Try the 13th Amendment.
And now thanks to Lincoln I'm stuck in one that sanctioned the murder of 30 MILLION unborn children.
It fugures that a narrow mind like yours would enlist in the "abortion is murder" army. Apparently you long for the "good old days" in the antebellum South when black women were raped to produce more slaves, which to you would apparently constitute a laudible "pro-life" agenda.
Try Randolph, Tennessee. Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, where Sherman boasted that "Meridian no longer exists."
"According to the official website of Meridian, Sherman was wrong about Meridian no longer existing. Apparently he left four homes standing and spared the residents, who complained most bitterly about losing their slaves.
I'm not familiar with Randolph, Tennessee. Was it a "city" during the Civil War or just a hamlet? (Dittos re New Manchester, GA.) Jackson received a great deal of damage after Joe Johnston unwisely decided to dig in there and try to hold off the Union forces moving toward Vicksburg, but it could hardly be considered "destroyed".
By the way, the Confederates burned and pillaged plenty of homes and businesses when they had the rare opportunity to reach enemy territory (eg. Chambersburg, PA). The residents of Frederick, MD paid the demanded Confederate ransom to avoid the pillaging.
Yes - dictators do hide behide human shields. Ever heard of the "Immortal Six Hundred"? FYI , they were Confederates.
I was referring to civilians. You've changed the subject to union mistreatment of prisoners as retaliation for Confederate mistreatment of prisoners. The Civil War prisoner exchange program broke down when the Confederates started talking about executing all captured negro Union soldiers and their officers, and the Confederates implemented their negro soldier execution program at Fort Pillow under the command of the brutal slaveholder Nathan Bedford Forrest (who by the way once said "if we ain't fightin' fer slavery, I don't know what we're fightin' fer.")
If life was hell for slaves, were [sic] are the records of 4 million of them fleeing to the North after emacipation [sic]?
So you believe that the fact that most freed negroes couldn't afford to move north after emancipation means that they enjoyed life as slaves? You're a real comedian who has apparently never heard of the Underground railroad and slave patrols.
With the men off fighting the war, a slave revolt and mass escapes would have been common.
Actually, slaveholders received exemption from the draft. They also made liberal use of whips, chains, dogs, and slave patrols to discourage "servile insurrection". Also, most negroes were smart enough to figure out that their freedom was being won by Union forces.
In his letter he speaks of "our glorious cause," and declares that the slaves of the South have a deeper interest in the establishment of Southern independence than the white population. He thinks if the Yankees are successful the negroes are destined to the most cruel treatment at their hands." "Patriotism of a Colored Man", Staunton Spectator, Staunton, VA, 18 Aug 1863
Surely a Confederate paper would only be interested in printing the gospel truth about slavery (particularly just after Gettysburg had rendered their cause so desperate)?
But the most remarkable testimony on the subject, is borne by no less a personage than the notorious Henry Ward Beecher. In a recent sermon, Mr. Beecher says the free colored people at the North "are almost without education, with but little sympathy for ignorance." "They cannot even ride in the cars of our city railroads. They are snuffed at in the house of God, or tolerated with ill-disguised disgust." The negro cannot be employed as a stone mason, bricklayer, or carpenter. "There is scarcely a carpenter's shop in New York in which a journeyman would continue to work if a black man was employed in it.
Henry Ward Beecher is talking about New York City, which was full of Democrats and the poor immigrants they cultivated with warnings about how negroes would take their jobs. That's why they had draft riots there. NYC was hardly representative of the State of New York, let alone the North, with regard to enlightened attitudes about negroes.
So why did Northern states like Illinois have laws preventing blacks from immigrating into those states?
Because many lower North states like Illinois were still dominated by Democrats well into the 1860's, and even many Republicans had understandable fears about their communities being overrun with desperate negro refugees. Nevertheless, 3/5 of the Illinois Republicans voted against the 1862 exclusion law. (See Battle Cry, p.507.)
By the way, do you support open borders?
Guess again. It was passed AFTER the war.
It fugures that a narrow mind like yours would enlist in the "abortion is murder" army.
Narrow? Thank you. But with state sovereignty intact - each state could decide for itself to be rid of this reprehensible practice, now they have no choice.
