 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Loyal slaves'
|
|
|
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. |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:26 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Greg F. Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM Ah, but you see, Its OK? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Lord Batman's Kitchener Date: 08 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM civil war is an oxymoron |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 08:34 AM Not half as offensive as "loyal slave", Mary. |
|
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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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. |
