Absolute Proof the Civil War Was About Slavery

https://www.facebook.com/notes/american-civil-war-the-war-between-the-states-the-real-truth/absolute-proof-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery/629548950421024

Absolute Proof the Civil War Was About Slavery

November 11, 2013 at 10:11am

AUTHOR: CURTIS F NOVEMBER 3, 2013 7:12 PM

 

 

 

There are still debates amongst Liberals and Conservatives over whether the Civil War was about slavery. The answer is found within secession documents. – Photo by Murky1 (CC BY-SA 2.0)

There are various things that conservatives and liberals disagree over, and for some insane reason, whether or not the Civil War was about slavery is one of them. Sure, the war ended with the abolition of slavery, but many individuals still claim that the entire war was over states’ rights as opposed to the tradition of owning another human being.

Sadly, this isn’t a random extremist ideology that is pervasive only amongst the most racist of individuals. The Pew Research Center actually found that 48% of Americans believed that the Civil War was about state’s rights, and only 38% thought it was over slavery. Even more alarming is the fact that young people are the ones driving these numbers. A full 60% of those surveyed under 30 felt the war had nothing to do with owning slaves.

Historical Revisionists Deny Slavery As Cause Of Civil War.

Unfortunately for those who want to rewrite history, America was pretty good at record keeping, and this holds true even in the South during their “we wanna be our own country” phase. Revisionists and those they have tricked into believing untruths can argue all they want, but the states that seceded from the Union were very clear on why they did so. This might make that whole yearly Confederate History Month seem a bit more racist. (a BIT? – ed)

In reality, there were four states in the Confederacy who decided to write their own declarations of why they were seceding from the Union. Surely the racists of today would go back in time and tell them not to do this. After all, why leave a paper trail of racism? Oh well, too bad. Here you go!

South Carolina Was Very Clear On The Matter.

 

South Carolina pretty much destroyed the idea that the Civil War was over states’ rights in its declaration. The state said that several northern states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” They were very upset about this because these states’ laws often allowed slaves to stay as freemen if within their territories. Okay, so the Civil War was about states’ rights, unless that state didn’t agree with the institution of slavery? Right.

On top of this, the declaration seems to get pretty mad over the fact that the North labeled slavery as “sinful,” and they even went on to say that the North had “encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.” That’s right! No teaching Africans to read or look at pictures! Because they might want freedom then.

Mississippi Was Proud Of The War Being Over Slavery.

But oh, Mississippi. They’re a little bit off hinge nowadays, but back in the day, they were straight forward with their beliefs. Their declaration literally says that they’re leaving the Union because their “position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”

It’s a bit long to post the whole declaration here, but seriously, go read it. They literally say that slaves are necessary because only Africans can handle the type of heat experienced through work in the South.

Georgia Upset That Its Slaves Could Run North To Freedom.

Ah, and the good old Peach State: Georgia. They wrote a lengthy declaration and actually cited numerous sources (something unheard of in the conservative party of today), but it all broke down to “leave our slaves alone!” One reason Georgia left is because a provision in “the Constitution [that] requires them [Northern states] to surrender fugitives from labor.”

Georgia, not one to not go all out, also said “Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals [runaway slaves] who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us.” That’s right: runaway slaves were criminals and Georgia was mad that the North wasn’t returning them. In fact, go ahead and read Georgia’s declaration as well. It’s a bit longer, but there’s literally not three sentences that go by without mentioning slavery as a cause for secession.

Texas Truly Did Do It Bigger.

Of course, we all know that they do it bigger in Texas. The Lone Star State actually mentioned slavery in its declaration a full 21 times. In fact, they pretty much went all in on their anti-African sentiment.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

You read that right: it’s their right to own slaves. On top of this, Africans had no part in founding America, and the only way they’d put up with those Africans being there was if they were slaves. But hey, let’s not stop there!

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator.

You read it here first, folks: slavery is great for those who are free and those in shackles, and hey, this has to be true because God said so. Tsk, tsk. Texas, Texas, Texas. First Bush and now this? Oh, okay, that was backwards. Bush is a bit more understandable now.

Oh? That’s not enough for you?

Okay, okay. So maybe the entire Confederacy didn’t engage in the Civil War in an attempt to keep slavery around. After all, only the four states above had declarations saying that their secession was due to slavery, and there were 11 states in the Confederacy. So maybe it was just those four states that fought for slavery, right? Unfortunately for the revisionists, the vice president of the nonexistent Confederate States of America said:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—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 [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.

You didn’t read that wrong.  That is the Vice President of the Confederacy stating point blank that theonly cause for secession was the institution of slavery.

So there you have it. Revisionists can clamor all day about how the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Unfortunately, the founders of the Confederacy and triggers to the Civil War simply don’t agree with them. They can enjoy their Confederate History Month, but if they claim that the War Between the States was over anything other than slavery, maybe they should read their treasonous “founding fathers’” words first.

