Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Something to ponder, Virgina Black Confederates >

Something to ponder, Virgina Black Confederates

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Something to ponder, Virgina Black Confederates

Old 11-03-2010, 08:59 PM
  #1  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 37,739
Default Something to ponder, Virgina Black Confederates

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2010
*
Virginia's Black Confederates
*
*********** One tragedy of war is that its victors write its history and often do so with bias and dishonesty. That's true about our War of 1861, erroneously called a civil war. Civil wars, by the way, are when two or more parties attempt to take over the central government. Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington, in 1776, wanted to take over London. Both wars were wars of independence.
*********** Kevin Sieff, staff writer for The Washington Post, penned an article "Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers," (Oct. 20, 2010). The textbook says that blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy. Sieff claims that "Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history." William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff said, "It is disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship." Let's examine that accepted scholarship.
*********** In April 1861, a Petersburg, Va., newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free *****es of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them" in defense of Virginia. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government."
*********** Charles H. Wesley, a distinguished black historian who lived from 1891 to 1987, wrote "The Employment of *****es as Soldiers in the Confederate Army," in the Journal of ***** History (1919). He says, "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies (1,600) of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."
*********** Wesley cites Horace Greeley's "American Conflict" (1866) saying, "For more than two years, *****es had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."
*********** Wesley goes on to say, "An observer in Charleston at the outbreak of the war noted the preparation for war, and called particular attention to the thousand *****es who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees."
*********** One would have to be stupid to think that blacks were fighting in order to preserve slavery. What's untaught in most history classes is that it is relatively recent that we Americans think of ourselves as citizens of United States. For most of our history, we thought of ourselves as citizens of Virginia, citizens of New York and citizens of whatever state in which we resided. Wesley says, "To the majority of the *****es, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear." Blacks have fought in all of our wars both before and after slavery, in hopes of better treatment afterwards.
*********** Denying the role, and thereby cheapening the memory, of the Confederacy's slaves and freemen who fought in a failed war of independence is part of the agenda to cover up Abraham Lincoln's unconstitutional acts to prevent Southern secession. Did states have a right to secede? At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
*********** Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
*
*
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:42 AM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Comance county, OK
Posts: 11,381
Default

Walter Williams is right on this one.

It does not surprise me that PC writers at liberal rags like the Washington Post try to re-write history. They have done that for decades.

i belong to The Sons of Confederate Veterans. We do have a few black members whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy.
falcon is offline  
Old 11-22-2010, 05:24 AM
  #3  
Fork Horn
 
Noršvegr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Hinterlands
Posts: 115
Default

Williams is right that our "civil war" wasn't a civil war. It was a secessionist movement by those who wished to preserve slavery.
Noršvegr is offline  
Old 11-24-2010, 10:22 AM
  #4  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by Noršvegr View Post
Williams is right that our "civil war" wasn't a civil war. It was a secessionist movement by those who wished to preserve slavery.
This is where I fog up....was this a war to preserve slavery, or was this a war to determine which took precedence, Federalism or States' rights ?

I understand that the issue of states' rights was to be used to preserve slavery, but was the war to preserve slavery, using the 'states rights' argument ? I guess I'm looking to find the emphasis as to which factor was more in evidence influence. (it's obvious, I'm not a student of the "War of 1861").
bergall is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 09:18 AM
  #5  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Originally Posted by bergall View Post
This is where I fog up....was this a war to preserve slavery, or was this a war to determine which took precedence, Federalism or States' rights ?

I understand that the issue of states' rights was to be used to preserve slavery, but was the war to preserve slavery, using the 'states rights' argument ? I guess I'm looking to find the emphasis as to which factor was more in evidence influence. (it's obvious, I'm not a student of the "War of 1861").
I think the answer is going to depend on who you ask. I think it was a war to preserve slavery using the "states rights" argument. It's obvious that the unintended end result was to provoke an unprecedented increase in federal power. Thanks, Southern guys. Refusal to give up segregation led to a further increase in federal power. Thanks again, Southern guys.

