PDA

View Full Version : Not a flag or statue but...



militiaman1835
07-02-2007, 07:49 AM
Not a flag or statue but the "political correctees" are at it in Florida. They want Stephen Fosters song "Suwanee River" replaced as state song because it mentions the black folks in a slavery light or so they say. I propose Sammy Hagar's "I can't drive 55" for all the old folks jamming the hiways or maybe the Joanie Mitchell song about paving over paradise and building a parking lot!! Jim Hensley

Unhorsedman
07-02-2007, 11:42 AM
The actual title of "Swanee River" is Old Folks at Home. ;)

I live in Maryland, a state that has the absolutely worse state song of any: Maryland My Maryland. I wanna puke whenever I hear it because it is a blantant piece of Confederate propaganda that is totally unsuitable for a state that never seceded from the Union and sent more Marylanders into the Union ranks than it did Confederate ranks. But, I would not have it completely removed for reasons of "political correctness" in order to just appease the Stalinists who want to erase history.

The solution is simple - Florida and Maryland both need to designate their current state songs as emeritus and find new ones that fit the times. Many states have multiple state songs such as Arkansas, Tennesse, Massachucetts, New Mexico and West Virginia, among others. It's no big deal to have more than one song. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs for a list of state songs.

Shermans_Neckties
07-02-2007, 01:27 PM
I live in Maryland, a state that has the absolutely worse state song of any: Maryland My Maryland. I wanna puke whenever I hear it because it is a blantant piece of Confederate propaganda that is totally unsuitable for a state that never seceded from the Union and sent more Marylanders into the Union ranks than it did Confederate ranks. It is no coincidence that "Maryland, My Maryland" was made the state song in 1939, the same year "Gone With the Wind" fooled America into beleiving in "a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind..."

flattop32355
07-02-2007, 04:35 PM
Kentucky did some PC correcting with its state song, "My Old Kentucky Home".

The darkies are no longer gay, but "the people" are. I think they also tried out "old folks", "young folks" and "children" before that.

Maybe it's because I grew up with the original wording, but this seems so contrived, like plastering over a prettier smile on the Mona Lisa. It's like being force-fed bad tasting medicine because it's good for you, knowing that it really won't make you feel any better.

VA Soldier
07-02-2007, 06:48 PM
Virginia lost her State song "Carry Me Back to Old Virginia" a few years back under the same line of reasoning. Words such as "darkie" and refrences to "old massah" were regarded as too racist. All of this is in lieu of the fact that it was written over a hundred years ago by a Black man. It has been temporarily replaced by "Shenandoah", a song that has more to do with Missouri than Virginia. Unfortunatley, the Virginia General Assembly has been unable to come up with a song about Virginia written by a native Virginian. This is the kind of historical revisionism that would have all the perceived negatives of history covered up for fear that someone might potentially be offended by them. But I guess I just care to much about history to see it whitewashed...(no pun intended).

D A Jackson

reb64
07-02-2007, 06:56 PM
The actual title of "Swanee River" is Old Folks at Home. ;)

I live in Maryland, a state that has the absolutely worse state song of any: Maryland My Maryland. I wanna puke whenever I hear it because it is a blantant piece of Confederate propaganda that is totally unsuitable for a state that never seceded from the Union and sent more Marylanders into the Union ranks than it did Confederate ranks. But, I would not have it completely removed for reasons of "political correctness" in order to just appease the Stalinists who want to erase history.

The solution is simple - Florida and Maryland both need to designate their current state songs as emeritus and find new ones that fit the times. Many states have multiple state songs such as Arkansas, Tennesse, Massachucetts, New Mexico and West Virginia, among others. It's no big deal to have more than one song. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs for a list of state songs.

what a great citizen, puking over your own state song. I love "Carry me back to ol virginny". anyhow the union view isn't the only one there, you seem to be in denial that the state was strongly pro south in many areas.

RebelBugler
07-02-2007, 08:14 PM
The actual title of "Swanee River" is Old Folks at Home. ;)

I live in Maryland, a state that has the absolutely worse state song of any: Maryland My Maryland. I wanna puke whenever I hear it because it is a blantant piece of Confederate propaganda that is totally unsuitable for a state that never seceded from the Union and sent more Marylanders into the Union ranks than it did Confederate ranks. But, I would not have it completely removed for reasons of "political correctness" in order to just appease the Stalinists who want to erase history.

The solution is simple - Florida and Maryland both need to designate their current state songs as emeritus and find new ones that fit the times. Many states have multiple state songs such as Arkansas, Tennesse, Massachucetts, New Mexico and West Virginia, among others. It's no big deal to have more than one song. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs for a list of state songs.

Maryland has a beautiful and befitting state song that speaks of the despotism and tyranny forced upon it during its occupation. Maryland was denied the opportunity to secede from the Union when its Legislators were illegally imprisoned. Free speech was denied and newspaper editors, including Francis Key Howard, were arrested and held without charges. Howard, the grandson of Francis Scott Key, was imprisoned at Ft. McHenry 47 years to the day his grandfather was held prisoner on a British ship. His only crime was questioning the Constitutionality of the Lincoln Administration not recognizing habeas corpus, and engaging in a war without Congressional approval.


The presumption that more Marylanders served in the Union ranks versus Confederate is inaccurate. Maryland always fell behind in meeting its Federal recruitment goal and often filled Federal ranks with recent immigrants. There were over 26,000 identified Marylanders serving the Confederacy. In addition to providing the Confederate Navy’s only two Admirals, Maryland provided a host of Field Grade Officers. How many other alleged Union states funded their own Confederate Soldiers Home with state taxpayer dollars or appointed former Confederates as Presidents of their state University?


Maryland does not need an emeritus designation for its current state song. Marylanders appreciate their rich historical heritage that the song reflects upon. If you find the current state song so offensive, perhaps you might wish to consider residing in a state whose song is more to your liking.

Unhorsedman
07-09-2007, 01:51 PM
[COLOR=black]Maryland has a beautiful and befitting state song that speaks of the despotism and tyranny forced upon it during its occupation...

Throwing stones in glass houses, eh? Jeff Davis was pretty despotic and also suspended habeus corpus and instituted martial law where it was politically expedient for him to do so.

Lest we forget that when Lee marched into MD in the fall of 1862 he was quite disappointed at the pitiful number of MD recruits he expected to suddenly come knocking on his tent pole. After Antietam, desertion in the Army of Northern Virginia skyrocketted to epidemic propotions that had ol' Marse Robert pretty worried.


If you find the current state song so offensive, perhaps you might wish to consider residing in a state whose song is more to your liking. A new bumper sticker slogan? "Maryland: Love the Song or Leave!" You think that up all by your lonesome? How original! As an American, a veteran, and a Maryland taxpayer I'll dislike the Maryland state song all I want whether you or the increasingly militant SCV likes it or not.

reb64
07-09-2007, 04:08 PM
It is no coincidence that "Maryland, My Maryland" was made the state song in 1939, the same year "Gone With the Wind" fooled America into beleiving in "a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind..."

no fooling anyone, in my part of nc it was cavaliers and cotton fields growing up but no more

reb64
07-09-2007, 04:12 PM
Throwing stones in glass houses, eh? Jeff Davis was pretty despotic and also suspended habeus corpus and instituted martial law where it was politically expedient for him to do so.

Lest we forget that when Lee marched into MD in the fall of 1862 he was quite disappointed at the pitiful number of MD recruits he expected to suddenly come knocking on his tent pole. After Antietam, desertion in the Army of Northern Virginia skyrocketted to epidemic propotions that had ol' Marse Robert pretty worried.

A new bumper sticker slogan? "Maryland: Love the Song or Leave!" You think that up all by your lonesome? How original! As an American, a veteran, and a Maryland taxpayer I'll dislike the Maryland state song all I want whether you or the increasingly militant SCV likes it or not.


like it or not, MD may have secceeded if not for the crackdown. your in denial somewhat. anyhow love you mdlanders, raise your cig taxes and then come to va to buy them cheaper and take them back to md, ducking taxes. thats down right anti -federal to me! i love the contradiction, were pro union but anti -tax (made by the union)

bob 125th nysvi
07-10-2007, 09:36 PM
for.

About 25 years ago a NJ politician suggested that NJ adopt as its state song Bruce Springsteen's: "Born To Run."

You know the one with such great lines: "Highway's jammed with broken heroes On a last-chance power drive" & "It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap"

Admittedly NJ has its problems but come on.

So maybe songs need to be updated or changed but I ask you does a state REALLY need a state song and don't politicans have better things to worry about?

