The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #112423   Message #2382353
Posted By: Greg F.
06-Jul-08 - 11:26 AM
Thread Name: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
Subject: RE: BS: 'Loyal slaves'
... 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.