Posted on 02/10/2003 8:22:03 AM PST by H8DEMS
It proves that a certain number of former slaves weren't afraid to fight the slavers.
Walt
Regiments? If you believe stand waite there must have been whole divisions, whole corps, maybe even whole armies. Before you know it he'll have us believe that Robert E. Lee was our first black general.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. I was simply referring to those cases in which slaves followed their masters into war. I never meant to imply that all slaves felt that way.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. I was simply referring to those cases in which slaves followed their masters into war. I never meant to imply that all slaves felt that way.
It's also anecdotal to note that President Lincoln said that without the help of the blacks, the war would be lost in three weeks.
Could the rebels make such a statement?
Walt
Yes, I am. There were Indians in the Union army as well. What's your point?
Regiments? If you believe stand waite there must have been whole divisions, whole corps, maybe even whole armies. Before you know it he'll have us believe that Robert E. Lee was our first black general.
That's where all this falls down. Where are these loyal blacks? Did they desert too, and melt away with the white soldiers? The numbers that Stand Watie favors, 90,000 or 135,000, or whatever the latest fad is, would be a significant percentage of total CSA soldiers. There's just no record of it.
No one has yet in this thread mentioned Dr. Steiner's account of the 3,000 blacks with Lee's army on its failed raid into Maryland in 1862. Maybe they are tired of me noting that Dr. Steiner also said the officers and men of the ANV were "dirty and repulsive."
In any case, it occured to me that Howell Cobb was on that expedition. He would have seen those blacks in arms, just as Dr. Steiner did. And yet he wrote on January 8, 1865:
"I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one."
Guess he wasn't very impressed with what he saw in Maryland.
Walt
Kudos to them, I honor the Black Confederates that proudly served. I also purchased "Black Confederates", and have enjoyed it immensely.
Those blacks that voluntarily served the confederate army in supporting roles no doubt did it partly because they viewed the southern states as their states, too, and partly in the hope that their service would change attitudes towards them held by their southern neighbors. Boy were they ever wrong.
Au contraire! Many that served in the miltary - not just in supporting roles - but those that fought as well, took great pleasure in attending Confederate reunions, and were welcomed at every event.
Of the millions of blacks that were in the South during the war, I have yet to find an instance of where they rebelled and harmed their masters. With almost all the adult whites males off fighting, it's ludicrous to assume that all blacks were held there by women, children, or old men. And there are numerous accounts of blacks being capured by the yankees, and still refused to fight for them, or simply to be freed by pledging loyalty to the north.
Instead of denigrating their loyalty and service, I choose to commemorate it.
WP. Think about it. Would you become homicidally enraged if you found yourself on a battlefield and people were actually trying to kill you?
Sure, now. But 140 years ago that loyalty and service you spoke of was rewarded with Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
Nonsense. If anything, the codes to which you refer were a by-product of reconstruction - forced upon the South by the yankees - which made it illegal for most whites to vote, and also led to the plundering of the Confederate states by yankees.
Be that as it may, it speaks volumes that the "underground railroad" ended in Canada - the Northern states certainly didn't want blacks there. The northern states had numerous Black laws of their own long before the war, and didn't want blacks in the western lands.
If the ensuing black codes were at fault, the puppet governments installed by yankee reconstructionists could have ended the black codes after the war - as the former confederates could not vote or hold office.
Where? Illinois and Oregon? Illinois didn't rescind their law until 1865 and Oregon just had a referendum vote on changing their constitution to rescind racist speech last year. Kind of puts an interesting light on any black people living in Oregon before last year, now doesn't it? Oh, I forgot the 14th Amendment destroyed the 10th. H#ll, why bother with state constitutions in the first place?!? They can be overridden at the whim of the Empire anyway, can't they? Tell Mr. Morris 'I hate the South' Dees to move his hate to Oregon to deal with that!!
LOL - It's just a labor conscription act. Beforehand, free blacks were immune from compulsory service of any kind, and slaves had to be hired out from their masters to do work for the military or government. This act is to make blacks susceptible to compulsory labor service, that's all. You're doing the same stupid thing wlat does, you're posting something and then trying to make people think it's something it's not. Why didn't you just post a pro-colonization speech of Lincoln's, that wouldn't have dealt with the topic either.
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.