<< July 2008 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31


If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:






Jul 4, 2008
Blacks And The July 5 Protest

Why Blacks Used to Celebrate July 5th

By William Loren Katz

Mr. Katz has been affiliated with New York University for more than twenty years and is the author of forty books on US history.

This Independence Day falls on July fifth, and if the significance of that date were better known, it would trigger a strong reaction in the United States, particularly among people of color.

During the long night of slavery in the United States, free African Americans in the North discussed how to respond to a holiday that celebrated the independence of a country that held millions of their loved ones in chains. They came up with many creative solutions, some based on changing world events.

In the northern states African Americans gained their freedom in the years following the American Revolution. But it was a slow process in which enslaved people in New York for example, were not liberated until 1827, and in not in New Jersey until the next year.

What then to celebrate? On January 1, 1808 when the slave trade was abolished in the United States, Black New Yorkers, hoping to spur their own freedom along, met to hear a prominent black city minister, Rev. Peter Williams, denounce the rape of Africa, the tragedy of the slave trade and praise the heroic efforts of anti-slavery advocates in England and the U.S. The next year New York organized three spirited celebrations that featured speakers who marked the end of the slave trade.

When freedom became a reality in New York in 1827, the leading celebration was hosted by the African Zion Church, and it sang the virtues of outstanding abolitionists. In a stirrring address that was widely circulated, Black orator William Hamilton said, “This day we stand redeemed from a bitter thralldom.”

But what about our national holiday, July 4? In 1827 a black parade of four thousand made its way through downtown city streets to the Zion Church led by a grand marshall with a drawn sword and mounted men. Commemorations marked the day for a few years after that.

Then, in the 1830s as Southern states showed no movement to end bondage, African Americans chose as their protest to celebrate July Fifth. One year July Fifth celebrants gathered at the African Baptist Church in Albany to hear pastor Nathaniel Paul denounce “the ponderous load of misery” heaped on his people. In Rochester a booming cannon ushered in a day of observance by African Americans and their white supporters. Governor Thompkins and runaway slave Austin Steward spoke. At Cooperstown the Presbyterian church hosted a meeting attended by white and black people. There were also muted commemorations in slave Baltimore and Fredicksburg.

For African Americans the Fourth of July became a time for bitter reflection on “the land of the free.” In 1834 a black national convention formally voted against holding any celebration on July Fourth, and four years later a black paper suggested that on that day a slave ship should replace the stars and stripes on the flag. One black paper called it “the bleakest day of the year. We wish we could blot it from the calendar.”

In 1852, the former slave and great leader of his people, Frederick Douglass, asked “What to the slave is the Fourth of July?” His brilliant answer, pointing to the hypocrisy of a land of freedom based on human bondage, remains one of the country’s most inspired and poingnant orations. http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=162

What did people of color celebrate? Beginning in 1834, again as a sign of protest, they celebrated August First, the day emancipation was decreed in British the West Indies. This occasion was often marked by picnics, calls for liberty throughout the land, and sometimes military parades.

http://hnn.us/articles/5888.html

Posted at 05:32 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jul 1, 2008
Lincoln's Failed July 4th

On July 4, Lincoln Faltered On Road To Justice
by John Nichols
 
These days, Congress high-tails it out of Washington so fast on the eve of the Independence Day holiday that the only debate that ever takes place on July 4 revolves around the question of which fireworks display to view.

But it wasn't always so.

On July 4, 1864, as the Civil War raged not far from the nation's Capitol, members of Congress were engaged in one of the most significant -- if now mostly forgotten -- debates in American history. The good guys won, only to be vanquished in the end by the man they had made president.

While Washington was at its usual summer boil, historian John C. Waugh recalls, "Inside the icy-looking dome (of the Capital), it was oven-hot.'' And Waugh was not talking merely about the summer weather. He was referring to "the daily rise of both the thermometer and congressional tempers.''

At issue was the question of how the armies of the Republic, which were slowly gaining the upper hand over the armies of the Confederacy, would treat the former slave states they had occupied. Would the Unionist government permit a gentle postwar reconstruction in which slavery might even be permitted in some states -- or, at the least, sharecropping and other forms of structural economic repression that were really just slavery-lite? Or would there be radical reconstruction designed to banish slavery, sharecropping and other forms of racial and economic discrimination in order to form a new and more perfect union?

While President Abraham Lincoln, desperate to reunite a broken nation, went ahead with a mild form of reconstruction, the Congress opted for a radical remake that would banish slavery once and for all and bring a measure of justice to the South.

Led by Maryland's Henry Winter Davis in the House and Ohio's Benjamin Franklin Wade in the Senate, the radical reconstructionists pushed through legislation crafted to push Lincoln toward a more militant position -- with the purpose of ensuring that the postwar South would not return to its old ways. By July 2, 1864, both the House and Senate had passed the legislation.

Lincoln had until July 4 to sign the reconstruction bill. But the president did not intend to do so; rather, he determined to let it die with a "pocket veto'' -- effectively killing the measure by failing to sign it by the time Congress adjourned.

As the clock ticked down, the great battlers against slavery trooped to the president's office and begged him to do the right thing. But Lincoln rejected their entreaties. When Michigan Sen. Zachariah Chandler told the president of the bill's key element -- "The important point is that one prohibiting slavery in the reconstructed states'' -- Lincoln replied, "That is the point on which I doubt the authority of Congress to act,'' the deed was done.

