BS: 'Loyal slaves'

Subject: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:12 PM

I'm interested to read in this Wiki about Nathan Bedford Forrest that 43 of his slaves "served faithfully until the end of the war. Although they had many chances to leave, they chose to remain loyal to the South and to Forrest".

Remembering the fascinating discussion of The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll, and the way in which Catters revealed personal knowledge, I'm wondering if there's the same kind of memory of this.

I somehow doubt that these slaves were delighted to serve the man who founded the Ku Klux Klan. What do people with more knowlege than myself say?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 01:16 PM

By the way,
this is the article that first piqued my interest.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 03:51 PM

That would certainly be my own suspicion.

I wonder - there must be descendants of these people around. Any on Mudcat?

I don't know much about the history of slaves after the Civil War. I know a lot of skilled men moved north, where they worked in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, and there was a strong tradition of intermarriage between Irishwomen and black American tradesmen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 03:53 PM

A great many Blacks loyally served the Southern cause during the Civil War. This was for a variety of reasons, but I think the primary and overriding reason was simply the natural instinct of local people to defend their home territory against an invasion from outside. The Blacks who helped the Confederacy in the Civil War viewed the northern armies as a foreign invasion...and they viewed the "Yankees" as foreign people.

That was also the primary thing motivating the average White southerner who fought for the Confederacy. They were defending their homes and families.

You would find the same sort of thing happening when any country is invaded...and the South did think of itself as a separate sovereign country following secession from the Union.

The vast majority of people naturally rally to the cause when confronted with a threat from beyond their own borders.

Another factor may have been genuinely good relations between some slaveowners and their slaves, in which case the slaves would have been inclined to remain loyal. This was probably the case with Nathan Bedford Forest, since he was a spectacularly good leader of men (if I may judge by his war record).

Now...in the wake of a lost war such as the South's war for independence, you are going to have a lot of bad fallout afterward, and former friends can become bitter enemies. The situation changed radically after the southern surrender. Those who had been in charge in the South were cast down and northern carpetbaggers came in to basically loot the South and fill their own pockets. This stirred up bitterness and hatred that led to the formation of reactionary outfits like the Ku Klux Klan, and that led to all kinds of violent reprisals on Blacks and other targets of that bitterness.

So what I'm saying here is...the fact that the Ku Klux Klan behaved viciously to many Blacks after that war does not necessarily indicate to me that Nathan Bedford Forrest would have behaved viciously to Blacks before that war.

You have to be willing to look at shades of gray in these historical matters, inconvenient as it may be when you want everything out of the past to fit some present modern political position that you attack great emotional importance to...

You have to be willing to imagine yourself in a completely different time, with very different expectations, and realize that had you been born as a White or a Black southerner at that time, you might very well have supported the Confederacy in either case...and NOT because you were consciously supporting what we now term "racism" or even because you were consciously supporting slavery...but for the common reasons of patriotism, honor, duty, and love of your own society and the people around you.

You might have regarded the northern armies with real hatred as you saw them pouring into your home state by the thousands and destroying the entire fabric of the society you had grown up in, and killing the people you knew personally and loved deeply.

And that's what happens in war.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM

Here we go again. Abysmal ignorance of the causes & conduct of the Civil War, the lot of Slaves in and the history of the antebellum South, the role of Blacks during the war & their "motivation" for "helping" the South (e.g. work or be shot), the true biography of N.B. Forrest, the history of Reconstruction and the "redemption" of the South, etc, etc, etc.

WAY too mush absolute bullshit to try and refute item by item- life's too short. Vide several earlier threads with bibliographies posted. Educate yourselves on these issue=s and THEN come back for an INTELLIGENT discussion.

At this late date & in the light of massive amounts scholarship in the second half of the 2oth Century I REALLY do get tired of neo-Confederate bullshit and latter-day Southern apologists after the pernicious myths of "The Lost Cause" have been repeatedly and incontrovertably proven to be blatant nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM

Ah well, thats what Taoism does for you!

You're a good man Little Hawk...Hope Teribus reads that!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 04:39 PM

Much that Little Hawk says is true. That hatred of northerners and carpetbaggers was still strong in rural Georgia as late as 1950 when I was there. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who fought in the War had to die before the antipathy towards the North slowly died out.

Forrest was cleared by Congress of the charges against him. Reports are conflicting, as they often are after a hard-fought action.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 04:57 PM

If I remember aright, the South offered to free any slave who would fight for it -- 1865, way, way too late to do any good.

Remember also that owners would sometimes contract out the work of their slaves, and that this was done in the South during the War, especially in constructing fortifications, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:07 PM

Much that Little Hawk says is true
-Q

Not his statements regarding African Americans.

Greg F. I agree with everything you said.

And Q, don't you think that you should limit your statement "That hatred of northerners and carpetbaggers was still strong in rural Georgia as late as 1950 when I was there" to a significant percentage of White Southerners?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:26 PM

I am in no way being an apologist for the South. I am simply recognizing the emotions and motivations of the people on both sides, and recognizing that there were a great many good people fighting on both sides, as is always the case in a war.

The abolitionists were absolutely right to oppose slavery. It was a completely unjustifiable practice, and it had already been ended in most other advanced societies of the time. The Southerners in the USA were wrong to continue the practice of slavery.

This does not mean, however, that everyone who fought for the South was some kind of evil person.

I find that when people have a big emotional axe to grind over some issue...whether it be racism, sexism, Naziism, or any other "ism"...they are far too inclined in their righteous fury to simply divide people up rigidly into "the good" and "the evil" (on the basis of which side they fought on)...as if it was that simple. It's not.

It may be considered politically incorrect by many now to say that some Blacks fought willingly for the South during that war, nevertheless it is true that some did. It's on the record. People don't want to admit it's true or hear it even spoken of because they are too darned hung up on present issues and present rhetoric, and that present rhetoric demands a whitewashed view of past history which is just as blind (and prejudiced) in its own way as the Southern maintenance of slavery was blind and prejudiced in the 1860s.

People are running around all the time trying to prove to other people how righteous they are about racial or gender issues. This does not impress me. We are ALL opposed to slavery here, we are ALL in favor of racial equality, we are all in favor of gender equality, and we do not have to change past history or censor old books by Mark Twain or somebody else like that in order to prove our righteousness to all the other people around us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:27 PM

"If I remember aright, the South offered to free any slave who would fight for it -- 1865, way, way too late to do any good."

See The Gray and the Black: the Confederate Debate on Emancipation (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1971).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:47 PM

Anything that I would add to the post by Little Hawk would be repetition.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 05:53 PM

Same here Q.............Azizi try ditchin' the chip!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:03 PM

Good lord. "ditching the chip"? When you have the credibility that Azizi has, whether through interest, study, legend and anecdotal evidence, heredity, or all of the above, I'll listen to you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:06 PM

I never find people like Azizi credible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:16 PM

Well, this subject is like a hornet's nest. Just kick it and find out. One can stick around and watch, maybe get stung a few times, or one can move on to something more fruitful. So I think I'll move on at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 07:20 PM

IF you have no specifics, Ake, you would do well to back off with your slanders. What, specifically, do you find not credible in what she has said here?    And when you say "people like Azizi" what among her many characteristics are you calling on? Do you mean African Americans? Students of African American culture? Black women? Exactly what is it that fires up your "not credible" filter, sir? What IS the category against which you arm yourself with such prejudice?

Enquiring minds feel compelled to ask.




A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Bee
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 07:24 PM

"People like Azizi" - what the hell is that supposed to mean?

I have always found Azizi quite credible, and well-informed on most subjects she cares to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 07:36 PM

We are ALL opposed to slavery here, we are ALL in favor of racial equality, we are all in favor of gender equality, and we do not have to change past history or censor old books by Mark Twain or somebody else like that in order to prove our righteousness to all the other people around us.

Yes!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 07:59 PM

Ake, what the f***k is the matter with you. No one asks that you agree on all things, but Azizi has been patient, scholarly, flexible, tolerant, and above all, well read with facts to back up her contentions. She is a delight to have in this community, both for her scholarship, and the fact that she is a damned fine human being that I cannot wait to meet along the trail.

You, on the other hand, for the most part have been a thinly disguised bigot, and the place would be better off without you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:53 AM

The message from LH which has been repeated by Kat, is exacly what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 02:33 AM

Thank you very much for all these interesting responses.

I'm wondering, though, whether anyone has any family stories about this?

By the way, just to take the race question out of it for a second, I'm reading a fascinating book, in between other reads,
To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland by Sean O'Callaghan, about the 17th-century transportations of Irish people to the Caribbean to be enslaved.

I've noticed lately how good humans are at becoming indignant and getting ourselves trapped in a stand that perhaps we don't actually support.

We're all friends here, I hope?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:08 AM

"We're all friends here I hope"
Unfortunately not JTT, unless one enjoys being classed as a bigot, etc etc

The two messages from Little Hawk contained much wisdom and emotion and were typical of his outlook on life.
A few here obviously took nothing from these post, other than to see non-existant racism. I think they lack sensitivity and reason in their thinking.

Since her arrival here Azizi has scoured these threads in search of "racist comments", ready to bring the wrath of god down on the head of the guilty wretch.

Well, I've been here much longer than Azizi and have NEVER seen racism promoted here. The people who live here would never countenance it.   Nor will they see excellent posts edited to suit the agendas of the "unca' guid" or the "rigidly righteous"

Mick..... thanks for the advice, but I'm afraid I intend to stick around for a while......I have some good friends here!
BTW....What sort of bigot did you have in mind?....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:20 AM

Is there a museum devoted to the black experience in the southern states, by any chance?

I hate to be minatory, but I'd be grateful if we could stop the personal attacks and stick to the point, if people wouldn't mind.

(Incidentally, I would have linked that Barbados book through Amazon at any time up to yesterday, when I was called on it. Apparently the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States - the American equivalent of the SPCA, for those of us outside the US) is bringing a case against Amazon to stop it selling dog-fighting and cock-fighting books and magazines. This so disgusted me that I'm stopping dealing with Amazon or referencing them on websites until they stop selling this illegal and cruel material.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: mg
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:30 AM

It demeans this whole entire group when a person is attacked for basically just expressing her views, which could be personal, could be scholarly, etc. Not nice folks.

My family has just found out some truly awful stuff about my mother's ancestors...stuff to be truly ashamed of, which I won't go into here but it is bad. mg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:32 AM

Fair enough JTT.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:41 AM

mg - In a way, it's good to find out that your ancestors did wrong; proves that your family is evolving towards the good!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:19 AM

I have gone back and forth about whether I should post any other comment on this thread. The reason why I have decided to do so is because people might be reading this thread now and in the future who don't know me through my posts on this forum, and may wonder if the false accusations made against me are true.

