Historic reminder

[tombogan03884]

Thank you Bigrumdaddy,
You refer to estimates as high as 20-25,000 blacks serving, the 8,000 number was what the Prof had documented by name, Regt. etc at the time of the article.

[PegLeg45]

Some light reading........


http://www.southernheritage411.com/

http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._K._Edgerton

[tombogan03884]

There is no denying that the  Confederacy was far more inclusive  than the Northern govt. The first American Indian promoted to General was Confederate Gen Stand Watie , the first Jew to hold major political office was  Attorney General  Judah P Benjamin who also served as Sec.of War, and finally as Sec. of State..

[DGF]

It is difficult to hold your head up and defend the confederacy and admit the war was about slavery. No, a new reason had to be found and the cry of States Rights was used as a beard to obfuscate the reasons. It was difficult after WWll to find a German that admited knowing anything about the Halocaust just as it was and still is today finding a Japanese that admits to Nanking.

"It’s true, then, that South Carolina seceded over states’ rights: though, as neo-confederates are loath to admit, the specific right in question concerned the ownership of human chattel. One of the South’s persistent complaints was the northern states would not vigorously cooperate in the return of fugitive slaves and that the free states allowed antislavery organizations to flourish.

In other words, for South Carolina, slavery and states’ rights were not mutually exclusive; in fact, they were the same thing. Today too few people understand the intricate legal history that connects slavery to states’ rights — and as a result a needless debate continues, 150 years after secession began. "

This argument has been settled for many years. It is the fringes that continue to object. Organizations like the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy and various other " Heritage" organizations still try to rewrite history. It cannot be rewritten though.

It was a hundred years after the Civil War that full citizenship was given to the decedents of slaves in the South. There was a history of lynchings, Ku Klux Klan rallies and separate facilities. Finally,  it was the Civil Rights movement led by MLK that actually "freed" the slaves (figuratively).   It wasn't till the 1960s that Blacks were even allowed to attend State Colleges in the South.

Now history revisionists are trying to make the point about States Rights? Absolutely Laughable! It is akin to Germans saying, " We moved Jews into those camps to keep them from being hurt during the war." 

[tombogan03884]

It is difficult to hold your head up and defend the confederacy and admit the war was about slavery.

Especially when it isn't true.
Which are you going to believe, the words and writings of people who were there, or the revisionist bullsh!t that liberal professors began spouting a century later ?
I'm surprised you are diving into this so ill prepared, your comments are usually much better informed.

[Sponsor]

[DGF]

I am perhaps Ill prepared because I am taken aback that there are still people that follow that line of thinking. It is not unlike coming upon people that believe you can cure a headache by bleeding a person, or people that can prove the world is flat, although I do know those people exist it is always a surprise.

I have not heard any argument here that vouches for states rights other than "everybody knows its true" type of response. To suggest that Liberal Professors have an ax to grind may well be true in some instances. I am, in general, not proud of our higher learning institutions, or of our lower learning ones as well. In this case though the facts speak for themselves and no amount of denial can change those facts. I can go into greater depth if it is required but I really have no desire to rehash the argument that world is flat.

Although I doubt anyone will do it, I suggest, that with an open mind, people do some research on their own. The information is there for the picking. If anyone thinks it is worthwhile I would continue this discussion but I doubt we would come any conclusion other than " WAS TOO !  WAS NOT ! " I think my example of post war Germany was spot on. And just the treatment of blacks in the Post War south also bolsters the slavery argument that the South considered negroes as no more than cattle not worthy of associating with whites.

[tombogan03884]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_28?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=fighting+for+the+confederacy+the+personal+recollections+of+general+edward+porter+alexander&sprefix=Fighting+for+the+Confederacy%2Cstripbooks%2C349
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_28?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=fighting+for+the+confederacy+the+personal+recollections+of+general+edward+porter+alexander&sprefix=Fighting+for+the+Confederacy%2Cstripbooks%2C349

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bruce+catton+civil+war+books&sprefix=Bruce+Catton%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Abruce+catton+civil+war+books
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bruce+catton+civil+war+books&sprefix=Bruce+Catton%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Abruce+catton+civil+war+books

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=cherokee+cavaliers&sprefix=cHEROKEE+CAVALIERS%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Acherokee+cavaliers
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=cherokee+cavaliers&sprefix=cHEROKEE+CAVALIERS%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Acherokee+cavaliers

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=i+rode+with+stonewall&sprefix=I+rode+with+Stone%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Ai+rode+with+stonewall
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=i+rode+with+stonewall&sprefix=I+rode+with+Stone%2Cstripbooks%2C163&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Ai+rode+with+stonewall

That should do to start with, I started on the Catton books when I was about 8.
The Shaara series, "Killer Angels", "Gods and Generals", and "Last full Measure", while they are fiction, are quite accurate, more readable than some of the "historic" accounts, and give you more of a sense of just who the names actually were as people.

A couple  things I will point out is that a lot of the treatment received by former slaves resulted not from being black, but from being associated with the  Northern occupation forces in the same way that modern Conservatives (myself included) lump all blacks into the gangbanger, welfare camp after 4 years of being called racists by the Obama regime, even though we respect many, such as Thomas Sowell.
Secondly, very few Union troops were fighting against slavery, most of them had no more use for blacks, who they saw competing for jobs if freed, than the most racist Southerner. They actually were fighting to preserve the Union regardless of how the slavery question was resolved.

[DGF]

Ok, lets talk.

The Missouri Compromise allowed for Missouri to be admitted to the union as a slave state and Maine to be admitted as a free state. It also disallowed slavery in some northern part of Louisiana. In 1853 a decision had to be made as to the admission of Kansas and Nebraska. I believe that it was Henry Clay that proposed that those states be allowed to choose for themselves either slave or free. The south had an investment in slaves and did not want to have that investment threatened. The US Govt also allowed at that time the south to send bounty hunters into the north and retrieve escaped slaves and return them to their masters. Then came the Dread Scott decision. Dread Scott was a slave that moved with his master to Wisconsin and Minnesota. It was Scotts position that both Wisc and Minn were free states therefor he should be free. The SCOTUS disagreed and ruled that he was not a citizen and as such had no rights, he remained property. See the beginnings of a strong slavery issue? It will become even stronger and force the souths hand.

We had won the war with Mexico and we gained vast areas of land out west. It was mostly the Northerners that wanted to keep that land as free. They didn't do this for any great humanitarian reason but because they didn't want to have to compete against landowners that
 kept slaves. The south was greatly opposed to the idea of free states in the west. The North felt that if they could contain slavery and not let it expand it would die a natural death.

It was at this time the Republican party was formed and Lincoln was elected. With Lincolns election South Carolina seceded and was followed by the other southern states. It was not an invasion of the south that started the war but the firing on Ft Sumter that precipitated the conflict. If you wish, you can say it was states rights that caused the secession, but you have to admit that it was the Southern States right to own slaves that was the right.