Posted on 02/10/2003 8:22:03 AM PST by H8DEMS
do you believe Dr. Blackerby just made the number up?
or could it be that you WANT TO BELIEVE the LIES of the mean-spirited,hatefilled, racist, damnyankee academic elites?
?free dixie,sw
every black man who served the TRUE CAUSE, after being sown-in, was a SOLDIER,SAILOR or MARINE, rather than a servant.
YES, there were many "body-servants", but they were NOT sworn-in as members of the forces, because ONLY FREE MEN could take the oath of enlistment.
SOME "body-servants" DID wear uniforms & carry/use weapons, during the WBTS. exactly whether or not the "body servants" were "members of the forces" is in doubt.
free dixie,sw
Maybe, maybe not. In the south, numerous slaves were raised side by side with blacks since childhood, with blacks - albeit a slave, being loyal and trusted members of the family. Not all slaves were whipped or brutally treated, they certainly weren't thrown off slave ships like they were by yankees. For all those that have never worked in agriculture, only when planting or harvesting are circumstances trying - otherwise there's a lot of time to loaf, fish, hunt etc. "Aunt" Charity Anderson (documented in the Slave Narratives ), wished for the old days to be back, and another lady asked that her master purchase hundreds of slaves so that they could enjoy such benevolent conditions.
You point out that free blacks were not welcome up North and ignore the fact that they were no more welcome down south. Every single southern state had, at one time or another, laws on the books that prevented free blacks from moving in or allowed the government to expel free blacks within their borders.
As was the case in much of the north. Excuse me, but I can't seem to remember any northern state hanging out the welcome mat, and advertising for blacks to emmigrate into their state, or advocated allowing blacks to settle in the territories. I do know that on page 45 of Black Confederates (not in front of me at the moment) that a yankee opined that blacks should just be shot, and another yankee desired to stomp on a black baby crawling near his feet. Neither side was perfect, and I don't pretend they were. But I refuse to believe the myth that the north was some winter wonderland and haven for blacks.
And that was prior to the war, so you would have us to believe that the very states who didn't want free blacks within their state in 1861 would welcome them into the ranks of their army as combat soldiers?
Of course. Why else would blacks have enlisted or joined their masters voluntarily? What would explain MILLIONS of slaves not fleeing the South or rising up in revolution againt the women and children left behind? Why didn't those millions of slaves rush to the aid of the northern armies to fight for freedom? What would explain the numerous accounts of blacks donating money to the cause, or slaves fighting for the confederacy returning instead of escaping during battles? What would explain the captured blacks from refusing to pledge loyalty to the union and receiving freedom, instead of remaining in prison?
Your claim that Lincoln ran on a platform of white supremacy and separtism is flat wrong. Here is a Link to the 1860 Platform and here is a Link to the 1864 Republican platform. Neither one has the provisions you claim.
Guess again. See #5 and others in the 1860 platform - 'desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas' (which BTW, also stated that any person killling a slave should suffer the same punishment 'as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person'.) The platform was to prohibit blacks from migrating to the territories - see #14 as well - 'the Republican party is opposed to any change in our Naturalization Laws'. Naturalization was only for WHITES. Lincoln was adamantly opposed to amalgamation of the races, and repeated his desires for repatriation/colonization of blacks.
The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until July 1868, three years after the implementation of southen Black Codes. And the Amendment prevented ex-confederates from holding office without Congressional approval which was granted about the time Reconstruction was ending.
And they were all rescinded during Reconstruction right? Reconstruction ended in 1868? ROTF!
A number of former confederates held policical office. General Joe Wheeler, for example, had been in congress for almost 20 years before he resigned to fight in the Spanish-American War.
I never said ex-confederates didn't serve, I noted that they were barred from service by the 14th unless the prohibtion was removed.
Ex-confederates played a central role in enacting the laws that oppressed the very black confederates that you claim they owed so much to.
