View single post by Shadowrebel
 Posted: Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 02:01 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Shadowrebel
Member


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

  back to top

HankC,

Thank you for your reply to my post. I think you and I have a misunderstanding of my post I wish to try and clear up. I am responding to Jessie, who started this post as follows:
I am trying to understand why people who are into the Southern aspects of the civil war try to convince others that Northerners have rewritten history.  Can they just not get over the fact that the stronger of the two nations took the road paved to victory?  I respect the South, but dislike the bitterness that goes along with it.  What is the reason for this?
She is clearly asking three questions; 1)  why people who are into the Southern aspects of the civil war try to convince others that Northerners have rewritten history  2)Can they just not get over the fact that the stronger of the two nations took the road paved to victory? 3)I respect the South, but dislike the bitterness that goes along with it.  What is the reason for this?

As to question two I will let her decide that one. My posts deal with the other two questions and IMHO can only be answered by using Southern thinking, writings, and words. This is why my sources are based on Southern sources. I think the South has some valid reasons for the way they think and some of their thinking is not valid. My personnal thoughts are not neccessary to answer Jessie. I give Jessie full credit for being intelligent and quite able to realize that the Southern sources are bias toward the South and can compare them to what she knows of Northern views and decide where the truth is. She also knows she can ask questions here and get answers to them. All Civil War souces, IMHO, both North and South are bias. If you can show her answers to her questions without using Southern souces by all means post them to help her understanding. I hope I have made my reasons clear, if not please ask me to explain better.:)  Now as to your reply.

I have many sources and try to match them to the subject I am posting to. I never assume my sources are perfect and am willing to add more. By a free thinking I mean I can look at a subject from all sides with an open mind and decide for myself what my beliefs are.
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?
I am aware that the battles of Bull Run and Manassas are the same and Lee while not participating in the first Bull Run, did go there after the battle. My use of his story was what I quoted about Lee freeing his slaves which is backed up by other souces:
Before the Civil War, Robert E. Lee freed most of his slaves and offered to pay expenses for those who wanted to go to Liberia. In November 1853, Lee's former slaves William and Rosabella Burke and their four children sailed on the Banshee, which left Baltimore with 261 emigrants. (source:http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam004.html) which is a link to the Library of Congress Resouce Guide to the Study of Black History & Culture. If he fails in part of his memory, but other portions can be verified elsewhere I feel it has merit. The slaves Lee owned from his father-in-law I have addressed before.


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...

My use of this was to show that Grant owned slave, which he clearly did, and that these slaves were held after Lee freed his, something the North does not like to admit. As to my using this site as lack of critical thinking because the site is "filled with oversights, omissions and errors" as I stated above it is the Southern view that is important to this thread and it does show critical thinking on my part to use information that will give Jessie a sense of Southern thinking. In her autobiograhy Julia Dent Grant admits owning the slaves and claims to have freed them after the Emanciaption Proclamation, yet states that at least one named Julia was with her throughout the war. Some source claim thay were not freed until after the war. Since not postive evidence can be found to when they were freed I am open to using her biography.

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 "…

I have never used this statement about Jackson in any post here and do not understand why you say I did?

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.


I never formed the conclusion, nor stated, it that secession is "legal" because Lincoln used secede in a sentence. While seceding and being in rebellion are different statuses they could be linked together. I included this Lincoln statement as another example of  the South citing Northern myth and to show that Lincoln at least once admitted he knew the South had seceded whether he meant illegally or legally only he knows.

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


I am not sure of your use of "annealing", however this site falls into your category of "oversights, omissions and errors" where is the facts showing Lincoln was a racist and white supremacist mentioned. “If all earthly power were given me. I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,--to their own native land” (Fornieri 158).  “Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not” (Fornieri 159). “Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social quality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not now combating the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are already amongst us; but I am combating what is set up as moral argument for allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been—arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which where it already exists we must of necessity, manage as we best can” (Fornieri 169). These are from a speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854.

.“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality, an inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say in this connection, that I do not perceive, however, that man is to have the superior position, that it requires the negro should be denied everything. I do not perceive because I do not court a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just leave her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and certainly never have had a black woman either for a slave or wife, so that it seems to me that it is quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men” (Fornieri 369). This is from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, the Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston on September 18, 1858. All of this is found in  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 at the pages mentioned.

Clearly a site like A project of The Lincoln Institute , is bias toward Lincoln.

I hope I have made myself clear. There are as mentioned by TimHoffman other issue I would like to address to answer to help Jessie. You have still not anwsered my questions from about my first post which is Are the historical fact correct? You have never answered this question.

Thank you for the debate and have a great weekend.

Shadowrebel (John)

 Close Window