To those persons who are themselves that question, I say that you can judge for yourself whether the comment that I made on this thread is racist. Mentioning race does not mean that a person is racist. In addition, any member or visitor to Mudcat can also access all of the comments that I have posted on this discussion forum since I joined this community in September 2004 as a means of judging for themselves if they think that I am a racist.

A listing of the posts of any Mudcat member can be accessed by clicking on their name after the "from" heading on any thread and then clicking on the posts that are listed there. As this forum's moderators may be able to attest, I rarely post to this thread as a guest [meaning without using my name]. I posted several times as a guest on the same thread in August 2004 before I joined this forum in September 2004. I have also posted as a guest on those rare times when system glitches at Mudcat disabled the ability for persons to posts as members.

Though members and guests may judge for themselves by reading all of my archived Mudcat posts or a random samplying of those posts,   to address the question of whether I am a racist, I have decided to repost a recent comment that I made on this Mudcat thread:
thread.cfm?threadid=112124&messages=137#2374787. I am reposting this comment on this thread for the record as a means of my addressing the false accusations against me on this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Zimbabwe 'elections'
From: Azizi - PM
Date: 27 Jun 08 - 06:27 AM

I have nothing but the best of wishes for ALL Africans
-lox

lox, I'd like to make a friendly ammendment to your statement.

I'd like to change it to read "I have nothing but best wishes for All people throughout the world".

**

For individuals who because of their history, because of past or present socialization, or for whatever reasons continue to regard racial, ethnic, religious, or any other groups of people as less than human or as less than themselves, my best wishes is that these individuals truly recognize the montrous error of those beliefs, and do whatever it takes throughout their lives to eradicate those toxic beliefs.

My best wishes for those individuals so described are also that they work however and whereever they can to remove legal, institutional, and/or social barriers to fair, equitable, and culturally competent services for and treatment of all people in their community, region, and nation, if not for all people throughout the world.   

Also, my best wishes for those individuals who had been treated unjustly as a group or as individuals in the past-and who may still be treated unjustly in the present, are that these individuals use whatever power they may gain wiser than others did in the past. My best wishes is that they recognize themselves in others, and that they also work to remove legal, institutional, and social barriers to fair equitable, and culturally competent services for and treatment of all people. In so doing, those individuals and groups who were formerly oppressed would recognize the terrible consequences of mistreating those who mistreated them, less they cause another long or short cycle of injustice.

**

Coming from a similar background as Black Zimbabweans and of Colored {Coloured} Zimbabweans, I believe that all persons living in those countries have some serious work to do-to understand themselves and others, and to build a equitable nation for themselves and all of their children and all their children's children and onward.

If they succeed in doing so or if they fail, either way, it seems to me, they have much to teach the world.

-Azizi,
who is African American and who speaks only for herself and not for any other or all other African Americans {formerly known as "Colored people" and certainly not for any other Black people or Colored {Coloured} people throughout the world.

Ps.
I admit to knowing very little about past and present day Zimbabwe. The only personal experience I have had with Zimbabwe was indirectly more than thirty years ago, though meeting and befriending as best I could a Black {Coloured?} Zimbabwe woman. For one semester this young woman attended the college in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where I worked as the "minority student advisor" {which really meant "advisor to Black students {by "Black" I mean the USA definition}. Unfortunately, that student was unable to continue going to school in the USA because she couldn't access any money from home.

I often think of that young woman, and I often pray that all is well with her and with her family {which means that I pray that things change astronomically for the better for all people within that nation}.

**

Finally, I want to thank those persons who posted comments on this thread that rejected the characterization of me as a racist. I very much appreciate your comments, not just my sake, but for the sake of visitors who may happen upon this thread and wonder not only am I a racist, but also wonder if the Mudcat community is accepting of personal attacks against its members.

Given my nature, and my interests, and my concerns, I'm sure that I will continue to start threads on Mudcat about race or racism. And given my nature, my interests, and my concerns, I'm sure that I'll continue to respond when the spirit moves me to other Mudcat members' comments or to guests' comments about race or racism. And whenever I do post a comment about race or racism, folks can judge for themselves whether those comments are racist or not.

That said, I choose not to comment any further on this thread.

Best wishes,

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:36 AM

Small comment here - and yes, thanks Azizi, I should go and sign in again; when Mudcat boots my cookie I often don't bother to reset it (it's Thompson, by the way).

I haven't personally come across many race-related comments from Azizi; it was ages before I knew that she was a) black/coloured/** and b) female.

Americans seem kind of bats on the question of colour generally. Barack Obama, who is 50:50 black African and white American, is referred to as 'black' - why not 'white'? He's half and half!

But getting back to the point, I'd love to know if anyone has any personal, family stories about these particular people, the slave or ex-slave soldiers who fought for the South.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM

Only tangentially pertinent to the subject of the thread, but for people who want to gain a better understanding of the post Civil War period in the South, this website is worth having a look at...

http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:30 AM

JTT, thanks for letting us know about Amazon.

Also, if the book you referenced above has an index, would you mind looking for a Sir John Yeamans/Youmans? He was a big wig there about that time before he went to the Carolinas and took hundreds of slaves with him. I am always interested in more info on him as my mom's line traces back to him. I found a copy of his last will and testament HERE. While it doesn't have anything to do with the original question, it is a precursor in that one entry I found said he was the first to bring slaves here. Not something I am proud of, btw.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:50 AM

A determined segue here:

We say 'big wig'. Do you suppose that at one time that was 'big Whig'?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:56 AM

No. It was derived from the use of powdered wigs by the Judges in British courts, and the powdered peruques affected by the nobility.
SOmetimes a wig is just a wig.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:00 PM

No, the sturdy Yeomans isn't in the book - at least, not in the index, anyway. It's Y-less. Ends at the Ws.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:02 PM

I really like Azizi and usually find myself in agreement with her, but in this case, we're not in 100% accord.

Litle Hawk's first contribution to this thread ~ and all the rest of them, too, for that matter ~ was absolutely on the mark and not "racist" in the least. I think that Azizi's response was an overreaction and indicated a very understandable degree of oversensitivity and an uncharacteristic lack of empathy.

It's hard for any of us today to understand, and undoubtedly even more difficult for anyone descended from people bound in slavery, but there can be little doubt that some of the participants in the worldwide "peculiar institution" of slavery were more humane than others. It's also difficult to realize that most of the young men fighting and dying for the CSA were not themselves slaveowners, but instead were individuals who felt they were defending their homeland.

The slaveowners were a highly privileged elite with enough economic and political power to sway the general public to suffer and sacrifice on their behalf. Sound familiar? Human nature doesn't really change that much, ceratinly not over the span of a mere one or two centuries.

(LH, by the way, is not a Southerner, by no means. For anyone who does not alreayd know it, he's Canadian.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:03 PM

Thanks.

Ebbie and Amos: :->

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM

Azizi, imo, you are one of the great assets to Mudcat, informative, interesting and ALWAYS gracious. You were the only Mudcatter to welcome me when I first came on (not that I was expecting or seeking to be welcomed, but you did just the same.)You are one of the few here who acknowledges contributions to your threads and are helpful to newcomers with advice on membership or blue clickies or even the esoterica of the nature of this beast called Mudcat. I am relatively new here myself (10 mo.) and know that anything I have to say doesn't carry a lot of weight but allow me to say don't let anyone here bring you down and know that I'll always have your back.
                                     Neil Devore

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:51 PM

I think that there needs to be a nationwide effort to collect the actual stories,, third-hand maybe by now, of our ancestors...maybe through ancesry.com or one of the free ones..genealogy.com.

It is important for us to hear actual stories of actual people, rather than the combined aggregates of a group of people. This is what my great-grandfather had to endure..he was whipped, chased by dogs through the woods, but made his way to OHio..that sort of thing.

Or my great-great grandmother escaped the Russian Revolution by traveling through China and ended up in a sweatshop in Baltimore...

We know so few of our own stories..I did not know the names of 3 of my father's grandparents until this year. Still know nothing about them except T. Garvey worked on the canals..might have had an arranged marriage etc. So many things were not talked about because they were so horrible..and because younger generations did not psychologically wnt to hear..that certainly includes me..I knew it was an endless story of famine and workhouses etc. But we should assemble what we know, use the increasing genealogy tools to find out more..google...piece more of it together and get actual stories of actual people out there recorded. mg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 02:37 PM

I totally agree with you, mg. At one point I was collecting the obits of old women from around here, the ones which were so interesting, i.e. pioneers, ranchers, early schoolteachers, etc. I was sad to only learn of them in an obit, but I had thought a collection of obits with stories from their families might make for a good book. I am very grateful to my maternal uncle who did so much genealogy and to my mom, dad, and brother, for telling us the stories and putting most of them on tape. I was lucky enough to be born an "ancestor-worshipper" according to my dad, do I've always gravitated to the elder members and listened to their stories and I don't care if they are of my family or not. I think it is all interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:14 PM

mg et al - men are finding their
male relatives through genetic testing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 09:31 AM

It's also difficult to realize that most of the young men fighting and dying for the CSA ... were individuals who felt they were defending their homeland.

Its also apparently difficult for some people to realize that in many
(most?) instances soldiers have little or no accutate idea of what they are fighting for. Lots of grunts in Iraq believe the fairytale that they're "defending America". They have to rationalize their participation somehow.

The plain, uncontrovertable fact is that the Confederate States of America was formed and went to war and fought for four years for the right to keep other human beings in bondage to maintain the southern slave-based economy, which regional economic system benefited the entire southern population not just the big plantation owners.

Amnecdotal tales of "loyal slaves" or "homeland defense" notwithstanding.

The truth will set you free- but it won't necessarily make you happy. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:42 AM

To the contrary--the COnfederate States went to war over the rights of self-determination as States to secede from the United States and not be part of the Federal GOvernment's Union of States.

The slavery issue was definitely an economic driver, but the Union was not militating for emancipation until well into the war.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:56 AM

There were indeed, slaves who were loyal to the south, who thought of northerners as interlopers out for anything and everything they could get, they were right in many cases.

The truth will set you free- but it won't necessarily make you happy. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 11:58 AM

"The plain, uncontrovertable fact is that the Confederate States of America was formed and went to war and fought for four years for the right to keep other human beings in bondage to maintain the southern slave-based economy . . . ."