The alternative was to allow the continuation of slavery, and, after the war, the continuation of segregation and discrimination on the basis of race. Some Southerners still haven't gotten the message. Not that we don't find some of that attitude here in the North country also.
sachiko is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 09:34 AM
  #6  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

Williams is right that our "civil war" wasn't a civil war. It was a secessionist movement by those who wished to preserve slavery.
You'd do good to read up on your history. Do you think thousands upon thousands of poor farmers and the like would have gone to war to protect slavery when they never had and never would own even one slave? On top of that, Lincoln had conceeded to continue to allow slavery if it would have averted the War. The South went to war over the same thing that the colonies went to war with Britian over--taxation without representation. The industrial North was taxing the agricultural South into oblivion, without their having any say in the matter.

I think the answer is going to depend on who you ask.
The answer is documented history, if you can find referances that haven't been tainted by liberals.

Thanks, Southern guys. Refusal to give up segregation led to a further increase in federal power. Thanks again, Southern guys.
That's hilarious. The North (the same region that gave us folks like john kerry, chuck schumer, the kennedy clan, etc.) is the one that implemented such power--but it's the South's fault? Hey, I caught you stealing a pack of bubble gum from my store so I shot you in the head with a .45. It's your fault--you should have left the gum alone. Nevermind that you were working at my store and I'd shorted you $100 on your check and you were just taking the gum as tiny bit of restitution when you quit. What a line of reasoning........

The alternative was to allow the continuation of slavery, and, after the war, the continuation of segregation and discrimination on the basis of race. Some Southerners still haven't gotten the message. Not that we don't find some of that attitude here in the North country also.
Again, do some studying. Allowing slavery was offered to avert the War, but it didn't work because that wasn't what the War was about. Duhhhh.....

Out of curiosity, just how much travelling have you done? You make some very opinionated statements about the South--I'd like to know what they are based on. Years spent living here?
LBR is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:02 AM
  #7  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

Lots of very interesting comments in the article--obviously ignored by those with a big bias.

"They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."

No way! Everybody knows the South was/is much more racist than the North!

"An observer in Charleston at the outbreak of the war noted the preparation for war, and called particular attention to the thousand *****es who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees."

They must have been confused--no way they could have enjoyed shooting their saviors!

"One would have to be stupid to think that blacks were fighting in order to preserve slavery."

BINGO! The North won so they get to write most of the history, but even the most liberal "historian" can't get around that plain and simple fact. You have to throw common sense out the window.

"To the majority of the *****es, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear."

Nothing to add there.

Denying the role, and thereby cheapening the memory, of the Confederacy's slaves and freemen who fought in a failed war of independence is part of the agenda to cover up Abraham Lincoln's unconstitutional acts to prevent Southern secession. Did states have a right to secede? At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

'Nuff said.
LBR is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 10:54 AM
  #8  
Spike
 
TN308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: TN
Posts: 66
Default



The Civil War was not an attempt to preserve slavery.

Slavery was dying and it would have ended with or without the war within a decade do to to industrialization.

The War of Northern Aggression was about preserving Southern heritage and culture. The South didn't want anything to do with northern culture,laws or government and that's exactly why the South fought.

The South had already established her own laws and government.

Slavery was Lincolns scapegoat......He was just as racist and disliked blacks just as much as plantation owners.

If it was to "preserve slavery" why did so many black men fight willingly right along side the white men?

State's rights.....Nuff' said.
TN308 is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 11:57 AM
  #9  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Originally Posted by LBR View Post
You'd do good to read up on your history. Do you think thousands upon thousands of poor farmers and the like would have gone to war to protect slavery when they never had and never would own even one slave? On top of that, Lincoln had conceeded to continue to allow slavery if it would have averted the War. The South went to war over the same thing that the colonies went to war with Britian over--taxation without representation. The industrial North was taxing the agricultural South into oblivion, without their having any say in the matter.



That's not an argument. People with no real stake in the outcome have been going to war for millenia. Thousands of poor farmers fought the British in the American Revolution. The guys who fomented the revolution would have been hanged had the British won, but the lives of those farmers would have been no different. Do you think the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor would have been better off after the war had Japan won? Would we be speaking German had the Normandy invasion failed? The Japanese occupied Korea for generations and the Koreans still speak Korean and celebrate Korean culture.
-----------------------------------------------

The answer is documented history, if you can find referances that haven't been tainted by liberals.