Nonsense again. See the previous post regarding Georgia. Wheeler served 4 Mar 1881 to June 3, 1882, filled a term from 15 Jan 1883 to March 3, 1883, and served from 4 Mar 1885 to 20 Ap 1900. The terms of service were long AFTER Reconstruction, and long after the black codes enacted.
your obedient servant,
4CJ
Nonsense. You posted the first part back to me: 'Alexander Stephens is a distant relative, was elected US Senator in 1866...' But you intend to mislead by your omission of the 2nd part 'but was denied admittance since Georgia had not be readmitted to the Union it couldn't leave.' Whether or not the ex-confederates were prohibited from doing so, they certainly couldn't hold federal office.
Ya think? Pray tell Commander, especially without offending millions who have served - including 7 of my neighbors overseas as we write, why non-combatants are any less of a soldier that those on the front line? In many cases the rolls had soldier crossed out, and cook or teamster substsituted. In numerous instances, it's documented that blacks joined in the fighting. There are numerous accounts of black sharpshooters defending their positions, and black artillery, and blacks fighting in the heat of battle.
Have you ever bothered to read Black Confederates (AKA Forgotten Confederates), Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War, Black Southerners in Gray or any other book on the subject? Why must yankees denigrate the men - free or slave - that fought for the Confedercy?
Welcome to Free Republic!
Respectfully,,SCDP
Is that how you realize your faith? You sin, so it's okay for me to sin?
You'd better pluck out the beam in your own eye first.
I don't think I posted anything to suggest bayonets were used, at Fort Pillow, or Saltville, or at the Crater.
Did you just miss it:
"I would state that on Monday morning, October 3, there came to our field hospital several armed men, as I believe soldiers in the Confederate service, and took 5 men, privates, wounded (negroes), and shot them."
"I would further state that on Friday evening, October 7, at Emory and Henry College Hospital, Washington County, Va., to which place our wounded had been removed, several armed men entered the said hospital about 10 p.m. and went up into the rooms occupied by the Federal wounded prisoners, and shot 2 of them (negroes) dead in their beds."
I've got a lot more -- enough to counter fully everything you posted. More later.
Walt
That's not what you said in #99. But then you got caught.
Walt
It's also to be noted that those who followed the Union army were free to do so or not. Many of those who travelled with the Confederate Army were slaves and had little say in the matter. Many were simply ordered to perform work for the Confederacy. Until we find out how many were free and how many were slaves the discussion is somewhat academic. To be sure, some could have run off and didn't, but this can't be taken as a "vote" of political support for the Confederacy. Slavery was still enforced, and had been enforced for centuries. And the opposing "votes" of those who did run off as soon as it was practically possible have to be taken into account.
Some Blacks may have remained with the Confederate forces because of personal loyalties, and others because they liked being on the road, but it looks perverse to take the presence of enslaved workers among the rebel armies as a vote for a slaveholders' rebellion. Or as an indication of the "colorblindess" of the Confederacy: when you need every male citizen on the front (except large slaveholders who were exempt) and you have a large population of unpaid laborers in bondage, what point is there in taking soldiers off the frontlines to perform support functions?
Slavery produces dependency. Just looking at dependent slaves who have adapted to slavery only gives part of the story. Those who did want freedom are another important part of the story, as are the means by which the slave system broke the wills of the enslaved population. Praising the loyalty of slaves to their masters and slamming welfare, income taxes, tariffs and other forms of government imposition on the citizenry looks inconsistent. If you love liberty, why not celebrate those who were willing to fight for it, not those who meekly followed their masters?
The national organization of the GAR never excluded any veterans on the basis of race. In large cities Blacks were generally excluded from White chapters and expected to form their own. This was in accordance with conditions during the war and afterwords, but we can and should condemn it now. In small towns and sparsely settled regions Black veterans were included in White chapters of the GAR.
I suppose "tokenism" describes the situation: small numbers of Blacks were allowed in local chapters of White organizations. Where numbers became a "problem" -- where the number of Blacks was larger -- they were expected to form their own posts.
"Tokenism" is also a pretty good word to describe the presence of Blacks in UCV chapters. A respected or well-liked personal servant, cook or driver, might be allowed into a local chapter without allowing in many more Blacks. Large numbers of Blacks who had been forced to unload munitions or build bridges would not have been welcomed at UCV meetings. Discussion on the subject should probably wait until we have more knowledge about just how many Blacks were in the UCV, or were given pensions by state governments.