More Trouble for the Virginia Flaggers … Tripp Lewis Runs Afoul of the SCV | Crossroads

More Trouble for the Virginia Flaggers … Tripp Lewis Runs Afoul of the SCV | Crossroads

More Trouble for the Virginia Flaggers … Tripp Lewis Runs Afoul of the SCV

Posted on November 5, 2013 by Brooks D. Simpson

Oops … he did it again.

Tripp Lewis proudly shows how to carry a flag the Tripp way.

Tripp Lewis of the Virginia Flaggers seems to have run afoul of the Virginia Division of the SCV. It’s only a matter of time before all the details are aired for all to see and consider.
It’s once more a busy time for the Virginia Flaggers. After all, it is election day in Virginia, and several Flaggers have made their choice known.

Apparently the I-95 project isn’t apolitical. It’s not just about heritage and honoring soldiers.

Finally, there’s been more coverage in Richmond about the recent theft at the I-95 flagpole site. It is especially gratifying to learn that Grayson Jennings says that he would do nothing to knock over a crane used to exhibit the United States flag, even if he has trouble saying the words “United States.
”
“You wouldn’t see any of us going down to downtown Richmond trying to knock the crane over with that American flag.”
My understanding is that the CBF being flown at I-95 was left untouched, so I’m not sure what Mr. Jennings’ point might be. But that’s what happens when Susan Hathaway’s no longer your spokesperson: the message gets muddled.
UPDATE: As several people have now noted (pride of place goes to Corey Meyer), the Confederate flag in the video is not the same flag that went up on September 28. I wonder what happened to the original flag.
Kevin Levin wonders why no one stopped what should have been a noisy robbery.

Civil War Memory

Reflections of a History Educator & Historian

Menu

Skip to content

• Bio
• Blog
  • Links
  • Civil War Memory Library
• Resume
• Buy the Book
  • New Book Project
  • Media
• Speaking
  • Upcoming Talks
• Contact Me
• RSS

Tripp Lewis Runs Afoul of Sons of Confederate Veterans

Leave a reply

By now many of you have learned that Virginia Flagger Tripp Lewis is being charged for “conduct unbecoming” by the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. No word on the specifics of the charge, but I suspect more will be revealed in the near future. It goes without saying that this is not the kind of publicity that the Flaggers are looking for, but as we’ve seen this kind of news has become business as usual.
My curiosity is piqued given the reputation of the Edmund Ruffin Camp. So, are there other examples of charges brought against members by the Virginia Division or by any division in the SCV? What kinds of actions are we talking about? I am clearly not privy to the internal workings of the SCV so I wonder if those of you who are might fill us in with a bit more information about this organization’s disciplinary system. Are the charges brought against Lewis unusual?

And for those of you who need a quick reminder re: Tripp Lewis’s antics, click here.

Why did the Confederate Soldier enlist?

Why did the Confederate Soldier enlist?