RebelBugler
07-11-2007, 06:09 AM
Throwing stones in glass houses, eh? Jeff Davis was pretty despotic and also suspended habeus corpus and instituted martial law where it was politically expedient for him to do so.

Lest we forget that when Lee marched into MD in the fall of 1862 he was quite disappointed at the pitiful number of MD recruits he expected to suddenly come knocking on his tent pole. After Antietam, desertion in the Army of Northern Virginia skyrocketted to epidemic propotions that had ol' Marse Robert pretty worried.

A new bumper sticker slogan? "Maryland: Love the Song or Leave!" You think that up all by your lonesome? How original! As an American, a veteran, and a Maryland taxpayer I'll dislike the Maryland state song all I want whether you or the increasingly militant SCV likes it or not.

The actions of Jeff Davis have little, if anything, to do with the history of Maryland and the Maryland state song. Davis, for whatever his faults, never committed any acts of despotism in Maryland. Nor did Davis' troops fire on the citizens of Baltimore or point cannon at the Baltimore City Hall threatening to level it.

As to Lee being disappointed upon entering Maryland, it was because he didn't realize that 27,000 patriotic Marylanders had already joined the Confederate forces and were already serving honorably. Even a cursory review of the military records of Maryland's notable Confederates will show they performed in an exemplary fashion. As to your comments regarding desertions in the ANV following Sharpsburg, what relevance does this have to the Maryland state song?

Please note that I never suggested a bumper sticker slogan " "Maryland: Love the Song or Leave!" which you have alleged. And I encourage you to dislike the Maryland state song as much as you want. Despite being an American, a veteran and a Maryland taxpayer, there is no Constitutional protection against you being offended or disliking something.

Frenchie
07-11-2007, 06:52 AM
The Pratt Street Riot of April 19, 1861, was not begun by the 6th Massachusetts. Soldiers seeing their comrades fall and firing to defend themselves can hardly be called despotism.

The free blacks of Maryland and Pennsylvania seized and sent South during the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns did not go willingly. Neither did the escaped slaves, but at least with them the Confederacy had a thin fig leaf to wear.

Can someone point to a greater despotism than slavery? True, all Americans were guilty of it, but only one side went to war to, as it stated clearly at the beginning, preserve it.

There's an amazing amount of self-justification and/or just plain wrong information out there. I once met a charming older gentleman from the Deep South who told me that all his life, he'd been told the Confederacy never had to resort to conscription. I was not happy to bring out a reference book and show him that he'd not been told the truth.

Do you really think you're going to get anyone to feel bad about the downfall of the Confederacy?

reb64
07-11-2007, 03:58 PM
Can someone point to a greater despotism than slavery? True, all Americans were guilty of it, but only one side went to war to, as it stated clearly at the beginning, preserve it.


Do you really think you're going to get anyone to feel bad about the downfall of the Confederacy?

how about the race riots following/parralleling Gettysburg when US troops went in to kill free blacks, or how about letting newly fooled freed slaves drown on the march to ga. or all the kidnapped/ shanghiaed slaves and kids and forced to fight or work up north, the massacre of free peacful natives at sand creek , hanging by mass execution on presidential order of starving natives, or when that was done wholesale near genocide of native americans, thats more "despotism" than slavery.

bob 125th nysvi
07-13-2007, 12:33 PM
the nonsense of my side was cleaner than your side.

Yes the union burnt towns, so did the Rebs.

The rebs grabbed africans-americans where ever they could and enslaved them (even if they had been born free) even under the command of the noble R.E. Lee. And yes the Union Army in the begining of the war sent runaways back to their masters.

Union troops fired on their own people and rebel troops violently put down unionists in Tennessee and Lousiana.

The union threaten to hang privateers and the south showed no quarter to USCT and their white officers.

And guerillas on both sides were nothing more noble than the crips and bloods of today.

Does anybody realize how unknowledgable they look when they play this game?

Both sides were guilty of atrocities, wake up, grow up and get over it.

tompritchett
07-13-2007, 01:21 PM
Bob, it is rare that you and I agree here in the Whine Cellar, but this is definitely one of those occasions. :)

reb64
07-13-2007, 07:26 PM
runaways back to their masters.


Does anybody realize how unknowledgable they look when they play this game?

Both sides were guilty of atrocities, wake up, grow up and get over it.

I know all this, but the question was posed what was worse than slavery? I proposed that the genocide on native amercians was and other atrocities by the side supposedly against slavery was. your only rebuttal should have been that slavery was indeed still worse or not. please don't ask a question if you don't want a answer.

Frenchie
07-13-2007, 09:44 PM
how about the race riots following/parralleling Gettysburg when US troops went in to kill free blacks,

Huh? You mean when civilians were killing blacks in New York and the Regulars were sent to stop the rioting? You seem to be confused about the facts...


or how about letting newly fooled freed slaves drown on the march to ga. or all the kidnapped/ shanghiaed slaves and kids and forced to fight or work up north, the massacre of free peacful natives at sand creek , hanging by mass execution on presidential order of starving natives, or when that was done wholesale near genocide of native americans, thats more "despotism" than slavery.

Wow. Okay, I give, I quit. I could try to take on that garbled mess of half-truths and bass-ackward "facts", but I'm almost certain it would be a waste of time. I've finally figured out that people will cling to their prejudices over the truth even if it kills them. Have a nice life. Think about reading a book now and then. A bientôt.

ThumbStall
07-14-2007, 09:41 AM
Neo-confederates frequently throw out the New York City draft riots as yet another example of northern racism. Yet they conveniently forget that New York City had close economic ties to the South thanks to cotton and the textile market. As such, during the war, there were some N'Yarkers who even serioiusly suggested that NYC seceed from the Union.

By the way, here's a new book that profiles many of the unsung Southerners who resisted the oh-so-benevolent and humane Confederate gov't: http://www.amazon.com/South-Divided-Portraits-Dissent-Confederacy/dp/1581825870

Shermans_Neckties
07-14-2007, 10:14 AM
Lest we forget the "Great Hanging" of October 1, 1862, when Texas state militia arrested more than two hundred alleged Unionists from five northern Texas counties (without warrants, by the way) and brought them to Gainesville. Some of them were not even Union sympathizers at all, but when Confederate vigilante style justice is in effect, who cares? Forty-four of them were methodically hanged and several others were lynched in neighboring communities.

Frenchie
07-14-2007, 12:09 PM
Neo-confederates frequently throw out the New York City draft riots as yet another example of northern racism. Yet they conveniently forget that New York City had close economic ties to the South thanks to cotton and the textile market. As such, during the war, there were some N'Yarkers who even seriously suggested that NYC secede from the Union.

Back then, everybody was racist, by our modern standards. The number of people who thought blacks in particular were intellectually and morally equal to whites was a handful. No one else did, including even educated blacks and mixed-bloods.


By the way, here's a new book that profiles many of the unsung Southerners who resisted the oh-so-benevolent and humane Confederate gov't: http://www.amazon.com/South-Divided-Portraits-Dissent-Confederacy/dp/1581825870

I just finished a book from 1965, War Within a War: The Confederacy Against Itself by Carleton Beals. Makes me wonder how long the Confederacy would have lasted if it'd been allowed to go in peace.

reb64
07-14-2007, 06:56 PM
Huh? You mean when civilians were killing blacks in New York and the Regulars were sent to stop the rioting? You seem to be confused about the facts...



Wow. Okay, I give, I quit. I could try to take on that garbled mess of half-truths and bass-ackward "facts", but I'm almost certain it would be a waste of time. I've finally figured out that people will cling to their prejudices over the truth even if it kills them. Have a nice life. Think about reading a book now and then. A bientôt.

Which event isn' true? Im not trying to portay the south as any better, just answering what was worse than slavery. This implies worse treament of other than white people by any group north or south. and yes troops were dispatched from Gettysburg to "quell" the race riots. but please what event did I mention isn't true. I consider it you calling me a liar. why is your opinion worthy and mine "bass-ackwards"? Dispute my facts but don't insult me.

Frenchie
07-14-2007, 11:03 PM
Don't insult me by repeating biased nonsense told to you by others. Find things out for yourself and tell me what you know, not what you heard from someone with an axe to grind. First thing you do is cite a primary source that says Union troops went to New York and fired on blacks. You won't find it because it isn't true. What utter tripe. The blacks weren't the ones rioting, it was mainly the Irish who blamed the blacks for the War and the draft. Cripes, man, read a **** book!