Surely, there is much for which to honor Abraham Lincoln. But in an honest democracy, it is worthy to question even our icons. And, on this issue, Wisconsin's radical Republicans angrily challenged Lincoln -- as did their allies in other passionately anti-slavery states -- on that bitter July 4 of 1864.

The vision of a radical reconstruction that might have succeeded in transforming the land in those difficult postwar years was doomed by Lincoln on this day 136 years ago, and with it the hope that America would soon achieve the promise of "liberty and justice for all.''

John Nichols is the editorial page editor of The Capital Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/070400-103.htm

Posted at 10:44 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 22, 2008
Is Everything We Know Wrong?

 
How do mass hallucinations, patterns of false thinking evolve to the point where what everyone knows turns out to be at best myth? Let's take a look at a few myths that we live with today to understand how this phenomenon occurs, and how Lincoln has profited by this merger of political manipulation and history.
 
Then we'll look at the first times the North brought racism to the South, in the censored story of the Seminole Indian rebellions, A rebellion in which hundreds of former and fugitive slaves battled alongside Indians against federal troops. Why do I say the story is censored? Well, because it is. Consider:
 
Look at any standard reference to American slave revolts, and chances are, the Black Seminole rebellion of 1835-1838 does not even make the list. Below are some representative sites that can be readily checked online:[1] The oversight is not unexpected given that the major scholars of American slavery, on whose writings the reference works rely, have likewise missed or misinterpreted the Black Seminole slave rebellion.
 
How can a rebellion of Indians and Blacks against Federal troops and slave owners have been forgotten in history? We find a key answer in the last lines- current authors on slave rebellions are using older texts that omitted the story. Why was the story omitted in the first place? We'll get to that after we look at two current mass hallucinations, the AIDS crisis and Senator Joe McCarthy. It may seem far away from Lincoln, but it isn't. Recognize one pattern, and you'll recognize that pattern every time it appears.
 
Cut on your TV. You'll see currently running an ad that has teenagers discussing how smoking pot led to a girl having sex and catching AIDS. Ride transit systems? You'll see posters for AIDS Marathons. Watch the news and you'll see people saying that we have failed to do or spend enough on research into AIDS.
 
Now, look at the patterns of your own life. We were told in the 1980's that by now over 6 million heterosexuals would have the disease by the 1990's in this country. That means every single person reading this knows damn well they have not lost heterosexual, non- "shooting up" members of their family. You can see it with your own eyes, but there is a disconnect. Everyone says we are all at risk, conservatives scream sex leads to death, sexual liberation is crushed for an entire generation. Feminists like Andrea Dworkin (who is taught in colleges) proclaim that all heterosexual sex is rape, use the AIDS fears to rush no dating policies at jobs. Liberals berate conservatives for "not doing enough".
 
It doesn't stop there. If you are willing to participate in the AIDS hysteria you get money. Lot's of money. Not just researchers- but in ways you don't even consider. When I started doing plays there was grant money galore for people willing to add to the mass hallucination of the day by doing plays about AIDS. We are talking money from city, state and the feds. This money isn't even included in AIDS awareness campaigns. I put in the press release of my second show and every release since (and I've done over 15 plays and hundreds of events) that I don't take government money and I thought the pouring of money into shows that either blasted conservatives on the issue or gave the impression that heteros were at risk were a waste of time and money. Boy did the reviewers turn on me fast! How could I be so reckless. It turns out someone was reckless, but it wasn't me. Meanwhile because my plays weren't exercises in depression and lecturing, my plays began running 33 weeks to a year and a half. Keep in mind the average small theatre hit runs 6 to 8 weeks here. Having show after show run for months meant no matter what critics blasted me for, entertainment was winning out. What made me know the crisis was a hoax? Well, first let me show you that it was-
 

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa

 
Back in the 80's I argued that the threat of AIDS and heterosexuals was false. While it was true gays had bathhouses and discos, heteros had swinger clubs (look up PLATO'S RETREAT) and also had promiscuous drug filled sex during the same time, but the only heteros coming down with the disease at the time were people who had been given tainted blood and those who share needles.
 
You can only imagine how that went over. Meanwhile books like AND THE BAND PLAYED ON, hundreds of plays in the 80's and 90's (thankfully they all seem to have vanished) whipped up the hysteria. By 2000, 6 million Americans would be dead from the disease we were told. That would mean every single person would have family members who were straight who had died from the disease. How many straight family members did you lose?
 
Let me guess. Since 1990, the number of straight family members you've lost is zero.
 
There is a problem with catching a false pattern- trust me I spent the last 25 years arguing with people who could not believe what I was saying and writing. Being the first to be correct is often very dangerous. Just ask Joe McCarthy. Same pattern, books use older books to make their points, plays promote the evils of McCarthyism, TV pundits use his name in darkness. Want government money? Put on THE CRUCIBLE or any other play that allows critics to bash McCarthyism. The arts money is waiting for you. But there's a problem. Between the Venona documents and KGB files, we now know that McCarthy was right. Not we in terms of critics, news people, teachers, books- but now even historians have been forced to admit our impressions of the McCarthy age were manipulated lies- another mass hallucination.
 
Most-hated senator was right
Scholars: Joseph McCarthy's charges 'now accepted as fact'

I want you to look very carefully at the above headline. This headline means there was no witch hunt, McCarthy was not paranoid, his whistle blowing was in fact, true.
 