VOLUME XIV, NO. 4 October, 2000

CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS: WHY DID THEY ENLIST?
BY
MICHAEL BAXTER SHOCK
(Michael Shock holds the BA in History from the University of Charleston and works at the West Virginia Library Commission.)
The soldiers who enlisted to fight for the Confederacy have been the subject of much debate in recent times. In this age of political correctness, the symbols of the Confederacy have come under increasing attack by the media and "special interest" groups. Everything from monuments to flags has been subjected to barrages of scorn and protest by people who find them to be personally offensive. Of course, the particular flag that is under attack is the "St. Andrew's Cross" battle flag. It is not (and never was), the national flag of the Confederacy, even though it is almost always portrayed as such. It was not even the only battle flag used by the Confederate armies, but that brings up a major point. Southern history (and history in general), seems to be very misunderstood by the majority of today's public.
The battle flag was intended only for military use, and it has a regimental status, and it is meant only for the battlefield and the soldiers who fight under it upon that field. Therefore, it is a soldier's flag, for they are the ones who fight and die under it. The modern public does not understand or even know about this difference regarding the meaning of flags, particularly in regards to the Confederacy, since the battle flag almost always was taken into the cauldron alone, and without the national colors, unlike the Union armies. Therefore, in people's eyes today, the battle flag is the flag. A similar dilemma of historical misunderstanding involves the modern perception of Confederate soldiers, the reasons of why they enlisted, and even what the majority of them were like. People seem to think that they fought to only preserve slavery, and that was their only reason for enlisting to fight in the War Between the States. Of course, they were all white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant, and they all were Southern born and bred. Researching history can bring about startling surprises. These surprises are that those views are historically inaccurate.
The men who enlisted to fight for the Confederate States of America were more varied in motivations and backgrounds than what is commonly realized or known. The soldiers who went to fight were not just native Southern white males or rich slave-holding plantation owners, but were also of foreign birth, native French-speaking Creoles, and even of Northern origin. There were also Mexican-Americans who enlisted, but the most surprising of those who chose to enlist to fight, or even wanted to enlist to fight for the Confederacy, were Native- Americans and African-Americans! None of these groups come to mind as Rebel soldiers, but they were. Of course that brings about a very probing question. Why did they enlist or want to enlist? To understand "native" white Southerners will be looked at first. What will be dealt with is the fact that many did not even consider slavery the major motivation to enlist, or even one at all. This tends to indicate that slavery was not the overriding factor to all white Southerners, or the even only factor (as common historical teachings, specifically school textbooks, have dictated).
In the South, 385,000 families owned slaves, out of a white population of 1,516,000 families.1 In the Army of Northern Virginia, for example, the majority of soldiers did not come from families that even had a direct personal stake in slavery.2 Therefore, "it was not the issue of slavery for which the average officer or enlisted man went to war." Actually, what really motivated them to enlist was their tremendous pride in their own land and what they and their fathers had achieved, "combined with a general dislike of Northerners stemming from most superficial knowledge of the real people who inhabited the northern states"|
3
Many white Confederate soldiers stated reasons other than slavery as motivations for enlisting. After the secession of the state of Virginia, "Benjamin W. Jones found that 'the determination to resist invasion-the first and most sacred duty of a free people-became general, if not universal'". Historian William C. Davis then stated, "that determination sent him into the army, and thousands more with him".4 Carlton McCarthy wrote in his memoir with some poetic prose, that the Southerner "dared not refuse to hear the call to arms, so plain was the duty and so urgent the call. His brethren and friends were answering the bugle-call and the sound of the drum," and "to stay was dishonor and shame"!5 Defense of the home and duty with honor seemed to be very strong primary reasons for enlisting for the average Confederate soldier. McCarthy's quote points out another factor as well. The power of one's peers.
Popular pressure was a very strong factor for enlisting to fight for the Confederacy (as well as the Union). Thousands of persons indifferent to enlisting, and even many who were openly opposed to it, were swept like a wave into the ranks in 1861 by the tremendous force of popular pressure.6
The defense of the women of the South was another strong motivating factor for many white Southern males. The women offered thanks to the men who enlisted "but turned with coolest disdain from those who were reluctant to come forward in defense of Southern womanhood".7
But again many volunteered not from any great enthusiasm, but simply because enlistment was the trendy thing to do .8 Therefore, peer pressure had the strongest influence. All of these reasons seem to have motivated members of the yeoman class to enlist, because most of them viewed the defense of slavery as "to protect the fortunes and property of a leisured upper-class that most (of them) looked upon with hatred, envy and contempt".9
The yeoman class had no slaves to fight for, they had some property, their families, and their native states. They also had something else as their property to protect, and that "was their white skins which put them on a plane of civil equality with slave holders and far above those who did not possess that property," as stated by Princeton University historian, James M. McPherson.10 Since many could not read or write very well (or at all), they were not given much of a chance to defend themselves to later generations from statements like Dr. McPherson's. It should be stated as fact that racism was very strong at that time, in the North as well as the South. It was simply the pattern of thought in the 1800s that the white class was superior, even though it was not true.
One motivation that has been around since recorded time (and certainly even before then), was the want for adventure.11 It is doubtful that particular motivation was that strong after being in the storm of combat. War has never been the romantic event that has been portrayed in writings, only a "living hell."
Many high-ranking Confederates showed reasons for enlisting other than slavery. The examples consist of generals (or future generals). Robert E. Lee believed in neither slavery nor secession, but would fight for his old Virginia.12 Ambrose Powell Hill, better known as A.P. Hill, chose to fight for the defense of his state, Virginia, even thought he was deeply opposed to slavery.13 John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky (a boarder state), a one-time Vice-President of the United States, sided with the Confederacy primarily for his home-state's self-defense from the North.14 The individual motivations are endless.
Not only did Southerners and "boarder-staters" enlist (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware) to fight for the Confederacy, but so did Northerners themselves!15 Their motivations are varied (to be sure), but it can be speculated that economic or family ties had something to do with this phenomenon. Ideology and sympathy for "the cause" also had influence on these men to serve with what their fellow Northerners called "the enemy."
An interesting class of Southerners were the French-speaking white Creoles of Louisiana. The general motivation for them enlisting after Louisiana seceded was "the American-born French were fighting for their freedom from oppression and the French-born residents were helping them; together,"Liberate" in the sense of 1789 was again ringing in the ears of the American Gaul".16 Therefore, the defense of liberty seems to be the primary motivation here, but definitely not necessarily the rule. For those French immigrants who enlisted to fight for the Confederacy, it must be stated that many were motivated by the "defense of the South, as holy a task as the American Revolution, and the enlistees vowed to bear hardships as great as Washington's before they would fail".17 The French were not alone with this show of patriotism, but other foreigners followed their own motivations. Those immigrants who fought for the Confederacy were an interesting and diverse group. They came from many nationalities, like the French, the Irish, the Germans, the Scottish, and the English being the most prominent. The two largest of these groups were the Germans and the Irish.
The Germans had no interest in slavery, and therefore it was not a strong motivation for enlisting. They viewed States' Rights as an issue. "The Germans...declared slavery an evil, and its removal absolutely necessary; nevertheless, they held it a problem of the individual state in which the Federal government should not interfere".18 The Germans believed that slave owners should be paid for emancipation because they felt it wrong that the North, after selling its slaves to the South, should attempt to force the slave holders to free the slaves without any monetary compensation.19
The Germans did not seem too particularly thrilled with the prospect of racial equality. They just did not believe in owning someone, which was the evil known as slavery. "Where the Germans took up arms voluntarily, they did so for the perpetuation of liberty, as they saw it through the eyes of Confederate constitutionalism ... for casting of political and economic shackles from the limbs of the whites".20 Many of them, like many others, may "have been carried along by the sudden enthusiasm that accompanied the first mobilization measures." A German volunteer, Herman Schuricht, of Virginia, may have told the truth "that all the recently immigrated Germans embracing the Confederate cause did so with throbbing hearts, and in most cases only under the pressure of compulsory circumstance".21 It can be speculated that many new German immigrants had no idea at all about what they were enlisting for. After all, they could not speak English like many of the other immigrant groups such as the Irish, English, and Scottish.

