time he didn't believe the Constitution gave the federal government the power to abolish slavery, and said so over and over again. That is among the quotes you keep trying to prove your point with, but they prove just the opposite. When they got the power they did it, and that was with the full support of the Northern voters."

Here is what Lincoln really thought about the equality of Blacks:

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois December 22, 1860

That was from his letter to Alexander Stevens. You can find it here. It's called diplomacy, or talking out of both sides of your mouth.

“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Abraham Lincoln

This was during his debate with Stephen Douglas. Not that I would excuse this, but it clearly conflicts with his comments I posted above, so I see it as another example of politicking, or talking out of both sides of his mouth. Frederick Douglas acknowledged in his oration that I posted to you earlier.

"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?” Abraham Lincoln

According to this, "No transcripts or reports exist indicating that he ever actually used this expression in any of his speeches." I know, wiki, so I'll leave it to you to find the transcripts.

"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal.

Did Lincoln Really Say That?

“anything that argues me into . . . [the] idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. . . . I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, pp. 511-512)

This was in 1858, when he clearly had no power or ability to abolish slavery, as he said in this quote.

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man." Abraham Lincoln

Um...

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas" ... Abraham Lincoln

He was commenting on the racist attitudes at the time.

Yes there were people in the North who were racist too. There are people who are racists now, and there always will be. The question is, how do we overcome it?

"There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them" - Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address

We've been over this.

So much for any claims that the North even wanted to interfere with slavery let alone wanted equality.

Then why did the North convincingly vote out the Democrats who voted against ratifying the 13th Amendment, in favor of Republicans who would vote to ratify it?

No, that's (he didn't believe the North was serious about abolishing slavery) not the only reason he didn't support the North. He also did not support the North because he saw that their real aim was MONEY. They wanted to treat the Southern states like a colony denying them their right to self determination in the process.

Given the cost of the war and the fact that slavery was abolished afterwards AS A RESULT of the people of the North giving the Republicans a solid majority in the House with which they used to ratify the 13th Amendment, he was wrong.

Yes. AFTER the war. We have indeed been over this.

We've also been over the fact that they couldn't have done it until the confederacy was defeated. You posted excerpts to that effect yourself.

I should have said, “but it’s likely.”