Now, remember every time you have heard, seen or read anti-McCarthy rants. They were what everyone believed. And they were false. Every single attack, every word uttered or read.
 
Back to the article:
 
WASHINGTON -- Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized American politicians of the last century, new information -- including half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations -- are showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.

"With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of Accuracy in Academia's recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN.

Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.

Hold on folks, there's more:

Asked whether McCarthy had understood all the forces arrayed against him, Herman said no, that McCarthy hadn't realized he'd be fighting against much of the Washington establishment. President Truman was fearful that exposures would reflect on key Democrat officials, he said, and big media and the academic world were very leftist, a heritage of the Depression and World War II. High government officials also feared investigations of their past appointments and associations with people who turned out to be communists or sympathizers.

That was the reason McCarthy was so demonized, he said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17401

So how many films, plays, books are being done on either the smear campaign or the truth about McCarthy- there are two books with the new information.

That's it.

Meanwhile every time you hear, read or use the word McCarthyism, you are helping to create a false pattern.

Get it yet?

Can you handle the truth? I am the rare bird who enjoys being proven wrong and changing my beliefs. Don't most people prefer to live in the safety of their own delusions?

Especially if they are shared by "everyone"?

Now, let's look at the first time the North used racism in the South, and why that had to be covered up.

The omission from mainstream history of both the Black Seminoles and the slave rebellion that they led is a curious phenomenon. The oversight is all the more interesting since the rebellion was not some obscure event that took place in a rural backwater, but rather a series of large-scale, disruptive escapes that occurred in conjunction with the largest Indian war in U.S. history and that resulted in a massive, well-documented destruction of personal property. http://www.johnhorse.com/highlights/essays/largest.htm

This rebellion took place over 1835-38 and it involved plantation slaves in a classic uprising. The rebellion reached its peak in the first months of 1836, when hundreds of Florida slaves fled their plantations to join the Seminoles. White owners said that their slaves had been "captured" by Indians, but this was merely a gloss on circumstances that horrified the slaveholders. Indians did not capture the slaves. The slaves escaped.[11]

Planning for the mass defections had been underway for over a year. According to Kenneth Wiggins Porter, Black Seminole leaders made frequent visits to Florida's plantations throughout 1835, cementing ties to the field hands. When war erupted, hundreds of blacks fled to the Seminoles in an action that General Thomas Sydney Jesup described as a pre-arranged conspiracy:

"I have ascertained beyond any doubt, not only that a connection exists between a portion of the slave population and the Seminoles, but that there was, before the war commenced, an understanding that a considerable force should join on the first blow being struck."

Field slaves fought prominently in several early engagements. Many defectors painted their faces to signal their new allegiance. Urban and house slaves did their part as well, joining with free blacks from St. Augustine to help the Seminoles obtain critical supplies like powder and lead.[12]

In the general uprising, blacks and Indians specifically targeted the sugar plantations along the St. John's River, west of St. Augustine. At the time these were some of the most developed plantations in all U.S. territory. Their destruction was swift and devastating. By February of 1836, less than two months into the war, the Seminole allies had destroyed 21 plantations. Where slavery and sugar mills once flourished, soldiers found smoking ruins and an industry laid waste.[
13] http://www.johnhorse.com/highlights/essays/largest.htm

In 1819 after Spain sold Florida to the America's 200,000 trained troops marched in to fight the 4000 ex slaves and Indians who were living together. The troops were crushed! Troops were wary to go after them, and the Seminoles continued intermarrying with and welcoming slaves on the run.

In the Battle of Lake Okeechobee 400 Indians and slaves battled over 1000 troops led by future President Zachary Taylor until Taylor retreated. You won't find that battle in history books, because the victors of the Civil War lost that one.

It was racism that drove the troops from the North to Florida:

The two races, the negro and the Indian, are rapidly approximating: they are identical in interests and feelings. Should the Indians remain in this territory the Negroes among them will form a rallying point for runaway negroes from the adjacent states", U.S. Major General Sydney Jesup

The Underground Railroad has long been exposed as a partial myth few actually used, but this was a real threat that drew thousands of runaway slaves to Florida.

So it was decided to use racism on the population of whites that had written off runaway slaves as "captured by Indians" so as to avoid confrontation. It was the first time we know of that the North injected racism into an area it had not existed before.

So here are the roots, reconstruction was the result.

 

Posted at 08:32 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 13, 2008
A House Divided

Monday June 16 is the anniversary of Lincoln's 7 hour speech in which he used the phrase, "A house divided". A quick glance at the internet places the speech at his inauguration, others at the Lincoln- Douglas debates. It was actually at the Republican Convention, and reflected Lincoln's belief that the South was bluffing and would not leave. Few have actually read the entire speech, so the mistaken idea that he took a stand against slavery in it is based on myth and conjecture- not facts. Lincoln was careful to state that he would not end slavery where it existed, and the speech is remarkable in the ways he avoided the issue.

DRAWN WITH THE SWORD
James M. McPherson
Oxford University Press, 1996, xiv+258 pgs.

As usual, let us begin with a paradox. James McPherson, a leading historian of the Civil War, ardently supports the Union cause and views Abraham Lincoln as an outstanding champion of "positive liberalism" (p. 183). Yet M.E. Bradford, in recent years the foremost advocate of Southern traditional conservatism, thought highly of McPherson and his work. Can such things be?