I'm not familiar with Randolph, Tennessee. Was it a "city" during the Civil War or just a hamlet? (Dittos re New Manchester, GA.)
If you were a resident of those towns, would you still maintain that the size of the city mattered?
More later.
Pillaging? Oh, you mean paying for requisitioned goods in Confederate scrip and currency. Like the Union Army sometimes did in the South if they were in a good mood!
You have your gall, mewing about Chambersburg getting its hair mussed, when we both know that Confederate misconduct was minimal -- and when we both know what Sherman and others did later, without provocation, as cold-blooded measures carried out without pity on civilians.
You have your gall, boy.
Well, if things were so bad down here - why did ANY stay? Certainly out of 4 MILLION blacks, huge numbers would have fled north. It's not like the slaves were guarded by men with guns - those men were off fighting in the war. To the contrary, many remained - "guarded" by women and children. To insinuate that blacks couldn't flee from such conditions - if they had so desired - is a disservice to them. But of course, many believe that conditions were bad for blacks in the South, and heaven for them in the north. Even some northern editors saw the absurdity of that position:
A band of colored musicians from Hagerstown visited this place on Monday last. They discoursed some very fine music through our streets and after enjoying themselves among their "free brethren," on this side the line, returned home to "bondage," in the evening train, very well convinced, we have no doubt, that the worst form of Slavery that can possibly exist may be found among the negroes of Pennsylvania. We believe it is the custom in Maryland, at Easter time, to allow the negroes the largest liberty, and this Band had the audacity, on this occasion, to come into a free State as if for no other purpose than to show the sympathizers of John Brown, deceased, that their pikes and Sharpe's Rifles were not required to improve their condition, and that all the Republican philanthropy expended on the slave could be more appropriately used in bettering the condition of the free negro in the North.
Valley Spirit, Chambersburg, PA, 11 Apr 1860 p. 5 c.2
Regarding the Underground Railroad - it ended in CANADA. The blacks certainly weren't in a rush to settle in Illinois and other northern states. No welcome mat waiting for them - most prohibited the immigration of blacks.
Actually, slaveholders received exemption from the draft. They also made liberal use of whips, chains, dogs, and slave patrols to discourage "servile insurrection". Also, most negroes were smart enough to figure out that their freedom was being won by Union forces.
I thought that ALL southerners were slaveholders. ; My gggrandfather didn't own a single slave, he VOLUNTEERED. And there were many slaveowners that volunteered, ofter accompanied willingly by their slaves. If most blacks understood that the union for fighting for their freedom, why didn't they join them en masse, or revolt?
Surely a Confederate paper would only be interested in printing the gospel truth about slavery (particularly just after Gettysburg had rendered their cause so desperate)?
That's why they printed the sory of Mr. Jones - a slave - who donated $465 in gold to the Southern cause.
Henry Ward Beecher is talking about New York City, which was full of Democrats and the poor immigrants they cultivated with warnings about how negroes would take their jobs. That's why they had draft riots there. NYC was hardly representative of the State of New York, let alone the North, with regard to enlightened attitudes about negroes.
The draft riots occurred when Lincoln instituted the draft, white northerners revolted and sacked the city, killing blacks. The article cited was prefaced by: "Mr. Beecher says the free colored people at the North", not of NYC. Check the date of the riots, and that of the EP. Many saw the war now - not as Lincoln's big lie, but as an attempt to free slaves, which one Pennslyvania newspaper stated that they were "Willing to fight for Uncle Sam", but not "for Uncle Sambo". The archbishop of New York wrote Seward, and stated
"We have had a week of trouble and apprehension in this city. I think the trouble is now over. The plea of the discontents is, on the surface, the draft. At its bottom, however, in my opinion, the discontent will be found in what the misguided people imagine to be a disposition on the part of a few here and elsewhere to make black labor equal to white labor, and put both on the same equality, with the difference that black labor shall have local patronage over the toil of the white man."
BTW, did the south ever revolt over conscription and kill blacks?
By the way, do you support open borders?
Open where anyone can saunter into the US at will - no. Allow foreign terrorists, criminals and such egress - no. Paying benefits or subsidizing non-Americans - no. Otherwise to allow immigration to those wishing to immigrate, that want to become Americans, and support America - yes.