Blacks, Jews Fight on Side of the South

The Washington Times ^ | June 15, 2002 | Thomas C. Mandes

[Twodees]

That was an interesting piece. For some reason, even Virginians who work for the Park Service seem to regard Red Jamie as an actual scholar. I guess they read only what's sold in their park gift shops. The PS fellow at Five Forks actually tried to get me to buy one of Red Jamie's overpriced propaganda pieces.

[stainlessbanner]

It's available in stores today, but the author is quick to point out the Confederate Government's flaws - I can accept some of it. He shows some interesting things like most of the Southern politicians were moderates, a few fire-eaters decided the fate of many.

I'm about 1/4 of the way thru - it's an interesting account of the formation of the Confederate government, some good, some bad.

[stainlessbanner]

Good post - a fellow Florida Cracker, that Mr. Winbush!

[rebelsoldier]

And Indians, like my father's side in both mounted cavalry and infantry, especially in the western NC mountains.

[GOPcapitalist]

At the same time that South Carolina slave was waving his sword in Richmond, Alabama had just adopted a constitution which completely outlawed the emancipation of any slave for any reason.

Funny. Do you hold that complaint against Lincoln when tried to do the same thing on a national level? Look at the constitutional amendment he prominently endorsed in his first inaugural if you doubt me. It banned congress from any interference whatsoever with slavery in states where it existed for any reason, including emancipation. Lincoln endorsed the thing, lobbied for it in congress, and helped orchestrate its introduction and procedures all the way up to the vote. Fortunately it was never ratified.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Funny. Do you hold that complaint against Lincoln when tried to do the same thing on a national level? Look at the constitutional amendment he prominently endorsed in his first inaugural if you doubt me. It banned congress from any interference whatsoever with slavery in states where it existed for any reason, including emancipation. Lincoln endorsed the thing, lobbied for it in congress, and helped orchestrate its introduction and procedures all the way up to the vote. Fortunately it was never ratified.

Well, that is a convenient half truth for you.

Yes, Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment to protect the domestic institutions of the states -- read slavery.

Your note indicates how hard he worked to avoid war.

What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed. That alone was enough to cause the war, because the slave owners knew that their "futures" in slaves and slave breeding would be compromised unless slavery were allowed to expand.

Lincoln was a man of his times. You try and besmirch his memory by holding him to present day standards. For his time, his stance was very advanced. He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery; to paraphase Churchill, he saw the end of the beginning plainly in sight. And that is what just drove the slave power nuts.

That is why they had to have war.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

Bill, you were talking about 30,000 combat soldier and the record clearly shows that the confederate government was completely opposed to slaves as combat soldiers until March of 1865. So I'll ask again, where did the 30,000 men come from?

Congratulation on reading the slave narratives. By 60/40 I assume you meant that 60% or greater spoke fondly of their old masters and that isn't surprising. The overwhelming majority of slave owners treated their property carefully and didn't abuse or mistreat it. But if you mean that 60% wish that they were back in slavery, well, I've read enough of the slave narratives to doubt that.

[Non-Sequitur]

There was no conscription in the North until 1863, billbears. How you can take a call for volunteers and make that into some sort of draft is beyond me. If that is true then wouldn't the confederate call for 100,000 troops issued before they started the war by firing on Sumter be a draft, too?

[Non-Sequitur]

The proposed amendment said "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." It didn't prevent the states from emancipating slaves and it didn't prevent the Congress from outlawing it in the territories or in D.C.

[Michael2001]

Bump

[4CJ]

Every soldier who served the so-called CSA could have been hung under US law.

Wrong. No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie. According to the revalent US Code the charge of treason only applies to persons owing allegiance to the US. The confederacy seceded and formed a soveregn, foreign country.

[4CJ]

Some have eyes and REFUSE to see. The only antonement for their sins is the continued castigation of all things confederate. They'll accept the words of white men 140 years after the war, yet refuse to beleive the words of the black men that were there. How racist and offensive of them.

[4CJ]

What you ignore, aithough you have seen it in thread after thread, is that he was firm "as with a chain of steel" on there being no -expansion- of slavery from where it already existed. That alone was enough to cause the war, because the slave owners knew that their "futures" in slaves and slave breeding would be compromised unless slavery were allowed to expand.

What you ignore is Dred Scott, which held Lincoln's position of non-expansion to be invalid. Lincoln's desire for a lily-white west, free from blacks - SLAVE OR FREE - was part and parcel of his economic "free-soil" policies, and his separtist white-supremacist attitudes.

[billbears]

For his time, his stance was very advanced. He saw a way to at least begin to end slavery

I'll give it to say that his stance was something. Advanced? Hardly. Most of the major empires in the world had already banned slavery peacefully. I imagine you could say he was advanced in that only two other nations went to war to end slavery and in those two, historians READILY admit that slavery was a red herring to establish a new government. But for some reason, the United States are an aberration to the standard. In this one nation in all of history, a war was started to end slavery and no ulterior motives were involved. Huh, guess lincoln got his wish after all. One fell swoop, abolish slavery, destroy the Republic, and establish the all powerful general government in which we live today

[WhiskeyPapa]

...historians READILY admit that slavery was a red herring to establish a new government...