The solution to our paradox lies near at hand. McPherson to a large extent confirmed Bradford's account of the fundamental issue at stake in the Civil War, though he drew from his account a moral totally different from the assessment of the great Southern conservative.

To the seceding Southern states, a Lincoln presidency threatened revolutionary upheaval. The result of the 1860 election meant that the predictions of the South Carolina "fire-eaters" of a Northern assault on the Southern way of life were now to be realized. Rather than endure such a course passively, the Southern states departed from the union.

McPherson accepts the Southern position that Lincoln's election threatened the Southern way of life with doom. "Southerners read Lincoln's speeches; they knew by heart his words about the house divided and the ultimate extinction of slavery. Lincoln's election in 1860 was a sign that they had lost control of the national government; if they remained in the Union, they feared that ultimate extinction of their way of life would be their destiny." That is why, he notes, the South seceded. "It was not merely Lincoln's election but his election as a principled opponent of slavery on moral grounds that precipitated secession" (p. 198, emphasis in original). Small wonder, then, that Bradford approved of McPherson; he confirmed to the hilt Bradford's analysis of Lincoln as a revolutionary.

One might object to McPherson and Bradford in this way. Whatever Lincoln's personal views on slavery, he did not in 1861 propose to force abolition on the South. Quite the contrary: did he not declare in his First Inaugural Address that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed? And whatever Lincoln's aims, he could have done little against the South so long as the Southern states maintained their power in Congress and the Supreme Court. Did not the South act with fatal haste in 1861?

Perhaps it did. But, as McPherson makes clear, it had a strong case. Lincoln rejected compromise and later attempted to make his moral convictions about slavery legally binding. "Lincoln opposed the last minute attempts to woo them [the seceding states] back with the Crittenden Compromise" (p. 43).

Lincoln's Secretary of State, the militantly anti-slavery William H. Seward, almost ruined Lincoln's plan to impose his will on the South. He "would have evacuated Fort Sumter and thereby extinguished the spark that threatened to flame into war" (p. l94). And we cannot have that, can we!

But if Southern partisans can with justice claim that Lincoln detested their way of life and eschewed compromise, does this not set the stage for a deeper objection to their position? Suppose Lincoln was hostile to slavery: he was perfectly entitled to act on his convictions, to the extent the Constitution permitted. Nothing in that document guarantees Southern control of the national government. If the acolytes of John C. Calhoun did not care for the outcome of the election of 1860, so much the worse for them!

Once more, our author provides material sufficient to overthrow this objection, though he shrinks from the conclusion his own analysis suggests. "Lincoln was bound by a Constitution that protected slavery in any state where citizens wanted it. The republic of liberty, for whose preservation the North was fighting, had been a republic in which slavery was legal everywhere in 1776. That was the great American paradox--a land of freedom based on slavery" (p. 62).

On the one hand, one must object to McPherson's last sentence: a constitution that fails to forbid slavery is hardly based on it. But on the other hand, our author is in substance correct. The Constitution gives the federal government very limited power to interfere with a state's institutions. If the Southern states believed with good reason that Lincoln in his heart execrated part of the law he had sworn to uphold, were they not with perfect justice entitled to depart? MORE HERE:

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=108

Tidbits of Wisdom From Abraham Lincoln-Fiction!

Summary of the eRumor:  
Alleged quotes from Abraham Lincoln about the poor, the weak, prosperity, workers, class hatred, and character.
The Truth:
These words are often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but according to the book They Never Said it: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, they are not from Lincoln.

The quotes were published in 1942 by William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian minister.  He released a pamphlet titled Lincoln On Limitations, which did include a Lincoln quote, but also added 10 statements written by Boetcker himself.

They were:

1.  You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2.  You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3.  You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4.  You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5.  You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6.  You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7.  You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8.  You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9.  You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10  You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

People who got the pamphlet thought the 10 statements were written by Lincoln and they have been distributed widely under Lincoln's name. 

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/lincoln-quotes.htm

Posted at 11:15 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 11, 2008
The Lost Cause Hokum

 

Perceptions of the Civil War have changed, to be polite, several times since the war. What was thought to be a valid portrayal of the period in films such as THE BIRTH OF A NATION or even GONE WITH THE WIND are now seen as hokum. The first side to change the reality of the South after the war were "The Lost Causers". To find a meaning in the deaths and horrors faced by the losing side stories emphasizing honor, duty and loyalty replaced stories of defeat.
 
One of the leaders of this hallucination was a Preacher, J. William Jones even incorporated the names of Confederate leaders in his prayers! A consequence of the brutal march to the sea of General Sherman it took over 100 years to understand. If you attack or bomb people, it rallies them. The South would unite just as we united after 911, just as the British united in World War 2. The consequence in the South was that the South united as a group for over 75 years and managed to win in a very dark way, the reconstruction. One party rule became the reality of the South.
 
Find out more about the "Lost Cause" phase of the Reconstruction here:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2898

Posted at 09:54 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 6, 2008
Were Black Confederates Real?

Lincoln Lovers have long ago used word games to hide the true history of the war. SLAVERY ENDED! Wait a second, what about apartheid after the war? Oh, that was reconstruction. I don't know anything about that. Weren't there Blacks that fought for the South, in the fields of battle and the plantations? Of course not! It's a myth!
 
