PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Biden says.........



MStuart
01-15-2007, 05:52 PM
Edited from a longer article....

Biden calls for removal of Confederate flag
POSTED: 5:27 p.m. EST, January 15, 2007

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful joining fellow Sen. Christopher Dodd at Martin Luther King Jr. holiday events, said Monday he thinks the Confederate flag should be kept off South Carolina's Statehouse grounds.

"If I were a state legislator, I'd vote for it to move off the grounds -- out of the state," the Delaware senator said before the civil rights group held a march and rally at the Statehouse here to support its boycott of the state.

More than six years after the Confederate flag was taken down from the South Carolina Capitol dome, its location in front of the Statehouse remains an issue at the heart of events celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy.

Jim Hanks stood across from the Statehouse with about 35 Confederate flag supporters.

"We love this flag. We love our heritage," said Hanks, of Lexington.

Some carried signs saying: "South Carolina does not want Chris Dodd," referring to the Connecticut senator who, along with Biden, attended the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People rally at the Statehouse.

Hanks said that Dodd, Biden and other Democrats running for president "would probably say most anything if it would get them votes."

In 2000, as the NAACP began its South Carolina tourism boycott, the flag was flying on the Capitol dome and in House and Senate chambers. Legislators agreed to take the flag down that year, but raised the banner outside the Statehouse beside a Confederate soldiers monument.

In November, Biden joked about South Carolina's Confederate past at a Rotary Club meeting in Columbia after organizers said their Christmas party at the Department of Archives and History would include a chance to see the state's original copy of the Articles of Secession.

Biden noted Delaware was "a slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South -- there were a couple of other states in the way."

Biden expects legislators here will eventually move the flag. Pointing to his heart, he said, "as people become more and more aware of what it means to African-Americans here, this is only a matter of time."

On Sunday, Dodd told The Associated Press at a King remembrance service in Greenville that the Confederate flag belongs in a museum.

"I don't think it belongs on the Capitol grounds," Dodd said.
------------------------------------------

Since Sen. Biden was involved in the plagiarism incident a few years back, I have a hard time taking anything that he says as an "original" thought.

Mark

tenfed1861
01-15-2007, 08:09 PM
I can sort of respect Dodd's saying that the flag belongs in a museum. I can even accept taking the battle flag down and putting up a Stars and Bars. But I personally say that if you remove it from the grounds, Native Americans should protest themselves. In their protest (please understand where I am coming from), the American flag is a symbol of hatred. It was the flag used on the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek, Wasatah, Wounded Knee just to name a few cases of genocide. It flys over the oppression sites called reservations. Who has a better argument? Those whose ANCESTORS suffered from slavery but yet many of whom supported the CSA? Or those who still suffer and face genocide?

At least they did not sully up Martin Luther King's great name and get angry, violent, and vandalise the monument from how the article sounds.

Cullen Smith

Bloated_Corpse
01-16-2007, 09:01 AM
...American flag is a symbol of hatred. It was the flag used on the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek, Wasatah, Wounded Knee just to name a few cases of genocide. It flys over the oppression sites called reservations. If genocide had really been the goal of the United States there would be no native American Indians alive today to run the casinos at all those "oppression sites." :rolleyes:

Wounded_Zouave
01-16-2007, 09:16 AM
I Who has a better argument? Those whose ANCESTORS suffered from slavery but yet many of whom supported the CSA? "Many" supported the CSA? Is that modern myth still being trumpeted?

"A racist fabrication has sprung up in the last decade: that the Confederacy had "thousands" of African- American slaves "fighting" in its armies during the Civil War.

Unfortunately, even some African-American men today have gotten conned into Putting on Confederate uniforms to play "re-enactors" in an army that fought to ensure that their ancestors would remain slaves.

There are two underlying points of this claim: first, to say that slavery wasn't so bad, because after all, the slaves themselves fought to preserve the slave South; and second, that the Confederacy wasn't really fighting for slavery. Both these notions may make some of our contemporaries feel good, but neither is historically accurate..."

Link: http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/trclark.htm

Malingerer
01-16-2007, 09:38 AM
"There are two underlying points of this claim: first, to say that slavery wasn't so bad, because after all, the slaves themselves fought to preserve the slave South; and second, that the Confederacy wasn't really fighting for slavery. Both these notions may make some of our contemporaries feel good, but neither is historically accurate..."

Right on. These are two of the most specious arguments offered by Southern appologists today. The facts speak abundantly to the contrary: 1. In the winter of 1864 Patrick Cleburne tried to introduce a measure to allow Blacks to fight for the Confederacy in exchange for their freedom - not only was he censured - all information regarding his ideas were quashed. Blacks were only officially welcomed into the Confederate Army a month before the collapse of the Confederacy - and even then, with utter ruin and defeat staring them in the face the measure barely passed. 2. Slavery was must have been bad enough to induce thousands (if not tens of thousands) to flee northward for freedom - enough ran away to cause southern congressmen to insist on the fugitive slave law to both become enacted and enforced. In fact it was this issue of enforcement that caused many slave owners consider the North to be a hostile country.
So,what we get now is this PC - 'it wasnt about slavery' watered down version of our history just so we Southerners can feel better about ourselves and our ancestors. I can take my history warts and all. No moonlight and magnolias for me.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City,NC

Spare_Man
01-16-2007, 10:19 AM
So,what we get now is this PC - 'it wasnt about slavery' watered down version of our history just so we Southerners can feel better about ourselves and our ancestors. I can take my history warts and all. No moonlight and magnolias for me.We all of go through various stages in our interest in the Civil War and they are not unlike the stages of grief:

1. DENIAL ("The south wasn't fighting for slavery!")

2. ANGER ("You dirty Yankee, listen to me! The south was NOT fighting for slavery!")

3. BARGAINING ("Look, not everyone in the south was fighting for slavery. See, even many blacks supported the south. Many, many, many. See? Look, if you'll admit the north wasn't fighting for freedom, I'll admit that some people in the south were fighting for slavery. Some. No all, of course.")

4. DEPRESSION ("Just let me sleep a little longer, please. This arguement has made me very tired.")

5. ACCEPTANCE ("OK, you got me. The evidence is clear. The Raison d’Ętre of the Confederacy was to preserve, perpetuate and expand slavery. The moonlight and magnolias of the anti-Bellum south is a myth. The Civil War was a horrible conflagration, a slaughter, a holocaust. Both sides committed attrocities at one time or another and all people of all races suffered horribly. I hope and pray it never happens again." )

Unfortunately, many seemed locked in the DENIAL, ANGER and BARGAINING stages and never advance out of the "Romantic Period" where we often begin our Civil War journey.

Jim Mayo
01-16-2007, 10:42 AM
Just remember, slavery was legal in the United States and that includes the north.

Many of the non-slave states had laws to keep the negros out. Sounds like it's not only a Southern thing. There is plenty of blame to go around but the winners write the history.

Spare_Man
01-16-2007, 10:47 AM
There is plenty of blame to go around but the winners write the history.Which lends truth to the old saying that "the North won the war, but the South won the peace." Almost as soon as the war ended southern apologists began writing the mythological history of "the lost cause" to justify plunging the country into a fratricidal war. A very good analysis can be found in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Lost-Cause-Civil-History/dp/0253338220

Wounded_Zouave
01-16-2007, 10:55 AM
Just remember, slavery was legal in the United States and that includes the north.

Many of the non-slave states had laws to keep the negros out. Sounds like it's not only a Southern thing. There is plenty of blame to go around but the winners write the history.This is an overly pat, sound-byte answer to a debate that cannot be won by broad-brush generalizations. It completely overlooks historical events such as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision, the Underground Railroad, the Abolitionist Movement and a host of other issues that were very complex and deeply meaningful to the people of those times.

Malingerer
01-16-2007, 11:00 AM
"Just remember, slavery was legal in the United States and that includes the north.

Many of the non-slave states had laws to keep the negros out. Sounds like it's not only a Southern thing. There is plenty of blame to go around but the winners write the history."

OK. Time for a little history lesson - No slavery, at the time of the civil war, was not legal up north. Most northern states had outlawed slavery long before. No northern state had a prohibition on Black immigration and several states - including Ohio, Connecticut, New York, and Massachusits had even established public schools for Blacks.
Was there racism up north? You bet - tons. Blame to go around? Plenty. But, there can be no doubt that the founding seven states of the Confederacy seceded in order to protect slavery - they said so themselves. For crying out loud read a book sometime.
One last thing: I'm a Southerner, proud of it, and I can't remember ever having been prohibited from writing or publishing works on Civil War history. This buisness of only the victors writing the history is so much nonsense.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Jim Mayo
01-16-2007, 11:04 AM
debate that cannot be won by broad-brush generalizations.

Exactly! There are two sides to every issue. Neither side was clean on the issue of slavery as some would have you believe.

Spare_Man
01-16-2007, 11:36 AM
Yes, but let us not forget the accomplishments of those who worked on the Underground Railroad which was run by both northerners and southerners, blacks and whites. It was one institution that we as Americans can all take equal pride in.

MDRebCAv
01-16-2007, 12:12 PM
When you think about the causes of the WBTS, it is really impossible to put the blame for the war on any one reason.

The first seven States seceeded becasue of their perceived threat to the instituion of slavery--so some say slavery is the cause.

