BS: 'Loyal slaves'

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:03 PM

Thanks.

Ebbie and Amos: :->

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 08 - 03:32 AM

Fair enough JTT.

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 01:53 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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