A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Black Confederates in the Civil War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 25th, 2012, 01:06 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
PJ O'D[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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  
Old November 25th, 2012, 03:46 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

Black Confederates in the Civil War

"Black Confederates?


Kind of like the white tire biters who post here.


Bret Cahill


  #3  
Old November 25th, 2012, 09:02 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
PJ o'D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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  
Old November 25th, 2012, 10:38 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
chatnoir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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.”

  #5  
Old November 25th, 2012, 11:22 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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...."
  #6  
Old November 25th, 2012, 02:51 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
mikeos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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?
  #7  
Old November 25th, 2012, 04:08 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

* 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

  #8  
Old November 25th, 2012, 04:46 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
BeamMeUpScotty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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-



  #9  
Old November 25th, 2012, 04:54 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

On Nov 24, 7:06*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


there were blacks in the KKK, and there were nazi sympathizers who
were jewish, so whats your point, that there are those stupid enough
to go against their own best self interests.
  #10  
Old November 25th, 2012, 04:59 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.activism.death-penalty,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.liberalism,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Black Confederates in the Civil War

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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 07:19 AM
Civil War tourism [email protected] USA & Canada 5 December 22nd, 2005 02:28 AM
Civil war reenactments Tashi USA & Canada 5 April 11th, 2005 05:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.