Not so simple, Greg. First of all, the slaveholding states did in fact fear that the newly elected Abraham Lincoln was a closet abolitionist who would destroy slavery, despite his protestations to the contrary. South Carolina and then other Deep South states did secede based to a considerable degree upon these fears (see the Declarations of the Causes of the Seceding States for S. Carolina, Texas, Georgia and Mississippi, which can be read here). Other states followed, though four Upper South states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) remained in the Union, only seceding when Lincoln called up troops to put down the rebellion (NOT to free the slaves). Historians James G. Randall and David Donald have argued that the choice of the military option by Lincoln "served in one flash to alienate that whole mass of Union sentiment which, while not pro-Lincoln, was nevertheless antisecessionist and constituted Lincoln's best chance of saving the Union without war." Other slave states (Kentucky, in particular) stayed in the Union, despite the divided loyalties of their populations. So, some slave states left the Union because of the perceived threat of abolitionism with a Republican government; others left (it has been argued) in response to the Northern military threat against other Southern states; while other slave states remained in the Union. At the outbreak of hostilities, no one could have known that the end result (perhaps the only positive result of the war) would be the complete dismantling of the slave regime in the the Southern United States.

" . . . which regional economic system benefited the entire southern population not just the big plantation owners."

Absolutely false, the exact opposite of the truth. It should be painfully obvious that an agrarian economic system in which a small minority of wealthy slaveholders controlled the best agricultural land would disadvantage the majority.

"Its also apparently difficult for some people to realize that in many (most?) instances soldiers have little or no accutate idea of what they are fighting for. Lots of grunts in Iraq believe the fairytale that they're "defending America". They have to rationalize their participation somehow . . . ."

Not a very good analogy. The North invaded the South. If anything, the 'insurgents' (Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite, NOT foreign fighters) are analogous to poor whites who fought for the CSA.

Back to the subject:

Yes, there were some blacks who fought for the Confederacy. At least a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand. There was also a vigorous debate within the South over the question of emancipation in exchange for military service. Some Southerners rightly saw that this would lead to the destruction of slavery, and therefore opposed it. Others argued that the preservation of Southern independence was far more important than defending an institution that anyway was doomed if the South was defeated.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:07 PM

An Example.

Race and Slavery Petitions Project

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:21 PM

From the link provided by LBK . . .

"In these and a number of other areas, legislative petitions show the complex and ambiguous nature of race and slavery in the South. They demonstrate how some blacks remained loyal to the South, even to the institution of slavery, while some whites criticized the South's treatment of slaves and stood against the "peculiar institution." There are petitions from free persons of color who owned slaves, controlled large tracts of land, and attempted to conceal their African heritage; there are petitions from slaves who, in economic terms, were better off than their white neighbors; there are even petitions from free blacks who wished to return to slavery. In short, these documents portray, in vivid and personal terms, the contrasts, ambivalences, contradictions, ironies, and ambiguities that comprise southern history."

The truth is always stranger (and more interesting) than fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,Lord Batmans Kitchener
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 12:40 PM

Michael, you quoted the core of my reason for posting the link, the total ambiguities of the so-called 'slavery issue'. It shows, if you'll forgive the small pun, that everything is not black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:49 PM

Amos- sorry, NOT. This is the old "states rights" dodge, disproven many times over.

Sorry, Mike.

You need to become familiar with the history of the 50 years(or better the 200 years) PRECEEDING the election of 1860. The events of that year did not take place in a vacuum. Also brush up on the realities of Reconstuction- I see you've swallowed the "Carpetbagger" myth whole.

1. ....the slaveholding states did in fact fear that the newly elected Abraham Lincoln was a closet abolitionist who would destroy slavery...

I think you thought this a refutation of my argument, when in fact it CONFIRMS my argument.

2.... Declarations of the Causes of the Seceding States for S. Carolina, Texas, Georgia and Mississippi, which can be read here).

Do yourself a favor & go to the primnary documentation instead of someone's interpretation/opinion- e.g. the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession itself, available on the same website you reference & elsewhere. Then read the collected correspondance of Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.

3. Not a very good analogy. The North invaded the South. ... the choice of the military option by Lincoln...[destroyed] Lincoln's best chance of saving the Union without war."
Sigh. "Fraid Not. "The North" - i.e. Lincoln and the duly elected Federal government - responded to an armed attack upon the United States at Fort Sumter. Prior to that there WAS no "military threat" to the South. Only after this overt act by the South did the Federal Government call for troops. Lincoln did not initiate armed conflict. In fact, he repeatedly tried to avoid it.

4. Yes, there were some blacks who fought for the Confederacy....

Yes, and there were some Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. What's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 01:49 PM

Absolutely it did not benefit the entire Southern population..who should have been employed some of them on these farms..who should have been the blacksmiths, and cooks and tailors etc. and agricultural labor. mg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 02:30 PM

Greg -

Take a deep breath and relax.

I acknowledge that many slaveholders (the 'fire eaters' in particular) did not believe Lincoln when he stated that he did not plan on limiting slavery in areas where it already existed. My point was a jab at the Lincoln Myth, which I learned in school, which holds that good Mr. Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves. Mythologies based upon false understandings of history are pernicious. Present day war hawks do not invoke Jeff Davis, they invoke Lincoln.

Yes, I have read the primary source documents re: Declaration of the Causes of the Seceding States. That's why I posted the link, so that others here could read them. Duh.

Yes, the North invaded the South to put down the rebellion. You might as well argue that the United States did not invade Vietnam. This did much to alienate pro-Union sentiment in the Upper South. Ironically enough, if the South had accepted the election of Lincoln or had been quickly defeated, slavery would have been secure in areas it already existed for the immediate future. Many Southerners understood that slavery was more secure within the Union than without, that's why there was a debate within the South over the secession issue.

"Yes, and there were some Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. What's your point?"

Ah, the Hitler analogy - the worst, most overused analogy in the historiography of bad historical analogies. What is my point? That some blacks (both free and enslaved - there were more free blacks in the South than the North) did support the CSA. That is the subject of this thread. Were they motivated by 'loyalty'? In some cases, perhaps. Others saw that it was in their interest to support the existing order. There were several thousand black slaveholders in the South in 1860, after all. I do believe that the number of 'Black Confederates' has been greatly exaggerated by Southern apologists, but they existed. I am sorry if this discussion has made you angry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:55 PM

I'm plenty relaxed, Mike old boy - just exasperated by irrepressible ignorance..

that good Mr. Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves

Mr. Lincoln didn't fight the war, Mike. An overwhelming coalition of northerners- both Democrat and Republican- acted to put down southern treason & rebellion.

Yes, I have read the primary source documents...

Apparently not closely enough, or possibly the peripheral ones.You might wish to read 'em again - this time for comprehension. Start with the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession.

there were more free blacks in the South than the North

Absolute bullshit. Source, please. Most if not all southern states by the 1850s did not permit free blacks to reside within their borders & if they remained were subject to arbitrary re-enslavement.

Ah, the Hitler analogy - the worst, most overused analogy in the historiography of bad historical analogies

No, its the collaborator fact. No analogy at all. So bite me.

That some blacks both free and enslaved did support the CSA

Yes, its a sad fact that throughout history various people have on occasion have acted against their own interests and /or aided and abetted the enemy. Again: your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Bee
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:02 PM

This is not an era in American history which I have studied deeply, so I'm not intending to address many of the presented facts. I think mine and others strong negative response has been caused, not by the implication of some slaves or Black slave owners having supported/fought for the Confederacy, but by the sentimentality that has been injected into those implications, the suggestion, intended or not, that a good many slaves were content with their lot and wished to continue it, because they had such kind and loving owners, or because slavery was familiar and comfortable, or they 'loved' their homeland.

" There are petitions from free persons of color who owned slaves, controlled large tracts of land, and attempted to conceal their African heritage; there are petitions from slaves who, in economic terms, were better off than their white neighbors; there are even petitions from free blacks who wished to return to slavery. In short, these documents portray, in vivid and personal terms, the contrasts, ambivalences, contradictions, ironies, and ambiguities that comprise southern history."
" - Michael Morris

Here we see a few of the more pragmatic reasons for Black persons, slaves or free, to support what was the status quo. They are primarily economic in nature; even the free man wishing to return to slavery may have had economic (or psychological) reasons for doing so.

Certainly fear of change is also a part of human nature, and rightly, no intelligent person thinks that having a war in one's back yard will improve the lot of the most vulnerable. If I were a Black man with a family in the 1860s, owned by someone who was generally humane, I might reasonably conclude that my family's current interests would be best protected by my fighting to keep an invading, plantation-burning, looting army away from them. 'Love' of my white owners would not enter into it, regardless of my throwing in my cause with theirs.

These pragmatic responses resulting in some Black men fighting for the South should not, IMO, be interpreted as some kind of sentimental, romanticized, nostalgic, patriarchal affection for slavery and one's 'kind' owners (and that is the undertone several posters have insinuated, consciously or not). Instead they should be recognized as the considered and intelligent decisions they most likely were, given the facts available to and the circumstances of the individuals.

Undoubtedly, some slaves had affectionate personal relationships with members of their owners' families - it's what people do, and especially when they are in daily personal contact with each other for a lifetime. But relationships where one human has the power of life and death over another are intrinsically unhealthy, and we have plenty of stories, fictional and historic, to show why that is and how terrible the results can be for the powerless.

It should be kept firmly in mind, as well, that the majority of Black enslaved men did not fight for the Confederacy, whether for their own reasons or those enforced by their owners.

There are to this day among some groups of white people horrible traces of nostalgia for the days of slavery, or at least for the pre-Civil Rights era. I refuse to support this by not speaking up when I see the mischaracterization of Civil War Black slaves as complicit for reasons of unthinking servile affection in their own continued enslavement.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:23 PM

"Mr. Lincoln didn't fight the war, Mike. An overwhelming coalition of northerners- both Democrat and Republican- acted to put down southern treason & rebellion."

And NOT to free the slaves. Thank you, you have made my argument for me.

"Apparently not closely enough, or possibly the peripheral ones.You might wish to read 'em again - this time for comprehension. Start with the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession."

It should be clear from my previous postings that I acknowledge the degree to which pro-slavery sentiment and fear of abolitionism motivated many secessionists. You apparently are so hot under the collar that you are unable to read clearly.

"Absolute bullshit. Source, please. Most if not all southern states by the 1850s did not permit free blacks to reside within their borders & if they remained were subject to arbitrary re-enslavement."

My source for this is The American South, by William Cooper, which is a standard history on the subject. He gives a figure of 250,000 free blacks in the South. I don't have the book in front of me, but if I recall correctly this is larger both as a raw number and as a percentage of the population than in the northern United States. I'll look that up, and if I'm wrong I'll revise my comments. Perhaps you need to look into the treatment of blacks in the North, you may be surprised to find that 'Jim Crow' was a Northern invention.

"No, its the collaborator fact. No analogy at all. So bite me."

The Antebellum South was not equivalent to Nazi Germany, but if it was then Lincoln's willingness to comes to terms with slavery to preserve the Union was equivalent to Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler. See, I can make crappy analogies, too.

"Yes, its a sad fact that throughout history various people have on occasion have acted against their own interests and /or aided and abetted the enemy. Again: your point is?"

