![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Black Confederates in the Civil War
"Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason- Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. ...It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.” google any portion of the above to retrieve the source |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Black Confederates in the Civil War
"Black Confederates? Kind of like the white tire biters who post here. Bret Cahill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 24, 10:46*pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
Black Confederates in the Civil War .. "Black Confederates? Kind of like the white tire biters who post here. " The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty." Karl Marx- Die Presse 10/25/1861 According to the article "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?" in the Evening Post of March 12, 1861: "...There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively…Revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe… What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the President call a special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed to do—to abolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?...."[9] [9] "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?," Evening Post, 12 March 1861. "...Since the North won it is maintained that the North was preserving the American virtues. Obviously, the South must represent evil and non- virtuous people. Generally speaking, in schoolbooks the North is the "freer of the slaves". Movies and television have helped perpetuate the myth. The real story of why the North fought the war has to do with economic reasons. The New York Times in 1861 stated there would be a loss of revenue because the high tariffs in the South were no longer collected. After the South seceded, the tariffs were no longer enforced.[22] As previously stated, the North fought because they "feared loss of economy."[23] To prove the point Lincoln replied to a question of letting the South secede: "Let the South go? Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenues!"[24] It is high time that the world be told why the North declared war on the South. They did not do it for freedom: they did it to fatten their purses...." l |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 25, 3:02*am, "PJ O'D" wrote:
On Nov 24, 10:46*pm, Bret Cahill wrote: Black Confederates in the Civil War . "Black Confederates? Kind of like the white tire biters who post here. " The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty." Karl Marx- Die Presse 10/25/1861 it always boils down to marxism for "THE CONSERVATIVES". marx was a ardent free trader, and hated federal governments. why don't you move to china or cuba? According to the article "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?" in the Evening Post of March 12, 1861: * "...There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively…Revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe… What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the President call a special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed to do—to abolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?...."[9] [9] "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?," Evening Post, 12 March 1861. "...Since the North won it is maintained that the North was preserving the American virtues. Obviously, the South must represent evil and non- virtuous people. Generally speaking, in schoolbooks the North is the "freer of the slaves". Movies and television have helped perpetuate the myth. The real story of why the North fought the war has to do with economic reasons. The New York Times in 1861 stated there would be a loss of revenue because the high tariffs in the South were no longer collected. After the South seceded, the tariffs were no longer enforced.[22] As previously stated, the North fought because they "feared loss of economy."[23] To prove the point Lincoln replied to a question of letting the South secede: "Let the South go? Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenues!"[24] It is high time that the world be told why the North declared war on the South. They did not do it for freedom: they did it to fatten their purses...." l its really hard to maintain a slave based economy. but "CONSERVATIVES" will always try. in fact, "CONSERVATIVES" are well known for doubling down on what does not work, like the confederacy ![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 24, 6:06*pm, "PJ O'D" wrote:
Black Confederates in the Civil War "Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason- Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. ..It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.” google any portion of the above to retrieve the source http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...-confederates/ Even 150 years after it started, the Civil War is still the battleground for controversial ideas. One of them is the notion that thousands of Southern slaves and freedmen fought willingly and loyally on the side of the Confederacy. The idea of “black Confederates” appeals to present-day neo- Confederates, who are eager to find ways to defend the principles of the Confederate States of America. They say the Civil War was about states’ rights, and they wish to minimize the role of slavery in a vanished and romantic antebellum South. But most historians of the past 50 years hold that the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. They bristle at the idea of black Confederates, which they say robs the war of its moral coin as the crucible of black emancipation. Stepping into this controversy is Harvard historian John Stauffer, who studies antislavery movements, the Civil War, and American social protest. (He is chair of the History of American Civilization Program, and a professor of both English and African-American studies.) At the Harvard Faculty Club on Wednesday (Aug. 31), Stauffer opened the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute’s Fall Colloquium Series with a