Dear God, I just realized something... you may actually think that the destruction wreaked on the South was a greater evil than the two hundred years of slavery that came before it. You may actually believe that the hundreds of thousands - no, millions - of wasted lives, the cruelty, the suffering, the horror - the unimaginable waste of the human potential - was not as bad as what was done to your precious land of "cavaliers and cotton." If that's the case, forget I said anything, because you are lost and I can't help you.

toptimlrd
07-14-2007, 11:39 PM
Guys, let's calm down before we rupture something or face the wrath of the mods here. No need for everyone to take things personally in a debate of events that took place nearly 160 years ago. Perhaps we all have some misconceptions and I will agree with Frenchie that before we get in a dither that when challenged on a point we double check all of our facts and be able to provide documentation for our position.

Who was it that said "In the discourse of opinion we often raise our voices when we should reinforce our argument"? The nice thing about history is we can usually find supporting information rather easily if our opinion is founded in solid research. Nat taking any sides here because I do not know all of the facts in this argument but am curious about them. Guess what this means, I look forward to seeing documentation on this issue

Frenchie
07-14-2007, 11:43 PM
All right, thanks, Bob. I'm going to let the glove lie there and keep quiet.

reb64
07-15-2007, 03:09 PM
Don't insult me cite a primary source that says Union troops went to New York and fired on blacks. You won't find it because it isn't true. What utter tripe. The blacks weren't the ones rioting, it was mainly the Irish who blamed the blacks for the War and the draft. Cripes, man, read a **** book!

If that's the case, forget I said anything, because you are lost and I can't help you.


First, Ill concede I left something out of the equation, I should have remarked :US troops, fighting against slavery, left the Gettysburg battlefield to kill/quell potential US army recruits who were themselves killing free blacks in New York, a Union state./ You got me there , but I didn't need the bashing, just a typo. second you call me lost because I call the native american genocide worse than slavery? whose descedants are flourishing today? My whole point was not defending the south but naming what was worse than slavery... get it?

bob 125th nysvi
07-17-2007, 07:11 AM
I know all this, but the question was posed what was worse than slavery? I proposed that the genocide on native amercians was and other atrocities by the side supposedly against slavery was. your only rebuttal should have been that slavery was indeed still worse or not. please don't ask a question if you don't want a answer.

right.

And the genocide committed by the Iroquois on the Algonquin was alright because it was native on native? Don't throw around blame if you don't know the whole picture. And I would like to remind you that "southern" soldiers fully participated in the conquest of this continent by European desended peoples.

Slavery was an incrediably demeaning, dehumanizing society destroying institution.

The supporters of slavery felt that they had the god given right (remind you of anybody currently in the news?) to enslave anybody they wanted to (even free born american citizens), torture or kill them without benefit of law and trial. The rape the women (including underaged girls) if they so desired. To break up families and sell children. And to massacre surrendering enemy combattants and their officers. This was all done because of the color of their skin.

Sounds a little bit like genocide to me.

So was slavery worse than anything the Union did that the South didn't?

You're no vote wouldn't even get noticed in the electorial count.

bob 125th nysvi
07-17-2007, 07:12 AM
All right, thanks, Bob. I'm going to let the glove lie there and keep quiet.

toss that glove over here I need to put some lead shot in it.

Bitter_Bierce
07-17-2007, 03:02 PM
Sounds a little bit like genocide to me.

"Genocide" is an inaccurate term to use about the American Indian wars of in the 19th century. The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1944, from the roots γένος genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere - to massacre) in the context of the Jewish Holocaust. Lemkin's genocide definition was based mainly on the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. It addressed crimes against "national, racial or religious groups". His definition included not only physical genocide but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of the group.

Today there are very few Jews in Eastern Eurpope and even less Armenians in Turkey. That is an example of the results of true "genocide." A series of wars were fought in the 19th century between the United States and various American Indian tribes, but this is not entirely comprable to recent European holocausts. Attempts to destroy Indian culture and language in American were uncoordinated and sporadic and ultimately uncessessful. As a result they do meet the true definition of "genocide."

The old phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" may seem like genocidal hyperbole, but it isn't. Reservation living may have been harsh at times, but it was not the same as Nazi cocentration or death camps which were frequently designed to kill through work attrition and mass murder on a modern industrial level.

tompritchett
07-17-2007, 10:04 PM
The old phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" may seem like genocidal hyperbole, but it isn't.

Except that there were indeed instances when whole villages were attacked by troops or militia for the sake of killing every man, woman and child. Granted it did not happen often, but it did occur throughout American history - both in the North and the South. Well before the Civil War there was a case where the U.S. government deliberately gave a tribe of Indians blankets infected with smallpox for the express purpose of wiping out the tribe.

In some ways what made the Holocaust so unique was not so malice behind the effort but rather the German efficiency in feeding and then implimenting that malice. The American Indians were fortunate that our government has never been that efficient.

And by the way, IMHO all this discussion about what happened to the Native Americans, Northern Freemen, and other such sins of our nation really have no bearing, nor excuse, the evil that slavery inflicted on the Black race - an evil that at one time or another stained almost all of the states in the U.S. East of the Mississippi up to its demise.

Claude Sinclair
07-18-2007, 10:09 AM
This post started about the PC complaining about the State song of Florida. As usual post like this ends up with the North bashing the South and telling us how bad we were and still are. I am getting so sick and tired of my ancestors being bashed. Some of your are so pathetic and hypocrites by reenacting a period that you so disapprove of. But I guess some of you need a forum to cry on.

Claude Sinclair

bob 125th nysvi
07-18-2007, 12:27 PM
Uhhhh..... President Jeff Davis Bush?

Oh, wait! You mean Muslims currently in the news.

George is just going straight to the killing part he doesn't want to enslave them.

It's the boys who talk about re-instituting the "Islamic Caliphate" last run by a Turkish Sultan who had very little Turkish blood in him and whose greatest ruler was ironically a Kurd (Saladin as he is known in the West) who think that God is telling them what to do, which I'm sure could include slavery for the non-believer, that I was thinking of.

Bitter_Bierce
07-18-2007, 05:07 PM
This post started about the PC complaining about the State song of Florida. As usual post like this ends up with the North bashing the South and telling us how bad we were and still are. I am getting so sick and tired of my ancestors being bashed.

So am I. I'm tired of hearing about "Damnyankees," "Dirty Yankees," "Murdering Yankees," "Yankee Rapists," "Northern Agressors", etc. etc. etc.

I'm tired of a-historical movies like "Gone With the Wind" that paints the South as a land of perfect gentlemen while anyone who wears a blue uniform is labled a tresspasser and a theif.

I'm tired of hearing neo-Confederates constantly whining about how a scholarly and objective periodical like North & South Magazine is actually biased against the South because it does not perpetuate Southern propaganda.

I'm tired of hearing about how thousands of blacks willingly fought in the ranks of the Confederate army as soldiers when, in fact, there were only a mere handful who did so. (See latest issue of North & South Magazine. Oh, wait.... it's biased against the South, right?)

I'm tired of hearing about how the North was full of Copperhead southern sympathizers, but no one is willing to discuss organizations like the thousands of Red Strings (Order of the Heroes of America) who actively resisted Confederate conscription and formed an underground railroad for escaped Union prisoners.

Southern "historians," Confederate apologists, and "Moonlight and Magnolia" mythmakers have held center stage for the past 145 years. Just look at the reenactment field to see the overabundance of rebs running around. It's not because so many events take place in the South. It's because people are so gullible. They think the "rebels" are practically gods because hagiographic writers have been able to spin a "Lost Cause" myth that sounds great around the campfire but begins to fall apart under real historical analysis.

reb64
07-18-2007, 05:14 PM
Your suffering from denial. If your tired of hearing it, then I advocate a new hobby. While facts may be diputed, the northern troops did come south and were unwelcome, not because of their benevolance. I won't say why they were hated as not to offend your tired ears, only to say if they hadn't come the reputation wouldn't have followed.

VA Soldier
07-18-2007, 09:21 PM
The last time I checked, The American Civil War ended in 1865. From what I have been reading on this post it looks like it might flare up at any moment. During that war there were people from all walks of life who fought for all manner of reasons. Racism existed in the north as well as in the south. We have the problem of wanting to place today's standards on the people of yesterday. Was slavery wrong, yes. Was the atrocities committed against Blacks, Indians, Chinese, Irish, and other non Anglo-Saxon peoples wrong, yes it was. As was stated this thread was started because someone felt it was wrong that Florida was getting rid of its state song due to certain words that are no longer politically correct. Somewhere it turned into the same north v. south bashing that has been going on since before the war. Charges have been flying back and forth about which side is superior to which. All of this is subjective and unable to any form of proof, and that proof is the mark of true scholarship;something that a community devoted to the preservation and proliferation of history should be committed to.