Lincoln stated his objective was to preserve the Union--so some slavery was not even remotely the cause.

The other Southern States seceeded only after Lincoln's call for troops--so some say it was to repel an illegal Northen invasion.

Some say it was economics...some say it was arrogance and ego on both sides...*whew*

I have come to the personal conclusion that, to afix to any one reason, the label of "The Cause of the War" is simply, "...trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious."

All of the above reasons are correct, and they are all just as wrong in the meaning that all of the above are reasons for the war together, but none of them separately. In fact you can probaly add a slightly different reason in the hearts and minds of those fighting as there were soldiers on both side.

The fact that remains after all of this, is that ONE great good did evolve from it all--the abolition of slavery. But the WBTS also brought us the first military consciption and income taxes as well.

There might be another time in history when a people lost a conflict and not only took up the flag of the victors, but embraced it with the same fervor, patriotism and love as their ancestors, but the only one I can think of is the South. All Americans--living, fighting and dying under one flag today.

I think the ONE point we can all agree upon is that the 1860s was a time we would not want to be repeated, but we must also honor those who had the courage and comittment to their own perceptions of the "cause" to give their life--just as the soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors of today commit to their patriotism, and as many of us also did in the past.

madisontigers
01-16-2007, 12:15 PM
Senator Biden.

Hmmm, why don't we let the people of SC, decide, whether or not to remove the flag. Personally, I had nor problem with removing the flag the first time, but I feel like it should be left where it is right now. Was the war about slavery? Yes, of course, a portion of the war was about slavery.We have to stop destroying the history of our nation, regardless of whether or not it offends someone. I am against those who try and plant the CS flag in in-appropriate places, but I really am sick of people constantly trying to remove things, just because someone is offended. What business is it, of a legislator from Delaware, to try and decide what SC should do. I also find Biden's comments rather humerous, as we all know that Delware was the last state to abolish slavery.
There are negative connotations, both with the CS government, as well as the United States government before, and during the war. As long as the flag is used in an appropriate manner, such as in a historical or memorial setting, I have no issues with it. However, using the flag to purposely offend others, I do have a problem with that.

David Long
Asheville, NC

Malingerer
01-16-2007, 01:59 PM
Senator Biden.

Hmmm, why don't we let the people of SC, decide, whether or not to remove the flag. Personally, I had nor problem with removing the flag the first time, but I feel like it should be left where it is right now. Was the war about slavery? Yes, of course, a portion of the war was about slavery.We have to stop destroying the history of our nation, regardless of whether or not it offends someone. I am against those who try and plant the CS flag in in-appropriate places, but I really am sick of people constantly trying to remove things, just because someone is offended. What business is it, of a legislator from Delaware, to try and decide what SC should do. I also find Biden's comments rather humerous, as we all know that Delware was the last state to abolish slavery.
There are negative connotations, both with the CS government, as well as the United States government before, and during the war. As long as the flag is used in an appropriate manner, such as in a historical or memorial setting, I have no issues with it. However, using the flag to purposely offend others, I do have a problem with that.

David Long
Asheville, NC

A portion of the war? Which portion would that be? The leaders of the Confederacy themselves said that the Confederacy was founded specifically to protect slavery. They considered slavery to be a good thing. Until after the war - then, suddenly slavery dissapears as the 'good fight' and we see a switch to some nebulous 'states rights' defense.
while I agree, that local issues should be left primarily to local folks, often, however, local issues can have some far sweeping effects. Take for example the recent condemnation of the private property of some home owners in New London, CT - it ended up going to the supreme court and became a landmark case regarding eminent domian. I can also recall, as a little boy in Mississippi, anyone from outside our region who dissaproved of segregation to be an "outside aggitater" who, in some cases, were murdered for their aggitation. It seems conceivable that if segregation were left entirely to the kind impulses of my kinsmen and neighbors that segregation would still be the custom there. Senator Biden has the same right as any one of us to speak his mind on this or any other issue - last time I checked South Carolina was still a part of the United States.
Regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

huntdaw
01-16-2007, 02:03 PM
I think the fact that we still argue this point reinforces just how complicated the issues behind the war were. While there are many causes of the war, at the base of it all is the slavery question. Other reasons are predicated and built upon that issue.

The way I see it is that ultimately the war was fought over slavery but that is not necessarily the specific reason an individual went to war.

Instead of trying to be apologetic or accusatory about the whole thing we would be better served to try to better understand the motivations and mindsets of the people involved. By doing that we will learn much about the society, economy, politics and everyday wants and desires of the people we struggle to emulate through this hobby. And we'll have a better understanding about the answer/answers to this question.

MDRebCAv
01-16-2007, 02:35 PM
I think the fact that we still argue this point reinforces just how complicated the issues behind the war were. While there are many causes of the war, at the base of it all is the slavery question. Other reasons are predicated and built upon that issue.

The way I see it is that ultimately the war was fought over slavery but that is not necessarily the specific reason an individual went to war.

Instead of trying to be apologetic or accusatory about the whole thing we would be better served to try to better understand the motivations and mindsets of the people involved. By doing that we will learn much about the society, economy, politics and everyday wants and desires of the people we struggle to emulate through this hobby. And we'll have a better understanding about the answer/answers to this question.


I'll drink to that! Pass the Rebel Yell....oh, make that Southern Comfort....oh, how about Glen Morangie with port wood finish.

Army30th
01-16-2007, 02:44 PM
The way I see it is that ultimately the war was fought over slavery but that is not necessarily the specific reason an individual went to war.


Amen. I cannot tell you the reason my Confederate ancestors went to war, but I can tell you they never owned another person at any time in their lives. They were subsistence farmers, basically economic slaves to someone else.

Every state, including both Northern and Southern states, was guilty of perpetuating the institution of slavery. You can see it in their laws, their politicians, even their constituents. Racial hatred was everywhere, in every walk of life. To think so otherwise, is only fooling yourselves.

My father always told me that the black man in Africa should have been the inventor of gunpowder. That way he could have blown the first ship over the horizon out of the water, and no one would have ever known. I looked at him and said, Yeah, and they didn't have to sell their brethern to us, either.

However, people like Sen. Biden have to be stopped. If you allow every PC'er that comes along to dictate to you the way you think, worship, read, love, eat, sleep, drive, live, marry, or what have you, pretty soon the Civil War will have never taken place, slavery will have never happened, the Holocaust was a myth, the Dinosaurs never existed, will be the way your children are taught in school; taught to think like the robots they are being molded into.

The legislature of New Jersey is debating whether or not to pass a measure to outlaw the teaching of Veteran's Day in public school.

Hear me now, my son will NEVER attend a day of public school in this country, ever!

Spare_Man
01-16-2007, 05:11 PM
It seems conceivable that if segregation were left entirely to the kind impulses of my kinsmen and neighbors that segregation would still be the custom there. There is an "unoffcial" segration still in place in many states, and not just the South.

There are some swank areas in Boston where you will never see blacks living, and not because they can't afford it, but because they would never be overtly welcomed there.

And in many places in the south VFWs and American Legions are still either all black or all white, and never do the two meet, not even on common ground like Memorial Day ceremoies. The white VFW does their thing... then the black VFW does their thing, often at the same location, but at different times on the same day. It is very bizarre and and very sad.

madisontigers
01-16-2007, 05:49 PM
[QUOTE=Malingerer]"A portion of the war? Which portion would that be?"

It was a part of the war, and for the most part, the main ingredient. I guess it would relate to throwing a bit of sodium into a pool of water.

"The leaders of the Confederacy themselves said that the Confederacy was founded specifically to protect slavery. They considered slavery to be a good thing. Until after the war - then, suddenly slavery dissapears as the 'good fight' and we see a switch to some nebulous 'states rights' defense."

Your absolutely correct, slavery was a dominating cause of the war, and I will never deny that. All one needs to do, is to read the Confederate Constitutio, where it clearly asserts the intention of the Confederate government,in regards to it's stance on bondage.. Again, slavery ws indeed a primary contributing factor to the war, but other issues, such as tariffs, also played a hand. I'm not making excuses for slavery it was wrong, and it is a dark side of AMERICAN history that I will never overlook.


while I agree, that local issues should be left primarily to local folks, often, however, local issues can have some far sweeping effects. Take for example the recent condemnation of the private property of some home owners in New London, CT - it ended up going to the supreme court and became a landmark case regarding eminent domian. I can also recall, as a little boy in Mississippi, anyone from outside our region who dissaproved of segregation to be an "outside aggitater" who, in some cases, were murdered for their aggitation. It seems conceivable that if segregation were left entirely to the kind impulses of my kinsmen and neighbors that segregation would still be the custom there. Senator Biden has the same right as any one of us to speak his mind on this or any other issue -


"last time I checked South Carolina was still a part of the United States."

Yes indeed, South Carolina is still a part of the United States. Peter, I predominately agree with your post, and I appreciate you keeping things civil here. Glad to see another forum member from WNC.

David Long

"Doc" Nelson
01-16-2007, 07:32 PM
We all of go through various stages in our interest in the Civil War and they are not unlike the stages of grief:

1. DENIAL ("The south wasn't fighting for slavery!")

2. ANGER ("You dirty Yankee, listen to me! The south was NOT fighting for slavery!")

3. BARGAINING ("Look, not everyone in the south was fighting for slavery. See, even many blacks supported the south. Many, many, many. See? Look, if you'll admit the north wasn't fighting for freedom, I'll admit that some people in the south were fighting for slavery. Some. No all, of course.")

