Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Southern Pride - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 02:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

burnsideshot wrote: Jake,

I agree with you.  Of course Northerners have told their story as victors and in part due to slavery, Southerners have not  had that opportunity.  In essence, slavery has given the South a bad name.  I think this is ridiculous personally.  While yes, slavery may not be right, at one point, it probably was quite necessary.  Without it, who knows what would have happened to the mainly agricultural South of the time.  What I didn't realize until college was how small of a percentage of Southerners actually owned slaves. 
That can be a misleading statistic...The interesting thing is how few people had title to slaves (usually only one per family) but how very *many* people were members of  slave-owning familes (and families of slave-owners tended to be larger). Think of how many people *own* a home and how many live there.HankC



 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 02:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
42nd Post
calcav
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jan 28th, 2006
Location: Corinth, MS
Posts: 160
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

John,

It was not my intention to “sugarcoat” the results of the release of the Emancipation Proclamation, nor is there any need to. It is a persistent myth that the proclamation did not free any slaves, that they were not freed until the passing of the 13th amendment. On the 1st of January 1863, the day the proclamation went into effect, whatever runaway slaves reached the safety of Union lines, they were free. They did not need the 13th amendment, they were already free. On January 2nd more runaway slaves reached the Union lines and they too were free. Every day till the end of the war this was repeated until there were literally thousands upon thousands who had made the journey to some Union garrison or outpost. When troop movements brought larger tracts of land back under Federal control, all of the slaves within that area were free. So I do not believe that my saying the proclamation paved the way for the freedom of millions is sugar coating anything.

            Tom



 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 03:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
calcav
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jan 28th, 2006
Location: Corinth, MS
Posts: 160
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank,

The numbers concerning slavery in the southern sates can indeed be confusing when considering the number of families that owned slaves or the number of people within the family that owned slaves. The fact is that almost 70% of all southern families did not own any slaves. According to the census of 1860 30.8% of all southern families owned at least one slave. Most were indeed owners of only a few. Approx. 75,000 families owned 1 slave, and nearly 140,000 families owned 2 to 5. There were only 15 people in the entire country that owned over 500 slaves (and 8 were in South Carolina). The highest concentration of slaves in the country was in Issaquena County, Mississippi where 115 owners held 7, 244 slaves (92.5 % of the population in that county was slave!) though the highest county population was Charleston County, S.C. with 37, 290. The highest number of slaves for an individual state was Mississippi where 436,631 were in bondage.

 

Tom



 Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 09:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
44th Post
olemiss50
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jul 10th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Jessie,

In the issue of slavery lies the most misunderstood part of our history.  Slavery has its roots deep into American history.  Due to the outcome of the Civil War, the issue of slavery and the evils it possesses has been ditched on the southern slave states.  Further research on slavery will reveal a different picture, such as northern slave traders and northerners profiting off of southern slavery, etc.  I have only begun my research on slavery in the western hemisphere, but the more I look into it, the more I realize how the south is getting a raw deal.  A picture of a "free" north where freed blacks were welcome with open arms and a ruthless south where slaves were whipped daily has evolved.  I have been able to come up with this so far.  All of America (not only the US, but essentially the entire world) is guilty of slavery.  North and south are both guilty.  It just so happened that slavery was still economically a good decision in the south as opposed in the north by the beginning of the 19th century.  It is a matter of timing.  Like you said, we have to put ourselves into the 19th century to fully understand the issues of the time.  The reality of slavery in American has been skewed and completely dumped on the south.  Most people forget that our founding fathers were slaveowners and at the same time brush to the side the fact that many Confederate generals were opposed to slavery.  In no way can we defend slavery, but we can take a deeper look into the issue and realize there is much more to the story than is being told.  A very interesting piece of history that is also overlooked is black Confederates.  I'll save that for another time.  For me personally, it boils down to the fact that I want to be able to be proud of the Soldiers in my family without being labeled a racist and a pro-slavery man.  Unless the entire story is told and bias removed, that will be impossible.  Americans, and any country at that, tend to overlook pieces of their history that make them or their wars look bad or unjustified, and I cannot blame them. 

I look forward to the day when the Unionist and Confederates can both agree on the true history.

-Jake



 Posted: Wed Jul 12th, 2006 02:03 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Tom,

My choice of the word sugarcoat was wrong. I am sorry I used it and extend my apologies. I should have used:  You justify (instead of sugarcoat) it by saying the Emancipation Proclamation "paved the way for the freedom of millions",what paved the way for this was the North winning the war and during its' assmilation of the conquered territory forcing the former state to accept the 13th Amendment to be back in the Union.