D. Jackson

Spare_Man
07-19-2007, 04:07 PM
The last time I checked, The American Civil War ended in 1865. From what I have been reading on this post it looks like it might flare up at any moment. You may have no idea how right you are.

I ask you to take a good hard look at the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Some SCV chapters no longer even display the U.S. flag or pledge allegiance to it anymore. A large and growing faction within the SCV is no longer interested in honoring ancestors, but launching shrill counter-attacks against real or perceived threats to Confederate heritage. They are also mounting very aggressive recruiting drives amoung Confederate reenactors. And some SCV bigwigs have even publically suggested that reenactors are like the armed body of the SCV.

This was pointed out by a refreshingly un-biased South Carolina reader in a recent issue of Civil War News. He fears for the future of the hobby because at some point the NAACP and the SCV are going to have more than a verbal clash and Confederate reenactors with guns will be involved. The liberal media will eat it up and you can kiss the hobby, for blue and gray reenactors alike, a big fat goodbye.

sbl
07-19-2007, 06:49 PM
John,

What liberal media?

http://mediamatters.org/

Robert A Mosher
07-19-2007, 07:11 PM
Your suffering from denial. If your tired of hearing it, then I advocate a new hobby. While facts may be diputed, the northern troops did come south and were unwelcome, not because of their benevolance. I won't say why they were hated as not to offend your tired ears, only to say if they hadn't come the reputation wouldn't have followed.

Yeah, payback on treason is a real !@#$% ain't it. The southern education system still hasn't recovered.

Robert

peedeeguard
07-19-2007, 09:06 PM
Quote from Robert "Yeah, payback on treason is a real !@#$% ain't it. The southern education system still hasn't recovered."

Robert


Why would you say such a thing about Southerners? From my experience people who bash others are weak individuals who have low self esteem and wants to cover it up by bashing someone else.
What treason, by the constitution in 1860 there was no law against states who wanted to secede from the union. And on slavery it was wrong, I will admit that. No human has a right to own another one. My ancestors did not own any, as did 90% of the fighting troops in the south. So it is reasonable to say that most of the Confederate Army did not give a rip about some fat, lazy plantation owner whinning about loosing profits because he will have to pay a decent wage to farmhands if he looses his slaves.

And this comes from a 44 year old Southerner who is working full time while going back to school in the medical field to get a degree. So before you start your name calling why don't you get hold of your inadequacies, try and think a positive thought about yourself and think about what you are saying before you speak.

Dewey McRae

Sgt_Pepper
07-19-2007, 09:55 PM
We're getting our toes over the personal attacks line here. Let's back off.

flattop32355
07-20-2007, 12:25 AM
...and the emotions can still run high. That, in and of itself, is a lesson to be learned.

Yeah, there's things about that war that either side can be unhappy about. Ya know what? There's not one single thing we can do about it now, other than get ourselves all riled up and talk silly.

Everyone who is getting bent out of shape about this thread: Take a deep breath, exhale slowly, remember we've fought a few wars since together, and congratulate each other that we care enough about our history to take an active roll in remembering it, as opposed to refighting it.

tompritchett
07-20-2007, 03:40 AM
My ancestors did not own any, as did 90% of the fighting troops in the south.

While I agree with almost everything else that you said in your message, I feel that I must comment on the above statement. Yes, probably less 10% of the Southern soldiers actually held the title for ownership of a slave. However, I must also point out that, according to the 1860's census data, just under a third of families in the Confederate states did in fact own slaves. Therefore it would be safe to say that approximately 30%, or slightly more, of the Confederate soldiers probably came from families that did own slaves.

tompritchett
07-20-2007, 03:43 AM
145 years later....

...and the emotions can still run high. That, in and of itself, is a lesson to be learned.


And people wonder why ethnic and sectarian wars can become so violent after what seems to be a half a century or more of enforced peace.

Robert A Mosher
07-20-2007, 07:45 AM
Why would you say such a thing about Southerners? From my experience people who bash others are weak individuals who have low self esteem and wants to cover it up by bashing someone else.

And why would you weaken one of the most lucid and well written posts in a thread that should have been killed a long time ago with one of the most timeworn rhetorical devices - when you can't argue with the message, attack the messenger. Too bad, I would have expected more from you.


What treason, by the constitution in 1860 there was no law against states who wanted to secede from the union.

Whether true or not, it is also irrelevant, in my humble opinion. It is almost universally considered treason to take up arms against the established recognized government. It is indisputable that the South took up arms and fired the first shots in attacking the authority and power of that government. Of course, even the writers of musical comedies acknowledge the reality (via Benjamin Franklin in "1776") that "rebellion is only illegal in the third person, as in "their rebellion." However legitimate the complaints of those making a rebellion, their actions can only be made legal by victory.


And on slavery it was wrong, I will admit that. No human has a right to own another one. My ancestors did not own any, as did 90% of the fighting troops in the south. So it is reasonable to say that most of the Confederate Army did not give a rip about some fat, lazy plantation owner whining about loosing profits because he will have to pay a decent wage to farmhands if he looses his slaves.

Ultimately, however, you must face the reality that the Confederate war effort always comes back to the reality that it was fundamentally a war fought in defense of slavery. The right to secede? Secession itself was an action taken in expectation that a Lincoln administration would try to outlaw slavery. States rights? - the right to maintain that "peculiar institution."

That said, it is even more true that governments declare wars for different reasons from the reasons that motivate individuals to fight those wars. Let's face facts - the circumstances that existed before the war were much more complex than anything reflected in these sterile arguments. Slavery was an essential part of the economy of the Southern states. There were Northerners who profited from that institution. There were Southerners who were abolitionists. Our ancestors inability to find a better way to resolve the issue led to fighting a war. As the man said, "War is ****." Or as has been said in connection with more recent conflicts, in war shit happens. Burning up electrons trying to decide now whose hands were cleaner and whose cause was purer is an argument between angels and pinheads. We do need to understand what happened and we need to understand why it happened, but we don't need to re-fight it endlessly.


And this comes from a 44 year old Southerner who is working full time while going back to school in the medical field to get a degree. So before you start your name calling why don't you get hold of your inadequacies, try and think a positive thought about yourself and think about what you are saying before you speak.

I can only assume that your medical field is not psychiatry. Any trained, professional in the field would know better than to attempt to diagnose someone they never met on the basis of one line of text in an Internet forum. Best of luck, however, in your chosen field and I take my hat off to you. Personally, I never had the constitution to work in the field even though my mother was an LPN (and bossy enough to be frequently mistaken for an RN!)

Robert A. Mosher

tompritchett
07-20-2007, 11:09 AM
Whether true or not, it is also irrelevant, in my humble opinion. It is almost universally considered treason to take up arms against the established recognized government.

While I agreed with most of your post, I must comment that originally Jefferson Davis was held in prison in anticipation of being tried for treason. However, it is my understanding that some of the best legal minds of the time advised the President to drop the charges because the legal issue was so unsettled at the time in terms of secession and treasons that it was their professional opinions that the government would not be able to win the case. Ultimately, Davis was indeed released and never was tried. Also, as far as I know, no one in the Confederate government or military leadership was ever successfully tried for treason.

Robert A Mosher
07-20-2007, 12:11 PM
While I agreed with most of your post, I must comment that originally Jefferson Davis was held in prison in anticipation of being tried for treason. However, it is my understanding that some of the best legal minds of the time advised the President to drop the charges because the legal issue was so unsettled at the time in terms of secession and treasons that it was their professional opinions that the government would not be able to win the case. Ultimately, Davis was indeed released and never was tried. Also, as far as I know, no one in the Confederate government or military leadership was ever successfully tried for treason.

Tom -
As I noted, I was expressing my personal judgment that it is a rather universal principle that taking up arms against the recognized government is treason. A monarchical government would have had no difficulty and expressed no hesitation in going directly to trial followed by at best a long drop on a short rope. Now you want to bring law into the issue as if determining the truth or judging right versus wrong had anything to do with jurisprudence.

The interesting thing about our American experiment is our insistence upon the rule of law and not the rule of men (some dissenters notwithstanding). It is interesting that the radical republicans could not bring themselves to follow a similar course of action to that suggested above for a monarch. Instead, they looked for a justification in law for conducting treason trials and failing to find one (aided perhaps by a dose of better political judgment, for once) they concluded that it was better to just let that whole issue quietly fade away. A decision that I personally believe does them credit, frankly - just as Chamberlain's conduct of the surrender was the right thing to do.