4. DEPRESSION ("Just let me sleep a little longer, please. This arguement has made me very tired.")

5. ACCEPTANCE ("OK, you got me. The evidence is clear. The Raison d’Ętre of the Confederacy was to preserve, perpetuate and expand slavery. The moonlight and magnolias of the anti-Bellum south is a myth. The Civil War was a horrible conflagration, a slaughter, a holocaust. Both sides committed attrocities at one time or another and all people of all races suffered horribly. I hope and pray it never happens again." )

Unfortunately, many seemed locked in the DENIAL, ANGER and BARGAINING stages and never advance out of the "Romantic Period" where we often begin our Civil War journey.
First off . . . AMEN !!!!!!

Second, to add to a statement posted above (in the first post):

"Biden expects legislators here will eventually move the flag. Pointing to his heart, he said, "as people become more and more aware of what it means to African-Americans here, this is only a matter of time."

Did the "slaves" not arrive in this country by means of American ships too and, were they not flying the American flag?? Do we not fly the American flag now?? I guess this means we should take this flag down too?? I also guess this means that there were NO slaves prior to the Civil War?? And, I believe (unless I'm mistaken), there was this little thing that was written in 1863 called the "Emancipation Proclamation": The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free." Yes, the South, not the North . . . hmmm interesting? Now why would the President of the US free only those slaves in the South and not all slaves? I think that people should get their facts right before they began to accuse and then, expect something in return. And, as I remember from reading history books and such, were not white people held as slaves too?? So, does this mean white's qualify for assistance too?? Is not the government responsible to give white's some kind of retribution for their ancestors being held as slaves?? No, I'm not a racist . . . I believe in teaching history CORRECTLY! I am proud of my GGG Grandfather's service in the Confederate Army and, will continue to do so.

tompritchett
01-16-2007, 07:55 PM
If genocide had really been the goal of the United States there would be no native American Indians alive today to run the casinos at all those "oppression sites."

Actually it was the goal of certain senior members of the U.S. military. It was Sherman who first used the term "the final solution" not the Nazi's. One of his last regrets was that Congress would not let wipe the Indians on the U.S. map.

tompritchett
01-16-2007, 08:07 PM
OK. Time for a little history lesson - No slavery, at the time of the civil war, was not legal up north. Most northern states had outlawed slavery long before.

Delaware, Kentucky, and all had slavery at the beginning of the Civil War. (Yes, I know Maryland did also but that state was under martial law throughout the war to prevent it secession. So not all Northern states had banned slavery. Just a clarification of fact.

Also, as another point of fact, look at who the three defendants were in the first attempted lawsuit for repartations for slavery - Northern based companies. It was the Northern banks that financed and insured the slave trade which initially brought the slaves to the South. Most Northern states didi not allow a black freeman to vote or have equal access to the law until the reforms of the Reconstruction - something that occurred after the war. The primary difference between the liberties gained by Northern blacks and Southern blacks during the Reconstruction was in that the newly gained liberites and rights of the Northern blacks were not slowly eroded after the end of the Reconstruction by the "Jim Crow" laws and other such restrictions enabled in the South as Reconstruction wound down.

Yes Jim, there are indeed two sides to the issue and there is plenty of blame for everyone in regards to how the blacks were treated in the U.S. during the first half of the 19th century.

tompritchett
01-16-2007, 08:21 PM
"Biden expects legislators here will eventually move the flag. Pointing to his heart, he said, "as people become more and more aware of what it means to African-Americans here, this is only a matter of time."

Whether Biden was specifically referring to it or not, it was not the Civil War that gave the battle flag its extremely negative meaning to most middle aged blacks in the South, but rather its use as the rallying flag for the racial hatred and violence that Southern whites exhibited over the Civil Rights reforms of the 1950's - 70's - a century after the war and almost a century after the Reconstruction that was supposed to have given them those rights then. I know that the KKK also flew the U.S. flag but it was the battle flag that Southern whites flew to show their support for the fight for racial inequalities and segration.

madisontigers
01-16-2007, 11:33 PM
Thomas,

Thanks for the insightful posts. Yes indeed, the North still had slavery, and as I stated earlier, Delaware was the last state to abolish forced servitude. As a matter of fact, if i'm not totally mistaken, didn't washington, D.C. maintain the institution of slavery, until sometime in 1 863?
Yes, you will find many southerners preach about.... how the war wasn't about slavery, and it was only states rights.Well, states rights it was indeed, and parrt of those states rights had to do with slavery. To be honest, my ancestors were a mixed bag, as some owned slaves, and some didn't. As a matter of fact, my 3x grandfather, who owned a large farm outside of Asheville, NC, was one of the largest slaveowners in Western North Carolina. Having said that, the other half of my lineage, which were also mostly from WNC, were dirt poor, mountain farmers, who owned no slaves. While we all want to claim why these men fought, only they themselves knew the reason they FOUGHT.If we turn our research to primary sources, such as diaries, newspaper articles, and period writings, we see a variety of reasons. Did some southern men fight to maintain slavery? Yes, of course they did, and we would be foolish to deny that fact. Did some men fight to keep, in what was their opinion, the Federal government from abusing their power? Yes, as a matter of fact, some did. Did some fight due to being conscripted? Yes, some didn't want to fight, but under the 1862 Confederate conscription act, they were forced to. And what about peer pressure, did this play a part? Of course it did, and if you don't believe it,again, just refer yourself to some primary source material. As for Northernerrs, they fought for a variety of reasons as well. Some fought to put down, what was in their opinion, an unlawful rebellion. Some, mostly ardent abolisionists, fought to end slavery. And then again, like with some southern men, they were forced to fight under varying conscription laws.
So, in short, every soldier had his own reason for fighitng in the war. And like Thomas stated earlier, the negative connotations of the battleflag have a deep - rooted history in the civil rights struggles here in the south.

David Long

madisontigers
01-16-2007, 11:45 PM
"5. ACCEPTANCE ("OK, you got me. The evidence is clear. The Raison d’Ętre of the Confederacy was to preserve, perpetuate and expand slavery. The moonlight and magnolias of the anti-Bellum south is a myth. The Civil War was a horrible conflagration, a slaughter, a holocaust. Both sides committed attrocities at one time or another and all people of all races suffered horribly. I hope and pray it never happens again." )

Unfortunately, many seemed locked in the DENIAL, ANGER and BARGAINING stages and never advance out of the "Romantic Period" where we often begin our Civil War journey"
A-men, couldn't have said it better myself.

Je deteste la guerre, et j'espere nous evitons des guerres.
David Long

Frenchie
01-17-2007, 12:54 AM
"I detest war, and I pray we avoid wars." Amen.

This all reminds me of the time I got into a discussion about the Confederate battle flag and gave a history of it (that it isn't the Confederate national flag was new information to this person). Anyway, he said it shouldn't be seen because it flew over a slave nation. I said yes, for four years, but that flag (pointing to the Stars and Stripes) flew over a slave nation for 90 years. I love introducing new thoughts.

I have always liked Sgt. Pepper's tag line, and will take the liberty of quoting it here:

"The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated; and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South, in that they have not the apology of education or custom." -- Harriet Beecher Stowe on the North and slavery

HighPrvt
01-17-2007, 04:12 AM
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/Carver/csaaa.html


Well I guess the jokes on the Federal government, who was paying their pensions!

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 07:32 AM
I guess it would relate to throwing a bit of sodium into a pool of water.

David, just how did you come to know that I did that very thing once? My first year (actually first day) as a chemistry teacher in Swain County I did that as a demonstration of the reactivity of alkaloid metals and used too large a piece of sodium - well nobody was injured when the beaker exploded into thousands of shards and my desk was covered in sodium hydroxide and fire and the classroom filled with acrid smoke. Somehow I wasn't fired.
Cheers,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

HighPrvt
01-17-2007, 07:44 AM
http://www.42ndgeorgia.com/images/blkreb.gif

Spare_Man
01-17-2007, 08:27 AM
Actually it was the goal of certain senior members of the U.S. military. It was Sherman who first used the term "the final solution" not the Nazi's. One of his last regrets was that Congress would not let wipe the Indians on the U.S. map.
"Terms" used by Sherman are to be taken only with a grain of salt. As Dr. Gary Gallagher has stated, Sherman had no filter between his brain and his mouth. He talked the talk, but didn't always walk the walk... like "making Georgia howl."

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 08:42 AM
For your edification I give you the speech to the Virginia Seccesion Convention by Henry Benning of Georgia who spoke as a delegate from Georgia. The bold highlights are mine. Because of size limitations, only the first portion of the speech is included. The rest is available at several web sites.

"I have been appointed by the Convention of the State of Georgia, to present to this Convention, the ordinance of secession of Georgia, and further, to invite Virginia, through this Convention ' to join Georgia and the other seceded States in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. This, sir, is the whole extent of my mission. 1 have no power to make promises, none to receive promises; no power to bind at all in any respect. But still, sir, it has seemed to me that a proper respect for this Convention requires that I should with some fulness and particularity, exhibit before the Convention the reasons which have induced Georgia to take that important step of secession, and then to lay before the Convention some facts and considerations in favor of the acceptance of the invitation by Virginia. With your permission then, sit, I will pursue this course.

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.

