 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 02:23 pm |
|
41st Post |
HankC
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 02:32 pm |
|
42nd Post |
calcav
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 03:10 pm |
|
43rd Post |
calcav
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11th, 2006 09:14 pm |
|
44th Post |
olemiss50
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12th, 2006 02:03 am |
|
45th Post |
Shadowrebel
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12th, 2006 02:23 pm |
|
46th Post |
calcav
Member
|
John,
No offense taken. Enjoying this thread immensly.
Best regards,
Tom
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16th, 2006 11:51 pm |
|
47th Post |
Shadowrebel
Member
|
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)
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 17th, 2006 10:44 am |
|
48th Post |
William Posey
Member
|
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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 05:24 pm |
|
49th Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
Shadowrebel wrote: burnsideshot,
Much of the problem comes from the way the North treated the South after the war. The people who support the North tend to forget what happened during reconstruction. They make it sound as if the North went down South and made it a better place than it was. They want you to believe the Negros had it far better then slavery. While slavery was wrong and had to be eleminated former slaves never had it a good as the Northern history would have you think.
Lincoln is another example of the problem. He ignored the Constitution when it suited him and he never freed the slaves as the North teaches. Lincoln changed what he said when it suited him. Since this is not a thread about Lincoln I will not go into details, unless someone wishes to start a Lincoln thread.
Secession is another issue, which is discussed on these boards. The North would have you believe that it was illegal without showing you in the Constitution it is forbidden.
Slavery as the main issue of the South cause of the war is another issue. The South clearly fought over states rights. The North denied the South of its' right to regain its' property. Yes, the property was slaves, however slavery was a states right.
The North would like to think they were the saviors of the slaves when in reality they had slaves, their military commander at Appomattox General Grant own three slave at the time, while the Confederate commander had none. Many Northern states at the time had laws making it illegal for former slaves and some Negros to stay in their state for more the 30 days. Lincoln did not care if the Union was all with or without slavery as long as the Union remained intact.
I agree with rrhrjs that the North can sound awfully high and might. I believe the South has plenty of reasons to be bitter.
Sorry I got so long winded, but there are many instances of history not being exactly told as it was.
By the way I am from Pennsylvania, so I am not speaking as a Southerner.
Regards
Shadowrebel (John)
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. Lee had slaves, some inherited from his father-in-law. Although the slaves had to be freed by a certain date, Lee did not free them until he legally had to give them up.
What other states' rights was the south after, aside from slavery? Every major issue in 1860 revolved around the institution of slavery.
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. Nice try. I don't know if you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose or are simply ignorant on this particular subject. Lincoln was clearly against slavery, despite the preservation of the Union being his first priority.
By the way I am from Pennsylvania, so I am not speaking as a Southerner.
Doesn't really matter where you live. You still sound like a typical Lost Causer.
Last edited on Tue Jul 18th, 2006 06:28 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 05:53 pm |
|
50th Post |
MAubrecht
Member
|
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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 06:08 pm |
|
51st Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
"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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 06:21 pm |
|
52nd Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
javal1 wrote:
"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.
It was an opinion and a question. This is really an either/or. I don't see what's wrong with this inquiry as it goes to show what this member is all about. Either he's ignoring the facts intentionally, or he simply does not know the facts. It's open to him to respond.
But I digress.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 06:44 pm |
|
53rd Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
Shadowrebel wrote: Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney, after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln’s illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53).
Care to source your idea that Lincoln wrote out an arrest warrant for Judge Taney?
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.
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?
He really was a friend of the slaves with these proposals. Abolish slavery by Jan. 1, 1900 how can you call him a friend of the slaves?
So much for Honest Abe, the Great Emancipator.
I don't see exactly where you show that Lincoln was dishonest. And as for emancipation, if it wasn't because of him, is there another individual responsible for seeing the end of slavery?
The South fought for States Rights, here is a website with all 13 Declaration of Secession which clearly show the South fought for States rights. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
The North denied the South of its' right to regain its' property.
States' rights = Slavery. What one issue stands out more than any other in the Secession ordinances?
Lee had freed his slaves in 1862.
The ones that he was legally required to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Lee_as_slave_holder
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 08:02 pm |
|
54th Post |
William Posey
Member
|
"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?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 08:27 pm |
|
55th Post |
javal1
Grumpy Geezer
|
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.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18th, 2006 09:25 pm |
|
56th Post |
HankC
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 02:47 am |
|
57th Post |
Shadowrebel
Member
|
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.
Respectfully
Shadowrebel (John)
Last edited on Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:16 am by Shadowrebel
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 02:59 am |
|
58th Post |
burnsideshot
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:35 am |
|
59th Post |
Shadowrebel
Member
|
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 . 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)
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20th, 2006 03:31 pm |
|
60th Post |
HankC
Member
|
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
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 03:11 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