When I lived in Northern Ireland some years ago, I found that many people there also had a lot of trouble living in the here and now rather than refighting past wars (and the Irish have plenty more past wars than we do). It was said that in the Republic of Ireland at the time, it could be predicted how any individual would vote simply by knowing how their grandfather voted on the 1922 treaty with Britain. It appears that they are finally getting past that now and voting their own minds rather than their grandfathers'.

It would be nice if in trying to learn from our own Civil War we could also face the reality that both sides in that conflict were human and fallible. Neither side had an exclusive claim to moral or even legal superiority and the conduct of the war by both sides proved primarily that war is **** and try to clean it up as best you can, it will always include acts that in the aftermath can only be universally condemned. The best we can say about the men who fought on both sides is that they did what they thought was right - it's hard to ask anyone to do better than that. The worst that we should say about them is that regretfully they were unable to find any way other than war to resolve their differences - and in so saying recognize that we have little claim to any superiority over them in that regard.

Robert A. Mosher

peedeeguard
07-20-2007, 12:46 PM
You were right on your guess, I am not a Psychology major. I should not have attacked you personally for that I do apologize, but you should have not attack the education in the south. Yes there are some southern states that are at the bottom of the ladder, but don't put us all in the same boat. Some of us actually take education seriously, just ask my two kids.
As for the right to secede we can argue till we are blue in the face, and still not change anyones mind. Everyone has their own opinion. I enjoy a well thought out argument with someone, I guess that comes from selling insurance for twenty years. I just did not like the education of the southern people comment.

Sincerely
Dewey McRae
23rd. N.C.T. Co. D

tompritchett
07-20-2007, 12:57 PM
It would be nice if in trying to learn from our own Civil War we could also face the reality that both sides in that conflict were human and fallible. Neither side had an exclusive claim to moral or even legal superiority and the conduct of the war by both sides proved primarily that war is **** and try to clean it up as best you can, it will always include acts that in the aftermath can only be universally condemned. The best we can say about the men who fought on both sides is that they did what they thought was right - it's hard to ask anyone to do better than that. The worst that we should say about them is that regretfully they were unable to find any way other than war to resolve their differences - and in so saying recognize that we have little claim to any superiority over them in that regard.

On that we are in full agreement.

tompritchett
07-20-2007, 01:00 PM
As for the right to secede we can argue till we are blue in the face, and still not change anyones mind. Everyone has their own opinion. I enjoy a well thought out argument with someone,

Another statement with which I fully agree, especially the part about well thought out arguments. I often learn a great deal from hearing the other person's side of the argument. That is often why the Whine Cellar is usually the first conference that I check when I log on here. However, I tend to ignore those who rely on emotional arguments and name calling regardless of which side they are arguing.

toptimlrd
07-20-2007, 06:39 PM
Not trying to take one side or the other here but remember treason is in the eye of the beholder. Our founding fathers were traitors in the eyes of the crown but history does not treat them as so. If the leadership of the United States chose not to treat those who seceeded as traitors, then why should we? We were countryment before the war, we were countrymen after the war and in the middle all were doing what they thought was their patriotic duty. For me that is enough when discussing historical situations.

goatgirl
07-23-2007, 07:43 PM
Lest we forget the "Great Hanging" of October 1, 1862, when Texas state militia arrested more than two hundred alleged Unionists from five northern Texas counties (without warrants, by the way) and brought them to Gainesville. Some of them were not even Union sympathizers at all, but when Confederate vigilante style justice is in effect, who cares? Forty-four of them were methodically hanged and several others were lynched in neighboring communities.

I would like to read more about this. Can you name any good sources?

Robert A Mosher
07-23-2007, 08:21 PM
Here's a link to one modern effort on the part of Texas to explain it:

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/CC/qdc2.html

presented by the University of Texas. I first heard the story back in the 1980s from a descendant of the pro-Union German-Americans targetted in these incidents.

Robert A. Mosher

RebelBugler
07-23-2007, 08:43 PM
You may have no idea how right you are.

I ask you to take a good hard look at the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Some SCV chapters no longer even display the U.S. flag or pledge allegiance to it anymore. A large and growing faction within the SCV is no longer interested in honoring ancestors, but launching shrill counter-attacks against real or perceived threats to Confederate heritage. They are also mounting very aggressive recruiting drives amoung Confederate reenactors. And some SCV bigwigs have even publically suggested that reenactors are like the armed body of the SCV.

This was pointed out by a refreshingly un-biased South Carolina reader in a recent issue of Civil War News. He fears for the future of the hobby because at some point the NAACP and the SCV are going to have more than a verbal clash and Confederate reenactors with guns will be involved. The liberal media will eat it up and you can kiss the hobby, for blue and gray reenactors alike, a big fat goodbye.

Who was the unbiased reader in the Civil War News you cited? I have never heard any SCV bigwig publically suggest that reenactors are like the armed body of the SCV and would be curious as to who is alleged to make such a statement. As to counterattacks against threats to Confederate heritage, what is wrong with standing in opposition to such attacks? The politically correct are trying to eradicate Southern History with the removal of monuments, the renaming of schools, the interpretation of the war ad infinitum. The NAACP has been particularly egregious in engaging in demagoguery for their own political purposes, for it was not Southerners that introduced chattel slavery to the colonies but rather Anthony Johnson. Perhaps if the NAACP would tell the entire history of slavery in the US history, there would not be such a racially divisive atmosphere or animus towards Confederate symbols.

Robert A Mosher
07-24-2007, 06:42 AM
it was not Southerners that introduced chattel slavery to the colonies but rather Anthony Johnson.

Too bad you didn't sign your post, so I'm not sure how to address this - but I found your statement rather curious, especially after a guick Google on Anthony Johnson. Unfortunately, the most easily found online sources offer no information that would explain how the former slave Anthony Johnson introduced chattel slavery into the colonies. They do note, however, that a Virginia court deprived him of his farmland in Virginia (after he moved to Maryland) on the grounds that as a Negro he could not own land in the colony. Perhaps you could cite a source and some supporting documentation for your statement?

Robert A. Mosher

RebelBugler
07-24-2007, 07:09 AM
Too bad you didn't sign your post, so I'm not sure how to address this - but I found your statement rather curious, especially after a guick Google on Anthony Johnson. Unfortunately, the most easily found online sources offer no information that would explain how the former slave Anthony Johnson introduced chattel slavery into the colonies. They do note, however, that a Virginia court deprived him of his farmland in Virginia (after he moved to Maryland) on the grounds that as a Negro he could not own land in the colony. Perhaps you could cite a source and some supporting documentation for your statement?

Robert A. Mosher

I am confused by your statement about not signing the post as the quote refers to "Rebel Bugler". Please explain. As to your inquiry regarding Anthony Johnson, I am more than willing to provide a few links for your perusal
http://www.jamestown1607.org/ (http://www.jamestown1607.org/) Once there, cursor to the gentlemen fourth from the left on the top row, wearing the "Thank You Anthony Johnson" and Click on the photograph. This brings up h

For additional background information on Anthony Johnson, please refer to
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/johnson.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/johnson.html)
The Public Broadcasting System affiliate, WGBH, developed considerable information on Mr. Johnson as part of their Frontline series.

Robert A Mosher
07-24-2007, 08:06 AM
Bugler -

Thanks for the leads, I will look into it as I remain skeptical but curious. Recent research has revealed some interesting details on the role of Jamestown and the Virginia colonies in the introduction and development of slavery in North America.

Robert A. Mosher

(see directly above - This is what I mean by "signing" your posts)

Frenchie
07-24-2007, 09:58 AM
"Signing your posts" means signing your real name to them. Alternatively, you could put your real name in your Profile.

sbl
07-24-2007, 10:18 AM
I hope that with this information on Anthony Johnson, folks won't try to reverse justify the past institution of slavery in America just because a "negro" did it early on.

Spare_Man
07-24-2007, 11:52 AM
Who was the unbiased reader in the Civil War News you cited? I have never heard any SCV bigwig publically suggest that reenactors are like the armed body of the SCV and would be curious as to who is alleged to make such a statement. I don't have the issue in front of me, but you can buy the latest issue of CWN and get the name yourself. I'm sure the next issue will have plenty of fireworks regarding this issue. Might be worth subscribing too just to see what happens.