The introduction of hatred of Blacks came from the North. To convince the gerneration that had been children during the war that Blacks were the enemy and establish the Democratic Party as sole ruler of the South, the Black Confederate, as well as the slaves that were raped by the North, and the slaves that fought the North on the plantations, had to be eliminated.
 
DO NOT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE! IT MUST NOT BE TRUE!
 
If we listen to yankees, these pics were photoshopped- A CENTURY BEFORE PHOTOSHOPPING EXISTED!
 
Dead Black Confederates at Petersburg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Before statues and stories were cleaned up to eliminate the Black soldier- one statue put one in!
 
 
 
What would these guys say to those who say they never existed?
 
 
They deny these comments were ever made:
"We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability.  There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us, and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us."

-- Charles Tinsley, Free Black, Pocahontas, Petersburg, Va.

"Realizing that many free Black households would be in want following the departure of their husbands on voluntary work, the Petersburg City Council voted family assistance funds for wives and children left behind.  Such assistance continued for the length of the war."

--  Minutes of the Petersburg City Council April 23, 1861, office of the clerk of the City Council, City Hall, Petersburg, Virginia.

"A ladies group on Bollingbrook Street sewed a banner for the labor corps and in a ceremony held in front of the Petersburg Court House on the morning of their departure Attorney John Dodson, a former mayor, presented the flag to the men about to leave.  Dodson promised the men that they would "...reap a rich reward of praise and merit from a thankful people.  Charles Tinsley, a bricklayer, who spoke for the group, replied": We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability.  There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us, and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us."  On April 25, 1861 over three hundred free Blacks, and a few slaves "volunteered" by their owners, left Petersburg by train for labor service on the fortifications of Norfolk with their own Confederate flag, and leader."

-- From Petersburg in the Civil War, War at the Door, William D. Henderson

Posted at 02:31 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 5, 2008
The North's Banned History

SEGREGATION IN THE NORTH

When deTouqeville visited America he noticed that in the North whites worked exclusively on construction (unions pre- Civil War were started to keep Blacks from the jobs), but in the South he was shocked to see Blacks and whites working side by side. In the next few posts I'll examine the race codes pre and post Civil War. Will the rhetoric of the North match the facts? We'll find out. Also, check the footnote on a new book on the Northern death camp for Confederate soldiers.

Most people assume that school segregation was a phenomenon exclusive to the South. In his latest book, "Jim Crow Moves North: The Battle Over Northern School Segregation, 1865-1954," law professor Davison M. Douglas examines the untold story of northern school segregation between the end of the Civil War and the early 1950s. Douglas, the Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law, is a legal historian with an expertise on the interplay of race and law in American history. He recently sat down with the W&M News to discuss his book, which is being published by Cambridge University Press and will be available this month in stores.

Q: How did you become interested in writing this book?
Douglas: I grew up in the South and had been interested in the southern civil rights movement since my childhood. In my first book, I examined school desegregation in the pivotal southern city of Charlotte, N.C. In the course of doing research for that book in the archives of the NAACP, I discovered a number of legal disputes in northern states during the first half of the 20th century involving school segregation. I had known that many northern communities had operated racially separate schools, but I had always assumed that such segregation was due to residential segregation. What I noticed in the NAACP archives, though, was that many northern towns segregated schoolchildren in a manner similar to southern towns, by establishing a white school for all of the town's white children and a "colored" school for all of the town's black children. Or by operating a single school with racially separate classrooms, racially separate playgrounds, and even racially separate American flags. The more I researched, the more examples I found of this kind of explicit segregation in the North. I realized that most of us don't know much about this aspect of our nation's history and so decided to write a book exploring the history of northern school segregation.

Q: The casual observer probably assumes that school segregation was just a southern practice. Why do you think the story of the north has not been told?
Douglas: School segregation was so overwhelming in the South – every southern state had laws that mandated racially separate schools and compliance with those laws was 100 percent. By the same token, most northern states had laws that prohibited school segregation. Hence, most historians interested in studying school segregation have focused their attention on the South – and in the process have missed a really interesting story.

Q: Was this a case where you had laws on the books that prohibited school segregation, but local communities that ignored those laws?
Douglas:
That's exactly what happened. Most northern states enacted laws after the Civil War that prohibited school segregation. But in many northern communities, local school boards insisted on racial segregation in defiance of state law – particularly after thousands of southern blacks began to migrate northward during and after World War I. Many northern communities operated racially segregated schools before the onset of what we call the "Great Migration," but white insistence on school segregation sharply increased as more blacks arrived in the North. And even though segregation violated state law, many school boards acted in defiance of the law. A few lawsuits were brought challenging school segregation, almost all of which succeeded, but many northern school boards were not deterred – they persisted in their defiance. As a legal historian, I was fascinated with this disconnect between laws that prohibited school segregation and an on-the-ground reality at odds with that legal mandate. I wanted to know how this could happen. And I wanted to know what this might teach us about the role of law in accomplishing racial change in the United States.

http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=5438

BLACK LIFE IN THE LAND OF LINCOLN:

ILLINOIS, INDIANA

The legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana's code when it organized as a territory.

The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[1]

Like colonization, exclusion ordinances often were advanced by self-professed friends of the black race who saw only tragedy in attempts of the races to share the same land. Robert Dale Owen, speaking in Indiana in 1850, asked if any decent person desired "the continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and death." The rhetoric hardly is an exaggeration: during the constitutional debate in the state that year, one speaker had frankly acknowledged, "It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is no other way to get rid of them. ... We know how the Puritans did with the Indians, who were infinitely more magninimous and less impudent than the colored race."