My point should be obvious. This is a historical argument: Did blacks in some cases support the CSA; if so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM

Bee, the paragraph you quote was not mine, it was something I quoted from the site LBK linked.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Bee
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:29 PM

Sorry, Michael. I figured your post was close enough to mine that people could see where your quote came from.

I like Mudcat's simplicity, but sometimes wish there was a quote function, which would make it easier to sort such things. I think.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

And NOT to free the slaves. Thank you, you have made my argument for me.

No, I have not. We were not discussing the sublject of abolition/emancipation. This does not change the fact that the southern states seceeded over the issue of and in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

Perhaps you need to look into the treatment of blacks in the North,

Ah, the old Straw Horse of "Blacks In The North". Were Black folks treated like crap in the North? Of course they were. How does this mitigate their significantly shittier treatment under the slave system in the south? It is a difference in KIND, not degree.

Cooper's book is a generalalist overview for popular consumption, dating from 1990 or before. Do look up the free Blacks question in a more reliable source.As Cooper's book is 18+ years old (and Cooper is at Louisiana State University), try something current dealing specifically with the subject under discussion - authors Leon Litwack, Eric Foner, William Loren Katz, Eugene Genovese, et. al. Do look up the free Blacks question in a more reliable source.

Also, check Francis Fitzgerald's "History Revised" re: how textbooks like Cooper's are written & how reliable they are, David H. Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies" and any of James Loewen's books and/or
articles.

Thanks-

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:19 PM

"No, I have not. We were not discussing the sublject of abolition/emancipation. This does not change the fact that the southern states seceeded over the issue of and in order to preserve the institution of slavery."

I have already agreed (multiple times, now) that the slavery issue was indeed a primary motivation for secession. But this was based upon the misconception that Lincoln's administration would enforce abolition upon the South. As I have argued, there is every reason to believe that slavery would have endured longer if the South had not seceded. Emancipation was an unintended consequence of the war, and (to repeat myself) it was probably the only good thing that resulted from the war. I am sorry that you are unable to grasp my point.

"Ah, the old Straw Horse of "Blacks In The North". Were Black folks treated like crap in the North? Of course they were. How does this mitigate their significantly shittier treatment under the slave system in the south? It is a difference in KIND, not degree."

Nothing I wrote indicates that I believe poor treatment of blacks in the North 'mitigates' slavery in the South.

"Cooper's book is a generalalist overview for popular consumption, dating from 1990 or before. Do look up the free Blacks question in a more reliable source."

I cited Cooper on one point only - the number of free blacks in the South versus the North. You said this was "absolute bullshit" - do you have alternate figures? Here are the numbers cited by Ira Berlin in Slaves Without Masters:

Free slaves in the North (1860): 226,152
Free slaves in the South (1860): 261,918

Peter Kolchin in American Slavery: 1619-1877 gives the same figures.

" . . . and Cooper is at Louisiana State University . . ."

Therefore, he could not possibly be correct on this matter? Good one, Greg.

" . . . try something current dealing specifically with the subject under discussion - authors Leon Litwack, Eric Foner, William Loren Katz, Eugene Genovese, et. al. Do look up the free Blacks question in a more reliable source."

I have read all four. And I'm not sure you really want to be citing Genovese, his views have shifted rather far to the right over the years (see The Southern Front).

Greg, you seem bound and determined to misunderstand and misrepresent nearly everything I say. And this thread had drifted away from the original topic. If you or anyone else has something to add ON THE TOPIC I will respond. Otherwise, good night.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 08 - 10:09 PM

...the slavery issue was indeed a primary motivation for secession. But this was based upon the misconception that Lincoln's administration would enforce abolition upon the South...

Well, except for the fact that the south, via Calhoun & Co. tried the seccesion/nullification gambit previously in 1832, I might admit your point. Secession is a lot older than 1861.

RE: Berlin's figures, Chapter 5, Table 6, subtract the 84,000 free Blacks in Maryland, the 20,000 in Deleware and the 11,000 in the District of Columbia- which were not part of the Confederacy- from your "southern" total and tell me what you get.

I have read all four.[Leon Litwack, Eric Foner, William Loren Katz, Eugene Genovese]

You might profit by re-reading the first chapter of Litwack's "Been In The Storm So Long" then. I cited Genovese knowing full well the range of his views - He's still germaine & his later opinions don't negate his earlier work.

Good night, and good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 01:32 AM

It seems to me that the nature of slavery is that you are robbed of free will. I doubt very much if a slave would have anything to say about becoming a soldier, one way or another. If a slave became a soldier, it was probably the slave owner's decision. Believe what you will but I can't imagine a slave saying, "Master, will you let me become a soldier?" Slaves were property. It was the owner who decided their fate.

Its plain ignorant to believe that out of loyalty to the South, enslaved men willing went to war for their masters. I'm sure that history never recorded the threats and intimidation that enticed slaves to risk their lives in a civil war. For all we know, the slave owners were paid for additional soldiers as the casualties mounted.

Try using a little common sense instead of enslaving yourself to a history written by and for white folks.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 09:43 AM

Two final points:

1. Yes, as an act of desperation the Confederacy did pass a law to enlist slaves as soldiers - on March 13, 1865, a month before the end of the war. Virtually none were actually ever enlisted.

The text of this act is available HERE and I call your attention to SEC 5:

That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof.

No mention of emancipation in exchange for military service.

2.Yes, its true that a few deluded, terrorized, uninformed or coerced Blacks did support the Confederate war effort.

However, the 186,000 Blacks who served in the Union Army - 24,000 from Louisiana, 17,800 from Mississippi, 20,000 from Tennessee and from the other southern states in proportion - point up that the number was small & statistically insignificant in light of those who fougt AGAINST the Confederacy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 10:08 AM

Try These:

Allen, Richard. The Life Experience and Gospel Labors of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960.

Andrews, William L. Sisters of the Spirit: Three Black Women's Autobiographies of the Nineteenth Century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. (includes the autobiography of Jarena Lee)

Aptheker, Herbert. American Negro Slave Revolts. New York: International Publishers, 1943.

Aptheker, Herbert. A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, Volume 1: From Colonial Times Through the Civil War. New York: Citadel Press, 1951.

Ball, Charles. Slavery in the United States: A Narrative of the the Life and Adventures of Charles Ball.... Detroit: Negro History Press, 1970.

Berlin, Ira: Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South. NY, Pantheon Books, 1974

Berlin, Ira: Generations of Captivity : A History of African-American Slaves. Belknap Press, 2003

Berlin, Ira: Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America . Cambridge, Harvard U. Press, 2000

Berlin, Ira (ed): Remembering Slavery: African Americans Talk About Their Personal Experiences of Slavery and Emancipation. New Press, 2000.

Beyan, Amos J. The American Colonization Society and the Creation of the Liberian State: A Historical Perspective, 1822-1900. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 1991.

Boime, Albert. The Art of Exclusion: Representing Blacks in the Nineteenth Century, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1990.

Brekus, Catherine A. Strangers and Pilgrims : female preaching in America, 1740-1845. Chapel Hill, NC : University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Brown, Isaac V. Biography of the Rev. Robert Finley, New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969. (about the American Colonization Society)

Cheek, William F. Black Resistance Before the Civil War. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1970.

Coleman, Willi. "Architects of a Vision: Black Women and Their Antebellum Quest for Political and Social Equality," in Ann D. Gordon, ed., African American Women and the Vote, 1837-1965. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1997.


Douglass, Frederick: My Bondage and My Freedom. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books, 2002 [Orig. pub: New York : Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1855]

Douglass, Frederick: Life and Times of Frederick Douglass. [1892] Reprints NY, Collier 1962 and others.

Douglass, William. Annals of the First African Church in the United States of America, now styled The African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas. Philadelphia: King & Baird, Printers, 1862.

Egerton, Douglas. Gabriel's Rebellion: The Virginia Slave Conspiracies of 1800 and 1802. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.

Ellis, Joseph J.: American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.

Farnham, Henry W. Chapters in the History of Social Legislation in the United States to 1860. Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1938. [Pps. 416-74 Tables/ Compendium of laws relating to Blacks, by state]

Fick, Carolyn E. The Making of Haiti: The Saint Domingue Revolution from Below. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1990.

Field, Phyllis F. The Politics of Race in New York: The Struggle For Black Suffrage in the Civil War Era. {begins ca.1800} Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1982

Foner, Eric, ed. Nat Turner. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1971.

Foner, Eric: Forever Free; The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. New York : Knopf, 2005.

Foner, Eric: Freedom's Lawmakers : A Directory of Black Officeholders During Reconstruction. New York : Oxford University Press, 1993.

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877. NY, Harper & Row, 1988

Franklin, John Hope and Alfred A. Moss, Jr. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.

Fredrickson, George M. : Racism: A Short History. Princeton U. Press, 2003

Gellman, David N. & Quigley, David: Jim Crow New York. NY & London, New York University Press, 2003

Genovese: Roll, Joradan Roll: The World the Slaves Made. NY, Pantheon, 1972

George, Carol V. R.: Segregated Sabbaths: Richard Allen and the Emergence of Independent Black Churches 1760-1840. New York, Oxford University Press, 1973.

Goodwin, Doris Kearns: Team of Rivals; The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York, Simon & Schuster, 2005.

Greene, Lorenzo Johnston: The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776.
New York, Atheneum, 1968 [c1942]

Hamilton, J. An Account of the Late Intended Insurrection Among a Portion of the Blacks of this City. Charleston, 1822.

Harding, Anneliese. John Lewis Krimmel: Genre Artist of the Early Republic. Winterthur, DE.: Winterthur Publications, 1994.

Harding, Vincent. There is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1981.

Harris, Leslie M.: In The Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City 1626-1863. Chicahgo, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2003

Heinl, Robert Debs, Jr. and Nancy Gordon Heinl. Written in Blood: The Story of the Haitian People, 1492-1971. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978.

Hine, Darlene Clark, ed. Black Women in America: An Historical Encyclopedia. Brooklyn, NY: Carlson Pub., 1993.

Hine, Darlene Clark. Black Women in American History: From Colonial Times Through the Nineteenth Century. Brooklyn, New York: Carlson Pub., 1990.

Hine, Darlene Clark and Kathleen Thompson. A Shining Thread of Hope: The History of Black Women in America. New York: Broadway Books, 1998.

Honour, Hugh. The Image of the Black in Western Art, IV, Pts. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Horton, James Oliver. In Hope of Liberty: Culture, Community, and Protest Among Northern Free Blacks, 1700-1860. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Humez, Jean McMahon, ed. Gifts of Power: the Writings of Rebecca Jackson, Black Visionary, Shaker Eldress. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1981.

James, C. L. R. The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, division of Random House, 1963.