As to counterattacks against threats to Confederate heritage, what is wrong with standing in opposition to such attacks? Nothing. It's the manner in which it is being done. Lots of neo-confederate anger out there.


The politically correct are trying to eradicate Southern History with the removal of monuments, the renaming of schools, the interpretation of the war ad infinitum. The "interpretation" of the war. That's a real hoot. Southern apologists have promoted a false and mythological interpretation of the war since the guns ceased firing. After losing they had to justify why they plunged the country into a four year fatricidal war. Their version has dominated popular history of the war in both print and the media for decades. See the films "The Birth of a Nation" and"Gone With the Wind" as examples of this balderdash. Read hagiographic books by Douglas Southhall Freeman and James I. Robertson for more insipid stupidity. The scales of justice are trying to balance themselves and certain neo-secessionists are beside themselves because of it. They don't want to hear both sides of the story. They want only the moonlight, magnolias and gallant cavaliers of Old Hollywood's flacid imagination.


The NAACP has been particularly egregious in engaging in demagoguery for their own political purposes, for it was not Southerners that introduced chattel slavery to the colonies but rather Anthony Johnson. Perhaps if the NAACP would tell the entire history of slavery in the US history, there would not be such a racially divisive atmosphere or animus towards Confederate symbols. The NAACP has every right to demand that the flag be banned from public grounds. After all, blacks pay state taxes too. What's confusing is that it has less to do with slavery than with pure racial bigotry. In the mid-1950s Governor George Wallace but the CS battleflag (actually, the CS Naval Jack) over the Alabama statehouse in protest over segragation. Other former CS states followed suit with plenty of whites supporting it. Somewhere along the line the "cute" uses of the flag at football games and on the Dukes of Hazzard got mixed up with the more serious attempts to use the flag as a political and racial symbol.

In the 1920s the United Daughters of the Confederacy tried their level best to get white southerners to NOT use the battleflag as a political or popular symbol. They wanted it used only to honor the CS dead. Their attempts at this failed as we can easily see from the number of battleflag T-shirts and bumper stickers out there. Now its decades later and the SCV is promoting this type of buffoonery with an in-your-face attitude that would be clownish if it weren't so laced with a barely concealed hatred for blacks and the "yankee" gov't. From the way they now act, the SCV seems to be becoming "Klan Lite." Except that they are actually trying to recruit blacks with the a-historical notion that thousands of them willingly supported the Confederacy as soldiers in fully integrated units. No historical scholorship in sight. Just plain unadulterated myth.

sbl
07-24-2007, 12:02 PM
John,

Do you think changing racial demograghics in the South (more Hispanic and asian) and the passing of the generation alive during Civil Rights movement of the 1960s will change how the CW/WBTS is viewed?

Could the Confederate era will be seen as "quaint" and useful for tourism? Sort of like the Salem Witch trials and piracy or whaling is for my area.

Robert A Mosher
07-24-2007, 12:25 PM
Bugler -
Unfortunately, the links are rather uninformative. It would, for example, be interesting to know what legal precedents or points of law the court used in making its decision. It should be pointed out that this incident also reflects how Viriginia evolved into a colony and then state dominated by a white establishment, such that by the time of the civil war, freed blacks were barred from living there and had to leave the state. Saying that Anthony Johnson is responsible for the establishment of chattel slavery in the South is like the story that all of modern humans are descended from "Eve" who lived in Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago - when actually hers just happens to be the one line that scientists are able to trace.

Certainly the news that Blacks owned slaves is not news - at least it's not news to me.

Robert A. Mosher

Shermans_Neckties
07-24-2007, 12:38 PM
John,Do you think changing racial demograghics in the South (more Hispanic and asian) and the passing of the generation alive during Civil Rights movement of the 1960s will change how the CW/WBTS is viewed? Could the Confederate era will be seen as "quaint" and useful for tourism? Sort of like the Salem Witch trials and piracy or whaling is for my area.Not a question directed at me, but I'd like to chime in.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that the Salem Witch Trials or Whaling was ever "quaint." I've been to the New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park and neither the manner in which whales were killed or the way in which whalers lived is very quaint at all. They way the whaling ship owners lived might fall into that catagory, but NBWNHP overall does a good job of cutting through the quaintness.

sbl
07-24-2007, 01:23 PM
Phil,

Right you are! I meant to say that they are percieved as "quaint" as opposed to something to fight about today.

"... but NBWNHP overall does a good job of cutting through the quaintness." Again right you are!

tompritchett
07-24-2007, 02:37 PM
Certainly the news that Blacks owned slaves is not news - at least it's not news to me.

I believe that his point was that, until that decision, indentured servants would automatically gain their freedom after the completion of their contracted servitude. After that decision, it was possible to hold someone in servitude for the remainder of his life, which opened up the market for the transport of black "servants", who would in essence become what we now call slaves. (Needless to say, the decision apparently was never applied to white indentured servants. Only to blacks.) However, the idea of a life-time of service to a master pre-dates this decision by centuries (e.g., Sparta), but, it is my understanding that this is the decision that first legalized the practice in the U.S. I do not know whether this decision also condemned the "servant's" off-spring to a similar life of involuntary servitude or whether that practice arose later.

reb64
07-24-2007, 04:15 PM
Bugler -
Unfortunately, the links are rather uninformative. It would, for example, be interesting to know what legal precedents or points of law the court used in making its decision. It should be pointed out that this incident also reflects how Viriginia evolved into a colony and then state dominated by a white establishment, such that by the time of the civil war, freed blacks were barred from living there and had to leave the state. Saying that Anthony Johnson is responsible for the establishment of chattel slavery in the South is like the story that all of modern humans are descended from "Eve" who lived in Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago - when actually hers just happens to be the one line that scientists are able to trace.

Certainly the news that Blacks owned slaves is not news - at least it's not news to me.

Robert A. Mosher


Sir, free blacks were not barred from Virginia, life was stricter for them after incidents like Turner and John Brown episodes but free blacks were in Virginia before during and after Civil war, more free blacks in Virginia than many northern states where many were barred. and side note we are all decended from "Eve"

RebelBugler
07-24-2007, 05:16 PM
Another interesting article on Anthony Johnson, black slave ownership, and slavery in general can be found at http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1993/1/1993_1_90.shtml

It is written by Philip Burnham ,a George Mason University Professor and free lance writer. The article seems rather straight forward, factual and without any particular bias.

Terry
from occupied Baltimore where Lincoln's despotism reigns

Frenchie
07-24-2007, 07:46 PM
from occupied Baltimore where Lincoln's despotism reigns

Hee hee hee. http://www.pddoc.com/cw-chronicles/?p=3362

The Fortifications at Baltimore.
October 5, 1861 Harper’s Weekly

Earth-Works Now Being Constructed on Federal Hill, Baltimore, by Duryea’s Zouaves.

WE illustrate on page 631 the fort now being erected on Federal Hill, Baltimore. The battlements are being rapidly completed. When the whole work is finished it will be one of the most impregnable fortifications in the country. Major Brewerton is in charge of the works, and gives employment to a large number of Union cartmen. When they are done, Murray Hill will next be fortified, and then Lafayette Park.
As some foolish stories are afloat with regard to General Dix’s treatment of his prisoners, we subjoin the following from the Tribune correspondence:
No intercourse is suffered with the State prisoners at Fort McHenry—not even are their families permitted to see them. The stories set afloat of harshness being used by the police in the capture of the prisoners are utterly untrue, for when required by the commandant of Fort McHenry to reduce their charges to writing, the complainants declined, saying that, perhaps, after all, their captors behaved with more than usual deference—as was really the case. The trouble was not in the police, but in the fact of the arrest, with these traitorous parties.

Robert A Mosher
07-24-2007, 08:21 PM
Sir, free blacks were not barred from Virginia, life was stricter for them after incidents like Turner and John Brown episodes but free blacks were in Virginia before during and after Civil war, more free blacks in Virginia than many northern states where many were barred. and side note we are all decended from "Eve"

Bugler -
It would appear that I confused something I read in connection with the convuluted problems facing Lee in dealing with the Custis estate. Thank you for the correction. (You'd think that with that many freedmen already living in Virginia they wouldn't have needed to bring them back from Pennsylvania in 1863)

And the reference to "Eve" in this case would have been an intervening generation.