Not content with mere legislation, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon had anti-immigration provisions built into their constitutions. In Illinois (1848), in clause-by-clause voting, this clause was approved by voters by more than 2 to 1. Most of the opposition to it came from the northern counties of the state, where blacks were few. In Indiana (1851), it was approved by a larger margin than the constitution itself. In Oregon (1857), the vote for it was 8 to 1. The Illinois act stayed on the books until 1865. Such laws were seldom invoked, but they served blacks as grinding reminders of apartheid intentions and legal subjugation, and they offered white authorities and mobs excuses for harassment and violence against blacks.

The Black Codes dealt with more than just settlement. Oregon forbid blacks to hold real estate, make contracts, or bring lawsuits. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and California prohibited them from testifying in cases where a white man was a party. When the Illinois state constitution was adopted in 1818, it limited the vote to "free white men" and excluded blacks from the militia.

On closer examination, even the designation of "free state" can be question in a case like that of Illinois. Illinois, as a territory where slaves were held, had been restricting the freedom of black residents since before it became a state. In December 1813, Illinois Territory prohibited free blacks to immigrate to the territory and decreed all who did must leave within 15 days after notice or receive 39 lashes. As a state, it maintained the black codes inherited when it had formed part of Indiana, and thus continued its system of what one historian has described as "registered and indentured slavery."[2]

[S]he permitted non-resident slave-owners to hire their slaves to citizens of Illinois for a period of twelve months, yet not give the slave his freedom; and justified her act with the excuse that laborers were wanted to erect mills and open up the country, and that salt could not be profitably manufactured by white men.[3]

When the legislature once attempted to alter the black law to strip out the provision that allowed slaves to be imported into the colony, the governor vetoed it.

Furthermore, Illinois wouldn't even emancipate the few old slaves who had been in the territory since before 1787. Every person bound to service or indenture in the territory was to continue as such under state government, though children born of such persons were to be emancipated -- the boys at 24, the girls at 18.

http://www.slavenorth.com/northwest.htm

DENYING the PAST

As the reality of slavery in the North faded, and a strident anti-Southern abolitionism arose there, the memory of Northern slaves, when it surfaced at all, tended to focus on how happy and well-treated they had been, in terms much reminiscent of the so-called "Lost Cause" literature that followed the fall of the Confederacy in 1865.

"The slaves in Massachusetts were treated with almost parental kindness. They were incorporated into the family, and each puritan household being a sort of religious structure, the relative duties of master and servant were clearly defined. No doubt the severest and longest task fell to the slave, but in the household of the farmer or artisan, the master and the mistress shared it, and when it was finished, the white and the black, like the feudal chief and his household servant, sat down to the same table, and shared the same viands." [Reminiscence by Catharine Sedgwick (1789-1867) of Stockbridge, Mass.]

Yet the petitions for freedom from New England and Mid-Atlantic blacks, and the numbers in which they ran off from their masters to the British during the Revolution, suggest rather a different picture.

Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish. In the rhetorical battle, New England backed the South right out of the American mainstream.

The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."[1]

"This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."[2]

Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

http://www.slavenorth.com/denial.htm

NORTHERN PROFITS from SLAVERY

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, "The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776," p.319.

Whether it was officially encouraged, as in New York and New Jersey, or not, as in Pennsylvania, the slave trade flourished in colonial Northern ports. But New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies.

list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it's difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn't tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat -- and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college's first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family's candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown's University Hall.[4]

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm  

Footnote: A new book on America's death camp:

Lets start with the author. His research is exacting, methodical, and painstaking. He brought zero bias to the enterprise and the result is a stunning achievement that is both scholarly and readable. Douglas, the "accidental" prison camp began as a training camp for IL. volunteers. Donalson and Island #10 changed that. The long war no one expected combined with artic cold, primitive medical care and the barbarity of the captors created in the authors own words "a death camp." Stanton's and Grant's policy of halting the prisoner exchange behind the pretense of Fort Pillow accelerated the suffering. In the latest edition Levy found the long lost hospital records at the National Archives which prove conclusively that casualties were deliberately under reported. Prisoners were tortured, brutality was tolerated and corruption was widespread. The handling of the dead rivals stories of Nazi Germany. The largest mass grave in the Western Hemisphere is filled with....the bodies of Camp Douglas dead, 4200 known and 1800 unknown. No one should be allowed to speak of Andersonville until they have absorbed the horror of Douglas.

Posted at 04:34 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 2, 2008
The Black Confederate

Our hallucinations which we take as history collapse when they are infused with propaganda and exposed to truth.For example, since Sherman we believed the destruction of civilian cities played a role in ending wars. (This is still a popular belief with the public who usually use the argument of the A- bombs on Japan). However, today not one military historian or branch of the service believes this. Not one. That's why governments today make a big deal out of "targeted bombing". Germany bombing the Brits resulted in the UK rallying against Germany. 911 resulted in Americans rallying and even lefties stopped laughing at people with American flags.
 
George Orwell first noticed what was being done to our history. In the book 1984 (which remember he began work on it under the name 1948 until his agent freaked out), Orwell proposes a simple lesson. Save the newspaper of an event, then look up to see how the event is looked at further down the road.
 
