Maryland Division SCV honors USCT Veteran with gravestone dedication

[Malingerer]

It would be patently ridiculous to expect that anybody would willing to fight to ensure the continuance of their own bondage. Of course they switched sides - anybody in their position would. As to why they first offered their services to the Confederacy I would offer what psychologists call 'Stockholm Syndrome' wherein captives come to identify with their captors and cooperate with them. On a small scale we saw this with Patti Hearst and on a larger scale with Jews who served as Capos in the death camps of Nazi Germany.

[firstmdes]

It would be patently ridiculous to expect that anybody would willing to fight to ensure the continuance of their own bondage. Of course they switched sides - anybody in their position would. As to why they first offered their services to the Confederacy I would offer what psychologists call 'Stockholm Syndrome' wherein captives come to identify with their captors and cooperate with them. On a small scale we saw this with Patti Hearst and on a larger scale with Jews who served as Capos in the death camps of Nazi Germany.

I would also argue that they would need to support whoever is in control of their area to preserve their belongings and slaves! They may have even thought they were protecting their property (human and otherwise) from the invading hoards from the North.

Just a thought or two...

[hendrickms24]

I think the reason they first sided with the Confederates was to save their investment (slaves,) land and family. Of course the Confederate government did not want to equip them with weapons and just used them as a labor force. I'm sure the treatment that they received from the Confederates and securing the safety of their plantations and slaves was why they switched sides. Below is Capt. Pinckney B. S. Pinchback, one of the black officers in the 2nd Native Guards - Resigned 9/11/63. Looks African Amercan to me!

[Malingerer]

I assure you that the apologists will not respond to this. They have an amazing and neverending capacity to to cover their ears and eyes and scream la la la... I don't hear or see anything.

[Malingerer]

My response was for RebelBugler. Yes Virginia primary motivation for ultimately leaving was slavery combined with Lincoln's muster call. But it took the muster call to ultimately drive VA out. In the case of Tennessee, there had been a vote on secession during the first wave and TN voted to stay in the Union. However, as soon as Lincoln issued his muster call, the governor of TN called a special session of the legislature specifically to re-open the secession issue. I am not as up on the status of Ark and NC secessions except they too did not leave until after the muster call. Thus, I would hesitate to state that slavery had as much an influence in the secession of the last four states as it did with the first seven. I am also not saying that slavery was not a factor, as no one can read Virginia's Secession Resolution and still claim that slavery was not a major factor in her secession, but rather that prior to the muster call, these states were willing to stay within the Union and find a solution to the conflict over the election of the new Republican administration. Unfortunately, the firebrands on both sides would not let happen.

As someone trained in the ways of science, I have always wanted to do a correlation analysis looking at each county that became part of the Confederacy and look at the percent that voted for secession versus those against versus percent of population that constituded slavehalders. My own hypothesis is that there is a correlation pretty close to a slope of one regarding high slaveholder population and votes for secession. Just a thought.

[Blockade Runner]

So....let's see if I've got this straight. You're suggesting that the slaves of the South would have been willing to fight to keep themselves in bondage? Wait, that can't be right - you must mean something else. Something less ... well, less thoughtless.

It is documented that many slaves voluntarily followed their masters into battle. Until very recently the PC'ers would not acknowledge the existence of Black Confederates. The very thought of Black Confederates does not coincide with the long standing misconception that slaves in the South would not fight unless pressed into service. Additionally, it flew in the face of the popular canard that slavery was the cause of the war. (There are many books on Black Confederates, so I need not go into their service to the South).

Moreover, the emancipation of Southern slaves may have also aided the South in obtaining foreign recognition from either France or England.

[firstmdes]

Additionally, it flew in the face of the popular canard that slavery was the cause of the war.

Again I post:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the Negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. --Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia

What does the bold statement in the second paragraph say? This is a speech given by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens at the start of the war. Was he the only one to think this...I think not. He was articulating what many of the leaders of the secession movement were thinking.

Moreover, the emancipation of Southern slaves may have also aided the South in obtaining foreign recognition from either France or England.

I do have to agree with you on the above though. If the C.S.A. had liberated the slaves, maybe foreign recognition would have come their way. Maybe. But then, if they freed the slaves, they would have been admitting to being wrong from the outset of the war. It would never have happened in a million years! Good try!

[Malingerer]

It is documented that many slaves voluntarily followed their masters into battle. Until very recently the PC'ers would not acknowledge the existence of Black Confederates. The very thought of Black Confederates does not coincide with the long standing misconception that slaves in the South would not fight unless pressed into service. Additionally, it flew in the face of the popular canard that slavery was the cause of the war. (There are many books on Black Confederates, so I need not go into their service to the South).

Moreover, the emancipation of Southern slaves may have also aided the South in obtaining foreign recognition from either France or England.

Actually, I think you do need to go into their service to the Confederacy. I don't doubt that maybe a few hundred slaves served as gun toters for their masters (see my above post regarding Stockholm Syndrome). And "vountarily followed"? Just how does a slave 'voluntarily' follow his master. I mean, do you actually read your own posts? Holy c**p, I need a bunch more alcohol.

[firstmdes]

Actually, I think you do need to go into their service to the Confederacy. I don't doubt that maybe a few hundred slaves served as gun toters for their masters (see my above post regarding Stockholm Syndrome). And "vountarily followed"? Just how does a slave 'voluntarily' follow his master. I mean, do you actually read your own posts? Holy c**p, I need a bunch more alcohol.

I just noticed the quote from your signature line:

"If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Howell Cobb.

How appropriate for our discussion!!

As to voluntarily following your master to battle...I think that happened for those benevolent masters that were really nice to their slaves!

[Blockade Runner]

Again I post:


What does the bold statement in the second paragraph say? This is a speech given by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens at the start of the war. Was he the only one to think this...I think not. He was articulating what many of the leaders of the secession movement were thinking.


I do have to agree with you on the above though. If the C.S.A. had liberated the slaves, maybe foreign recognition would have come their way. Maybe. But then, if they freed the slaves, they would have been admitting to being wrong from the outset of the war. It would never have happened in a million years! Good try!

Thomas DiLorenzo, in his widely acclaimed book, The Real Lincoln asserts the following concerning Lincoln and slavery. " A crusade against slavery would have offered a compelling case for Lincoln's war, but he never made that case. Until the day he died, he insisted that the war was being fought to deny Southerners the right of secession that virtually all the founding fathers believed was fundamental. Slavery, according to Lincoln, was only incidental to the real cause of the war: "saving the Union". Lincoln called up 75,000 troops to surpress a rebellion, not to free the slaves. Indeed, the official name of the war is the "War of Rebellion". Lincoln and the Republican Party did use the slavery issue brilliantly, however, to advance their real objective: establishiing a consolidated federal government and essentially destroying state sovereignty".

DiLorenzo's arguements concerning Lincoln's real rationale for waging a war against the South are very persasive and compelling.