Is it true, then, that unless there had been a separation from the North, slavery would be abolished in Georgia? I address myself to the proofs of that case.

In the first place, I say that the North hates slavery, and, in using that expression I speak wittingly. In saying that the Black Republican party of the North hates slavery, I speak intentionally. If there is a doubt upon that question in the mind of any one who listens to me, a few of the multitude of proofs which could fill this room, would, I think, be sufficient to satisfy him. I beg to refer to a few of the proofs that are so abundant; and the first that I shall adduce consists in two extracts from a speech of Lincoln's, made in October, 1858. They are as follows: "I have always hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; I have always been an old line Whig; I have always hated it and I always believed it in the course of ultimate extinction, and if I were in Congress and a vote should come up on the question, whether slavery should be excluded from the territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should."

These are pregnant statements; they avow a sentiment, a political principle of action, a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist. The political principle here avowed is, that his action against slavery is not to be restrained by the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I say, if you can find any degree of hatred greater than that, I should like to see it. This is the sentiment of the chosen leader of the Black Republican party; and can you doubt that it is not entertained by every solitary member of that same party? You cannot, I think. He is a representative man; his sentiments are the sentiments of his party; his principles of political action are the principles of political action of his party. I say, then; it is true, at least, that the Republican party of the North hates slavery.

My next proposition is, that the Republican party of the North is in a permanent majority. It is true that in a government organized like the government of the Northern States, and like our own government, a majority, where it is permanent, is equivalent to the whole. The minority is powerless if the majority be permanent. Now, is this majority of the Republican party permanent? I say it is. That party is so deeply seated at the North that you cannot overthrow it. It has the press, it has the pulpit, it has the school-house, it has the organizations-the Governors, Legislatures, the judiciary, county officers, magistrates, constables, mayors, in fact all official life. Now, it has the General Government in addition. It has that inexhaustible reserve to fall back upon and to recruit from, the universal feeling at the North that slavery is a moral, social and political evil. With this to fall back upon, recruiting is easy. This is not all. The Republican party is now in league with the tariff, in league with internal improvements, in league with three Pacific Railroads. Sir, you cannot overthrow such a party as that. As well might you attempt to lift a mountain out of its bed and throw it into the sea.

But, suppose, sir, that by the aid of Providence and the intensest human exertion, you were enabled to overthrow it, how long would your victory last? But a very short time. The same ascendancy which that party has gained now, would be gained again before long. If it has come to this vast majority in the course of twenty-five years, from nothing, how long would it take the fragments of that party to get again into a majority? Sir, in two or three Presidential elections your labor would be worse than the labor of Sisyphus, and every time you rolled the rock up the hill it would roll back again growing larger and larger each time until at last it would roll back like an avalanche crushing you beneath it.

The Republican party is the permanent, dominant party at the North, and it is vain to think that you can put it down. It is true that the Republican party hates slavery, and that it is to be the permanent, dominant party at the North; and the majority being equivalent to the whole, as I have already stated, we cannot doubt the result. What is the feeling of the rest of the Northern people upon this subject? Can you trust them? They all say that slavery is a moral, social and political evil. Then the result of that feeling must be hatred to the institution; and if that is not entertained, it must be the consequence of something artificial or temporary-some interest, some thirst for office, or some confidence in immediate advancement. And we know that these considerations cannot be depended upon, and we may expect that, ultimately, the whole North will pass from this inactive state of hatred into the active state which animates the Black Republican party.

Is it true that the North hates slavery? My next proposition is that in the past the North has invariably exerted against slavery, all the power which it had at the time. The question merely was what was the amount of power it had to exert against it. They abolished slavery in that magnificent empire which you presented to the North; they abolished slavery in every Northern State, one after another; they abolished slavery in all the territory above the line of 36 30, which comprised about one million square miles. They have endeavored to put the Wilmot Proviso upon all the other territories of the Union, and they succeeded in putting it upon the territories of Oregon and Washington. They have taken from slavery all the conquests of the Mexican war, and appropriated it all to anti-slavery purposes; and if one of our fugitives escapes into the territories, they do all they can to make a free man of him; they maltreat his pursuers, and sometimes murder them. They make raids into your territory with a view to raise insurrection, with a view to destroy and murder indiscriminately all classes, ages and sexes, and when the base perpetrators are caught and brought to punishment, condign punishment, half the north go into mourning. If some of the perpetrators escape, they are shielded by the authorities of these Northern States-not by an irresponsible mob, but ,by the regularly organized authorities of the States.

My next proposition is, that we have a right to argue from the past to the future and to say, that if in the past the North has done this, in the-future, if it shall acquire the power to abolish slavery, it will do it.

My proposition, then, I insist, is true, that the North is acquiring this power. That being so, the only question is will she exercise it? Of course she will, for her whole course shows that she will. If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished except in Georgia and the other cotton States, and I doubt, ultimately in these States also. By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything."

Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

tompritchett
01-17-2007, 08:45 AM
He talked the talk, but didn't always walk the walk... like "making Georgia howl."

Looking how the military treated the Indians while he was head of the Army, it seems to me that he might have been trying to "walk the walk" on this one.

MStuart
01-17-2007, 09:44 AM
Uncle Billy, as well as Little Phil, didn't have any problems with that.

Mark

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 09:56 AM
I think you're missing the point. Specifically: Why did the Confederate States secede? Look at the words of their own leaders. These guys were willing to destroy the first republican democracy since the Greek city states in order to protect their right to own other humans. Not my words. Their words. Its really hard for me to blame Blacks for casting a jaundiced eye on memorials which glorify the Confederacy when that very goverment came into existence specifically to maintain the slave status of their ancestors.

Cheers,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Wounded_Zouave
01-17-2007, 10:17 AM
Specifically: Why did the Confederate States secede? Because they could not stand the idea of Lincoln being president. Kinda reminds me of the 2000 election. The loosers just couldn't deal with losing a legal election. But instead of demanding endless recounts as in 2000, in 1860 the losers chose secession and war.

Frenchie
01-17-2007, 10:41 AM
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/Carver/csaaa.html

Well I guess the jokes on the Federal government, who was paying their pensions!

April 18, 1861: The first man injured in the Baltimore violence that culminated in the Pratt Street riot of April 19 was a black man wearing a uniform. His name was Nicholas Biddle and he was the personal servant of the colonel commanding the 2nd Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers. He wore a uniform and marched with the troops, but he was not a soldier under arms.

From what I've seen of this subject, I believe the great majority of the black men who served in the Confederate armed forces were in the same position as Nick Biddle - they may have worn uniforms but they did not carry arms and they did not engage in combat. They were teamsters, personal servants, cooks and "gophers". They were entitled to pensions due to their service, but they were not organized in combat units.

HighPrvt
01-17-2007, 10:55 AM
Frenchie, those links were just in response to those already posted, tit for tat, so to speak.
Links can be posted till the cows come home, and don't prove anything.



So let me get this straight...
The CW was strictly about slavery 100%
Not a single black carried a weapon in the Confederate army, and uncle Billy didn't mean it when he said the "N" word...


The thing is not one of these can be solidly proved, or disproved. it's all about opinion, so as I see it this thread can't possibly go anywhere.

What was the original subject again anyway?

LMAO

The facts as I see it.
Those that think that the Civil War was just about slavery, are just as wrong as those that think it wasn't at all.

Those that think uncle Billy wasn't a racist POS, are plainly ignorant.

Finally there is no way that any of you can prove that no blacks fought for the south, give it up, you are taking on a lost cause.

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 11:02 AM
We all of go through various stages in our interest in the Civil War and they are not unlike the stages of grief:

1. DENIAL ("The south wasn't fighting for slavery!")

2. ANGER ("You dirty Yankee, listen to me! The south was NOT fighting for slavery!")

3. BARGAINING ("Look, not everyone in the south was fighting for slavery. See, even many blacks supported the south. Many, many, many. See? Look, if you'll admit the north wasn't fighting for freedom, I'll admit that some people in the south were fighting for slavery. Some. No all, of course.")

4. DEPRESSION ("Just let me sleep a little longer, please. This arguement has made me very tired.")

5. ACCEPTANCE ("OK, you got me. The evidence is clear. The Raison d’Ętre of the Confederacy was to preserve, perpetuate and expand slavery. The moonlight and magnolias of the anti-Bellum south is a myth. The Civil War was a horrible conflagration, a slaughter, a holocaust. Both sides committed attrocities at one time or another and all people of all races suffered horribly. I hope and pray it never happens again." )

Unfortunately, many seemed locked in the DENIAL, ANGER and BARGAINING stages and never advance out of the "Romantic Period" where we often begin our Civil War journey.

I concede your point.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Frenchie
01-17-2007, 11:02 AM
So let me get this straight... when someone disagrees with you and points out that things weren't as extreme as you say, you claim he's arguing the opposite extreme which, of course, is just as wrong as your own position? Just want to make sure I understand.

tompritchett
01-17-2007, 11:02 AM
Because they could not stand the idea of Lincoln being president. Kinda reminds me of the 2000 election. The loosers just couldn't deal with losing a legal election. But instead of demanding endless recounts as in 2000, in 1860 the losers chose secession and war.