Which historians?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

What you ignore is Dred Scott, which held Lincoln's position of non-expansion to be invalid. Lincoln's desire for a lily-white west, free from blacks - SLAVE OR FREE - was part and parcel of his economic "free-soil" policies, and his separtist white-supremacist attitudes.

Dredd Scott dismayed Lincoln and the republicans.

But there was no doubt that the Congress had the power to legislate for the territories. That is what the slavers knew, and that is why they tried to duck out on the Constitution.

As for the other, Lincoln is amply on the record well before the war saying that the D of I was meant to apply to black as well as white.

That would make your statement that he preferred a lily white west hard to show in the record.

It is actually just a construct by you that will not bear even the least scrutiny.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Every soldier who served the so-called CSA could have been hung under US law.

Wrong. No matter how many times you post this lie, it is still a lie. According to the revalent US Code the charge of treason only applies to persons owing allegiance to the US. The confederacy seceded and formed a soveregn, foreign country

The United States gets to decide who owes allegiance.

It's just too convenient by half to say that "oh, I don't owe allegiance any more." All of the so-called CSA soldiers had been US citizens. They didn't stop being US citizens just by firing on Old Glory.

The Constitution clearly defines treason as levying war on the United States.

Now under the extant conditions, these traitors would have to be tried in the state or state where the treason was committed. This is how John Brown was tried in Virginia. And that is why the trial of Jefferson Davis would also have to have been held in Virginia. That is where he committed treason -- In Virginia, and also in Montgomery, when the so-called capital of the so-called CSA was in Alabama.

But Lee, and his soldiers crossed into Maryland, and Pennsylvania. They could have been tried there, because they were definitely levying war on the United States.

Lee took pay from the United States AFTER he met with traitors in Virginia and after he agreed to take up arms against the United States. He DEFINITELY owed allegiance to the United States when he was guilty of treasonous acts.

Now some ignoramous is going to say that Lee was innocent because he wasn't tried. He wasn't tried because of the magnaminity of the victors, especially General Grant, who said that treason trials were precluded under the terms of the surrender at Appomattox.

But just saying that you no longer owe allegiance to the United States just to avoid the noose -- it doesn't work that way.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I'll give it to say that his stance was something. Advanced? Hardly. Most of the major empires in the world had already banned slavery peacefully.

Yes, and there was a growing opposition to slavery in this country.

But there was another group in this country that even tried to use the scriptures to justify human chattel slavery. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Walt

[4CJ]

The United States gets to decide who owes allegiance. It's just too convenient by half to say that "oh, I don't owe allegiance any more." All of the so-called CSA soldiers had been US citizens. They didn't stop being US citizens just by firing on Old Glory.

No. Citizenship is renouced by dissavowing allegiance or by swearing allegiance to another government.

The Constitution clearly defines treason as levying war on the United States.

According to US code (those laws made pursuant to the Constitution) treason can only be effected by citizens. I'll post the original section of code from 1790:

An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States (1 Stat. 112, 1790)

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted, on confession in open court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.

Need further explanation?

I have hitherto considered crimes, which wound the community through the sides of individuals: I now come to consider one which directly and immediately aims a stab at the vitals of the community herself. I mean treason against the United States ...

"Treason consists in levying war against the United States." In order to understand this proposition accurately and in all its parts, it may be necessary to give a full and precise answer to all the following questions. 1. What is meant by the expression "levying war?" 2. By whom may the war be levied? 3. Against whom must it be levied?"

"To each of these questions I mean to give an answer--if possible, a satisfactory answer; but not in the order, in which they are proposed. I begin with the second--by whom may the war spoken of be levied? It is such a war as constitutes treason. The answer then is this: the war must be levied by those who, while they levy it, are at the same time guilty of treason. This throws us back necessarily upon another question--who may commit treason against the United States? To this the answer is--those who owe obedience to their authority. But still another question rises before us--who are they that owe obedience to that authority? I answer-- those who receive protection from it. ... "

A traitor is hostile to his country"
James Wilson, "Of Crimes Immediately against the Community, Lectures on Law", The Works of James Wilson, Robert G. McCloskey - Editor, 1791, Vol II, pp. 663-669.

Lee took pay from the United States AFTER he met with traitors in Virginia and after he agreed to take up arms against the United States. He DEFINITELY owed allegiance to the United States when he was guilty of treasonous acts.

Wrong again. See above. His letter of resignation was placed into government hands before his acceptance of a commission in the Army of Virginia. Besides that, do you get paid in advance? When did Lee 1st raise his sword in defense of his state?

[billbears]

there was a growing opposition to slavery in this country

I wouldn't call less than 200,000 people out of a population of 20 million growing Walt. That was the according to the membership numbers as presented by DiLorenzo, which he backed up with documentation. Of course just because it's documented won't mean much to you. More like that day's Libertarian (big L) party