lecture on black Confederates. He acknowledged that critics of the concept now dominate the academic arena, including one scholar who called it “a fiction, a myth, utter nonsense.” Still, Stauffer acknowledged the seeming popularity of neo-Confederate ideas in general. He cited a recent poll showing that 70 percent of white Southerners believe that the cause of the Civil War was not slavery, but a deep divide over states’ rights. Stauffer also outlined evidence that the notion of black Confederates is at least partly true — an assertion that he said got him “beaten up” in a discussion at a Washington, D.C., history event months ago. Though no one knows for sure, the number of slaves who fought and labored for the South was modest, estimated Stauffer. Blacks who shouldered arms for the Confederacy numbered more than 3,000 but fewer than 10,000, he said, among the hundreds of thousands of whites who served. Black laborers for the cause numbered from 20,000 to 50,000. Those are not big numbers, said Stauffer. Black Confederate soldiers likely represented less than 1 percent of Southern black men of military age during that period, and less than 1 percent of Confederate soldiers. And their motivation for serving isn’t taken into account by the numbers, since some may have been forced into service, and others may have seen fighting as a way out of privation. But even those small numbers of black soldiers carry immense symbolic meaning for neo-Confederates, who are pressing their case for the central idea that the South was a bastion of states’ rights and not a viper pit of slavery, even though slavery was central to its economy. Just 50 years ago, many authorities on the Civil War asserted that Southerners knew at the time that slavery was wrong, and would soon give it up. Stauffer quoted Robert Penn Warren, who wrote in 1961 that “the greatest danger to slavery was the Southern heart.” In arguing that there were some black Confederates, Stauffer draws on at least one ironic source: 19th-century social reformer Frederick Douglass, whose life Stauffer studied for his 2008 book “Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.” In August 1861, Douglass published an account of the First Battle of Bull Run, which noted that there were blacks in the Confederate ranks. A few weeks later, Douglass brought the subject up again, quoting a witness to the battle who said they saw black Confederates “with muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets.” Douglass also talked to a fugitive slave from Virginia, another witness to Bull Run, who asserted that black units were forming in Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. It is well known that in Louisiana and Tennessee, Stauffer added, Confederate units were organized by elite, light-skinned freedmen who identified with the slave-owning white plantation culture. (The Tennessee troops were never issued arms, though, and the black unit known as the Louisiana Native Guards never saw action — and quickly switched sides as soon as Union forces appeared.) But unless readers think that black Confederates were truly enamored of the South’s cause, Stauffer related the case of John Parker, a slave forced to build Confederate barricades and later to join the crew of a cannon firing grapeshot at Union troops at the First Battle of Bull Run. All the while, recalled Parker, he worried about dying, prayed for a Union victory, and dreamed of escaping to the other side. “His case can be seen as representative,” said Stauffer. “Masters put guns to (the heads of slaves) to make them shoot Yankees.” Freedmen in the Confederacy faced re-enslavement in Virginia and elsewhere, said Stauffer, so they made displays of loyalty that were really gestures of self-protection — a “hope for better treatment, a hope not to be enslaved.” Loyalty among the few black Confederates was at least ambiguous, said Stauffer. It was further undermined by the Confiscation Act of Aug. 6, 1861, which allowed Union forces to “confiscate” slaves and other “property” used to support the Confederacy. Under the act — the first of two — the freedom of such slaves was left ambiguous, said Stauffer, but it foreshadowed black emancipation and gave slaves even more reason to flee northward. Scholars and social critics will continue to fight over the concept of black Confederates. Meanwhile, what should the public believe about the conflicting loyalties they may have felt or the decisions — however brief — some made to serve the Confederacy? From the lecture audience, Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr., director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute, had one answer: “Black people are just as complex as anybody else.” |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 25, 5:38*am, chatnoir wrote in
part: Black Confederates in the Civil War .. Blacks who shouldered arms for the Confederacy numbered more than 3,000 but fewer than 10,000, "..Estimates of Black Confederate Serving the South How many black Confederates served the South in combat or direct battlefield support ? The numbers vary wildly from 15,000 to 120,000. The truth remains that nobody has an accurate figure. My estimate is that 65,000 blacks scattered across the entire South followed the Confederate armies from one battlefield to the next from 1861 to 1865. Larger numbers of blacks loyally served the Confederacy, not as soldiers but as employees of the Army, Navy, Confederate government or the individual State governments. Where does this estimate of 65,000 come from ? Dr. Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, observed that Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's troops in occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie- knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." If we assume Dr. Steiner is somewhat reliable and assume that this 3,000 Negroes of Jackson's troops are a* representative number of black Confederates in a typical Confederate fighting force, then we may be able to make a rough calculation. First we must determine how many men were part of Jackson's troops ? If Lee had 50,000, was Jackson's force, 25,000 ? That would be a likely estimate. So then what percentage is 3,000 of 25,000 ? Answer: 12 %. So that would tell us that 12% of Jackson's force was black Confederates.