But one point must be made clear....Regarding the States rights vs. SLAVERY as the issue

The southern aristocrats also knew that they couldn’t win a war to keep their slaves if only those who owned slaves fought. There simply weren’t enough of them. Their solution to this problem was simple, and effective. They set about convincing their future cannon fodder that the war, when it came, would not be about slavery, but about state patriotism and race.

Leading you to the Rich mans war poor mans fight under Conscription and Confiscation Confederate Congressional Acts and factors ike exemption if you owned 20 or more slaves

To push the “patriotism to one’s state” canard, they cooked up “States’ Rights.” “States’ Rights” was a lie at the beginning, and lie neo-Confederates still push today. The next time somebody tells you that the Civil War was about “States’ Rights,” tell them to read the declarations of secession that each Confederate state issued. (They’re available online or I can provide them.) Those declarations make it explicitly clear that slavery was the only issue motivating them.

Not all southerners went to war to defend slavery and scores of them were too poor to be in possession of, or own slaves. BUT yet fought under a Constitutional form of government both Federal and State, which beleaved in and allowed for slavery and the expansion thereof. Therefore they were the proxies of slavery whether intention on their behalf or not.

NOTES
1. Philip Katcher, The Army of Robert E. Lee (London: Arms and Armour, 1994), 61.
2. Ibid., 61-62.
3. Ibid., 63.
4. William C. Davis, Rebels & Yankees: The Fighting Men of the Civil War (New York: Gallery, 1989), 16.
5. Carlton McCarthy, Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia 1861-1865 (Richmond: B.F. Johnson, 1908), 9.
6. Bell Irvin Wiley, The Life of Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy (Indianapolis: Charter, 1962), 18.
7. Ibid., 18.
8. Ibid., 18.
9. Roy Morris, Jr., "If History is Written Only by the Winners, Then Who Really Won the Civil War?" America's Civil War, Nov. 1994, 6.
10. James M. McPherson, What They Fought For, 1861-1865. (New York: Anchor, 1995), 52.
11. Wiley, Johnny Reb, 17.
12. Katcher, 19.
13. Ibid., 36.
14. William C. Davis, Breckinridge: Statesman, Soldier, Symbol (Baton Rouge: LSU, 1974). 293.
15. Katcher, 66.
16. Ella Lonn, Foreigners in the Confederacy (Chapel Hill: U of N. Carolina, 1940), 53.
17. Davis, Fighting Men, 16.
18. Lonn, 35.
19. Ibid., 41.
20. Ibid., 41.
21. Ibid., 220.
(This article will conclude in the January issue of the Quarterly.)

THE SOUTHERN ARGUMENT FOR SLAVERY

Southern slaveholders often used biblical passages to justify slavery.

Those who defended slavery rose to the challenge set forth by the Abolitionists. The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments.
Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable.
Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society.

Some slaveholders believed that African Americans were biologically inferior to their masters. During the 1800s, this arguement was taken quite seriously, even in scientific circles.

Defenders of slavery argued that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and the English had slavery until very recently.
Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision, that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders' rights to their property.
Defenders of slavery argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually."
Defenders of slavery argued that by comparison with the poor of Europe and the workers in the Northern states, that slaves were better cared for. They said that their owners would protect and assist them when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves.
James Thornwell, a minister, wrote in 1860, "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

The violence of Nat Turner's 1831 slave revolt frightened many southern slaveholders. Such unrest was used by many as a reason to continue slavery.

When a society forms around any institution, as the South did around slavery, it will formulate a set of arguments to support it. The Southerners held ever firmer to their arguments as the political tensions in the country drew us ever closer to the Civil War.