Robert A. Mosher

Robert A. Mosher

Robert A Mosher
07-24-2007, 08:25 PM
I believe that his point was that, until that decision, indentured servants would automatically gain their freedom after the completion of their contracted servitude. After that decision, it was possible to hold someone in servitude for the remainder of his life, which opened up the market for the transport of black "servants", who would in essence become what we now call slaves. (Needless to say, the decision apparently was never applied to white indentured servants. Only to blacks.) However, the idea of a life-time of service to a master pre-dates this decision by centuries (e.g., Sparta), but, it is my understanding that this is the decision that first legalized the practice in the U.S. I do not know whether this decision also condemned the "servant's" off-spring to a similar life of involuntary servitude or whether that practice arose later.

Tom -
I've been following the research on Jamestown, especially with regards to the arrival (courtesy of the Dutch) of the first Africans to Virginia. I'm not sure that the history is as clearcut as what you have outlined. However, your general thrust is correct in that Virginia's attitudes and its legislation on slavery was evolving all through the 17th and 18th Centuries, generally becoming harsher and more restrictive. It would be interesting to find out more about this particular decision.

Robert A. Mosher

reb64
07-25-2007, 04:05 PM
Bugler -
for the correction. (You'd think that with that many freedmen already living in Virginia they wouldn't have needed to bring them back from Pennsylvania in 1863)

Robert A. Mosher

Ditto, but I have heard this often and said the same thing to myself. Of course many blacks were "kidnapped" rom the south as well and forced to go north, children seprated from families etc, impressed into service etc. this freedom wasn't always better during the war. but to get back to lee in pa. I wonder also why would freed slaves, knowing the risks get caught up in the path of the southern troops or where were the militias to protect them? It doesn't stand to reason that a man escaping north or free altogehter would chance reinterment to slavery by being in the confederates path.

Frenchie
07-25-2007, 04:54 PM
Ditto, but I have heard this often and said the same thing to myself. Of course many blacks were "kidnapped" from the south as well and forced to go north, children separated from families etc, impressed into service etc.

Again, what the **** are you talking about? Please cite a source for this. What blacks were "kidnapped" in the south and forced to go north? What blacks were impressed into service? The draft didn't include blacks. The ones who were impressed as laborers and teamsters were generally allowed to bring their families along, and if not, they were told to go home when the army moved on.


this freedom wasn't always better during the war. but to get back to lee in pa. I wonder also why would freed slaves, knowing the risks get caught up in the path of the southern troops or where were the militias to protect them? It doesn't stand to reason that a man escaping north or free altogether would chance reinterment to slavery by being in the confederates path.

Because he couldn't get himself and his family out of the way in time? Which, considering the Army of Northern Virginia was not in the habit of issuing press releases with their planned routes of march, shouldn't really surprise anyone who thinks about it for a few seconds.

So you wonder about these things, do you? I just did some thinking of my own and decided that I'd bet you do a lot of wondering. Question is, do you ever try to find any answers in some other place than the usual?

Frenchie
07-25-2007, 06:07 PM
I can't delete my last post, too late now. Mods, please delete it. I've decided banging my head against this wall is too much work.

VA Soldier
07-25-2007, 06:24 PM
Here is a little more on the progress of slavery in VA. As most of us know Indentured servants were the first on the scene. These people consited of free men and women who signed contracts which provided for their eventual release. Unfortunatley for most of the colony's early years it was more like a slaughter house than a thriving colony with a high mortality rates among all classes and higher for the indentured. With that for most indentured servants, it was for life. The impetus for dealing with this was the hope that upon acheving freedom as it was, they would be able to get their own land and make something of themselves. By the middle of the 17th c large amounts of land along the eastern part of the state (where most people had chosen to settle) had been already claimed and fewer and fewer people were willing to sign up for long contracts to be indentured. This coulpled with a rise in the number of African's showing up made them more desirable to have as servants for numerous reasons. By the turn of the 17th c indentured servitude was all but dead and the laws of colony changed to reflect this imposing more and more restrictions upon the africans brought in. These laws were put in place to make even the poorest white person feel some sense of supperiority to africans, even if the africans had gained freedom and were living a better life. Among these laws were one that basically stated that it was illegal for a black person to strick a white person...for any reason. As the numbers of Africans increased the white populace became more and more fearful of the potential of a revolt and laws on what africans, free or slave, could or could not do became harsher. This process would continue throughout the 18th c and would climax following the Turner rebellion. Ironically, Virginia came as close as it ever would to ridding itself of slavery in 1832, a direct consequence of the Turner uprising.

For those who have endured all of this I aplogize for the lenght, but got started and couldn't stop.

D. Jackson

reb64
07-25-2007, 07:15 PM
Again, what the **** are you talking about? Please cite a source for this. What blacks were "kidnapped" in the south and forced to go north? What blacks were impressed into service? The draft didn't include blacks. The ones who were impressed as laborers and teamsters were generally allowed to bring their families along, and if not, they were told to go home when the army moved on.


I suggest and submit "The south was right" and "the truth about slavery" in your local barnes and nobles. all the references are in hem. just thinking your right doen't make it so. you have to get out in the world and do some reading and traveling. I imagine it was like being raised in japan and getting only one version of ww2 in your understanding of the american civil war.

reb64
07-25-2007, 07:51 PM
"Union recruiting agents used many heavy-handed and unscrupulous means to persuade the rleuctant. Like a posse in search of an escaped criminal, these agents scoured the southern countryside, kidnapping both slave and free black males from their houses, workshops, churches and schools (Berlin et al. 1982:139; Wiley 1938:308-311). These frightened men did not know what was wanted of them upon their capture. Many feared they were gong to be placed in front of a firing squad or taken to Cuba and sold into slavery (McPherson 1965:170; Shannon 1926:570). A group of black soldiers so impressed into a Kansas Black Artillery Battery described some of the recruiting agent's techniques:
We were pressed into service by force, many of us knocked down and beaten like dogs, others were dragged from our homes in the dead hour of night and forced into a priosn without law and justice; others were tied and thrown into a river and held there until forced to subscribe to the Oath. Some of us were tied up by thumbs all night, starved, beaten and kept out all night till nearly frozen and but one alternative to join the service or nearly suffer death(Berlin et al. 1982:421)


Such unscrupulous behavior bred paranoia among black men, who fled upon the sight of strangers. Armed parties of recruiters hunted down these men and in some instances shot them down like fugitives (Robertson 1968:24)

taken from article African Americans in the Civil War by Smith and Krawczynski

Frenchie
07-25-2007, 09:06 PM
I suggest and submit "The south was right" and "the truth about slavery" in your local Barnes and Nobles. All the references are in them. Just thinking you're right don't make it so. You have to get out in the world and do some reading and traveling. I imagine it was like being raised in Japan and getting only one version of WW2 in your understanding of the American civil war.

The South Was Right and The Truth About Slavery have both failed peer review. They are almost pure propaganda.

I have done my share of traveling, I can say a few words in nine languages, and read fair-to-middling in two, maybe three, besides English. In English spelling, vocabulary, composition and grammar, I'll take you on any day, likewise in reading comprehension and retention. I tested at college graduate level in the sixth grade - no brag, just fact. Oh, yeah, that was in a Catholic school, not a public school.

As for those citations, are you sure they'll stand up to close examination? How many blacks were impressed this way? I think that one being quoted learned to write surprisingly well, considering it was illegal to teach slaves their letters. Or was he being paraphrased? Do you know what a "pious fraud" is?

Don't be upset if you don't hear back from me. This is becoming tiresome.

Shermans_Neckties
07-26-2007, 10:57 AM
I suggest and submit "The south was right" and "the truth about slavery" in your local barnes and nobles. all the references are in hem. just thinking your right doen't make it so. You left out the exclaimation point that is part of the title of the first book. It's "THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!!" I've always found than an exclaimation mark in the title is always a pretty good indication that balanced research and scholarship can be found between the covers.


"just thinking you(')re right... Do you mean "RIGHT!" or right?


...doe(s)n't make it so." So does having the word Right! in the title make it right, or even Right!?. Well, its in a book so I quess that means it's right and maybe even Right! Right!?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BW9T7TFAL._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

goatgirl
07-26-2007, 11:05 AM
What blacks were impressed into service? The draft didn't include blacks.

While you might be correct that the primary draft did not include blacks, negroes were nonetheless drafted. The Official Records General Orders No. 17 reads:
"[A]ll able-bodied male negroes between the ages of eighteen and fifty within the military lines of the Department of the South who are not, on the day of the date of this order, regularly and permanently employed in the quartermaster and commissary departments, or as the private servants of officers, within the allowance made by the Army Regulations, are hereby drafted into the military service of the United States, to serve as non-commissioned officers and soldiers in the various regiments and brigades now organized, and in process of being organized, by Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, specially authorized to raise such troops by orders of the War Department."