Science does this effortlessly. It took an Air Force study during the Viet Nam war to discover what all the historians, pundits and military men missed for an entire century- bombing and attacking civilians rallies civilians. That means all the military history and Air Force strategy experts, not to mention the public, which never seems to know anything, were wrong.
 
Just as all the historians that moaned if only Lincoln had lived blacks wouldn't have been put in government during reconstruction and it all would have been peachy keen. Once one discovers the images of the Southern government in BIRTH OF A NATION, so fervently believed by all the Civil War buffs and historians all through the 20th Century were racist lies, that simply means the historians were wrong. This is the same period Lincoln goes from being a man to a deity (one recent Lincoln book is called LINCOLN THE REDEEMER. You have to be joking. Redeemer? Isn't this just a little bit sacrilegious? This is balanced Lincoln coverage? Are you joking?).
 
The change that occurred with Lincoln after his assassination (when he suddenly became beloved), the change that happened during reconstruction, and then the deliberate wiping out of history the result of the war- the dropping of reconstruction makes it much easier to make it all look great.
 
What does science and military planners do that historians don't? I would say 80% of Lincoln books I've seen are re-writes of other books. The bs continues. Science and military thinkers go back and make sure results actually exist, what worked and what didn't, what is true and what isn't. Since prior to World War 1 historians have not done this. It isn't as bad as when I went to school in the South and got a history book that stated the KKK was a benevolent organization that helped poor whites and Blacks, that reconstruction failed because Blacks were too childlike, that Lincoln would have led the nation to the promised land had he lived, I have learned it is very possible for historians to not just be wrong, but wildly wrong. Only by going back can we discover what happened. So, was I at 11 wrong when I rose my hand and said the historians weren't just wrong about the KKK, but were lying?
 
I don't think so.
 
So the call "but the experts say" is meaningless to me. There is no history board like there is a science board, Likewise whether or not it is on the internet or in a book doesn't matter to me because 90% of the books are rubbish. The same Carl Sandburg that makes Lincoln fans tear up, I think of as a Stalinist who openly cheered the USSR when it exploded an Atomic bomb. Yet his saccharine rubbish is still taught in schools. Good lord.
 
You know if there was one thread  on Civil War boards HOW WE WERE WRONG ABOUT LINCOLN about his changing image that would be one thing. There is no such thread on any Civil War board I've seen. There is no Civil War board, art or film, that shows blacks fighting for the South. Even if you dismiss the Confederate soldier this leaves the slaves and freed Blacks who upon realizing their women would be raped, the home burned and supplies taken stood by the women to fight. And these collectors talk about the glories of fighting racism. Oh please.
 
When one goes back to Lincoln one finds a manic depressive with suicidal tendencies. A lawyer who abandoned the rule of law for the gun. And then had no plan as to what to do with the South after the war. All the poems, all the deification, all the smokescreens simply aren't enough anymore.
 
 
FOOTNOTE: BLACK CONFEDERATES:

Black Confederates? Why haven't we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, "I don't want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910" Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a "cover-up" which started back in 1865. He writes, "During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where 'soldier' is crossed out and 'body servant' inserted, or 'teamster' on pension applications." Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that "…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country" and that by doing so they were "demonstrating it's possible to hate the system of slavery and love one's country." This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.
 

     It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that "biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…". Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
 

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.

Noted Examples:

1. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black "regiments", one free and one slave, participated in the battle on behalf of the South. "Many colored people were killed in the action", recorded John Parker, a former slave.

2. At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 35th Texas Cavalry,  Confederate States Army, became it's 3rd Sergeant. Higher ranking black commissioned officers served in militia units, but this was on the State militia level (Louisiana) and not in the regular C.S. Army.

3. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers "earned on average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350- $600 a year).

4. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

5. Frederick Douglas reported, "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels."

6. Black and white militiamen returned heavy fire on Union troops at the Battle of Griswoldsville (near Macon, GA). Approximately 600 boys and elderly men were killed in this skirmish.

7. In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. France showed interest but Britain refused.

8. The Jackson Battalion included two companies of black soldiers. They saw combat at Petersburg under Col. Shipp. "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner."

9. Recently the National Park Service, with a recent discovery, recognized that blacks were asked to help defend the city of Petersburg, Virginia and were offered their freedom if they did so. Regardless of their official classification, black Americans performed support functions that in today's army many would be classified as official military service. The successes of white Confederate troops in battle, could only have been achieved with the support these loyal black Southerners.

10. Confederate General John B. Gordon (Army of Northern Virginia) reported that all of his troops were in favor of Colored troops and that it's adoption would have "greatly encouraged the army". Gen. Lee was anxious to receive regiments of black soldiers. The Richmond Sentinel reported on 24 Mar 1864, "None…will deny that our servants are more worthy of respect than the motley hordes which come against us." "Bad faith [to black Confederates] must be avoided as an indelible dishonor."

11. In March 1865, Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary Of State, promised freedom for blacks who served from the State of Virginia. Authority for this was finally received from the State of Virginia and on April 1st 1865, $100 bounties were offered to black soldiers. Benjamin exclaimed, "Let us say to every Negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are free…Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom." Confederate Officers were ordered to treat them humanely and protect them from "injustice and oppression".

12. A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South. Black soldiers from both sides received discrimination from whites who opposed the concept .