June 2013 Civil War Traveler News

June 2013 Civil War Traveler News

Prefer to view this email on the web? Click here

June 2013 150 Years Ago This Month... Action continued in the West as the Federal noose tightened around Vicksburg (MS), and the Union campaign toward Chattanooga finally began. In the East, West Virginia's break with the Old Dominion became official while Robert E. Lee's army marched north into Maryland and Pennsylvania. The Gettysburg Campaign • The Battle of Brandy Station (June 9, 1863) ~ Union cavalry surprised J.E.B. Stuart's troopers north of Culpeper (VA) while Lee gathered his infantry for the push north. The Brandy Station Foundation has scheduled living history programs and a walking tour of a key part of the battlefield June 8 with commemorative ceremonies June 9 (brandystationfoundation.com/sesquicentennial.htm). In addition, a car-caravan tour is set June 8 (eventbrite.com/event/6110307093). • The Battle of Second Winchester (June 13-15, 1863) ~ The vanguard of Lee's army swept aside Union resistance in Winchester (VA) as it moved north. A variety of tours and living history programs are planned for the anniversary. shenandoahatwar.org • Cavalry action in the Loudoun Valley (June 17-21,1863) ~ While Lee's infantry marched north beyond the Blue Ridge Mountains, Confederate cavalry screened the move at Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville (VA). Living history, talks tours and more commemorate the events along the modern-day Route 50 corridor. mosbyheritagearea.org/events.html and civilwarinloudounvalley.com • The Wrightsville (PA) bridge burns (June 28,1863) ~ Part of the Confederate army reached Wrightsville (PA) on the Susquehanna River to find the bridge to the north in flames. This element of the Southern army was soon called south to Gettysburg. The Civil War history of the river towns is commemorated with living history, talks and more June 28-30. rivertownes.org/schedule.htm and historicwrightsvillepa.org • Cavalry at Union Mills and Westminster (late June 1863) ~ Famously separated from Lee's main army, Confederate cavalry ranged east while moving north in central Maryland. They were closely pursued by their Union counterparts and sometimes camped in the same spot just hours apart. Union Mills near Westminster (MD) was one of those places. Living history, tours and talks are planned June 28-30 commemorate the cavalry camps and "Corbit's Charge" in Westminster. unionmills.org • Action in Emmittsburg (late June 1863) ~ One of the last stops during the Union march toward Gettyburg was Emmittsburg (MD), located just south of the Pennsylvania border. The town commemorates its Civil War history during its Heritage Days, June 28-30. The St. Elizabeth Ann Seaton Shrine hosts special living history programs, tours and music during the event. setonheritage.org • Approach to Gettysburg (late June 1863) ~ Soldiers from both sides began to head toward the critical crossroads in late June 1863. Events in Cashtown and in Gettysburg itself are planned. The first of two battle reenactments is set June 27-30 and the Gettysburg National Military Park opens their anniversary events with an evening program June 30. gettysburg.travel/150/event.asp gettysburgcivilwar150.com nps.gov/gett/planyourvisit/150th-anniversary-plan-your-visit.htm Mississippi The Vicksburg National Military Park continues its anniversary commemoration with ranger programs on the Battle of Milliken's Bend (June 7) and the attack on the 3rd Louisiana Redan (June 25,) nps.gov/vick West Virginia West Virginia Statehood (June 20, 1863) ~ West Virginia became one of the two states joining the Union during the Civil War (the other was Nevada in 1864). A statewide celebration is planned around the anniversary date with the focus on Independence Hall in Wheeling. birthday.wv.gov/Pages wvculture.org/wv150/sesquicentennial.html Tennessee Tullahoma Campaign (June 24-July 6, 1864) ~ Overshadowed by the big events at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, a Federal army left Murfreesboro (TN) June 24 en route to the rail center at Chattanooga. The campaign is remembered in ranger programs and living history at Stones River National Battlefield June 15-16 and a bus tour from Chattanooga June 22. nps.gov/stri/planyourvisit/cw150park.htm friendsofchch.org/ More 150th events: CivilWarTraveler.com/events Stafford (VA) park opens A new Civil War park created on the site of a Union winter camp is now open. Among the features of the park driving/walking tours are an early road and remains of campsites and fortifications. The site was used by the Union XI Corps the winter of 1863. The men moved from here to the Battle of Chancellorsville. The park is located at 400 Mount Hope Road in Stafford, north of Fredericksburg. fscws.org Star Fort opens in Winchester (VA) Star Fort, one in a series of massive earthworks guarding the northern approaches to Winchester, is now open with an interpreted trail. The fort figured in both the Second and Third Battles of Winchester. It's located near the intersection of Route 522 and Fortress Drive. Visitors should park along Fortress Drive. shenandoahatwar.org CWT photo contest The annual photo contest sponsored by the Civil War Trust is in full swing. Deadline for entry is Aug. 16. Rules and categories: civilwar.org/photos/annual-photo-contest USCT news Nearly 4 million historic documents related to the United States Colored Troops are now available through the National Archives and Fold3. fold3.com/category_268/   Several groups in Hagerstown (MD) are raising money to fund a memorial to black Civil War veterans to be placed in Rose Hill Cemetery in the city. For more information, call the Hagerstown Convention and Visitors Bureau at 301-791-3246 . Richmond sets summer Saturday programs The Richmond National Battlefield Park has scheduled free special programs, tours and talks for summer Saturdays. The programs include both battlefield and Richmond homefront topics. The series ends Aug. 31. nps.gov/rich/planyourvisit/saturday-series.htm Gettysburg church walks offered Weekly walking tours beginning June 12 cover several of Gettysburg's historic churches, many of which served as hospitals during and after the battle. historicchurchwalkingtours.org Lincoln play opens The play "A. Lincoln: A Pioneer Tale" opens for a second season June 7 at the Lincoln Amphitheatre in Lincoln City (IN) lincolnamphitheatre.org Exhibits "The Campaigns of '63: Gettysburg and Vicksburg," opens June 15 at the Civil War Museum in Kenosha (WI). kenosha.org/civilwar "Treasures of the Civil War: Legendary Leaders Who Shaped a War and a Nation," opens at the Gettysburg National Military Park museum June 16. gettysburgfoundation.org/137 "Fourteen Days in May: T.J. Jackson's Wounding, Death and Burial," ends Sept. 30 at the Stonewall Jackson House in Lexington (VA). stonewalljackson.org/ events.html "1863: Gettysburg Before and After," opens June 1 at the Laurel Hill Cemetery in Philadelphia (PA) thelaurelhillcemetery.org/ index.php?m=4&id=108 "Liberty on the Border," continues through Aug. 25 at the Youth Museum of Southern West Virginia, beckley.org/youth_museum/liberty.html "Treasures of the Civil War," opens June 1 at the Discover Station in Hagerstown (MD) http://www.discoverystation.org/programs.html On the Web Lecture, "Death & the Civil War: Grew Gilpin Faust and Ric Burns" tinyurl.com/oyprjo8 South Mountain Recreation Area (MD) online visitor guide features the 1862 battle and the Gettysburg Campaign media.dhweb.com/cvb/smra13 Lecture, "Illinois, Chicago, and the Civil War" ext.morainevalley.edu/librarynews/?p=1272 June Reenactments KY  1-2  Jefferson Davis State Historic Site parks.ky.gov/calendar/details/jefferson-davis-birthday-celebration/18589 PA  1-2  Pennypacker Mills civilwarreunion.org NJ  8-9  Lambertville lambertvillecivilwarreenactment.com MO  8-9  Hulston Mill dadehist.org/Page_6.html OH  22-23  Reynoldsburg civilwarsurgeons.org PA  27-30  Gettysburg bluegraygettysburg.com For the latest news about reenactments, living history and lectures, see CivilWarTraveler.com/events. Please click to visit our sponsors online Thanks for reading E-News from CivilWarTraveler.com. You are among 5,913 self-subscribed readers. CivilWarTraveler.com/150 CivilWarTraveler.com