The main difference in the two elections is the geographic polarization of the voting. Lincoln had almost no votes in the South in 1860 whereas in 2000 Gore had enough votes in Florida such that the margin between the two was greater than the margin of error in the initial counting of the ballots. Yes, in 2000 there was a regional distribution in which states particular candidates carried the majority of the votes but in many of those states the margin of victory was not considered a landslide. Thus, IMHO you are comparing apples and oranges.

tompritchett
01-17-2007, 11:12 AM
For your edification I give you the speech to the Virginia Seccesion Convention by Henry Benning of Georgia who spoke as a delegate from Georgia. The bold highlights are mine. Because of size limitations, only the first portion of the speech is included. The rest is available at several web sites.

I have no argument that the primary motivation of the first seven seceding states was the protection of the institution of slavery itself. What complicates the issue is that during this first wave of secessions over slavery, four states of the Confederacy did not secede. In fact, in Tenessee the original secession convention specifically voted against secession and for staying in the Union. It was not until Lincoln's muster call for troops to put down the Southern rebellion that Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, and North Carolina finally left the Union. If you look at the transcripts of the emergency session of the Tennessee legislature where the issue of secession was resurrected, you will find that the Governor called the special session specfically because of the muster call and not because of slavery. For some states, it was a mixture of slavery and states rights and not just slavery alone.

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 11:41 AM
Tom,
Excellent point. Unquestionably the last four seceding states complicate the matter considerably. The nucleus of the Confederacy however, were those first seven states and they left no doubt as to their reasons for leaving. All comments of Yankee hypocracy aside, the stated purpose of the Confederate States was the protection of the institution of slavery. They were proud of it then - we don't seem so proud now.
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

CivilWarBuff1863
01-17-2007, 11:51 AM
I think you're missing the point. Specifically: Why did the Confederate States secede? Look at the words of their own leaders. These guys were willing to destroy the first republican democracy since the Greek city states in order to protect their right to own other humans. Not my words. Their words. Its really hard for me to blame Blacks for casting a jaundiced eye on memorials which glorify the Confederacy when that very goverment came into existence specifically to maintain the slave status of their ancestors.

Cheers,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

It's kind of weird that it was southerners who started this great country. Is it not a lie that most of our beloved presidents were southern? Actually Rome started this whole Civil War thing when the Army of Rome had to march on itself to protect itself from destruction. You get what I mean? About the blacks being here, well that's our fault in ourselves. They did learn alot from the whites and managed to understand what was around and available to them. But when the NAACP brings up about the flag they are attacking themselves becasue there is significant evidence that black were in the Confederacy.

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 11:59 AM
It's kind of weird that it was southerners who started this great country.

Really? That should come as unwelcome news to John Adams, John Hancock, and Ben Franklin.

Cheers,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Pete K
01-17-2007, 12:39 PM
It was the most amazing thing that Northern, Southern and Middle states leaders and soldiers rose up TOGETHER to make this nation free from the British. The people began to see themselves as Americans as well as Virginians, New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians (etc...). By the way, Which states would Deleware have to "...go through..." to join the South? Doesn't It border Virginia and the ocean? Maybe the Senator needs to go back to Geography class!

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 01:06 PM
[QUOTE=Army30th
However, people like Sen. Biden have to be stopped.[/QUOTE]

Really? Just how do you propose to do that? And, stopped from what - expressing his own personal viewpoint? Isnt there some sort of ammendment to the constitution that protects our right to free speech?
Cheers,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

madisontigers
01-17-2007, 01:18 PM
Peter,
I don't know, I'm just assuming that that's the kind of activities that go on ....here Western North Carolina.

Peter, I predominately agree with what you have stated.Slavery was indeed a part of the war, and I too, can understand why some minorities are offended by the flag. I am a proud descendent of Confederate certain troops, but , by no means, do I try and put a sweet coating on the issue of slavery. Our best option, as serious living historians, is to actively, as well as accurately, answer the questions put forth, in regards to slavery. All too often, especially amongst some reenactors, I hear the whole:" slavery had nothing to do with the war" talk. We all know this is bologna, and we only kill our credibility when we say so. Someone asked me one time, at an event, which side I would have chosen, if I were alive during 1861. Before answering this question, I pondered over, not which side I would choose, but rather, how I would justify which side I decided on. The hardest part of being a living historian, is trying to walk in the shoes of someone born in the 1840's. Due to the fact, that I was not alive in the tumultous year of 1861, I try my best not to assert my modern ideals; which I sometimes have, into 19th century...decision making skills. Forced servitude is wrong, and there is simply no way to get around that. I do not believe that every Confederate soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, but I do believe that the central government, as well as the other state governments, which were a part of the Confederate States of America, were fighting to preserve slavery.
My answer, of course, was that I would have gone with my state, North Carolina.

Malingerer
01-17-2007, 01:24 PM
Peter,
I don't know, I'm just assuming that that's the kind of activities that go on ....here Western North Carolina.

Peter, I predominately agree with what you have stated.Slavery was indeed a part of the war, and I too, can understand why some minorities are offended by the flag. I am a proud descendent of Confederate certain troops, but , by no means, do I try and put a sweet coating on the issue of slavery. Our best option, as serious living historians, is to actively, as well as accurately, answer the questions put forth, in regards to slavery. All too often, especially amongst some reenactors, I hear the whole:" slavery had nothing to do with the war" talk. We all know this is bologna, and we only kill our credibility when we say so. Someone asked me one time, at an event, which side I would have chosen, if I were alive during 1861. Before answering this question, I pondered over, not which side I would choose, but rather, how I would justify which side I decided on. The hardest part of being a living historian, is trying to walk in the shoes of someone born in the 1840's. Due to the fact, that I was not alive in the tumultous year of 1861, I try my best not to assert my modern ideals; which I sometimes have, into 19th century...decision making skills. Forced servitude is wrong, and there is simply no way to get around that. I do not believe that every Confederate soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, but I do believe that the central government, as well as the other state governments, which were a part of the Confederate States of America, were fighting to preserve slavery.
My answer, of course, was that I would have gone with my state, North Carolina.
Well said sir. And I too would have had to go with Mississippi. Someday let me buy you a beer at Jack of the Wood in Asheville.
Best regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

madisontigers
01-17-2007, 03:11 PM
Peter,

I would be obliged, to accept your kind offer.BTW: are you reenacting with a unit? Thanks for the reply, and we should get together sometime. Of course, my girlfriend says she would go over to the Union side, but she's from Yancey county, what do you expect?

David Long

Army30th
01-17-2007, 04:19 PM
Really? Just how do you propose to do that? And, stopped from what - expressing his own personal viewpoint? Isnt there some sort of ammendment to the constitution that protects our right to free speech?
Cheers,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

I personally don't propose to do anything. I'll just sit here with the rest of the sheep of this country and wait until the wolf comes to devour us.

Yes, there is that amendment to the constitution for free speech. The problem isn't with someone speaking their own mind or opinion, the problem is when the opinion of the few is taken and made into law for the judgment of the many.

I quote from www.usconstitution.net

"The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction from the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, from state legislatures, too). " Freedom of speech is not absolute.

He can say all he wants as far as I care. When the rights of others are supplanted just so people can feel better, that's a problem. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, and total erasure is not the answer. This can run the gamut from the Battle Flag of the Confederacy to Prayer in Public School.

What happened long ago, and also not more than 40 years ago, did happen. It is a bad thing to pretend it never happened, to erase the very existence of of that history. You cannot change it; neither can you erase it.

Why for do we argue, when we need to be educating our children about our past, a past, that although horrible in instances it was to be sure, is a past that made us who we are and who we will be until time is over.

reb64
01-17-2007, 06:19 PM
[QUOTE=tompritchett]Delaware, Kentucky, and all had slavery at the beginning of the Civil War. (Yes, I know Maryland did also but that state was under martial law throughout the war to prevent it secession. So not all Northern states had banned slavery. Just a clarification of fact.

When the north banned slavery piecemeal they aslo made laws in various plces where no freed man could stay, where did all those ex slaves go? sold south is where. They may not have had slaves but they didn't want them up north either.

reb64
01-17-2007, 06:23 PM
April 18, 1861: The first man injured in the Baltimore violence that culminated in the Pratt Street riot of April 19 was a black man wearing a uniform. His name was Nicholas Biddle and he was the personal servant of the colonel commanding the 2nd Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers. He wore a uniform and marched with the troops, but he was not a soldier under arms.

From what I've seen of this subject, I believe the great majority of the black men who served in the Confederate armed forces were in the same position as Nick Biddle - they may have worn uniforms but they did not carry arms and they did not engage in combat. They were teamsters, personal servants, cooks and "gophers". They were entitled to pensions due to their service, but they were not organized in combat units.


There is a passage where union troops remarked" well we got that ni#$er sniper today". he was under arms for sure.

Frenchie
01-17-2007, 06:40 PM
There is a passage where union troops remarked" well we got that ni#$er sniper today". he was under arms for sure.

You mean this?

The Siege of Suffolk: The Forgotten Campaign April 11-May 4, 1863 (Virginia Civil War Battles and Leaders Series) by Steven A. Cormier http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Suffolk-Forgotten-Campaign-Virginia/dp/0930919823

Looks interesting. Are you sure you quoted the remark properly and in context?