I stand by what I said that the victory in the war lead to the slaves being free. If the South had won the proclamation would have meant nothing.

Slaves had been escaping since the founding of the Underground Railroad. "While the enterprise began sometime after 1780 with the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania, the Underground Railroad was most active between 1835 to 1865." (source page 8 In Pursuit of Freedom, Teaching the Underground Railroad by William C. Kashatus) During the war and before the proclamation slaves escaped to the Union and would continue to after it.

Consider that the proclamation only freed slaves in places not controled by the Union what effect did it have? Yes slaves escaped when the Union troops got close enough to allow for this, but what about the ones that did not have the luxury of Union troops being close by? Also, after the war ended with the Union in total control did the South have the right to go to court and have the proclamation declared unconstitutional base on slavery being a states issue and further under the Fugitive Slave Laws have the right to reclaim their property? Would slavery then be reinstated? Also since the proclamation free exsisting slave and slavery was a states right would the slaveowner have the right to purchase new slaves?

I will state that because of fear the proclamation might be ruled unconstitutional it helped bring about the 13th Amendment.

"Near the end of the war, Republican abolitionists were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be construed solely as a war act and thus unconstitutional once fighting ended." (Source http://www.answers.com/topic/emancipation-proclamation)

Your line of thought is a plausable one and I am sure many people would agree with you stance. Again sorry for my word usage. I meant no disrespect.

Thank you and I hope you understand.

John

 

Last edited on Wed Jul 12th, 2006 10:57 am by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Wed Jul 12th, 2006 02:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
46th Post
calcav
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jan 28th, 2006
Location: Corinth, MS
Posts: 160
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

John,

No offense taken. Enjoying this thread immensly.

Best regards,

Tom



 Posted: Sun Jul 16th, 2006 11:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Tom,

Thanks, I agree this is a interesting thread. I think much of the problem we in the North have understanding Southern pride is we do not think in the same terms about this period they do. IMHO people in the South have more pride in their leaders and cause then the North. Many Southern leaders, Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Davis, and just about any other leader are held in higher regarded than any leader in the North by its' people. The South holds its' leaders in immortal status and its' cause a rightous one.Northern people seem to only have a high regard for a relative who fought and the unit they belonged to and not much caring about the cause they fought for. I am only saying the majority, not everyone. I think this leads to misunderstanding Southern pride.

Respectfully

Shadowrebel (John)



 Posted: Mon Jul 17th, 2006 10:44 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
William Posey
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jun 15th, 2006
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 11
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

As far as I've been able to determine, two of my ancestors had one slave each. One of these ancestors was a Unionist, the other, Confederate.

My Unionist ancestor freed his slave, Bob, before the War. However, Bob stayed on living with the family and working around the homeplace as well as in outside jobs. Even when he was a slave, he worked at times at outside jobs. Whether he kept the money earned outside during his slave days is unknown. Bob died in 1879 and is buried with his former master and family in the church cemetery.

My Confederate ancestor kept his slave until the end of the War, but Abe stayed on with the family until his death many years later.

This was not universal, of course, but it is my family's experience with slaves. In both cases, the relationship was much deeper than master/slave; there was two-way love and commitment.

Each slave took his respective master's surname as his own.

Bob did not marry and had no children, but Abe married and had children. His descendants today speak highly of their ancestor's master. One of them has had some health and financial problems lately and has been helped by several descendants of Abe's master.

So, there is still today a continuing relationship.

 



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 05:53 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
MAubrecht
Member


Joined: Wed Sep 7th, 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia USA
Posts: 143
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


It really doesn't matter does it? One slave or a hundred slaves - the institution was still a travesty - BUT ultimately a travesty that was "shared" on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line (racism that is). I find it odd that some people use numbers and quantities to "soften" the cold reality of the ownership of another human being.

And in regards to embracing a "Lost Cause"... take a look at the U.S. federal government today - and how corrupt and out of control it is - and tell me that at least part of that "Cause" was not justified? I hate to quote a movie-line in support of an argument (but it is one "based" on an actual conversation) so I'll use it here in my post. In "Gods and Generals" - yes I know it is an unpopular film among some of our members here, Jackson states, "If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property, it is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity and the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, banks and the factory." ...Sounds familiar doesn't it?

I don't see a "responsible government" in power. The "little guy" and the blue collar worker have been stepped on by "the triumph of commerce, banks and the factory". The country has taken a turn for the worse and now resembles a shell of its former greatness. The traditions, values, and integrity of American culture have been pushed aside in the name of political correctness and the almighty dollar... Yeah, that's some great Union we have here.

