Wow you've been taught more than what they want you to know in the school text books! The truth! Congratulations!
2006-08-03 08:28:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by pottersclay70 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In a backhanded way you have answered your own question although I see no reason to take pride in it.
Many Blacks were in fact offered emancipation under the Confederacy in exchange for military service but I have seen no evidence that the South offered complete emancipation because that would be completely redundant!
The threat that a Republician President posed to the South that sparked the Civil Wra was the elimination of Disproportionate Representation. The "Dough Faced" politicians prior to Abe kept allowing the Slave States to count slaves as either two or three fifths of a man in the census polls that would decide representation in Congress and the Electoral Collage. This allowed the South with a population of 16 million to have more representation than the North with a population of 22 million sence the Slavers could add on 7 or 8 million more.
Henc it is foolish to averr that without mincing words Slavery was not the whole issue in the Civil War. The Slave question is the Civil war and any eleventh hour rethink Jeff Davis may have considered is moot to say the least. Most had already conceded " the Lost Cause" by the finish of the Battle of Gettysberg!
You sir seem to be eqaully lost!
2006-08-03 07:04:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by namazanyc 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is interesting. If you look on Amazon.com there are several books about black confederates.
"The North Had no Moral Basis for the War
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville wrote that “the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.”
Although New York State helped to elect Lincoln in 1860, it overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to allow ***** suffrage. As late as 1869, New York voters defeated equal suffrage referenda; between 1849 and 1857 Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin also overwhelmingly rejected equal-suffrage referenda.
Union General John Fremont was in charge of the Federal government’s military efforts in Missouri….Fremont issued a proclamation on August 30, 1861, adopting martial law throughout the state and asserting that any persons resisting the occupying Federal army would have their property confiscated and their slaves declared freemen. Unionist were free to keep their slaves."
I'd like to learn more about Black Confederates myself. I've heard there were entire units in Louisiana made up of Free Blacks and even Slaves were allowed to volunteer and did.
Lincolns emancipation proclamation didn't free a single slave and was a blatent attempt to incite a Slave revolution and force Confederate Armies off the field, but it didn't happen.
I guess the main reason you don't hear about this stuff is that the winners write the history books and none of this stuff fits the stories the Yankees want to believe.
2006-08-03 13:22:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Roadkill 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, actually a lot did. What most people in America are most uninformed about is the civil war. TV and other media have always show an evil Southern Slave owner treating his slaves cruelly. That did happen but it wasn't universal. Said TV and other media never show the evil Horten Factory owner who demanded 16 to 18 hour days for 5 cents and hour. If the Civil War was really about slavery, then why did it take so long for the slaves to be free after the North won. To me personally slavery finally truly ended with the end of Segregation. There are black heroes on both sides of the civil war and in our push west. They just aren't being represented fairly.
2006-08-03 06:51:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by spider 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thank you for posting this!
Being from the South and the descendant of poor cotton farmers (who darned sure couldn't afford slaves) I can honestly say the my father is more likely to have personally hand picked more cotton than the grandfathers of most of the folks still carrying that slavery chip on their shoulder after 150+ years of emancipation.
Of course, being fair skinned I am automatically assumed to be a racist any time I try to explain that the civil war was not about slavery or that Lincoln didn't free the slaves for humanitarian reasons but rather to put the economic squeeze on the south.
2006-08-03 06:42:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Interesting...I suppose the confederacy has become equated with racism, bigotry, the KKK, and other aspects of southern culture that have prevailed since the Civil War. The Confederate flag has always symbolized ignorance, redneck-ness, and hate to me but that's how symbols evolve, right? I would also state that friends who are persons of color and from the south have never expressed support of the Confederacy to me, I wonder what kind of role the media plays in that. I mean the first thing you see with white supremacist groups in movies like Miami Vice and Bad Boys is swastikas and confederate flags.
2006-08-03 06:43:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by dudette 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are correct , sir. Thanks for being brave enough to point this out in the face of revisionist history.
At the battle for Richmond, there were more black soldiers in Confederate gray than in Union blue.
Britain recognized the south,however. The reason Lincoln "freed" the slave, ( only in states in rebellion, not the north, not in pacified southern states) was that Britain was preparing to attack from Canada. The Emancipation was solely to make support of the CSA untenable in Britain.
2006-08-03 07:01:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they fought on both sides for the same reason..freedom. The south promised any black that fought with them their freedom...the north tricked them into believing they were trying to gain them their freedom..but the north had many slaves also and they wanted the slaves freed in the south because they couldn't compete with the South's free labor.. The north nor the south nor ABRAHAM LINCOLN wanted the blacks to be freed but Lincoln needed them to help fight so that they could win the war! In letters that Lincoln wrote he said that if he could avoid it he would not free the slaves!!!
2006-08-04 06:23:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by old music hungry 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The slaves would have been freed even if the south had won.
The civil war was about sectionalism. Basically the south wanted to be there own country because they were selfish.
The Confederates were traitors to our great nation and should have been hung.
2006-08-03 06:39:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think you re right to be proud of your heritage, most of the answers you have receieved already are rascist remarks. from people who have no clue. their ancestors just about aniliated the indian nations by infecting them with chicken pox on purpose. they would never of won the war without foreign help and the indians that they hadnt killed off yet. so they have no right to be proud at all. i salute you.
2006-08-03 06:54:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by duc602 7
·
0⤊
0⤋