Maryland Division SCV honors USCT Veteran with gravestone dedication

[Georgia Frame]

John makes a good point about folk “getting over” the WBTS.

I have seen in the recent past that there are folk out there who are out to re-kindle the flames of that war. Books are being written, by authors that are terribly one-sided, and out to inflame folk’s passions. We need to be objective in looking at the war, and not just from one side/cause.

2 years ago, the LH group I belong to, organized a ceremony dedicating a Monument to all the 36 or more WBTS Veterans buried in a Cemetery north of Comanche, TX. We had about 60+ folk from the SCV, UDC, OCR, and folk who don’t belong to any of the mentioned groups, come for the dedication. Everyone was invited. There was one Union Soldier in the cemetery, and we honored him as much as the others. The man whom we had do the closing prayer, was a survivor of the USS Indianapolis!

As far as comments about changes in the SCV, that has happened, I have seen it. That organization has gone from looking at the war and the Veterans from a past/historical standpoint, to a reactionary perspective. The focus is now of fighting back against school dress codes not allowing the “Battle Flag” emblem on clothing, and in South Carolina’s situation, the Battle flag on the State Capitol grounds. You then have the “League of the South” organization that preaches Re-secession, and they have members of that group infiltrating the SCV.

It got ugly, and a lot of good folk left the organization because of disagreements on where the organization was going, and conducting itself. Here in Texas, there has been suggestions of allowing folk into the organization who can not prove they have Confederate ancestry.

A case in point is the Law Suit brought on by the SCV here in Burleson, TX. Girls brought purses into the school with Battle flag on them, against written school dress codes, and they had to leave school because they wouldn’t put them away. So the Texas SCV leadership brings a lawsuit against the School, using a Lawyer from North Carolina to bring the charges.

“Independent School District” used to mean something, and obviously the Dallas TX. Court thought so, and ruled against the girls/SCV. I bring this up because it’s an example of what I mean about “reactionary”! When I belonged to the SCV, I didn’t hear anything much about laws suits, mostly about Dedications. Now their focus is more about Confederate Emblems, less about the Veterans.

I am not anti SCV, I know some great folk locally in that organization, and they know without a doubt that I work hard at accurately portraying a Confederate Soldier. They still talk to me even when I show up as a union soldier.

My mileage is going to vary from yours…

Kevin Dally

[CheeseBoxRaft]

If the war was fought to achieve racial equality, there would have been no New York draft riots, Grant would have released his slaves prior to the passage of the 13th amendment...

Your statement that "Grant would have released his slaves prior to the passage of the 13th amendment..." presumes that Grant did not free "his" slave until after the 13th Amendment was passed. This is not true. The facts state otherwise.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, abolishing slavery as a legal institution. In 1859, Grant manumited one William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned who, technically, was originally the property of his wife's family. Therefore Grant freed "his" one and only slave a full six years before the passage of the 13th Ammendment.

During the Civil War, other slaves at White Haven (Julia Dent's family home in St. Louis, MO) simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri’s constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven.

http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

[reb64]

During the Civil War, other slaves at White Haven (Julia Dent's family home in St. Louis, MO) simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri’s constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven.

http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

Duh, if your married then your wifes property is your property, but in any case they werent freed, they walked off. I guess they got tired of waiting for freedom in the us and went south and got emancipated ironically.

[firstmdes]

Duh, if your married then your wifes property is your property, but in any case they werent freed, they walked off. I guess they got tired of waiting for freedom in the us and went south and got emancipated ironically.

I believe you are not reading the original post correctly:

During the Civil War, other slaves at White Haven (Julia Dent's family home in St. Louis, MO) simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri’s constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven.

http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm

While the slaves were at Julia Dent Grant's family home in MO, it does not mean they were her slaves. Her personal property might become her husband's property, but her family's property is not included in that transfer!

Besides, this is getting way of topic...I beleive this thread was intended to discuss the recent honoring of George Brown's USCT sevice and those members of the SCV who assisted in having a US veteran grave stone placed. Seems to me that stopping by over a month later and posting what you have is just being done to start an arguement. Is that your purpose?

[CheeseBoxRaft]

Duh, if your married then your wifes property is your property, but in any case they werent freed, they walked off. I guess they got tired of waiting for freedom in the us and went south and got emancipated ironically.

"Duh"... ?

What is that for? My post was made in response to RebelBugler, not to you, reb64. As it is, I made a straightforward and scholarly observation without resorting to any smart remarks against him or anyone else. I even provided a source link. You bring nothing to this discussion other than a childish display of rudeness that is a far cry from how a true Southern Gentlemen should behave.

[ElijahsGrtGranddaughter]

... "racial injustice" was a result of the war... The antebellum existence of slavery, cause or not of the war, proves there was racial injustice well before the end of the war and therefore not a result of the war.

I had no desire to post in this thread nor the one on Captain Henry Wirz, but why is it that the South (Antebellum) is the ONLY one recognized as having slaves?