I'm waiting for any sort of verifiable numbers at all. Y'all insist that thousands of blacks served in combat roles, in spite of the fact that it was against the law. You claim that the free blacks were treated as brothers-in-arms, in spite of the view the southern states had towards blacks prior to the war. It's just ridiculous to me.
Where there blacks in supporting roles in the confederate army? Yes, I believe so, and I believe that most of them were slaves who had little real say in the matter. Where blacks welcomed into combat roles in the Confederate army? I don't believe that they were and I haven't seen any real evidence that they were, other than the odd newspaper article you all keep throwing out. There may have been some in combat, but they were there in spite of the government and army regulations and not because of them. Officially, legally, and as far as the overwhelming majority of the confederate leaders were concerned, there was no place for free black southerners in the confedederate fighting forces.
I've read a lot of the Slave Narraitives and I can't remember a single instance where the person being interviewed wished that they were still a slave.
As was the case in much of the north.
It was the case in the entire south and only part of the North and you still dispute my claim that as bad as it was up North it was worse down south?
See #5 and others in the 1860 platform
You ever read the LeCompton Constitution? If so you breezed past Section 1 which said, "The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same, and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever" and past Section 2 which said "The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners, or without paying the owners previous to their emancipation a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to the State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves." I think that those were the parts that the Republican platform had problems with.
Nonsense again. See the previous post regarding Georgia.
So are you suggesting that the Black Codes continued during Reconstruction? Or that Jim Crow laws were passed in spite of the ex-confederates who were in office for years following Reconstruction?
Well, you're caught in a big fat lie on your first day on FR.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/Depts/History/Freedman/pow.htm
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 111.
I. The following proclamation of the President is published for the information and guidance of all concerned therein:
...
3. That all negro slaves captured in arms be at once delivered over to the executive authorities of the respective States to which they belong to be dealt with according to the laws of said States."
It doesn't say a word about non-combatants.
And the state penalties, I believe, were uniformly death.
Consider also this text:
More details are at members.aol.com/jfepperson/pow.html.
12/24/62:
Jefferson Davis issues a proclamation which states (1) White officers of black troops will not be treated as POWs; (2) The black troops themselves will not be treated as POWs; (3) Union Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler is to be hanged w/o trial immediately upon being captured; (4) No Union officers will be paroled until Butler is caught and hanged. All four of these provisions were violations of the Dix-Hill Cartel.
12/28/62:
In response to Davis's proclamation, the Federals end the exchange and parole of Confederate officers.
5/25/63:
Non-exchange and parole of Confederate officers is re-affirmed in orders from Halleck to all commanders in the field. This is done largely in response to the CS Congress passing a law implementing a small variation of Davis's 12/24/62 proclamation.
7/13/63:
Secretary of War Stanton orders an end to the exchange and parole of enlisted men. This is done largely because of increasing arguments over the parole provisions of the cartel, and the feeling that this aspect of the agreement is (unfairly) being manipulated by the Confederates to their advantage.
Fall, 1863:
Confederates return to service most of the Vicksburg garrison, an act which the Federals claim is not justified by the cartel. This hardens Federal attitudes towards the exchange process. So, as of 1/1/64, the exchange cartel is more or less entirely disrupted, as a result of reasonable objections being made by the Federals, and we have yet to see US Grant's name being mentioned. Now, here comes his involvement:
4/17/64:
Lt. Gen. US Grant issues orders that exchanges remain halted until the Confederates compensate the Yankees for the release of the Vicksburg garrison, *and* agree to treat black soldiers equally with white. Grant's role was to confirm a policy already in place, a policy reached as a result of difficulties in managing the cartel. Grant's views on exchange are well-known: He thought it was a bad idea. There's a quote from him to the effect that re-opening exchange might be humanity towards the men in the camps, but keeping it closed was humanity towards the men in the ranks. That's a harsh judgment, but it is no less accurate for being harsh.
Jim Epperson
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Time to take off the rose colored glasses, bub.
Walt
It might have been usual in some theaters to post black units in exposed positions, but it is pretty well known that at the battle of the Crater that Grant directed that a black division trained to follow up the explosion of the giant mine was NOT allowed to lead the attack for fear that there WOULD be a perception that blacks were being unfairly exposed.