Forward email This email was sent to johntucker1@hotmail.com by news@civilwartraveler.com |   Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Page One History Publications | PO Box 4232 | Richmond | VA | 23220-4232

 

Call

Send SMS

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

The MYTH of the Black Confederate

·         As Gen. Ewell's longtime aide-de-camp, Maj. George Campbell Brown, later affirmed, the handful of black soldiers mustered in Richmond in 1865 were "the first and only black troops used on our side."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/the_myth_of_the_black_confeder.html

Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don't arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong—but they won't make soldiers.
—Howell Cobb to James A. Seddon, 8 January 1865 
SOURCE: From Vol. 3 of War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series IV. 130 vols. Washington, D.C., 1888–1901

·          

 The Northern journals say we have negro regiments on the Rappahannock and in the West. This is utterly untrue. We have no armed slaves to fight for us, nor do we fear a servile insurrection. We are at no loss, however, to interpret the meaning of such demoniac misrepresentations. It is to be seen of what value the negro regiments employed against us will be to the invader.

SOURCE: Jones, John Beauchamp (2011-03-24). A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital (Kindle Locations 4751-4753). Kindle Edition.

·

Many people distort the facts and inflate for their own agenda. The truth be told, no one knows the numbers of black Confederates. But for claims of 50 to 80,000, I don’t think so. I have seen no records reflecting numbers. There are pension records from NC, SC, Va. which do have black teamsters, manservant’s and so forth and yes a few armed so they did fight but in limited numbers. They would be small to say the least. That being said, if only one fought, then his story should be told.

The black Confederate solder fought for reasons only he knew. Was he fighting for the same as the white fighting for states rights as some claim? Perhaps he felt it was a win win situation. If the south won he louses nothing, if the north wins, he wins again. The problem is that I have found nothing stating that their service will provide them their release from bondage. I am sure that some Confederate Cabinet members would have pushed for that because of his service.