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say you did; how does one - one - black Confederate sharpshooter prove the existence of many black Confederates organized and trained as soldiers? Statistically, one black man who can shoot well and is willing to kill for whatever reason doesn't mean squat.

madisontigers
01-17-2007, 07:20 PM
Frenchie,

I do believe that some people can go over board with the whole black Confederate issue, I do believe, in my own opinion, that some did serve as combat soldiers. As to how many, that will more than likely never be known. Let me suggest some places where one can find primary source material, which deals with Negro CS troops.

I. "War of the Rebellion, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 1, Vol. XVI, Part 1, Reports, page 805. "The forces attacking my camp were the First Regiment Texas Rangers, Colonel Wharton, and a battalion of the First Georgia Rangers, Colonel Morrison, and a large number of citizens of Rutherford County, many of whom had recently taken the oath of allegiance to the United States Government. There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day."

I also suggest checking out the following site http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm

David Long

CivilWarBuff1863
01-17-2007, 10:45 PM
Toward the end of the war the Confederacy was so desperate that they issued to raise black troops and hand them weapons. I think they should've done that earlier then they would have had the man power but I guess ignorance and racism got the best of them.

madisontigers
01-18-2007, 08:36 AM
yep, your exactly right. It's kind of similar to how the Union army only used them as laborers, and such... for so long. It's also similar to how the Union Army, from the beginning, segregated the black troops, from the white troops. As far as I know, black troops were not used in combat until around 1863.

David Long

Wounded_Zouave
01-18-2007, 08:56 AM
yep, your exactly right. It's kind of similar to how the Union army only used them as laborers, and such... for so long. It's also similar to how the Union Army, from the beginning, segregated the black troops, from the white troops. As far as I know, black troops were not used in combat until around 1863.David LongYes, but the fact still remains that they were eventually used in combat by the United States and they proved to be excellent troops: http://www.nps.gov/archive/rich/backgrou.htm

In actual numbers, African American soldiers comprised 10% of the entire Union Army. Losses among African Americans were high, and from all reported casualties, approximately one-third of all African Americans enrolled in the military lost their lives during the Civil War.

http://www.medalofhonor.com/AndrewJacksonSmith.htm

Army30th
01-18-2007, 10:19 AM
If they were good enough to fight, then they were good enough to fight RIGHT along side their white brethern. If the US believed in the Freedom and Equality of the black man, why was he segregated from other soldiers until after World War Two???

Jim Crow existed only because the Federal Government allowed it to exist.

Malingerer
01-18-2007, 10:36 AM
If they were good enough to fight, then they were good enough to fight RIGHT along side their white brethern. If the US believed in the Freedom and Equality of the black man, why was he segregated from other soldiers until after World War Two???

Jim Crow existed only because the Federal Government allowed it to exist.

I'm not trying to be obtuse - but, what exactly is your point here? That Yankees were (and still are) guilty of racism? No argument here. That the federal goverment was guilty of institutional racism? Again, no argument.
If you'll check the origin of this thread you'll notice that it concerend a speech given by Joe Biden in Columbia, SC. So, is your point that Biden has no right to speak his mind because he works for a government that condoned racism for nearly 200 years? I'm not trying to be cute here, I truely don't get what you're after.
Regards,
Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

Malingerer
01-18-2007, 02:45 PM
Hear me now, my son will NEVER attend a day of public school in this country, ever!
Quick, someone alert the press.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City,NC

Bloated_Corpse
01-18-2007, 03:26 PM
If they were good enough to fight, then they were good enough to fight RIGHT along side their white brethern.In one sense they did fight alongside their white bretheren. I suggest reading Forged in Battle: The Civil War Alliance of Black Soldiers and White Officers by Joseph T. Glatthaar.

Wounded_Zouave
01-18-2007, 03:59 PM
If they were good enough to fight, then they were good enough to fight RIGHT along side their white brethern. If the US believed in the Freedom and Equality of the black man, why was he segregated from other soldiers until after World War Two???Jim Crow existed only because the Federal Government allowed it to exist.The Jim Crow Laws were state and local laws enacted in the Southern and Border States of the United States and enforced between 1876 and 1965. The Federal Gov't "let it exist" because Southern legislators (Senators and Congressmen) consistently and succesfully blocking any changes for decades because of something called "states rights." (Now where-oh-where have I heard that phrase used before?) They sure put the breaks on President Grant when he sent troops back into the south in the 1870s to fight the KKK.

During the Reconstruction period of 1865-1876, federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for freedmen—the African-Americans who had formerly been slaves. Reconstruction ended at different dates (the latest 1877), and was followed in each Southern state by Redeemer governments that passed the Jim Crow laws to separate the races. In the Progressive Era the restrictions were formalized, and segregation was extended to the federal government by President Woodrow Wilson (a Southerner) in 1913.

So, the U.S. did believe in the Freedom and Equality of the black man, but at different times and at different degrees based on societal circumstances as well as who happened to be holding the reigns of power. Truman, a border state Democrat, eventually lifted segregation in the military. Southern Democrats were not too happy about that. Hubert Humphrey, a Northern Democrat, introduced the Civil Rights legistlation, yet, ironically in the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

CivilWarBuff1863
01-18-2007, 05:13 PM
During the Revolutionary War there were freed blacks that joined to help fight the cause. It all depends how anyone would take to seeing a colored man stand right beside them, firing at the same enemy that they were firing at and risking thier lives to help preserve the same thing that they were fighting for. It takes a special person to see beyond the color of the skin and to look at the person as an equal.

In the Civil War it was just the way the skin color was. The freed black men then joined other units and the now famous 54th Mass. and 54th proved themselves at the battle of Battery Wagner. Lincoln saw that they weren't as dumb as he thought them out to be and issued more blacks to join. If you're going to use a resource, use it while it's there. Don't wait til later when all **** has broken loose. Same goes for the Tuskegee Airmen! They were a resource and used to great effect.

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do, that defines me."

Army30th
01-18-2007, 05:42 PM
Mr. Julius,

I was responding to the post immediately above mine. Let's leave it at that.

Thanks

reb64
01-18-2007, 11:15 PM
[QUOTE=CivilWarBuff1863]
. The freed black men then joined other units and the now famous 54th Mass. and 54th proved themselves at the battle of Battery Wagner. QUOTE]

the 54th was composed of mostly free born men, not freed slaves. Rob H

reb64
01-18-2007, 11:25 PM
[QUOTE=tompritchett]I have no argument that the primary motivation of the first seven seceding states was the protection of the institution of slavery itself. What complicates the issue is that during this first wave of secessions over slavery, four states of the Confederacy did not secede.

When the confederacy first formed, that numerically put more slave owning staes in the union. If no war or troop call up had occurred, that would have left the union holding more slaves than the cSA. Slavery really was a issue once war was well under way, the first call was for the preservation of the union. Rob H

tompritchett
01-19-2007, 01:16 AM
When the confederacy first formed, that numerically put more slave owning staes in the union.

Actually, according to the 1860 census there were 3,950,528 slaves in the U.S. of which 2,212,352 were in the original 7 states of the Confederacy or 58.5%. There may have been more slave owning slaves in the Union at that time, but there were more slaves total in those seven states. In fact, in two of the states, Mississippi and South Carolina, there were more slaves than whites.

MDRebCAv
01-19-2007, 11:57 AM
And in Baltimore:

"Since Baltimore's founding in the early 1700s, the large black population has been making contributions to its growth and development both physically and spiritually. While slavery was legal in Maryland, there were more free blacks in Baltimore than there were slaves. The free blacks established and organized both churches and organizations to aide in the fight for non-persecution, resulting in an abundant number of black churches still standing in the city today." http://www.baltimore.org/baltimore_black_history.htm

madisontigers
01-19-2007, 12:04 PM
All one needs to do, in order to see the motives of the POLITICIANS in the south, is to look at the Wilmot proposal, the Missouri compromise, and the actions of various prominent southern politicians. Again, slavery was a major cause of the war, and there is no way of getting around that, no matter how romantic we may want it to appear. I am a proud southerner, and I am very proud of my Confederate ancestors. However, the motives of those in charge of the southern states, did indeed, wish...to not only preserve slavery, but to expand that institution.... into the newly forming, and or/ already formed states.And, if you read about men such as John C. Calhoun,Robert Toombs, and Howell Cobb, you will clearly see that they were willing to go to any measures, in order to prrotect that institution.
States rights was an issue, but within those states rights, right alongside the unfair tariffs and such, was the intent to protect and expand the institution of slavery. In order to grasp, as well as to totally understand the causes of the war, one must venture into the early history of our nation.The crisis all began in , and before the infancy of our nation.Although the election of Zachary Taylor, in 1848, brought about a southern president, who did not wish to expand slavery, Taylor, the owner of 100 slaves, decided that the institution must be upheld. Again, this doesn't mean that every Confederate soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, at least as far as his intent was concerned, but rather the government for which they fought, did indeed wish to preserve the institution of slavery. The Confederate constitution clearly states this intent.


David Long

MDRebCAv
01-19-2007, 01:22 PM
David...very good...I do enjoy a well thought-out post! I agree that slavery was a major cause of the war. I think what most people who object to is that some people think that it was the only cause of the war.

Putting myself in the midset of a Baltimorean of 1861, I think I would have been a union man until Benjamin Butler put his cannons on Federal Hill, aimed them at the city, and placed Baltimore under martial law--much to both the chagrin and the pleasure of Old Abe who promoted Butler and moved him to Louisiana.

But then, putting myself in the mindset of a Colonial---I think I might have actually been a Tory.