Respectfully,
Nicole

Frenchie
07-26-2007, 11:12 AM
Point conceded, Mademoiselle. For his purposes, though, I doubt Robert cares much about the civil rights of the far more numerous white men who were drafted. He's trying to make the point that the draft was worse than slavery for blacks.

reb64
07-26-2007, 04:10 PM
So does having the word Right! in the title make it right, or even Right!?. Well, its in a book so I quess that means it's right and maybe even Right! Right!?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BW9T7TFAL._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg


Well why is one source correct and the other not? We go by these sources for our info since none of us were there. How do you trust one over the other? Sure the book is pro south but are the others then pro north? My point was to show in fairness to calling Lee out for impressing blacks after his excursions north, the yanks were doing the same or worse down south.

Frenchie
07-26-2007, 06:14 PM
Well why is one source correct and the other not? We go by these sources for our info since none of us were there. How do you trust one over the other? Sure the book is pro south but are the others then pro north? My point was to show in fairness to calling Lee out for impressing blacks after his excursions north, the yanks were doing the same or worse down south.

Okay, so you don't know what "peer review" means, you don't know what a "pious fraud" is, and you think anything written down and labeled "history" has got to be true. :rolleyes:

"Well why is one source correct and the other not?", you ask. Well, Sparky, if two different books say two different things, how can they both be correct? You trust one over the other when professional historians tell you that this one agrees with their own research, but this one doesn't.

Your two gospels of neo-Confederate apologia are full of cherry-picked, intentionally mis-interpreted material that supports the moonlight-and-magnolias, cotton-and-Cavaliers, slavery-was-good-for-the-poor-coloreds, War-of-Northern-Aggression, Lincoln-was-the-Antichrist bull**** of the purest ray serene that the unreconstructeds (very few of whom ever actually picked up a musket to defend their precious Dixie) have been whining about since 1865.

So let's take this slowly, one thing at a time. Tell me how the draft, where a man is handed a uniform and a gun, paid for his service, protected by military regulations and granted citizenship at the end of his service worse than a lifetime of unpaid servitude as the property of another man?

reb64
07-26-2007, 07:53 PM
Your two gospels of neo-Confederate apologia are full of cherry-picked, intentionally mis-interpreted material that supports the moonlight-and-magnolias, cotton-and-Cavaliers, slavery-was-good-for-the-poor-coloreds, War-of-Northern-Aggression, Lincoln-was-the-Antichrist bull**** of the purest ray serene that the unreconstructeds (very few of whom ever actually picked up a musket to defend their precious Dixie) have been whining about since 1865.

So let's take this slowly, one thing at a time. Tell me how the draft, where a man is handed a uniform and a gun, paid for his service, protected by military regulations and granted citizenship at the end of his service worse than a lifetime of unpaid servitude as the property of another man?

when you were forced to fight instead of volunteering, forced to leave your home as you knew it, forced to go the front lines instead of white soldiers, forced to take less pay for it and then dumped at the end of the war with false promises like freedom (your free but don't settle here) or told to go out and kill native americans in some remote western fort. next question

reb64
07-26-2007, 08:04 PM
The South Was Right and The Truth About Slavery have both failed peer review. They are almost pure propaganda.


Don't be upset if you don't hear back from me. This is becoming tiresome.
you keep restating my point, you as a pro northerner discredit it, i as a southerner find it reinforcing. I respect your opinion as only that, a opinion which is no more weighty than mine or the authors, just opposing.

Frenchie
07-26-2007, 08:07 PM
when you were forced to fight instead of volunteering, forced to leave your home as you knew it, forced to go the front lines instead of white soldiers, forced to take less pay for it and then dumped at the end of the war with false promises like freedom (your free but don't settle here) or told to go out and kill native Americans in some remote western fort. next question

As slaves, they were property, not persons. They were not paid. Their families could be sold individually and split up. They could be whipped, even killed outright, for any reason or none, with no recourse against injustice. They could not legally be taught to read and write. None of these things are true of soldiers, either volunteers or draftees.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Have a good life, Robert.

toptimlrd
07-26-2007, 08:40 PM
Have a good life, Robert.


Hopefully not aimed at me there Frenchie.

Anyway, when a book is published in an academic vein (i.e. history) it is scrutinized by researchers and (in this case) multiple historians. This peer review compares the published text wih the hisotical record, looks at the citations used within the text for content and context, then is either regarded on sliding scale betwen sound research or agenda driven propaganda. I have not read the books in question so I withold any opinion one way or the other but there are many "hisotically documented" works that are so badly twisted from the research done they belong in the fiction section. Unless someone has the time to go through such a book and follow up on every citation and reference to ensure it was not "tweaked" one must depend on the peer review to consider what the publication is. From the titles of the books I must say that my first reaction is that it has a definite agenda to it and must be viewed with a very skeptic eye; whereas a personal memoir of Lee for example is just that, his recollections which must be compared to the historical record. 2+2=4 no matter how you write it (4-2=2, 2+2/2=4/2, etc) when a referenced book tries to say that 2+2=5 in some form something is wrong. Had Lee written in his memoirs that he had a brilliant victory at Gettysburg for example, the historic record would easily debunk that. If there is sufficient peer review that shows these books to be stretching the facts or altering them based on established historic record then they are subject to disregard. Like I said, I have no personal opinion on this topic but we can not look at a single document without supporting material. Even the Bible has supporting documentation to much of it in secular writings of the day and it is still questioned by many. When a historic publication challenges the current historic record it must be especially diligent in it's efforts to document everything otherwise we would have regiments running around in Jaguar pants based on a single photograph. Hopefully we don't get our news from the Nationl Enquirer or Weekly World News even though they do cite sources in many of the "articles".

Frenchie
07-26-2007, 08:51 PM
Hopefully not aimed at me there Frenchie.

Certainly not, Bob. reb64's real name is Robert Hayhurst, according to his Profile. Maybe some day he'll figure out how to get it into a sig line.

I declare defeat. There's no getting through to him.

That's a good little essay about peer review. Hopefully it'll help someone understand the concept.

RebelBugler
07-27-2007, 05:59 AM
Certainly not, Bob. reb64's real name is Robert Hayhurst, according to his Profile. Maybe some day he'll figure out how to get it into a sig line.

I declare defeat. There's no getting through to him.

That's a good little essay about peer review. Hopefully it'll help someone understand the concept.

Can't we all just get along? :p

Charles Reynolds
07-27-2007, 09:39 AM
Well it seem like the war didn't end in 1865. I suggest that those of you who hold such strong views. line up 10 ft from each other and fire water ballons until the war has been decided.

I was born in Virgina but raised on the west coast. Slavery was wrong but Americans in the past were respnsible. North or South
Chuck

ThumbStall
07-27-2007, 11:21 AM
I think I'll have a bumper-sticker made that reads:

YOUR DEAD ANCESTORS SUCK AND SO DO MINE!

OK, now back to our regularly scheduled unwinnable debate....

Shermans_Neckties
07-27-2007, 11:26 AM
I think I'll have a bumper-sticker made that reads:

YOUR DEAD ANCESTORS SUCK AND SO DO MINE!

.....

Good idea. I'll like to have one too.... right next to the bumper sticker that reads: If you are reading this bumper sticker then you are a FARB!!! ;)

sbl
07-27-2007, 12:04 PM
Bumper Sticker...good for Boston Redsox fans and folks below the Manson-Nixon Line. Or good for Yankees to SELL to Southerners.


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NM9SX104L._SS500_.gif

peedeeguard
07-27-2007, 12:47 PM
I might be a farm-raised, gun-toting, pro-Lee, he** no I didn't surrender Southerner, but don't put down my glorious "Yankee" baseball team. LOL Thanks SBL for the laugh, I needed one after all of this.




Dewey McRae
23rd. NCT Co. D

RebelBugler
07-28-2007, 08:59 AM
For the sake of promoting national reconciliation, a sense of fairness, historical parity ad infinitum, shouldn't Bud Selig name the next MLB expansion team the "REBELS "

sbl
07-28-2007, 01:25 PM
For the sake of promoting national reconciliation, a sense of fairness, historical parity ad infinitum, shouldn't Bud Selig name the next MLB expansion team the "REBELS "


Well no! There's "you **** Yankees" as in unwanted Northerners (redundant?) and Yankees as in all Americans are Yankees, and Yankees as in folks from North East of the Hudson River.

Also there's Rebels as in "Disperse ye damned Rebels" for the Lexington Minutemen.