In 1865 the Confederate Congress after heated debates and by the slimiest vote, decided to receive blacks into the military but failed to provide or promise their freedom in exchange. In any event other than the small number of blacks who owned slaves, no black would have fought for the continuance of slavery but if there was the promise of freedom, well who knows.

 Confederate soldiers is the existence of pensions that were given by former Confederate states to qualified black citizens at various points during the postwar period. For the uninformed or those working primarily from a narrow agenda the existence of these pensions is proof positive of the existence of black soldiers and the fantasy of a multiracial army. The pensions have been used on numerous occasions by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other heritage types to justify new grave markers and other monuments to these men. I am not interested in returning to this debate.

http://cwmemory.com/2013/04/12/the-social-and-cultural-significance-of-black-confederate-pensioners/

The Social and Cultural Significance of Black Confederate Pensioners

cwmemory.com

As we all know one of the most misunderstood aspects of the debate surrounding t...See More

·          

 truthhttp://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1105.html

On This Day:  November 5, 1864

www.nytimes.com

·          

 For any of you who want to think black were IN the CSA Army, go read Jeff Davis speech about blacks in the Army on Jan 5, 1863. Go on, go read it. If after you read his speech, and you still think there were blacks in the CSA, you need therapy for being a mindless sheep, which most of you are anyway.

Yes, there were over a MILLION blacks forced to work for the confederates. Lee had 50-100 thousand in Richmond alone, building the fantastically large earth works that he and Davis would hide behind much of the war. Most of you morons have no idea what the earth works even were, but guess who built them? Here is a clue – not the white soldiers. The black SLAVES.

Wait — I will PUT part of Davis Jan 1863 speech here. Because this is one of the many things the South has apparently hidden, because it destroys nearly every pathetic Southern Myth – all of which you Southern Apologist take as gospel.

+++++++++++++++++++++ QUOTE BY DAVIS BELOW

Citizens of the non-slave-holding States of America, swayed by peaceable motives, I have used all my influence, often thereby endangering my position as the President of the Southern Confederacy, to have the unhappy conflict now existing between my people and yourselves, governed by those well established international rules, which heretofore have softened the asperities which necessarily are the concomitants of a state of belligerency, but all my efforts in the premises have heretofore been unavailing. Now, therefore, I am compelled e necessitati rei to employ a measure, which most willingly I would have omitted to do, regarding, as I always must, State Rights, as the very organism of politically associated society.

For nearly two years my people have been defending their inherent rights–their political, social and religious rights against the speculators of New England and their allies in the States heretofore regarded as conservative. The people of the Southern Confederacy have–making sacrifices such as the modern world has never witnessed–patiently, but determinedly, stood between their home interests and the well paid, well fed and well clad mercenaries of the Abolitionists, and I need not say that they have nobly vindicated the good name of American citizens. Heretofore, the warfare has been conducted by white men–peers, scions of the same stock; but the programme has been changed, and your rulers despairing of a triumph by the employment of white men, have degraded you and themselves, by inviting the co-operation of the black race. Thus, while they deprecate the intervention of white men–the French and the English–in behalf of the Southern Confederacy, they, these Abolitionists, do not hesitate to invoke the intervention of the African race in favor of the North.

================================ END QUOTE.

Then Davis goes on to say that Lincoln was SOOOO horrible, SOOO VILE for using blacks as soldiers — he will INVADE THE NORTH and capture all the blacks there. He will put all slaves ever freed BACK on the slave status — FOREVER.
 

 First and most important, people who try to press this agend apply the word “soldier” to any person associated with the army, black or white, free or slave, regardless of their position or role. This misleads the reader, because it ignores most basic differences – social, cultural and legal – that were fundamental to the South in the 1860s. That’s simply not the way white Southerners, military and civilians alike, viewed their world. It was a hugely different world, and it does not improve our understanding of it to elide these very basic elements.

Yes there are numerous accounts in the press, mostly early in the war, of African Americans volunteering, or organizing, or drilling, but these accounts usually have a few things in common. They almost never (1) specifically designate the company or regiment, (2) never identify the officers in command, and (3) they’re almost always offered at second- or third-hand. There’s no way to follow-up or corroborate them. These supposed African American units seem to disappear from the Confederate press after an initial mention. Where are the descriptions in Southern newspapers of these units, in field, with the regular army? These units comprised of African American men invariably disappear after some brief item in the paper.

More important, where are the Confederate military reports, dispatches and memoranda that describe these units? Or, if you believe that Confederate companies and regiments were racially integrated, where are the letters and diaries that mention these men as fellow enlisted soldiers? There are virtually none, although there are plenty that talk about black servants around camp, including anecdotes where those men picked up a weapon in a tight spot. But even then, such incidents are described specifically because they’re unusual, underscoring that they are not fellow soldiers, as the soldiers themselves viewed them.