Jones, Norrece T. Born a Child of Freedom, Yet a Slave : Mechanisms of Control and Strategies of Resistance in Antebellum South Carolina. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press,1989.

Jordan, Winthrop. White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1968.

Kaplan, Sidney and Emma Nogrady Kaplan. The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution Rev. edition. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1989.

Katz, William Loren. Eyewitness: A Living Documentary of the African American Contribution to American History Revised and Updated. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

Klots, Steve. Richard Allen. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1991.

Lapsansky, Emma Jones. The Black Presence in Pennsylvania: "Making it Home." University Park, PA: Pennsylvania Historical Association, 1990.

Lapsansky, Emma Jones. Neighborhoods in Transition: William Penn's Dream and Urban Reality. New York: Garland Pub., 1994.

Lee, Jarena. Religious Experience and Journal of Mrs. Jarena Lee, Giving an Account of her
Call to Preach the Gospel. Philadelphia: self-published, 1849.

Lerner, Gerda, ed. Black Women in White America: A Documentary History. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.

Levine, Bruce C: Half Slave and Half Free : The Roots of Civil War. Consulting editor, Eric Foner. New York : Hill and Wang, Noonday Press, 1992.

Lewis, Jan. "Review of The Diary of Elizabeth Drinker," Journal of American History, Dec 1992, p. 1137.

Litwack, Leon F.: Been In The Storm So Long; The Aftermath of Slavery. NewYork, Random House, 1979

Litwack, Leon F.: North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States 1790-1860 Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961

Loewen,James W.: Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism. New Press, 2005

_______ : Lies My Teacher Told Me. NY, New Press, 1995

Loewen,James W. & Sallis, Charles: Mississippi: Conflict & Change. Pantheon Books, 1974

McElroy, Guy C.: Facing History: the Black Image in American Art, 1710-1940. San Francisco, CA: Bedford Arts; Washington, D.C.: in association with the Corcoran Gallery of Art, 1990.

McManus, Edgar J. : A History of Negro Slavery in New York. Syracuse, Syracuse Univ. Press, 1966

McPherson, James M. The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and The Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Princeton, Princeton U. Press, 1964

McPherson, James M.: The Negro's Civil War. NY, Pantheon Books, 1965

Miller, Lillian B., ed. The Peale Family: Creation of a Legacy, 1770-1870. Abbeville Press, in association with the Trust for Museum Exhibitions and the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, 1997.

Miller, John Chester. The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. New York: The Free Press, a division of MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1977.

Milligan, John D. "Slave Rebelliousness and the Florida Maroon," Prologue: The Journal of the National Archives, Spring 1974, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 4-18.

Mirsky, Jeannette and Allan Nevins. The World of Eli Whitney. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952.

Mullane, Deirdre, ed. Crossing the Danger Water: Three Hundred Years of African-American Writing. New York: Doubleday (Anchor Books), 1993.

Nash, Gary B. Forging Freedom: The Formation of Philadelphia's Black Community, 1720-1840. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Nash, Gary, et al. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society, Volume 1: To 1877, 3rd edition. HarperCollins College Publishers, 1994.

Northup, Solomon. Twelve Years a Slave, edited by Sue Eakin and Joseph Logsdon. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968. [narrative of a free black kidnipped into slavery]

Quarles, Benjamin: Allies For Freedom : Blacks and John Brown. New York : Oxford University Press, 1974.

Quarles, Benjamin: Black Abolitionists. New York, Oxford University Press, 1969

Quarles, Benjamin: The Negro in the Civil War ; new introduction by William S. McFeely. New York, N.Y. : Da Capo Press, 1989, [c1953].

Raboteau, Albert J. "Richard Allen and the African Church Movement," in Black Leaders of the Nineteenth Century, ed. Leon Litwack and August Meier. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Raboteau, Albert J. Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Rose, Willie Lee, ed. A Documentary History of Slavery in North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Scott, Julius S. The Common Wind: Currents of Afro-American Communication in the Era of the Haitian Revolution. Unpublished dissertation, Duke University, Department of History, 1986.

Smith, Alice R. Huger, ed. Charles Fraser, A Charleston Sketchbook, 1796-1806. Charleston:
Carolina Art Association, 1940.

Smith, Edward D. Climbing Jacob's Ladder: The Rise of Black Churches in Eastern American Cities, 1740-1877, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988.

Stanton, William. The Leopard's Spots: Scientific Attitudes Toward Race in America 1815-59. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.

Sterling, Dorothy, ed. Turning the World Upside Down: The Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, Held in New York City, May 9-12, 1837. New York: the Feminist Press At the City University of New York, 1987.

Sterling, Dorothy. We are Your Sisters: Black Women in the Nineteenth Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1984.

Sutcliff, Robert. Travels in Some Parts of North America, in the Years 1804, 1805, & 1806. Philadelphia: B. & T. Kite, 1812.

Tadman, Michael. Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders and Slaves in the Old South. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.

Toll, Robert. Blacking Up: The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth Century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Tragle, Henry Irving. The Southampton Slave Revolt of 1831: A Compilation of Source Material. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1971.

Voegeli, U. Jacque: Free But Not Equal: The Midwest And The Negro During the Civil War. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, 1967

Walker, David.: David Walker's Appeal, in Four Articles, Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of the World, But in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the
United States of America. New York[1829]: Hill and Wang, 1995.

White, Shane: Stories of Freedom in Black New York. Cambridge, Harvard U. Press 2002

Wideman, John Edgar. Fever: Twelve Stories. New York: Henry Holt, 1989.

Wiggins, Rosalind Cobb, ed. Captain Paul Cuffe's Logs and Letters, 1808-1817: A Black Quaker's "Voice from within the Veil." Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1996.

Wilmore, Gayraud S. Black Religion and Black Radicalism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1984.

Winch, Julie. "Philadelphia and the Other Underground Railroad," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 3, no. 1 (Jan. 1987), pp. 3-25. (about kidnapping of free African Americans)

Winch, Julie. Philadelphia's Black Elite: Activism, Accommodation, and the Struggle for Autonomy, 1787-1848. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988,

Yellin, Jean Fagin. Women & Sisters: The Antislavery Feminists in American Culture. New Haven: Yale Univerity Press, 1989.

Zilversmit, Arthur. The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 04 Jul 08 - 03:53 PM

"RE: Berlin's figures, Chapter 5, Table 6, subtract the 84,000 free Blacks in Maryland, the 20,000 in Deleware and the 11,000 in the District of Columbia- which were not part of the Confederacy- from your "southern" total and tell me what you get."

Greg, Berlin's totals were for free blacks in the South, NOT merely the Confederacy. I'm sure you are aware that there were slave states in the Union, just as there were Southerners who were both pro-slavery and pro-union (up until secession and war, anyway).

The blacks most likely to support the Confederacy were often of mixed race. In cities such as Charleston and New Orleans, this population represented an elite, and existed (tenuously, at times) between enslaved blacks and the dominant white population. Why did they support the Confederacy? Out of fear, to a certain degree, but often to support their own self-interest. Many were themselves slaveholders, after all.

There was a debate in the South about emancipation. I'm sure you are aware of that. The internal contradictions of the CSA - was the primary issue white supremacy or independence? - undermined the efforts of some Confederates to achieve this 'revolution from the top'.

Greg, you and some others here seem to have misunderstood me completely. I am not a neo-Confederate or an apologist. I have not argued here (or anywhere else) that large numbers of blacks fought for the Confederacy (this should be clear from previous posts).
But some did support the CSA, and it is worthwhile to try to understand why they did so. That is ALL I am saying.

I'll look up the petition of some Charleston free blacks volunteering for military service and post it here. It illustrates my points about race and class among so-called 'Black Confederates'.

PS Re: secession - I think you and I would both agree that while secessionist tendencies go back far before 1860 and involve issues other than abolition, it was the slavery debate that brought first South Carolina and then other slave states to leave the Union.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 09:49 AM

Wow, I'm impressed that Greg F has read so many books on the subject! :-)

- - - - - - -

"...it was the slavery debate that brought first South Carolina and then other slave states to leave the Union."

And here I thought it was Lincoln's election -- which put the anti-slavery Republican party in control -- that was the catalyst for secession. The slavery issue had been debated since before the Revolutionary War, but until 1860 the government had been either on the fence about the issue, or in the slaveholders' camp altogether. When Lincoln won by clear majorities in the northern states, it was clear to the slaveholders of the South that the tide of public sentiment there had decidedly turned against them. Rather than stay in the Union and be legislated out of business, they decided to cut and run and do their own legislating. If the Confederate states hadn't come to hate the Confederate government nearly as much as the Union, and if their governments hadn't been so rife with corruption themselves, they might have had a ghost of a chance of staying together for longer than four years, but with the tide of foreign powers' sentiment against them as well, their collapse would have happened eventually.

- - - - - - -

Sorry, JTT, but I don't have any family anecdotes to tell about any slave's loyalty to his owner during that time, since my roots are in Pennsylvania. I have a relative of that era buried in South Carolina, but he was a Union soldier who had died aboard an overcrowded transport ship that was sailing down the East Coast. (The ship dropped off his body at a Union fort in SC for burial, and he was later reinterred at a Union cemetery in Beaufort.)

- - - - - - -

As to the charges of racism and bigotry that flared up earlier on this thread, I must say that when I read Akenaton's posts, it didn't appear to me that he was referring to "people like Azizi" as anything other than people with a "chip" on their shoulder, as he perceived it, that would render them less than credible. I don't think it was a racist comment. In fact, he repeatedly expressed agreement with Little Hawk's view that "we are ALL in favor of racial equality, we are all in favor of gender equality, and we do not have to change past history or censor old books by Mark Twain or somebody else like that in order to prove our righteousness to all the other people around us." I don't really know whether Azizi is a racist or not, but I've observed that she does seem to have an agenda that compels her to submit l-o-n-g posts with source material that is sometimes of questionable validity. I think she is too ready to accept opinions, at least those with which she agrees, as fact. And when others question those "facts", she gets self-defensive and leaves the thread discussions instead of considering the possibility of questioning her sources and modifying her stance. No bigotry there, just frustration with her style. *End of thread creep*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:11 AM

Dianavan says, If a slave became a soldier, it was probably the slave owner's decision. Believe what you will but I can't imagine a slave saying, "Master, will you let me become a soldier?

I can, because of the opportunity to run away or the opportunity to surrender and be sent to a prisoner-of-war camp in the North where the slave might hope he'd receive better treatment. However, for those reasons I can't imagine a slaveowner permitting his slave to go off-plantation and join the fighting, though obviously some few did, according to the statistics quoted here.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:34 AM

she does seem to... [submit] ...posts with source material that is sometimes of questionable validity. I think she is too ready to accept opinions, at least those with which she agrees, as fact.

Sharon, I hope you recognize yourself in this description as well- specifically re: your paragraph beginning: " And here I thought it was Lincoln's election -- which put the anti-slavery Republican party in control..."