My point is that not all aspects of the Southern Cause were deplorable (slavery-aside) and many of the negatives that they projected have come true over time.



 Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 06:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


"I don't know if you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose or are simply ignorant on this particular subject."

This kind of comment adds nothing to the conversation. All members are free to disagree with other members....that's the point of the board. No member should express their opinion on whether another member is "ignorant" on any subject.



You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 08:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
William Posey
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jun 15th, 2006
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 11
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900"

To me, this conveys no sense of urgency about freeing the slaves. If slavery's evil was so great, why did he not propose immediate emancipation?

No, he wanted to give the slave states 38 years to continue slavery and then compensate those states that complied. Seems to me his concern was not for the slaves but for bribing back into the Union those states that had seceded.

He figured he'd be dead and gone by 1900, so someone else would have to deal with resolving the issue at that time.

I abhor slavery, but I think Lincoln was not interested in freeing slaves so they could enjoy equal status with whites; else, why would he propose shipping them out of the country?



 Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 08:27 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

William,

Good points. I agree with you that Lincoln's top priority was not to free the slaves, but to preserve/reunite the Union. For informational purposes only, the best reading I've seen on the whole subject of what's being discussed here can be found here. It's involved and at times complicated, but it's a great overall analysis.



 Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 09:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

William Posey wrote: "Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900"

To me, this conveys no sense of urgency about freeing the slaves. If slavery's evil was so great, why did he not propose immediate emancipation?

No, he wanted to give the slave states 38 years to continue slavery and then compensate those states that complied. Seems to me his concern was not for the slaves but for bribing back into the Union those states that had seceded.

He figured he'd be dead and gone by 1900, so someone else would have to deal with resolving the issue at that time.

I abhor slavery, but I think Lincoln was not interested in freeing slaves so they could enjoy equal status with whites; else, why would he propose shipping them out of the country?

I think that Lincoln's primary intent was to get all parties talking and to come up with a plan to end slavery as we know it. Even the idea of emancipation by 1900 was rebuffed. Only after complete and total defeat of all his attempts negotiating slavery's demise did Lincoln write the EP as a war measure.

Was 1900 realistic? Probably not; but it was lot sooner then 'never'...

HankC



 Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 02:47 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Indy,

I usually do not respond when someone speaks to me as you did, however if you wish to hold a nasty discussion I will gladly use private messages where nasty belongs.

If you look at my original post on this thread I was only answering Jessica's question that she posted. I never claimed to support any of the reasons I stated, rather just point to some reasons to answer her question. I do believe the South has reasons to be bitter.
Care to source your idea that Lincoln wrote out an arrest warrant for Judge Taney?

After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where the imprisonment should be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him. (source: Ward Hill Lamon who was Lincoln's bodyguard and U.S. Marshall for the District of Columbia during Lincoln's administration.  A 1880 manuscript on the Ex Parte Merryman and is in the Huntington Library.) The warrant was never served for reason Lamon never cited.

Grant only had one slave and that was through inheritance. He freed him of his own free will and without compensation, even at a time he needed the money.

Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."  (source: http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm)

One of Grant’s slave’s name was William Jones. In 1858, while attempting to make a go in civilian life as a farmer near St. Louis, Missouri, Ulysses S. Grant bought the slave, William Jones, from his brother-in-law. Grant's ... became the owner of record of his wife’s inheritance of four slaves, but as was the case at the time, women could not actually own slaves, so they were under the control of Grant. No record has been found of these slaves having been freed prior to emancipation in Missouri in 1865. (source:http://www.lycos.com/info/lee-grant--civil-war.html)


The 13th Amendment was created DURING the Lincoln administration. It was proposed in January of 1865, but didn't go in effect until AFTER Lincoln's death, having had to wait to get the required number of states to ratify it.

My point is. as you well state, that Lincoln never freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation. It took this amendment that did not go into effect until he was dead. Lincoln never freed the slaves as Northern history tells the proclamation did.

John Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," also wrote the  opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law.

OK, 

1. Congress was not in session when war broke out. Should Lincoln have waited for Congress to meet and see Washington fall apart in the mean time?

2. When Congress finally did meet, they backed up Lincoln on his use of Habeas corpus, so the point became moot.

What does Congress not being in session have to do with Lincoln suspending the Habeas Corpus since as Marshall's ruling clear states he had no power to do it. By an ex post facto action this does not make what Lincoln did legal making it a very relevant point. He also denied Maryland, for the duration of the war its' rightfully elected govenment.