A white division was substituted at the last minute and it was all a big muddle and disaster, as anyone generally familiar with the war would surely be aware.
You don't seem very familiar with the history.
Grant also insisted that black soldiers be equally exhanged for white -- a condition that Lee would not agree to.
That would also be known to anyone who has studied the war.
As the data you post to me, I assume, also appears on your website -- whatshisname copied some of it into the thread -- I would say that you are either pretty ignorant, or you hope other people are.
Walt
None of this appears supported in the record.
I searched on various words and I could find no reference on the 'net about an 1871 congressional inquiry.
"He [Gen. Forrest] then swung down toward Memphis, assaulted and carried Fort Pillow, massacring part of its garrison, composed wholly of negro troops. At first I discredited the story of the massacre, because in preparing for the Meridian campaign, I had ordered Fort Pillow to be evacuated, but it transpired afterword that General Hurlbut had retained a small garrison at Fort Pillow to encourage the enlistment of the blacks as soldiers, which was a favorite political policy at that day. The massacre at Fort Pillow occurred April 12, 1864, and has been the subject of congressional inquiry.
No doubt Forrest's men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest's possession, that he was usually very kind to them. He had a desperate set of fellows under him, and at that very time there is no doubt the feeling of the Southern people was fearfully savage on this very point of our making soldiers out of their late slaves, and Forrest may have shared the feeling."
--Memoirs of W.T. Sherman, 1990 LOA edition, page 470.
And based on the value of the other information you've posted, we can pretty much go with the president:
Hon. Secretary of War
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. May 17, 1864
Please notify the insurgents, through the proper military channels and forms, that the government of the United States has satisfactory proof of the massacre, by the insurgent forces at Fort-Pillow, on the 12th and 13th days of April last, of fully ____ white and colored officers and soldiers of the United States, after the latter had ceased resistance, and asked quarter of the former.
That with reference to said massacre, the government of the United States has assigned and set apart by name _____ insurgent officers, theretofore, and up to that time, held by said government as prisoners of war.
That, as blood can not restore blood, and governments should not act for revenge, any assurance, as nearly as perfect as the case admits, given on or before the first day of July next, that there be shall be no more similar massacre, nor any officer or soldier of the United States, whether white or colored, now held, or hereafter captured by the insurgents, shall be treated other than according to the laws of war, will insure the replacing of said _____ insurgent officers in the simple condition of prisoner of war.
That the insurgents having refused either to exchange, or to give any account or explanation in regard to colored soldiers of the United States captured by them, a number of insurgent prisoners equal to the number of such colored soldiers supposed to have been captured by said insurgents will, from time to time, be asigned and set aside, with reference to such captured colored soldiers, and will, if the insurgents assent, be exchanged for such colored soldiers; but that if no satisfactory attention shall be given to this notice, by said insurgents, on or before the first day of July next, it will be assumed by the government of the United States, that said captured colored troops shall have been murdered, or subjected to Slavery, and that said government will, upon said assumption, take such action as may then appear expedient and just.
A. Lincoln
Report of Lieuts. Francis A. Smith and William Cleary, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, of the capture of Fort Pillow.
MARCH 16-APRIL 14, 1864.--Forrest's Expedition into West Tennessee and Kentucky.
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXII/1 [S# 57]
CAIRO, ILL.,
April 18, 1864.
General M. BRAYMAN.
GENERAL:
We have the honor of reporting to you, as the only survivors of the commissioned officers of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, that on the morning of the 12th day of the present month, at about the hour of daylight, the rebels, numbering from 5,000 to 7,000, attacked our garrison at Fort Pillow, Tenn., numbering as it did only about 500 effective men.
They at first sent in a flag of truce demanding a surrender, which Major Booth, then commanding the post (Major Booth of the Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, colored), refused. Shortly after this Major Booth was shot through the heart and fell dead.