Firstly, Republicans were hardly an "antislavery party" and Lincoln personally throughout his political career repeatedly stated that he believed Congress had NO constitutional authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed- ditto the majority of the Republican leadership. There's lots more erroneous info, but I DO get tired of repeating myself.

Perhaps a wider perspective than that provided by the Charlston Mercury & the Richmond Examiner and/or Birth of a Nation and Gone With The Wind. is in order??

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Bee
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 10:36 AM

SharonA, since Azizi is frequently the only alternate source of Mudcat opinion on this kind of subject, I would suggest long explanatory posts are pretty much a necessity. (I also don't get this dislike some people have of 'long' posts: 'tl,dr' indicates to me someone who has a very short attention span or lacks the inclination to be bothered, or is not interested, in which case, why bother to comment).

As for her sources, in my experience they are no more, and often possibly less, questionable than those of everyone else. It's a fact history is written by the 'victors', in this instance the whole of white America, not just the Northern States. In this thread you have seen people who appear to have studied the subject, with access to the same set of conventional sources, disagree on important points. (An important work of professional historians is to re-evaluate standard takes on history, taking into consideration the validity of alternate sources and the possibility of biased reporting from conventional or contemporary sources - was Richard III a monster or not?.) Yet you don't question their sources.

What I have observed is that sometimes when Azizi expresses an opinion, sourced or not, which some people do not like, she is accused of having an agenda (like no one else might have one, or like there might not be a good reason to have one), or a chip on her shoulder (I have not observed that, but she wouldn't be alone, and she might be justified if she did), or of being racist (again, I do not agree).

However you have decided to 'decode' akenaten's remark, it was dismissive and insulting, implying, for whatever reason, that Azizi's words are worthless, and that was offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 11:11 AM

As for human nature...

Today most people would rather serve an imployer than be self employed.

And the system does all that it can to keep it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM

Greg and Bee, I see your point(s). Indeed I do recognize myself in the description of opinionated people -- we all have and defend our own opinions -- but I am the kind of cynical person who questions everything, even my own blatherings! Therefore I have been known to change my opinions on various matters! So of course I question the sources of the various people who've posted to this thread, not just Azizi. Thing is, some of the other people here have cited their sources, and Azizi did not cite her source for her statement about hatred of northerners and carpetbaggers, and often (but not always) fails to cite sources elsewhere. But then, that's just my observation, and my opinion. Beyond that, I don't see a need to continue to veer from the topic of this thread.

As to Greg's statement about the anti-slavery Republican party, it would seem that opinions about that are mixed as well. For starters I refer you to a quote on this page of the The University of Rochester Frederick Douglass Project website, under "Frederick Douglass and the Republican Party", which states:

"Since its establishment in 1854, the Republican Party had become somewhat of 'an alliance of antislavery forces…[it] would only limit the expansion of slavery within the existing United States, believing that slavery would gradually die out.'[Wu Jin-Ping. Frederick Douglass and the Black Liberation Movement, Garland Publishing , Inc, New York NY,2000, pg 66.] He [Douglass] believed that the Republican Party, with at least a basis of antislavery sentiments, had the best chance of winning an election over the smaller (yet more dedicated) parties, [Parties like the Liberty Party, Radical Abolitionists, Whig Party and the Free Soiler Party] and he hoped to build upon this basis when it was put into place, which he and hundreds of black Americans helped by casting their votes. Lincoln was not an Abolitionist president - at best, moderately antislavery - however this option was better than having a Democratic candidate in office, one who would do nothing but hurt the abolitionist cause.

It was at this point that Douglass and fellow politically minded abolitionists started to really put their faith in to the Republican Party. It had become an 'umbrella' party for antislavery groups, no matter what their reasoning was, for in some cases the reasoning varied when 'different elements within the society perceived the problem of slavery in radically different ways and proposed sometimes contradictory solutions.' ["Antislavery", American History, 1996, pg 50.] This interwoven web was, of course, in part due to the persuasion and appeal of people like Douglass."

So the author of that essay acknowledges that Lincoln was no gung-ho Abolitionist (and where did I say he was?), but concurs with my opinion that his party -- not just the movers-and-shakers but the voters who supported them -- was against slavery for whatever reasons. Even though "Lincoln personally throughout his political career repeatedly stated that he believed Congress had NO constitutional authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed", he was not in favor of the institution, was he?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

Whoops, sorry -- that last paragraph should not have been italicized. Carnsarned wireless keyboard must have missed a keystroke! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:08 PM

The post above (05 Jul 1:59 p.m.) wasn't from me, but I concur. I tend to skim over excessively long posts, especially when the poster has already said the same things time and time again elsewhere on the 'Cat. I would much rather be linked to a place where I can read the cited information in context and form my own opinion about whether the writer of the source material has an agenda!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:12 PM

Oh, great... 05 Jul 1:59 p.m. just got removed. Remember the rule, GUESTs: identify yourselves in the "From" box or risk having your post deleted!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 02:16 PM

I'd like make one of my points more clear - it was the wealthy free black elite who were likely to support the Confederacy. Obviously, this was a small minority of free blacks. And they did so not out of 'loyalty' but rather out of self-interest. I'm still looking for the Charleston petition, but I will post it when I find it because it speaks directly to these issues.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 05 Jul 08 - 03:26 PM

"We are by birth citizens of South Carolina, in our veins in the blood of the white race in some half, in the others much more, our attachments are with you, our hopes of safety and protection is in South Carolina, our allegiance is due alone to her, in her defense we are willing to offer up our lives and all that is dear to us, we therefore take the liberty of asking the privilege of volunteering our services to the State at this time, where she needs the services of all her true and devoted citizens. We are willing to be assigned to any service where we can be made useful."

From the petition of eighty-two black Charlestonians, offered to the state of South Carolina through the Mayor of Charleston just one month after secession. Printed by Wilbert L. Jenkins in Seizing the New Day: African Americans in Post-Civil War Charleston (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998), p. 22-23. "Within a matter of days, two other nearly identical petitions had been submitted to the mayor of Charleston and then forwarded to the state legislature, where no action was taken." (Ibid. p. 182).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

... it was the wealthy free black elite who were likely to support the Confederacy.

Yesiree! The whole half dozen of 'em.

"We are by birth citizens of South Carolina, in our veins is the blood of the white race in some half, in the others much more...

They doubtless intended to name their company the 'Oreo Rifles'.

Are you talking about the December 1860 petition Or the January 10th 1861 petitions? Also, you neglected to post the ENTIRE petition & did not indicate where you have edited & truncated it. The whole composition gives a somewhat different impression.

Either way, Scott Poole's comment (South Carolina's Civil War: A Narrative History, 2005, Page 16) is instructive:

" Little should be made of this cynical effort to shape a sort of in the city of Charleston. Opportunism rather than regional patriotism surely played a large role in this statement. Moreover, these men cannot be accurately seen as the leaders even the free mulatto community—some of them had spent the antebellum years attempting to pass as white while a few attempted to distance themselves from other members of the "brown elite." Notably, their statement attempted to identify not simply with South Carolina "but with the white race."

And now, for some perspective on the relative importance of these petitions and their relative historical and/or social significance:

These 82 persons constituted what percentage, exactly, of the total Black population, free and slave, of the City of Charleston? Enquiring minds want to know. I seem to recall figure of 15,000 to 16,000 (Blacks were a majority of the pouplation) but I can't locate my notes at this time. (I looked)

NB: Denmark Vesey was also a Charlestonian.

********************

Even though "Lincoln personally throughout his political career repeatedly stated that he believed Congress had NO constitutional authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed", he was not in favor of the institution, was he?

Certainly he (and many others) was "not in favor of" it. Now, you've expressed below that you are "not in favor" of Azizi's postings and style. Should that be taken to mean that you plan her eradication her? Or perhaps you would post perhaps a dozen - or half a dozen - other things you yourself are "not in favor of" & indicate which are in immediate danger of annihilation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 11:33 AM

Apologies. The first sentance of the Poole quotation should have read:

"Little should be made of this cynical effort to shape a sort of "Black Vichy" in the city of Charleston."

[I'm sure a complaint from friend Morris is wininging its way to Poole even as I type]

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM

Greg, I'm sure you are aware that there were far more than a half-dozen wealthy free blacks (often slaveholders themselves) in the Antebellum South. Yes, they were generally of mixed race, as I have noted in previous posts. I never said they represented the mass of black opinion, or even a majority of opinion among free blacks, but they existed.

"Are you talking about the December 1860 petition Or the January 10th 1861 petitions? Also, you neglected to post the ENTIRE petition & did not indicate where you have edited & truncated it. The whole composition gives a somewhat different impression."

Re: the Charleston petition, I posted it as it was cited in by Wilber Jenkins in Seizing the New Day. I did not "edit it or truncate it" in any way, and I provided the citation from my source. From the text of Jenkins' (it's not entirely clear and he provided no date) I presume this is the December petition.

Re: Poole - why would I bother to complain to him? I understand his point.

Re: the entire black population of Charleston, I have looked as well and couldn't find a reference. But I am entirely aware, and - feeling a bit like a broken record - I have noted that pro-CSA blacks in the South were a very small minority.

Greg, you seem to think this topic should be off limits, and I disagree. A lot of nonesense has been written about 'Black Confederates' and ridiculously over-inflated numbers have thrown around. It is worthwhile to try discover if any blacks did indeed support the CSA; if so, how many; and, finally, why would they choose to do so? I agree that fear must have a been a tremendous motivating factor in cases. In other cases, mere opportunism or self-interest can explain this behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 07:15 PM

Re: Poole - why would I bother to complain to him? I understand his point.

Well, you gave me merry hell for "playing the Nazi card". Why not him??

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Jul 08 - 10:08 PM

And why is it necessary to insult a group of people in a terrible time for all concerned by calling them "Oreos." Anyone would know (I hope) that that is a word used to cause offense. mg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:34 AM

Not half as offensive as "loyal slave", Mary.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:43 AM

"Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 01 Jul 08 - 06:06 PM

I never find people like Azizi credible."

You should, Ake. She is.

(Funny: on the dedication and thank you page of the new CD liner notes, I thank both of you.)

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 08:54 AM

Greg, you seem to think this topic should be off limits...

Not at all- I just get tired of mis-information, dis-information, innuendo and the wilful distortion of historical fact.

This topic has been exhaustively dealt with and all your questions answered in any number of authoritative and well-researched books and monographs. Did some slaves and free blacks "support" the Confederacy: Yes. How many? a miniscule minority of the Black population. Why? Fear, coercion, concern for their wives & children' treatment, self-interest, Poole's "Black Vichy", Stockholm Syndrome, and a host of other reasons we'll never know; there were likely as many reasons as there were individuals.