The Great Emancipator never freed any slaves, the greatest of Yankee myths. It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to do that. I do believe Lincoln was dead by that time. He proposed three 13th amendments to the Constitution; Lincoln's Three Proposed Constitutional Amendments of 1862

1.  Federal compensation provided for states agreeing to abolish slavery by January 1, 1900.
2.  Frees slaves who "enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war" before "the end of the rebellion."
3.  Congress authorized to provide for colonization outside of
the United States of free blacks by their own consent.



This shows what, exactly? And on who's watch did  the 13th Amendment that we know today actually be formed under? 

This shows that Lincoln was racist and did not care if the slaves were free in his lifetime and that he want to have the Negro out of the U.S. Lincoln did not care about the slave only saving the Union. Read his letter to Horace Greeley. (source: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm)  The fact is that Lincoln never knew the slaves were free from their masters, which did not mean they had or enjoyed freedom. 

 

Lee had freed his slaves in 1862.

The ones that he was legally required to.


     I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.  (source: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm) As to the ones he was given in a will he was bound legally by the terms of the will.  He did not free his slaves in 1862, but his father-in-laws, as your article shows.


You still sound like a typical Lost Causer.


I am neither typical or a "Lost Causer", I am a free thinker who does not just believe what he has been taught without researching it.

Northerners like to say Lincoln stated that the South never secede, but was in rebellion, then why this statement: "This is the difficult: we want to keep all that we have of the border states, those that have not seceded and the portions of those which we have occupied; and in order to do that, it is necessary to omit those areas I have mentioned from the effect of this proclamation." (source: Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Don E. and Virginia E. Fehrenbacher.,page 455) Lincoln was speaking on why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves. Seem to me he knew the South had seceded and were not in rebellion.


 I don't know if you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose or are simply ignorant on this particular subject.

I hope I have done enough reseach to dispel your thinking, if not please let me know where I have not and I will try to correct the situation. I am well aware of what Lincoln said throughout his life and can point to many instances of his changing his statements to suit his agenda. A book of interest I have read is The Language of Liberty, The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln by Joseph R. Fornieri, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Rochester Institute of Technology. Another book by him is  Abraham Lincoln's Political Faith. While I am not an expert on the War for Southern Independence or Lincoln I do know a little and am not what you subscribe that I am.:shock:

Respectfully

Shadowrebel (John)

Last edited on Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:16 am by Shadowrebel



 Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 02:59 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th Post
burnsideshot
Member


Joined: Wed Jul 5th, 2006
Location: Boston, MA - Jessica
Posts: 43
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Poor John,

Why is it that you seem to attract unwanted comments?  Maybe I am too new to this board :)  Debating is awesome...attacking is futile, IMO.

Friends - Jessie



 Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:35 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Jessie,

Thank you for your post. I started by trying to answer your question and seem to have aroused the Northerners. I love a good debate, this board is mild compared to another I post at. Being new does not mean anything here only willingness to learn and share your knowledge matters here. It is a friendly board with many good people. Once in awhile some want to attack others usually it is best to not waste time on them, I love a good arguement:D. You have started an excellent thread and should be proud of it. Others do not bother me unless they are unwilling to answer questions posed to them.

Again thanks for the post and the "Friends" comment, I can use all the friends I can get here.

Have fun here.

John (Shadowrebel) 



 Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
60th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


John,

As a free thinker, you may wish to expand your list of research sources and look at the ones you choose with a more critical eye...

For example, at
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm, the writer purports "I was with him [Lee] at the first battle of Bull Run, second battle of Bull Run, first battle of Manassas, second battle of Manassas...". Do you see anything incorrect with this statement that may throw this man's eyewitness testimony into doubt?

Using "One of Grant’s slave’s name was William Jones.." taken from an SCV web site filled with oversights, omissions and errors shows a lack of critical thinking. Note that the SCV site does not mention that William Jones was freed by Grant in March 1859. Certainly, for periods in her life, Julia Dent Grant used four slaves. Whether she, or her father, owned them is still unclear. They did live in Missouri and either emancipated themselves or were freed when Missouri banned slavery prior to the 13th amendment...

http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm makes the usual apologist mistake of equating slaves 'serving' with blacks 'fighting' and uses the easily rebuffed statement that "Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam "…

Your conclusion that secession is *legal* because Lincoln used 'secede' in a sentence is quite a stretch. I'm sure Lincoln used the word 'murder' in sentences as well, but that did not make it legal. Regardless, 'seceding' and 'being in rebellion' are not mutually exclusive.

Here is a web site providing an overview of the annealing of Lincoln's views on slavery, emancipation and freedom. It's full of contemporary 'sound bites' and historical analysis:
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/content_inside.asp?ID=27&subjectID=3

 

Cheers,

HankC



 Current time is 04:12 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4767 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 33 queries executed.