Baltimore, while being the largest city in Maryland--yes, a SOUTHERN STATE (LOL) seems to have been more "Northern" in its attidue toward slavery. It was indeed a very racial time all over the country, but it seems to me that I have found in my reading, that Baltimore was more liberally minded than most other Southern areas. There were three catagories in Baltimore that an African-American of that time could be placed:
1. Free Black (majority in the City);
2. Slave (minority in the City);
3. "TERM" slaves, in which a person would negotiate their freedom after a set period of time (kind of like an "improvement" upon indenture servants).
Baltimorean Free Blacks set up their shops in the same areas as their white counterparts.

Just another thing to ponder....from the office of the Mayor of Baltimore:

"There are some who will look at our city's proudest moment in 1814, when our Federal government was nowhere to be found, Washington had been burned to the ground and the most powerful Army and Navy on the planet descended on Baltimore to burn Baltimore to the ground...

One out of five of the defenders of Baltimore were free black citizens of a still as yet very imperfect slave holding Country who believed enough in the great idea of what this Republic could become and believed enough in their neighbors that they were willing to lay down their lives just as those students in Tienenmen Square for the survival of that infant Republic."
http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/mayor/speeches/sp041119.html

reb64
01-19-2007, 06:29 PM
Actually, according to the 1860 census there were 3,950,528 slaves in the U.S. of which 2,212,352 were in the original 7 states of the Confederacy or 58.5%. There may have been more slave owning slaves in the Union at that time, but there were more slaves total in those seven states. In fact, in two of the states, Mississippi and South Carolina, there were more slaves than whites.


the point is there were more states in the union with slavery. those states did not leave the union until the call to invade the fewer states, thus the wars cause. no call for troops, no war.

madisontigers
01-20-2007, 03:09 AM
In 1860, the only northern state to maintain the institution of slavery, was Delaware. , Washington, D.C., Maryland,Kentucky, and Missouri, all maintained the institution of slavery until such amendment deemed it null and void, minus Washington, which abolished slavery in 1863. States like NC, TN, and AK, only left, after Lincoln asked them to provide troops, in order to put down the "rebellion." So, like I said earlier, slavery wasn't the only cause of the war, there were also other factors.I don't really believe that one side, meaning North or South, can rightfully take the full blame for starting the war. I believe this is what makes this time such a tragic era. Both sides had their, good, bad, and of course, UGLY sides.
On a side note. I have really enjoyed all of the posts, in regards to this thread. There seems to be quite a few guys out there with a good bit of knowledge.

David Long

VA Soldier
01-20-2007, 08:42 AM
I have been reading the post on this thread over the past few days and debating wether or nor I should weigh in on the issue. It seems the time has come for my 2 cents worth.
Slavery has been and continues to be one of the most devisvie issues in our nations history. This has come back to the forefront of issues in Virginia. Currently the State government has been debating wether or not to issue a formal apology for the institution of Slavery. Most would think this is 2007, big whoop, slavery has been over since 1865 lets pass the bill and move on, but not in Virginia. The fat has already hit the fire after one delegate stated that the black people of the state just need to "get over it" and begging the question what will be next "getting jews to apologize for murdering Christ?", he also said that slavery was deplorable. While I feel the same way that slavery was a terrible institution and a blot on America's past I don't see too many ex-slaves running around that need to be apologized to, I also am not sure I want to apologize for something I never did, nor did any of my ancestors from the South. They were all poor farmers probably living in worse conditions than most slaves, still the debate rages.
So as the debate on slavery continues to sap not only our time and energy it occupies the mind of our legislators ever mindfull of the vote. If I am not mistaken Biden is one of several Dem's thinking about a presidential nod, while he may have cut off South Carolina with his rethoric, he is simply playing to the African American Vote, most of whom traditionaly vote Democratic.
Since it seems that politicians want to air the dirty laundry of past generations let us not forget about the attempted genocide of Indians (not going to use the patronizing term developed by the Dept of the Interior that most Indians don't like) The very rascist policies against Jews, Chineese, Irish, and Catholics. The fact that women in this nation were not allowed to vote in federal elections before 1919 and in some places are still struggling to get equality.
The truth of the matter is since 1776 the govrenment of this nation has done a lot of bad things to a lot of people. While we need to aknowledge that and the history of those events needs to be known, we would do a lot better if we simply used that to figure out how better to move foward than to sit looking back saying shame on the people that came before.

madisontigers
01-20-2007, 11:34 AM
Well said, very well said. I couldn't agree more. I think that it's ridicolous to apologize for something, something no one today can be held responsible for. Of course Biden is playing the race card, and he wont be the only one to do it. We sa McCain do this very same thing, in the 2000 election.
Where I disagree with you, is in reference to this issue being a waste of time to discuss. We all gain knowledge from one another on this board( at least sometimes), and this issue has, believe it or not, stayed very civil in its development.When spectators at a living history, or someone in general,asks you, what caused the civil war? Or, tell me about the impact slavery had on the war. This issue is something that directly effects many aspects of our hobby.
I believe I stated a couple of posts ago, that I would never attempt to judge someone who lived 140 years ago. You wont find me running around demonizing every Northerner and Southerner for their actions in the mid -nineteenth century.






David Long

CivilWarBuff1863
01-20-2007, 06:27 PM
That maybe true but a majority of them were freed slaves. After the end of the war you'll see that it was freed slaves that joined in more than freed men.

VA Soldier
01-21-2007, 07:16 PM
Where I disagree with you, is in reference to this issue being a waste of time to discuss. David Long

I think you misunderstood me a bit. The history of what happened is very important. The discussion of history is never ending and it should be that way. Every day new documents are uncovered that allow us a better glimpse of what happend back then. What I view as pointless is the constant bickering on who was right and who was wrong.

madisontigers
01-21-2007, 07:30 PM
Sir,
I apologize for my misunderstanding. Having correctl interpreted your original intent, I do indeed concur with it.

David Long

tompritchett
01-21-2007, 10:57 PM
Yet but also more freed men in the south than north as well.

Actually the state by state breakdown for the number of freedmen as recorded in the 1860 census is as follows:

State Total # of Freed Blacks

California...........4,086
Connecticut.......8,627
Delaware..........19,829
Illinois................7,628
Indiana.............11,428
Iowa..................1,069
Kansas..................625
Kentucky...........10,684
Maine.................1,327
Maryland...........83,942
Massachusetts.....9,602
Michigan.............6,799
Minnesota..............259
Missouri...............3,572
Nebraska.................67
Nevada...................45
New Hampshire.......494
New Jersey........25,318
New York...........49,005
Ohio..................36,673
Oregon...................128
Pennsylvania.......56,949
Rhode Island.........3,952
Vermont..................709
Wisconsin.............1,171

Total for Union States 343,988
______________________________________

AL......2,690
FL.........932
GA.....3,500
LA....18,647
MS.......773
SC.....9,914
TX........335

Total for First 7 States of Confederacy 36,791

ARK......144
NC...30,463
TN.....7,300
VA...58,042


Total for Confederate States 251,459

Total for US 595,447

As you can see less than half of all freedmen recorded in the 1860 U.S. Census were in states that ultimately joined the Confederacy, and most of those lived in the 4 states that joined in the second round of secessions.

MDRebCAv
01-22-2007, 10:28 AM
You are correct, but an argument can be made that some of those Union States that you listed were indeed Southern. Remember that Maryland is below the Mason-Dixon Line, so the Border States which remained in the Union could be considered to be Southern as well--just not Confederate.

So is the discussion about Southern Freedmen or those in the Confederate States? If it is about geography and how Southern States viewed slavery, then you must include as "Southern": Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and even Washington (D.C.)

hiplainsyank
01-23-2007, 11:21 AM
The fat has already hit the fire after one delegate stated that the black people of the state just need to "get over it" and begging the question what will be next "getting jews to apologize for murdering Christ?".

Historically speaking, the Romans executed Jesus, not "the Jews".

Theologically speaking, all humans killed Jesus.

VA Soldier
01-25-2007, 07:33 AM
Historically speaking, the Romans executed Jesus, not "the Jews".

Theologically speaking, all humans killed Jesus.

I think the argument for stating the Jews executed Jesus came from the fact that they, Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, were given the option by Pontious Pilate (Roman Gov.) to either execute Jesus or another man, name excapes me at the moment, at any rate they, egged on by the Pharisee, chose to free the other man and exectue Jesus. While I think its a little tit for tat and the argument has been used more for anti-semitical reasons than anything else.

I steadfastly agree with your second point and hold myself just as accountable for that act as anyone else.

As you stated, this is somewhat of a side bar and I believe the only reason the delegate used the remark was to show what he believed as being the absurdity of VA apologizing for slavery.

reb64
01-25-2007, 07:43 AM
This state is below mason dixon and was suppressed from seceeding by Lincoln arresting everyone in power.