That should be an end to it. The endless discussion of this minor and insignificant phenomenon lends it an importance and a legitimacy and a currency it doesn't deserve- kind of like "debating" with "Holocaust deniers.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:39 AM

Greg, you can be a right prick sometimes!

Like debating with holocaust deniers!.....for fuck sake!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 09:47 AM

"A right prick" ......ya mean like yourself, Ake, with your "people like Azizi" slander?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:00 AM

Slander? what do you mean?

I call a spade a spade, if I had wished call Azizi a racist I would have done so.

I don't think she's racist,(a slander she inferred on me,) just a controling person who wishes to edit perfectly good posts to suit her agenda.

We all have agendas of some sort and can all argue for them, but not many of us want to silence other opinions.

You're arguement has been shown to be weak by Mr Morris and others,and you resort to a remark like your concluding one.
You are indeed a prize prick...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 10:52 AM

Re: Azizi: I call a spade a spade

Spade. Real cute, Ake. Real cute.

Now go back and actually READ my final sentance. Its in English - 2 clauses. I called no-one on this forum (or anywhere else)a Holocaust denier. I likened the artificial importance & unwarrented recognition granted Holocaust deniers by debating them to the unwarrented importance & recognition given the issue of "Black Confederates" by constantly debating numbers & issues and questions that have been definitively settled many times over years ago.

Then you can go back to calling spades spades.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Peace
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 01:02 PM

I was about to remark that Ake is likely unaware of that slang term and its meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM

Thorne, Tony: Bloomsbury Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. London, Bloomsbury Publishing, Ltd. 1990

et. al.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Emma B
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:22 PM

"To call a spade a spade" not only predates slavery in North America by quite a bit but harks all the way back to the Ancient Greeks and doesn't have racist origins, occurring in the work of, among others, the playwright Aristophanes, and is still commonly heard in modern Greek. The original phrase seems to have been "to call a fig a fig; to call a kneading trough a kneading trough," applied to someone who spoke exceedingly frankly.
Evidently, when the phrase was first translated from Greek in the Renaissance, the Greek word for "trough" was confused with the Greek for "spade," and thus the modern version was born.

John Knox introduced it into English when translating a Latin text by Erasmus. "I have learned to call wickedness by its own terms: A fig is a fig and a spade a spade."

There is enough racism around without attributing it to inncous expressions

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 02:44 PM

"This topic has been exhaustively dealt with and all your questions answered in any number of authoritative and well-researched books and monographs."

Really? It seems to me the literature is fairly sparse regarding 'Black Confederates'. A lot of the published work with which I am familiar is sub-standard. Probably the best of a bad bunch is Ervin Jordan's book, and that one is far from perfect.

You believe that discussing this topic is 'kind of like "debating" with "Holocaust deniers'? Well, then I suppose there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Regards.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jul 08 - 03:04 PM

Bruce...I'm very sorry, I didn,t see your post before my last.

I didn't want to get invoved further in the thread, but had to respond to Greg's "moment of madness"
I'll PM you later.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:27 AM

I have contended for years that the civil war never ended (and that it was never really civil)--this thread is the proof-- Why the animosity?(and don't lie and say their is no animosity--you've spelled it all out in black and white, so to speak)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:26 PM

From Greg F., 06 July 11:26 a.m. :

[Copy of my post] Even though "Lincoln personally throughout his political career repeatedly stated that he believed Congress had NO constitutional authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed", he was not in favor of the institution, was he?

[Greg's post] Certainly he (and many others) was "not in favor of" it. Now, you've expressed below that you are "not in favor" of Azizi's postings and style. Should that be taken to mean that you plan her eradication her? Or perhaps you would post perhaps a dozen - or half a dozen - other things you yourself are "not in favor of" & indicate which are in immediate danger of annihilation.

No, Greg, don't be ridiculous; it should not be taken to mean any such thing, just as "anti-slavery" should not be taken to mean "abolitionist". In the pre-Civil War U.S., there were plenty of people who expressed dislike and even disgust for the "peculiar institution" but for economic and other reasons could not bring themselves to join the call for its end. As for Lincoln, of course he knew the law and the various interpretations about what Congress could or could not legally do, and he was convinced of one interpretation, but that had nothing to do with his sentiments about slavery itself, whatever those sentiments may have been. It would seem that he was in the "gee, I wish I could do something but my hands are tied" camp as long as the slave states were in the Union. Once they seceded, it appears that he had a legal "out": make war with the new country, defeat it, and re-expand the Union into the South under the victor's terms -- which included abolition.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:56 PM

Oh, and Greg, please don't try to draw analogies where there are none. For instance, there's no analogy between my impression that Lincoln was in the "gee, I wish I could do something but my hands are tied" camp and my sentiments about Azizi's posts. Before you insinuate it, let me assure you that I do not wish I could do something to "eradicate" or "annihilate" Azizi. Are we clear on that?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

civil war is an oxymoron

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 08 - 10:21 PM

Sharon- You may want to read read Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team Of Rivals(2005). Should help clear up some of your obvious confusion & misconceptions about Lincoln in particular and about abolition, antisavery, mid-19th Century U.S. Politics & the Civil War in general.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM

Well, Greg, if you hadn't acted like such a flamer on this thread, I might have considered your recommendation.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 04:11 PM

It seems to me, the people are only confused and misguided if they disagrree with anything Greg F posts.

I remain,

Confused and Misguided in Reading, Berkshire, UK

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 08 - 07:03 PM

Well, Greg, if you hadn't acted like such a flamer on this thread, I might have considered your recommendation

Your loss - nowt to me. Stay as uninformed as you like.

P.S. - If you think I'm a flamer, you've evidently never come across one.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:30 AM

Ah, but you see, Lord Muck, its not disagreeing with "my posts" that's at issue.

Its disagreeing with the findings and reasoned conclusions of the overwhelming majority of historians & researchers who have investigated these issues; vide bibliography, below, to become less confused and misguided.

Are you also proud of the mobs of British southern sympathizers that met Henry Ward Beecher with brickbats and bottles in 1863? Or perhaps a descendant?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:15 PM

Here is an intriguing website: 37th Texas Cavalry "A historically-accurate, multiracial Confederate reenactment unit"

Check out the directory at the bottom of that page -- there are references, articles, reprints of period letters, recruitment posters, photographs, pictures of monuments, all pertaining to Confederate soldiers of color.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 10:07 AM

Hey, its posted on the internet- it MUST be true!

Intriguing it certainly is - as are the web pages of the groups listed HERE
or HERE
for a small sampling of a wealth of such “informationâ€쳌 on the internet.

Its a most excellent example of neo-Confederate bullshit (and possibly racist bullshit as well, depending upon whether those who put it together are simply ignorant or intentionally disingenuous), and of how half-truths, innuendo, and misinformation can be cobbled together to create an illusion of fact.

None of the outlandish, idiotic & unsubstantiated claims it makes - particularly on the "On Black Confederates" page are footnoted. What is provided is a general bibliography at the bottom. Now, if one actually READS these books ( with the possible exception of the one by Barrow, whose qualifications are that he's a Georgia Junior High School teacher and joined the Sons of the Confederate Veterans in 1979 ) it will become obvious that they in no way verify or substantiate the claims made in the body of text on the page. Smoke and Mirrors.

Do look up (and read) the reviews of the books listed in peer-reviewed history journals- many available thru www.jstor.org at major libraries or other on-line full-text journal databases. A different picture will emerge.

The Bearss quote is, of course, taken out of context- he's talking about Black History getting short shrift in general; the implication is that no or few Blacks took the British up on their offer during the Revolution, and on and o nit goes - a lie per line.

I guess reading critically is a lost art â€" and gullibility is on the rise.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:00 PM

Greg, I had not directed my last post at you specifically, but in light of your comments, I'll bite: what are your credentials for making the claims that you have made on this thread? I'm interested to know, since you're obviously interested enough in the subject that 21 (in a row) of your last 22 posts have been to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM

Ah, but you see, Lord Muck, Sharon, its not disagreeing with "my posts" "my credentials" that's at issue.

Its disagreeing with the findings and reasoned conclusions of the overwhelming majority of historians & researchers who have investigated these issues; vide bibliography, below, to become less confused and misguided.      

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 02:01 PM

No, it's not at all OK. Who's to say that the books in Greg's bibliography are the "right" books to read (besides Greg, of course)? Historians and researchers have different interpretations of their findings, which sometimes conflict with those of their peers. Letters, documents and other writings of one time can be misconstrued centuries later. Political, social and even racial affiliations can cause a writer to de-emphasize historical evidence that he finds distasteful or that conflicts with his point of view. "Reasoned conclusions" according to one person's point of view may not necessarily be reasonable.

So I'm left to wonder about the validity of Greg's bibliography and from what source it was reprinted. Given that it was reprinted by a person who draws a parallel between "hate groups" and a Civil War re-enactment group whose mission statement specifically states "The 37th Texas Cavalry shall conduct itself without any political agenda or affiliation with any other group -- we are a gathering of historians... [who conduct] painstaking research... [as well as] offer to confront the error of using the Confederacy or Confederate symbols to represent racist groups or to promote any concept of 'racial superiority' " ...it would seem that Greg's definition of "reading critically" is that he is critical of anything he reads that differs from his own opinion (which, despite his protests, appears to be "confused and misguided"). Any book he endorses might well show a similar lack of open-mindedness.

Nevertheless, I went to the www.jstor.org site that Greg mentioned, but thus far I have not found a way to access their information. However, as concerns the book that Greg specifically recommended to me (Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team Of Rivals"), I have read elsewhere that Goodwin has a reputation tainted by substantiated claims of plagiarism; also, she worked as Lyndon Johnson's assistant during his administration, so obviously she is not politically neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 19 Jul 08 - 04:55 PM

Some more web pages and sites on the subject, that I found interesting:

Wall Street Journal article May 8. 1997

Article in Mobile, AL Register August 23, 1998 about the Louisiana Native Guards (1861)

Louisiana Native Guards home page

Washington City Paper article about re-enactors July 1998

From another re-enactment group (Litchfield Camp #132, South Carolina)

Article on "Black Confederate Participation" at yet another re-enactment site (Stonewall's Brigade, VA)

Black Confederate Veterans

A discussion thread at www.afrigeneas.com

Book: "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia"

Book: "Black Southerners in Gray"

Book: "Virginia's Black Confederates"

Book: "Black Confederates"

From rebelgray.com

Black Confederate Soldiers includes a quote by Frederick Douglass from 1861 about Confederate soldiers at Manassas

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:13 PM

Sharon,

I'm not going to attempt deal with your eternal straw men & women, half-truths, innuendo, idiotic comments RE: Ms Goodwin & your popular agent provocateur act. Nor will I attempt to refute a load of Neo-Confederate websites & their attendant bullshit.