Maj. William F. Bradford, then commanding the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, assumed command of the fort, and under his orders a continual fire was kept up until about I p.m., when our cannon and the rifles of the sharpshooters were mowing the rebels down in such numbers that they could not make an advance. The rebels then hoisted a second flag of truce and sent it in, demanding an unconditional surrender. They also threatened that if the place was not surrendered no quarter would be shown. Major Bradford refused to accept any such terms; would not surrender, and sent back word that if such were their intentions they could try it on. While this flag of truce was being sent in the rebel officers formed their forces in whatever advantageous positions they were able to select. They then formed a hollow square around our garrison, placed their sharpshooters within our deserted barracks, and directed a galling fire upon our men. They also had one brigade in the trenches just outside the fort, which had been cut by our men only a few days before, and which provided them with as good protection as that held by the garrison in the fort.
Their demand of the flag of truce having been refused, the order was given by General Forrest in person to charge upon the works and show no quarter. Half an hour after the issuance of this order a scene of terror and massacre ensued. The rebels came pouring in solid masses right over the breast-works. Their numbers were perfectly overwhelming. The moment they reached the top of the walls and commenced firing as they descended, the colored troops were panic-stricken, threw down their arms, and ran down the bluff, pursued sharply, begging for life, but, escape was impossible. The Confederates had apprehended such a result, and had placed a regiment of cavalry where it could cut off all effective retreat. This cavalry regiment employed themselves in shooting down the negro troops as fast as they made their appearance.
The whites, as soon as they perceived they were also to be butchered inside the fort, also ran down. They had previously thrown down their arms and submitted. In many instances the men begged for life at the hands of the enemy, even on their knees. They were only made to stand upon their feet, and then summarily shot down.
Capt. Theodore F. Bradford, of Company A, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was signal officer for the gun-boat, and was seen by General Forrest with the signal flags. The general in person ordered Captain Bradford to be shot. He was instantly riddled with bullets, nearly a full regiment having fired their pieces upon him. Lieutenant Wilson, of Company A, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was killed after he had surrendered, he having been previously wounded. Lieut. J. C. Ackerstrom, Company E, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, and acting regimental quartermaster, was severely wounded after he had surrendered, and then nailed to the side of the house and the house set on fire, burning him to death. Lieut. Cord Revelle, Company E, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was shot and killed after surrender.
Maj. William F. Bradford, commanding our forces, was fired upon after he had surrendered the garrison. The rebels told him he could not surrender. He ran into the river and swam out some 50 yards, they all the time firing at him but failing to hit him. He was hailed by an officer and told to return to the shore. He did so, but as he neared the shore the riflemen discharged their pieces at him again. Again they missed. He ran up the hill-side among the enemy with a white handkerchief in his hand in token of his surrender, but still they continued to fire upon him. There were several Confederate officers standing near at the time. None of them would order the firing to cease, but when they found they could not hit him they allowed him to give himself up as a prisoner and paroled him to the limits of the camp. They now claim that he violated his parole the same night and escaped. We have heard from prisoners who got away from the rebels that they took Major Bradford out in the Hatchie Bottom and there dispatched him. We feel confident that the story is true.
We saw several negroes burning up in their quarters on Wednesday morning. We also saw the rebels come back that morning and shoot at the wounded. We also saw them at a distance running about, hunting up wounded, that they might shoot them. There were some whites also burning. The rebels also went to the negro hospital, where about 30 sick were kept, and butchered them with their sabers, hacking their heads open in many instances, and then set fire to the buildings. They killed every negro soldier Wednesday morning upon whom they came. Those who were able they made stand up to be shot. In one case a white soldier was found wounded. He had been lying upon the ground nearly twenty-four hours, without food or drink. He asked a rebel soldier to give him something to drink. The latter turned about upon his heel and fired three deliberate shots at him, saying, "Take that, you negro equality." The poor fellow is alive yet, and in the hospital. He can tell the tale for himself. They ran a great many into the river, and shot them or drowned them there. They immediately killed all the officers who were over the negro troops, excepting one, who has since died from his wounds. They took out from Fort Pillow about one hundred and some odd prisoners (white) and 40 negroes. They hung and shot the negroes as they passed along toward Brownsville until they were rid of them all. (Out of the 600 troops, convalescents included, which were at the fort, they have only about 100 prisoners, all whites, and we have about 50 wounded, who are paroled.