Confederate pension records are not definitive in determining a man’s wartime status, decades before. As you probably know, what we generally term “Confederate” pensions were issued by individual states, each of which established its own criteria and review process. Some states, like Mississippi, established separate programs specifically for former slaves/servants, while others seem to have allowed men who clearly were slaves and body servants to a receive pensions under the same program as enlisted soldiers. (The famous Holt Collier of Mississippi applied first as a servant, then as a soldier, then as a servant again.) I’ve even outlined a case, Richard Quarls, where a former slave was awarded a pension based on the service record of his former master, Pvt. J. Richard Quarles. Pension records can be helpful, but in and of themselves, they’re unreliable to definitively establishing a man’s role forty, fifty, sixty years previous.

James G. Hollandsworth, Jr. had an excellent essay on black Confederate pensioners in Mississippi History Now, that highlights some of the challenges working with these records.

“The Virginia Confed. Pension Records lists nearly 1000 approved pensions for Black Confeds. Of these approved pensions, “…387 are for men whose military records identify the regiment & company in which they served. …these pensions would not be granted without the attestation of an officer or senior non-commissioned officer.” “ I would ask, how many of those explicitly identify the applicant in question as a soldier, with rank, as opposed to a servant with the company or regiment? Slave/servant’s pension included those elements, as well, because whether the man was applying as a former soldier or servant, he still had to establish that he qualified under the relevant law.

The lost causers also state...

Multiplying these numbers by the 11 Confed. States, but leaving out of consideration the many Confed. volunteers from the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, & Maryland, we arrive at a rough estimated minimum total of 42,500 to 110,000 blacks serving as Confed. soldiers

I can easily believe that many (or more) African Americans went into the field as body servants, cooks, teamsters, laborers, and in support roles generally. Some were free; most were slaves. And those men were essential to the larger war effort. On that, we can agree. But if you’re arguing that those tens of thousands were considered to be fellow soldiers at the time by white enlisted men and officers, by the C.S. government or the Confederacy generally, that’s a ludicrous statement.

First and most important, people who try to press this agend apply the word “soldier” to any person associated with the army, black or white, free or slave, regardless of their position or role. This misleads the reader, because it ignores most basic differences – social, cultural and legal – that were fundamental to the South in the 1860s. That’s simply not the way white Southerners, military and civilians alike, viewed their world. It was a hugely different world, and it does not improve our understanding of it to elide these very basic elements.

Yes there are numerous accounts in the press, mostly early in the war, of African Americans volunteering, or organizing, or drilling, but these accounts usually have a few things in common. They almost never (1) specifically designate the company or regiment, (2) never identify the officers in command, and (3) they’re almost always offered at second- or third-hand. There’s no way to follow-up or corroborate them. These supposed African American units seem to disappear from the Confederate press after an initial mention. Where are the descriptions in Southern newspapers of these units, in field, with the regular army? These units comprised of African American men invariably disappear after some brief item in the paper.

More important, where are the Confederate military reports, dispatches and memoranda that describe these units? Or, if you believe that Confederate companies and regiments were racially integrated, where are the letters and diaries that mention these men as fellow enlisted soldiers? There are virtually none, although there are plenty that talk about black servants around camp, including anecdotes where those men picked up a weapon in a tight spot. But even then, such incidents are described specifically because they’re unusual, underscoring that they are not fellow soldiers, as the soldiers themselves viewed them.

Confederate pension records are not definitive in determining a man’s wartime status, decades before. As you probably know, what we generally term “Confederate” pensions were issued by individual states, each of which established its own criteria and review process. Some states, like Mississippi, established separate programs specifically for former slaves/servants, while others seem to have allowed men who clearly were slaves and body servants to a receive pensions under the same program as enlisted soldiers. (The famous Holt Collier of Mississippi applied first as a servant, then as a soldier, then as a servant again.) I’ve even outlined a case, Richard Quarls, where a former slave was awarded a pension based on the service record of his former master, Pvt. J. Richard Quarles. Pension records can be helpful, but in and of themselves, they’re unreliable to definitively establishing a man’s role forty, fifty, sixty years previous.

I can easily believe that many (or more) African Americans went into the field as body servants, cooks, teamsters, laborers, and in support roles generally. Some were free; most were slaves. And those men were essential to the larger war effort. On that, we can agree. But if you’re arguing that those tens of thousands were considered to be fellow soldiers at the time by white enlisted men and officers, by the C.S. government or the Confederacy generally, that’s a ludicrous statement.

Finally:

For the first few years of the war it was illegal to arm black Confed. soldiers, & commanders who used blacks did so illegally. Although evidence is lacking, the widespread use of blacks was probably not discussed, or was even denied, by Confed. politicians for reasons of political expediency, since to admit it would have raised the question of what the South was actually fighting for.

That’s a classic conspiracy theory rhetorical construct; the lack of evidence – in this case, the lack of direct evidence that Confederate commanders enlisted tens of thousands of African American soldiers illegally, and in secret – is itself evidence that it really happened.