Life's too damn short to try to educate someone who has decided beforehand that they will not be educated. Those more concerned with having the last word and riding a personal hobbyhorse than historical accuracy will embrace their ignorance all the more strongly- and I say let them.

Anyone can decide ahead of time to make a claim, however preposterous, that they want to "prove" and then cherry-pick extracts sources, one-liners, quotes taken out of context & etc. that appear to support their thesis. However, that's not how accurate history is produced- but is an example of the "junk science" method so beloved of propagandists, charlatans, demagogues, and bigots.

I would recommend several books on historiography & the historical method, but its evident there is no point in so doing.

I will, however, briefly comment on Civil War (or any other war) "re-enactment" groups. These consist a bunch of presumably adult men and women who like to dress up and pretend to be mid-ninetheenth century military personnel (with cell phones, beer coolers, air-conditioned vehicles & all mod cons, of course). Most children tire of playing cowboys and Indians by the age of ten or eleven, but let that pass. They claim to "accurately portray" or "recreate" the life of the soldier and to "re-enact" battles and military engagements - without the inconveniences of inadequate & rancid provisions, marching 20+ miles a day inhundred degree heat on dust-choked roads, insufficient shelter from the elements, epidemic disease (dysentery, smallpox, typhoid, typhus & sall the other favorites), venereal disease ( well, perhaps they may have this), poor to non-existent medical care, no regular ambulance service, horrific wounds, pus, blood, pain, amputation and row upon row of thousands of bloated, blackening, stinking corpses being eaten by hogs as they wait weeks for burial, hospitals full of wounded men slowly dying over the course of weeks or months from sepsis, gangrene or consumption or dying in military prisons - - -   to name but a few. These groups tend to have have something of a credibility probem.

I'm outa here for now. Until the inevitable next Sambo thread. If you want to view this as a victory, by all means do so. It is, of course- a triumph of inconquearble ignorance over enlightenment.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 12:25 PM

As a parting gift, I recommend, Sharon, that rather than recommending the nonsensical screed by Winbush you reference under "Wall Street Journal article May 8. 1997" you go to the parent website:

http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/

and read the numerous documented refutations of Neo-Confederate bullshit and of your misconceptions they have collected there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: SharonA
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:51 AM

"Life's too damn short to try to educate someone who has decided beforehand that they will not be educated. Those more concerned with having the last word and riding a personal hobbyhorse than historical accuracy will embrace their ignorance all the more strongly.... Anyone can decide ahead of time to make a claim, however preposterous, that they want to 'prove' and then cherry-pick extracts sources, one-liners, quotes taken out of context & etc. that appear to support their thesis. However, that's not how accurate history is produced- but is an example of the 'junk science' method so beloved of propagandists, charlatans, demagogues, and bigots."

Right back at ya, Greg. It's like you're talking to a mirror. Your description of your hated "Neo-Confederates" is actually an accurate description of your own propagandist behavior on this thread. Your demagoguery has led you to set yourself up as some sort of authority on the subject of "Neo-Confederates" while refusing to answer the simplest question about your credentials for making your claims (so are you a charlatan?). Your bigotry has led you to hurl insults at me when I'm not even a "Neo-Confederate" -- I'm just interested in looking at more than one side of the Black Confederate soldier controversy.

And the more I look at the side you don't want me to see, the more you show me about the true lack of refutation that the "anti-Neo-Confederates" have for the historical evidence about Black Confederate soldiers. All that your unreasonable insults do is to negate your claims of "reasoned conclusions" as so much smoke.

Smoke and mirrors.

Ah, but what's the use of saying so? Greg has left the thread.......... yeah, right. :-D

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:26 AM

Blacks' role in Confederacy remains touchy subject
RENEE ELDER, Associated Press
Monday, June 13, 2011

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — As America embarks on four years of Civil War commemorations, it revives an unsettling debate that lingers 150 years after the conflict: how to view the role of African Americans in the Confederacy.

It arose last year when a Virginia textbook was yanked over protests that it inaccurately claimed thousands of blacks served as Confederate soldiers. More recently, a North Carolina community turned down an effort to erect a monument to 10 black men who served the Southern army and later collected Confederate pensions.

Confederate law prohibited slaves from serving as soldiers until March 1865, when it was changed in a last-gasp effort to strengthen troop numbers.

Yet the debate continues bubbling to the surface in many ways.

Gregory Perry of Monroe, N.C., who learned recently that an ancestor was awarded pension for Confederate service, says it's hard to reconcile that fact with what he knows firsthand about being a black man in the South.

"I grew up in the era of Malcolm X and militancy, and would never have considered something like this possible," said Perry, 46, reflecting on the life of his great-great-grandfather, Aaron Perry.

"I wonder: If Aaron Perry knew the Union Army was coming to free him, why did he join the other side?"

Most Civil War historians agree black slaves and even some free blacks contributed crucial manpower to the Southern war effort — but it was mostly menial work done under duress or for survival, not out of support for the secession movement.

John David Smith, professor of American history at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and a member of North Carolina's Sesquicentennial Academic Advisory Committee, said the South's 11th-hour effort to recruit black soldiers was "too little, too late."

"There's no evidence of any real mobilization of slaves," Smith said. At most, a company or two — including one of hospital workers — was ever organized.

Yet efforts to depict blacks as Confederates persist.

The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond once sold black toy soldiers, clad in Confederate gray. They were pulled from shelves in fall 2010 after several complaints.

Historian and library director John Coski posted an explanation in the gift shop.

"There is much wartime and postwar evidence of African-Americans acting in ways that suggest loyalty to the Confederacy — staying 'home' even when there was an opportunity to run away, even burying the family silver," Coski wrote. But as to whether significant numbers of black men enlisted as combat soldiers, Coski says "the answer is a resounding 'no.'"

Smith says he believes painting African Americans as Confederate sympathizers plays down the real causes of the Civil War.

"What gets professional historians concerned is when certain people start calling these people soldiers. It all goes back to how you define soldier. And for me, the story of so-called black Confederates is not as important as the story of why it keeps coming back."

He added, "I think it keeps coming up because there are certain people who resist the idea that slavery and white supremacy were the cause of the Civil War."

One such group is the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a Southern heritage organization whose members say state's rights, not slavery, was the primary motivation for succession. Through a steady stream of website commentaries, blog posts and printed articles, Sons of Confederate Veterans members frequently promote the idea of black support for the Southern Army.

The author of Virginia's recalled textbook, Joy Masoff, said articles by Sons of Confederate Veterans members helped convince her to include information in the fourth-grade history book that said "thousands" of black Confederate soldiers fought in the war.

Slaves undoubtedly worked for the Confederate troops, especially in the early years before food and supplies were scarce.

Workers like Gregory Perry's great-great grandfather were brought onto the battlefield to drive horses, cook and even serve as valets. Slaves also were occasionally conscripted from their owners to help work on roads and other infrastructure needed by the army, Smith said.

"African Americans built bridges, erected fortifications, worked on the docks — all kinds of support work to free whites up to go and fight," he added. "That's nothing new."

In the 1920s, 2,807 Southern blacks were approved for pensions authorized for black Confederates. In most states, each applicant was required to report the nature of the work performed and to which unit his "master" had been assigned.

In North Carolina, Sons of Confederate Veterans member Tony Way researched historical records and found that 10 black men from Union County received Confederate pensions. All were listed as having served the Southern Army as guards, servants, cooks and in other supporting roles.

Way proposed a marker on the courthouse square to recognize their contributions. He said he wasn't trying to make a political statement.

"There are no African American monuments in Monroe County, so, being a Civil War buff, I thought the marker might highlight a unique and un-talked-about part of this region's history," Way said.

Jerry Surratt, chairman of the Union County Historical Commission, said the commission voted against the marker mainly because of the existing Confederate veterans' monument nearby. It bears the titles of local regiments — not individual names as Way wanted.

"If we were going to list the names of those who served from Union County, there could be 1,800 names up there, 500 of whom didn't return living," Surratt said.

Earl Ijames, curator of African American and community history at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh, helped Way with his research.

Ijames, who is black, said it is unrealistic to maintain that no people of color took sides against the Union. A seventh-generation North Carolinian, Ijames said some blacks may have pledged allegiance to the Confederates as a means of self-preservation.

This is something Gregory Perry has begun to consider about his ancestor.

"I can only think there must have been something more about this war, something we don't know about, for him to have had such a connection to the Southern people or to the land," he said.

Meanwhile, Ed Smith, an American University professor who has spoken widely on the subject, says today's audiences can't really gauge the societal, economic and other pressures that played on blacks and whites during slavery.

He said that's why it is so hard for anyone to imagine that a slave's Southern identity could have been at odds with his ideas about freedom.

"In today's world, it's hard to look back on slavery with any kind of clarity," Ed Smith says. "Frankly, I think it's going to be quite messy for the next four years."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM

Taking up arms against an invader shouldn't ever be taken as evidence that you feel any loyalty towards the regime that has been in power - as was demonstrated very clearly in the case of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:57 AM

You miss oneof ythe main points, McGrath, wch is that despite Neo-Confederate propaganda, Blacks did NOT take up arms for the Confederacy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:29 PM

Way back in the July 08 section, Sharon A referred to Doris Kearns Goodwin's work being "tainted" with plagiarism. Goodwin happens to be a literary hero of mine and I can't let that calumny stand. Here is what Goodwin says about it:

"Fourteen years ago, not long after the publication of my book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, I received a communication from author Lynne McTaggart pointing out that material from her book on Kathleen Kennedy had not been properly attributed. I realized that she was right. Though my footnotes repeatedly cited Ms. McTaggart's work, I failed to provide quotation marks for phrases that I had taken verbatim, having assumed that these phrases, drawn from my notes, were my words, not hers. I made the corrections she requested, and the matter was completely laid to rest—until last week, when the Weekly Standard published an article reviving the issue. The larger question for those of us who write history is to understand how citation mistakes can happen.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 02:49 PM

If anybody's looking for real "tainted" history, Ebbie, there's always the absolute bullshit put out by the Sons Of The Confederacy & other Neo-Confederate front groups.

They're not to fond of Eric Foner, either.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 03:57 PM

My point was that it is unsafe to assume that just because anyone fights against an invader, whether as a uniformed soldier, or in some less regular fashion, they must be taken as supporting the ruling regime and system.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:13 PM

I think its pretty safe to assume that Black slaves, being property & having no rights & being subject to "correction" (including summary execution)if they did not conform to their owner's wishes had no choice but to do as directed if they wanted to survive.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 08:07 PM

Indeed... to this day, dissertion or refusal to engage is punishable by death ON THE BATTLEFIELD WITHOUT TRIAL by a corporal, acting, no stipes, without pay.