Actually the state by state breakdown for the number of freedmen as recorded in the 1860 census is as follows:

State Total # of Freed Blacks

California...........4,086
Connecticut.......8,627
Delaware..........19,829
Illinois................7,628
Indiana.............11,428
Iowa..................1,069
Kansas..................625
Kentucky...........10,684
Maine.................1,327
Maryland...........83,942
Massachusetts.....9,602
Michigan.............6,799
Minnesota..............259
Missouri...............3,572
Nebraska.................67
Nevada...................45
New Hampshire.......494
New Jersey........25,318
New York...........49,005
Ohio..................36,673
Oregon...................128
Pennsylvania.......56,949
Rhode Island.........3,952
Vermont..................709
Wisconsin.............1,171

Total for Union States 343,988
______________________________________

AL......2,690
FL.........932
GA.....3,500
LA....18,647
MS.......773
SC.....9,914
TX........335

Total for First 7 States of Confederacy 36,791

ARK......144
NC...30,463
TN.....7,300
VA...58,042


Total for Confederate States 251,459

Total for US 595,447

As you can see less than half of all freedmen recorded in the 1860 U.S. Census were in states that ultimately joined the Confederacy, and most of those lived in the 4 states that joined in the second round of secessions.

tompritchett
01-25-2007, 10:37 AM
to either execute Jesus or another man, name excapes me at the moment

His name was Barabas.

tompritchett
01-25-2007, 10:42 AM
This state is below mason dixon and was suppressed from seceeding by Lincoln arresting everyone in power.

I am curious, during which wave of secessions did Maryland unsuccessfully try to secede - the first wave over specifically the threat to slavery by the election of a "Black Republican" administration or the second wave, which was triggered as much over states' rights as over slavery? I have not studied Maryland's secession so I am unaware on the timing and the specific issues that were driving the advocates of her secession effort.

Malingerer
01-25-2007, 11:22 AM
I think the argument for stating the Jews executed Jesus came from the fact that they, Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, were given the option by Pontious Pilate (Roman Gov.) to either execute Jesus or another man, name excapes me at the moment, at any rate they, egged on by the Pharisee, chose to free the other man and exectue Jesus. While I think its a little tit for tat and the argument has been used more for anti-semitical reasons than anything else.

I steadfastly agree with your second point and hold myself just as accountable for that act as anyone else.

As you stated, this is somewhat of a side bar and I believe the only reason the delegate used the remark was to show what he believed as being the absurdity of VA apologizing for slavery.
I fail to see the difference between apologizing for one act you had no direct hand in and NOT apologizing for some other act you had no role in - there seems to be a real lack of consistency here. Someone please explain this to me. For what its worth I dont think that a "Hey were really sorry for reaping huge financial rewards off the backs of your ancestors while allowing you to recoop none of it yourselves. We feel bad about treating your ancestors as farm animals for nearly 300 years and we feel just as bad about lusing terror tactics to keep not just your ancestors in line but also your parents and grandparents. And while were at it, we also apologize for senying you access to the vote for a hundred years after you were leagaly entitled to it and denying a decent public education to your children even though you were paying for it just like everyone else" would kill us.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City,NC

MDRebCAv
01-25-2007, 11:49 AM
I am curious, during which wave of secessions did Maryland unsuccessfully try to secede - the first wave over specifically the threat to slavery by the election of a "Black Republican" administration or the second wave, which was triggered as much over states' rights as over slavery? I have not studied Maryland's secession so I am unaware on the timing and the specific issues that were driving the advocates of her secession effort.

Maryland never really got the chance to vote on secession. The Pratt Street Riots occured on Arpil 19th (the actual first bloodshed of the war from conflict) and General "Beast" Butler invaded our State. After Benjamin Butler invaded Annapolis the legislature moved to Fredrick, which was a Union-friendly town, and while there refused to vote on the issue. Maryland was then placed under martial law, in a dishonorable move to prevent the vote from taking place. Maryland was the only State placed under martial law to prevent a vote form occurring. She had committed no act to warrent such an action.

Maryland's cultural ties were to Virginia but her economic ties were to the north. While waiting to see what Virginia's reaction would be, the Maryland legislature lost precious time and support.

Frenchie
01-25-2007, 05:14 PM
Daniel,

Keep in mind that fears of Washington being captured by the rebels appeared to be all too realistic. The most efficient way to get troops to Washington's defense was the B&O RR's single track from Baltimore. That route had to be kept clear. More, Maryland had to be kept in the Union, otherwise Washington would be surrounded by enemy territory. Maryland didn't have to do anything to warrant such an action, it would have been necessary even if so many of the citizens in Annapolis, Baltimore and the southern and eastern shore counties weren't secessionist (at least judging by their rhetoric).

I certainly hope you're not saying it's dishonorable for a nation to defend its capital - you might be called upon to defend certain actions by the Confederacy if that's the case. :)

Butler didn't "invade" Annapolis or any other part of Maryland; they were part of the Union and one cannot invade one's own territory. Maryland remained in the Union thanks in great part to his initiative and drive.

As for martial law and the suspension of habeus corpus, Maryland is not unique; both were applied in other places at one time or another. But as Maryland is my specialty, I'll let others discuss other states.

tompritchett
01-25-2007, 05:57 PM
For what its worth I dont think that a "Hey were really sorry for reaping huge financial rewards off the backs of your ancestors while allowing you to recoop none of it yourselves. We feel bad about treating your ancestors as farm animals for nearly 300 years and we feel just as bad about lusing terror tactics to keep not just your ancestors in line but also your parents and grandparents. And while were at it, we also apologize for senying you access to the vote for a hundred years after you were leagaly entitled to it and denying a decent public education to your children even though you were paying for it just like everyone else" would kill us.

I think that you meant to say "our ancestors" instead of "we". And that is the whole issue for many. How long must we beat ourselves for the sins of our ancestors, particularly when we ourselves may have plenty to be ashamed of ourselves from our youth. Having been raised in the South, I know that I am not proud of all my attitudes towards blacks in my youth nor some of the things that I said back then as I parroted my parents, my older siblings, and my peers - and this was even though up until the 1rst grade, I often played with black children my own age. We can either focus on the negative aspects of our past and become mired down or we can admit our sins against others as well as sins against us and our ancestors while we learn from them as we move on to the future. Not to do so is not healthy for one's pysche and mental well being.

tompritchett
01-25-2007, 06:03 PM
So, was the secession rhetoric in Maryland driven more by the threat to slavery by the election of a "Black Republican" administration or by outrage over Lincoln's muster call in response to Fort Sumter?

Frenchie
01-25-2007, 08:44 PM
Tom, the short answer is both, mostly depending on which part of Maryland you hailed from and your socio-economic situation. The state and especially Baltimore were in the jaws of a vise, between two nations about to square off in a fight to the death.

The southern and eastern shore counties were more likely to react to the threat to slavery posed by the "Black Republicans" as they were the ones most dependent on slave labor. The northern and western counties had less use for slavery and more desire to stay in the Union. Slavery in Maryland had been declining for some time before the War due to increased urban industrialization and mechanization on the farms. It was Baltimore's location and prominence as a transportation center that largely brought about the growth of industry in the first place. Much of that had to do with the free black population who worked to start new businesses, especially in the Fell's Point shipyards and the firms that supplied them and the shipping businesses. That location and the proximity of rapid transportation made Baltimore a center of Underground Railroad activity, heightening the white population's awareness and suspicion of any black they saw, free or slave.

Baltimore had either the largest or next-to-largest (don't recall right now) urban population of free blacks, whose numbers state-wide nearly equaled those in bondage. But as we see from the Pratt Street Riot, the secessionist feeling was very strong in the city. That Baltimore was still "Mobtown" and political gang warfare had only just begun to be controlled didn't help things a bit. IMO, it was both Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to come and defend Washington that was the chief reason behind the rioter's anger, with the native and white immigrant fear of the burgeoning economic success of free blacks playing a major part as well.

So much for a short answer. :)

Malingerer
01-26-2007, 10:03 AM
Actually Tom, I said exactly what I meant to say. 'We' (whites) enjoy a current higher standard of living and a huge social advantage over our dark-skinned bretheran because of the actions of our ancestors. Two hundred years of slavery folowed by another hundred years of institutionalized racism have left Blacks at the bottom of the economic and social ladder. This necessarily elevates Whites automaticly since they are above Blacks on this metaphorical ladder. Therefore, since it is we whites of the present era who are benifiting from the inequities of the past and likely will continue to benifit (try being a Black guy and attempt to hail a cab or rent an appartment) it seems reasonable to suggest that heartfelt apology on our part might help(in some small way) to heal the racial divide.

Peter Julius,
Bryson City, NC

tompritchett
01-26-2007, 10:38 AM
Actually Tom, I said exactly what I meant to say. 'We' (whites) enjoy a current higher standard of living and a huge social advantage over our dark-skinned bretheran because of the actions of our ancestors. Two hundred years of slavery folowed by another hundred years of institutionalized racism have left Blacks at the bottom of the economic and social ladder. This necessarily elevates Whites automaticly since they are above Blacks on this metaphorical ladder.

I agree fully with what you are saying. This is why I disagree with doing away with affirmative action legislation, at least for entry level (blue collar or management level), as has been advocated by many in my party. However, white America issuing an apology does not cure these problems. Only recognition of the existing problems and both sides making commitments to rectify those problems will. White America apologizing for slavery will not cure the problems associated with the inequality of the percentage of races in prison, the failure of the inner-city education systems, the breakdown of the inner-city family, the rampant drug problems of the inner city, etc. By focussing so heavily on the past sins of white America to their race (slavery and the Jim Crow laws), IMHO many Black leaders of today are diluting their efforts to deal with todays issue that are still holding many of their people down and, thus, short-changing their people. Martin Luther King did not focus on slavery but rather the racial inequalities of his day and, as a result, was able to move mountains.