Did the North not also have slaves and did so until the 13th amendment was ratified?

While my historical knowledge isn't what it should be, am I missing something here? Why are a select few of you behaving like children on an Elementary School Playground pulling little girl's ponytails?

What was it my ole southern grandmother used to say to me, 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'

Kind Regards,

Kerri Baker

[firstmdes]

I had no desire to post in this thread nor the one on Captain Henry Wirz, but why is it that the South (Antebellum) is the ONLY one recognized as having slaves?

Did the North not also have slaves and did so until the 13th amendment was ratified?

While my historical knowledge isn't what it should be, am I missing something here? Why are a select few of you behaving like children on an Elementary School Playground pulling little girl's ponytails?

What was it my ole southern grandmother used to say to me, 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.'

Kind Regards,

Kerri Baker

At no point during this thread or any other thread have I claimed the Southern states were the only ones with slaves. Those which formed the Confederate States of America did have slaves, as a matter of fact, quite a large percentage of their total populations. They also formed a new government based on a constitution which was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except for a few things:

- 6 year term with one term limit on president
- president has line-item veto power
- slavery is guaranteed

I may have missed a few, but these are the main differences between the U.S. and C.S. constitutions. The problem arises when 21st Century supporters of the C.S.A. try to claim that slavery had nothing to do with secession or the war. If this is true, than 600,000 Americans lost their lives fighting for the right to have a six year presidential term and the line item veto!? I think not...

If I am acting like a schoolboy pulling ponytails than I apologize. As to to your comment 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'...if we all followed that, there would be no discussion on this forum!

Thanks for posting your thoughts!

[ElijahsGrtGranddaughter]

... If I am acting like a schoolboy pulling ponytails than I apologize. As to to your comment 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'...if we all followed that, there would be no discussion on this forum!

Thanks for posting your thoughts!

My sincerest apologies to you firstmdes, I did not direct that comment to you. I have found your information enlightening.

However, reading through this thread and the one on Capt. Wirz, there are those here who are behaving like a school boys pulling a school girl's ponytails.

As for my grandmother's senitment, it was directed to those few who were casting personal stones towards those who disagreed with them.

Please except my apology for such a general post.

~Kerri B.

[RebelBugler]

I may have missed a few, but these are the main differences between the U.S. and C.S. constitutions. The problem arises when 21st Century supporters of the C.S.A. try to claim that slavery had nothing to do with secession or the war. If this is true, than 600,000 Americans lost their lives fighting for the right to have a six year presidential term and the line item veto!? I think not...

The problem arises when 21st Century supporters of political correctness claim that slavery had everything to do with secession or the war.

For starters, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and several states required, as a condition of ratifying the Constitution, their right to secede. A textbook by Rawles, used at the US Military Academy, even acknowledged this right.

Yes, the South was indeed concerned about the abolitionist movement. After all, there had been the Nat Turner incident and the attempt to incite a slave insurrection, orchestrated by John Brown. Interestingly, the terrorist Brown murdered a Black railroad employee, Haywood Shepherd, in his failed attempt at Harpers Ferry. So much for Brown's claim of the moral high ground

There was also the issue of shifting political power, if new states admitted to the Union were designated as Free states.

Another issue was how to deal with and establish the necessary support for the substantial number of individuals who would suddenly be freed. Considering that the vast majority of slaves were in the South, and that many of the Northern states had laws refusing admission to people of color, there were realistic public safety concerns as to how to deal with a largely uneducated population of former slaves. Of course, most of us are familiar with Mr. Lincoln's plan to find ships to return the emancipated individuals back to Africa.

[Malingerer]

The problem arises when 21st Century supporters of political correctness claim that slavery had everything to do with secession or the war.

For starters, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and several states required, as a condition of ratifying the Constitution, their right to secede. A textbook by Rawles, used at the US Military Academy, even acknowledged this right.

Yes, the South was indeed concerned about the abolitionist movement. After all, there had been the Nat Turner incident and the attempt to incite a slave insurrection, orchestrated by John Brown. Interestingly, the terrorist Brown murdered a Black railroad employee, Haywood Shepherd, in his failed attempt at Harpers Ferry. So much for Brown's claim of the moral high ground

There was also the issue of shifting political power, if new states admitted to the Union were designated as Free states.

Another issue was how to deal with and establish the necessary support for the substantial number of individuals who would suddenly be freed. Considering that the vast majority of slaves were in the South, and that many of the Northern states had laws refusing admission to people of color, there were realistic public safety concerns as to how to deal with a largely uneducated population of former slaves. Of course, most of us are familiar with Mr. Lincoln's plan to find ships to return the emancipated individuals back to Africa.

Just where have you read anywhere that the cause of the Civil War was due entirely to slavery? I think the PC argument runs both ways. The Confederate apologist version goes something like this: slavery was bad; the Confederacy was noble; ergo, the Confederacy could not have been created to protect slavery - slavery was just something the South was stuck with for the short term. Sheesh, talk about PC.