* Now, if* we assume that Steiner meant 3,000 blacks soldiers* * in Lee's entire 50,000 force that crossed the Potomac, then the percentage of black Confederates is reduced to 6%. Either way it is calculated, black Confederates were a considerable percentage of the total...." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/25/2012 6:22 AM, ПеаБраин wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:38 am, chatnoir wrote in part: Black Confederates in the Civil War . Blacks who shouldered arms for the Confederacy numbered more than 3,000 but fewer than 10,000, "..Estimates of Black Confederate Serving the South How many black Confederates served the South in combat or direct battlefield support ? The numbers vary wildly from 15,000 to 120,000. The truth remains that nobody has an accurate figure. My estimate is that 65,000 blacks scattered across the entire South followed the Confederate armies from one battlefield to the next from 1861 to 1865. Larger numbers of blacks loyally served the Confederacy, not as soldiers but as employees of the Army, Navy, Confederate government or the individual State governments. Where does this estimate of 65,000 come from ? Dr. Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, observed that Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's troops in occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie- knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." If we assume Dr. Steiner is somewhat reliable and assume that this 3,000 Negroes of Jackson's troops are a representative number of black Confederates in a typical Confederate fighting force, then we may be able to make a rough calculation. First we must determine how many men were part of Jackson's troops ? If Lee had 50,000, was Jackson's force, 25,000 ? That would be a likely estimate. So then what percentage is 3,000 of 25,000 ? Answer: 12 %. So that would tell us that 12% of Jackson's force was black Confederates. Now, if we assume that Steiner meant 3,000 blacks soldiers in Lee's entire 50,000 force that crossed the Potomac, then the percentage of black Confederates is reduced to 6%. Either way it is calculated, black Confederates were a considerable percentage of the total...." Considering blacks were less than 17% of the total population and half were women thenyou have the children and the elderly it would mean that the percentage could*NOT* be higher than 8% and that would leave no one behind to do all the farming to grow food for the troops. And then there is the possibility that the blacks were the tip of the spear and used as cannon fodder. That would skew the numbers you projected also. That's if every able bodied man was expected to sign up for the military. -- *Welcome to Socialism* -Kum bay ya- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 25/11/2012 10:38, chatnoir wrote:
The idea of “black Confederates” appeals to present-day neo- Confederates, who are eager to find ways to defend the principles of the Confederate States of America. They say the Civil War was about states’ rights, and they wish to minimize the role of slavery in a vanished and romantic antebellum South. Sure it was about "states rights". The right to oppress a minority and enslave them. Where's the contradiction? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
* The idea of black Confederates appeals to present-day neo-
* Confederates, who are eager to find ways to defend the principles of * the Confederate States of America. They say the Civil War was about * states rights, and they wish to minimize the role of slavery in a * vanished and romantic antebellum South. Sure it was about "states rights". The right to oppress a minority and enslave them. Where's the contradiction? In any controversy between federal power vs states rights the Supreme Court should go with states rights when it comes to individual freedom, i.e., Oregon's assisted suicide, and with federal power when it comes to minority rights. Jefferson, anticipating the Civil War, warned everyone on all sides to try to avoid that controversy in the first place. And, no, looneytarians, there is no "induhvidualist right" in the constitution to not pay federal taxes. Bret Cahill "I've never heard anyone complain about provencial liberties." "The greatest danger to democracy is the tyranny of the majority." -- Tocqueville |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 25, 9:08*am, Bret Cahill wrote:
* The idea of black Confederates appeals to present-day neo- * Confederates, who are eager to find ways to defend the principles of * the Confederate States of America. They say the Civil War was about * states rights, and they wish to minimize the role of slavery in a * vanished and romantic antebellum South. Sure it was about "states rights". The right to oppress a minority and enslave them. Where's the contradiction? In any controversy between federal power vs states rights the Supreme Court should go with states rights when it comes to individual freedom, i.e., How do you get individual freedom with slavery? Oregon's assisted suicide, and with federal power when it comes to minority rights. Jefferson, anticipating the Civil War, warned everyone on all sides to try to avoid that controversy in the first place. And, no, looneytarians, there is no "induhvidualist right" in the constitution to not pay federal taxes. Bret Cahill "I've never heard anyone complain about provencial liberties." "The greatest danger to democracy is the tyranny of the majority." -- Tocqueville |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The DemocRATS' Civil War | O'Donovan, PJ, Himself | Europe | 0 | May 15th, 2010 12:24 PM |
Where's the outrage in the US over black on black killings? | PJ O'Donovan | Europe | 16 | January 3rd, 2007 08:19 AM |
Civil War tourism | [email protected] | USA & Canada | 5 | December 22nd, 2005 03:28 AM |
Civil war reenactments | Tashi | USA & Canada | 5 | April 11th, 2005 05:20 AM |