It has nothing to do with history tainted by liberals. That's pure nonsense, Had the South abandoned slavery, the "War of Northern Aggression" would never have occurred.

----------------------------------------------------


That's hilarious. The North (the same region that gave us folks like john kerry, chuck schumer, the kennedy clan, etc.) is the one that implemented such power--but it's the South's fault? Hey, I caught you stealing a pack of bubble gum from my store so I shot you in the head with a .45. It's your fault--you should have left the gum alone. Nevermind that you were working at my store and I'd shorted you $100 on your check and you were just taking the gum as tiny bit of restitution when you quit. What a line of reasoning........



I don't see what all this has to do with anything. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were only necessitated by Southerners' intransigence regarding segregation. The Supreme Court was even required to apply the Commerce Clause in order to enforce the right of minorities to eat in Southern restaurants. (You can learn some interesting stuff when you're married to a lawyer. )The Supreme Court had to take the time to inform Southerners that they couldn't bar marriages between two people because of race. (Some Southerners still haven't gotten the message.)

(On the plus side, the 14th amendment allowed the Supremes to apply the 2nd amendment to the states.)

---------------------------------------------------------

Again, do some studying. Allowing slavery was offered to avert the War, but it didn't work because that wasn't what the War was about. Duhhhh.....

Out of curiosity, just how much travelling have you done? You make some very opinionated statements about the South--I'd like to know what they are based on. Years spent living here?



I have traveled from California across the country to Michigan, but I was in utero at the time so that probably doesn't count. I don't have to live in the South though, to read and learn anymore than I have to live in ancient Japan to read and learn. As far as experience is concerned, what I have read about the South tends to offset a somewhat negative impression I might have gathered from this forum.

As far as personal experience is concerned, keep in mind that Honorable Husband grew up in the South. He has related many positive impressions, as well as negative, except for Texas for which he has no positive regard at all.

As I mentioned previously, we also see that stuff here in the North. There used to be Klan meetings in a town not far from here. They don't seem to be active now, but I'm sure the members are still around.

I'm just here to make this message long enough to post Way to feel important Yeah
sachiko is offline  
Old 11-25-2010, 12:24 PM
  #10  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

That's not an argument.
It's not an argument only if you throw common sense and reason out the door. I notice you didn't address the fact that blacks fought for the Confederacy. I guess you'll say they were fighting for the continuation of slavery?

It has nothing to do with history tainted by liberals. That's pure nonsense, Had the South abandoned slavery, the "War of Northern Aggression" would never have occurred.
As has been noted, slavery was/is nothing more than a Northern scapegoat. Prove otherwise--you cannot. You can, however, educate yourself with the facts of the matter.

I don't see what all this has to do with anything.
Of course not. You are blinded by bias.

I have traveled from California across the country to Michigan, but I was in utero at the time so that probably doesn't count.
So, in reality, you know practically nothing about the South other than what you have been told my your husband (who lived in AR--did he live anywhere other than one place before moving to MI?). Heck, I can find a book that describes most anyplace as heaven, or just the opposite. No book can ever replace actual life experience.

...except for Texas for which he has no positive regard at all.
My limited experience with Texas and Texans has been nothing short of excellent, except for one con artist I ran across. I later found out he was actually from OH, and just pretended to be a Texan. I guess even lawyers can't transcend personal bias.

As I mentioned previously, we also see that stuff here in the North. There used to be Klan meetings in a town not far from here. They don't seem to be active now, but I'm sure the members are still around.
No way! I'm only 41 (soon to be 42). Other than time in the Army and short stints working in different states, I've lived here all my life. In all honesty I couldn't name even one meeting place or even a klan member. Surely there can't be places like that in the North, when I--living here in MS as long as I have--can't even name one!

However, I do know that in my travels from New Mexico to PA (as a driving adult) that there are areas that a white person dare not be caught in, especially after dark. We have them in the South, but the worst by far (that I know of) are in the North. If you don't believe me, have 'ol "honorable husband" take a skip down Rosa Parks Blvd (or Ave.? I forget) in good 'ol Detroit--it doesn't even have to be after dark. I made the mistake of getting on it once--I didn't dare let my truck get below 55 mph.--kept it closer to 80 mph until I got back on the freeway.
LBR is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.