Major Anderson, Forrest's assistant adjutant-general, stated that they did not consider colored men as soldiers, but as property, and as such, being used by our people, they had destroyed them. This was concurred in by Forrest, Chalmers, and McCulloch, and other officers. We respectfully refer you to the accompanying affidavit of Hardy N. Revelle, lettered A, and those of Mrs. Rufins, lettered B, and Mrs. Williams, lettered C. Respectfully submitted.
F. A. SMITH,
First Lieutenant Company D, 13th Tennessee Cavalry.
From a letter to his family by Sgt. Achilles V. Clark of Forrest's command, written a few days after the massacre. The original is in the Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville:
"The slaughter was awful--words cannot describe the scene. The poor deluded negros would run up to our men, fall upon their knees and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but then were ordered to their feet and shot down. The white men fared but little better." Incidentally, Clark wrote that he and others tried to stop the butchery, only to find that "Gen. Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued."
However, another Confederate soldier, Samuel H. Caldwell, wrote to his wife a few days after the massacre "If General Forrest had not run between our men & the Yanks with his pistol and sabre drawn not a man would have been spared."
To support this, Brigadier General James R. Chalmers, CSA, who was Forrest's second-in-command "similarly claimed to a Federal officer on April 13 that he and Forrest had `stopped the massacre as soon as [we] were able to do so'. He further explained that their men `had such a hatred toward the armed negro that they could not be restrained from killing the negroes after they had captured them.'" (p. 168).
"Three Months in the Southern States: April, June, 1863," p. 70: Notwithstanding the exasperation with which every Southerner speaks of a Yankee, and all the talk about the black flag and no quarter, yet I never saw a Federal prisoner ill treated or insulted in any way, although I have traveled hundreds of miles in their company."
Fremantle called Gettysburg a great rebel victory.
There were still few if any black troops in the Union army (and none, I believe in the Army of the Potomac), during the period described by Fremantle.
Nothing you've posted, unless I missed it, has suppported the idea of any number of black rebel soldiers.
Walt
But there is more than a hint on your website that black regiments fought at Thompson's Station, TN., when in fact, there were none.
Walt
I'm so sorry, I can't understand how you had missed it. Recalling her days in servitude she opines,
'"But, honey, de good ole days is now gone foreber. De ole days was railly the good times. How I wish I could go back to de days w'en we lived at Johnson's landing on de riber ..."'
"Aunt" Charity Anderson, Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves, Alabama Narratives, Vol. I, p. 14.
It was the case in the entire south and only part of the North and you still dispute my claim that as bad as it was up North it was worse down south?
Unless you have problems comprehending the written language, I do dispute that claim. Both sides were wrong by today's standards, just southerners weren't hypocrites.
The state legislature of Illinois issued a joint resolution recognizing the fact that it enumerated slaves in violation of the Northwest Ordinance, and practiced slavery masked as indentured servitude. Numerous northern states prohibited blacks from emmigrating into their states. In the few states that did grant the right of suffrage to blacks, they had to pay a huge sum for the privledge; many northern states had laws preventing intermarriage, prohibited blacks from attending school or being treated in hospitals, prohibited them from owing property, from being a juror, from being a witnees, from holding elected office, barred them from legal representation, from initiating suits etc. In Ohio, an 1807 law forced blacks to pay a $500 per person for a "freedom" certificate or leave the state. In Illinois, blacks had to pay $1000 to emmigrate into the state (1829). Any runaway in the state could be sentenced by a justice of the peace to thirty-five lashes, and groups of three or more could be jailed and flogged.
You ever read the LeCompton Constitution?
Yep.
I think that those were the parts that the Republican platform had problems with. [referring to the 'right of property', uncompensated forced emmancipation, and 'no power to prevent [black] emigrants' into the territories].
In other words, the Republicans had problems abiding by the Constitution, a 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court, the citizenship acts of the country since it's founding, and their ratification agreements to uphold the Constitution? Who's the criminal here?
So are you suggesting that the Black Codes continued during Reconstruction? Or that Jim Crow laws were passed in spite of the ex-confederates who were in office for years following Reconstruction?
When did they end up North? The Ohio laws mandating separate schools for blacks (passed in 1853), and prohibiting interracial marriage (1861) were repealed in 1877. Blacks in Ohio and Illinois were prohibited from voting until 1870 (including the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 1885) - what was their excuse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.