13. Union General U.S. Grant in Feb 1865, ordered the capture of "all the Negro men… before the enemy can put them in their ranks." Frederick Douglas warned Lincoln that unless slaves were guaranteed freedom (those in Union controlled areas were still slaves) and land bounties, "they would take up arms for the rebels".

14. On April 4, 1865 (Amelia County, VA), a Confederate supply train was exclusively manned and guarded by black Infantry. When attacked by Federal Cavalry, they stood their ground and fought off the charge, but on the second charge they were overwhelmed. These soldiers are believed to be from "Major Turner's" Confederate command.

15. A Black Confederate, George _____, when captured by Federals was bribed to desert to the other side. He defiantly spoke, "Sir, you want me to desert, and I ain't no deserter. Down South, deserters disgrace their families and I am never going to do that."

16. Former slave, Horace King, accumulated great wealth as a contractor to the Confederate Navy. He was also an expert engineer and became known as the "Bridge builder of the Confederacy." One of his bridges was burned in a Yankee raid. His home was pillaged by Union troops, as his wife pleaded for mercy.

17. One black  C. S. Navy seaman was among the last Confederates to surrender, aboard the CSS Shenandoah, six months after the war ended. At least two blacks served as Navy pilots with the rank of Warrant Officer. One, William Bugg, piloted the CSS Sampson, and another, Moses Dallas, was considered the best inland pilot of the C.S. Navy. Dallas piloted the Savannah River squadron and was paid $100 a month until the time he was killed by the enemy during the capture of USS Water Witch.

18. Nearly 180,000 Black Southerners, from Virginia alone, provided logistical support for the Confederate military. Many were highly skilled workers. These included a wide range of jobs: nurses, military engineers, teamsters, ordnance department workers, brakemen, firemen, harness makers, blacksmiths, wagonmakers, boatmen, mechanics, wheelwrights, ect. In the 1920'S Confederate pensions were finally allowed to some of those workers that were still living. Many thousands more served in other Confederate States.
 
19. During the early 1900's, many members of the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) advocated awarding former slaves rural acreage and a home. There was hope that justice could be given those slaves that were once promised "forty acres and a mule" but never received any. In the 1913 Confederate Veteran magazine published by the UCV, it was printed that this plan "If not Democratic, it is [the] Confederate" thing to do. There was much gratitude toward former slaves, which "thousands were loyal, to the last degree", now living with total poverty of the big cities. Unfortunately, their proposal fell on deaf ears on Capitol Hill.

20. During the 5oth Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg in 1913, arrangements were made for a joint reunion of Union and Confederate veterans. The commission in charge of the event made sure they had enough accommodations for the black Union veterans, but were completely surprised when unexpected black Confederates arrived. The white Confederates immediately welcomed their old comrades, gave them one of their tents, and "saw to their every need". Nearly every Confederate reunion including those blacks that served with them, wearing the gray.

21. The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate. Who wanted to correctly portray the "racial makeup" in the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is one "white soldier giving his child to a black woman for protection".- source: Edward Smith, African American professor at the American University, Washington DC.

22. Black Confederate heritage is beginning to receive the attention it deserves. For instance, Terri Williams, a black journalist for the Suffolk "Virginia Pilot" newspaper, writes: "I've had to re-examine my feelings toward the [Confederate] flag…It started when I read a newspaper article about an elderly black man whose ancestor worked with the Confederate forces. The man spoke with pride about his family member's contribution to the cause, was photographed with the [Confederate] flag draped over his lap…that's why I now have no definite stand on just what the flag symbolizes, because it no longer is their history, or my history, but our history."

 
 
Resources:

Charles Kelly Barrow, et.al. Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners (1995). Currently the best book on the subject.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (1995). Well researched and very good source of information on Black Confederates, but has a strong Union bias.
Richard Rollins. Black Southerners in Gray (1994). Excellent source.
Dr. Edward Smith and Nelson Winbush, "Black Southern Heritage". An excellent educational video. Mr. Winbush is a descendent of a Black Confederate and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).

Author, Historian William C. Davis on Black Confederates:

     Noted Civil War historian/Author William C. Davis writes about the forgotten black Confederates: "One of the lost chapters of Civil War history has been the passive and even active support that many southern blacks, free and slave, gave to the Confederacy. "Forgotten Confederates" illuminates the overlooked facet of this seemingly contradictory behavior by a group of African Americans who appear to have thought of themselves as Southerners first and blacks second. Neither Confederate history, nor black studies, can afford to ignore it."

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

Posted at 07:24 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Jun 1, 2008
Why Reconstruction Failed

On April 13, 1873, the United States experienced the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. In tiny Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked lightly armed African American freedmen who had assembled in a local courthouse to defend their elected officeholders. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 black men lay dead. Most were killed after they had surrendered.
 
Perhaps even more shocking than the bloodshed in Louisiana was the ultimate resolution of the case. Initially, Northern public opinion was outraged, and the Grant administration vowed swift punishment for the guilty. But as Louisiana whites rallied around the massacre’s perpetrators, the costs—financial and political—of prosecution mounted. Washington gradually lost interest. Denied the funds and military support he needed, New Orleans-based U.S. Attorney James R. Beckwith valiantly tried to win convictions, but succeeded against only three of the 98 men he indicted. Even that paltry result was overturned by Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley in mid-1874; his ruling gave a green light to Klan-like groups in Mississippi and South Carolina, which overthrew those states’ pro-civil rights Republican governments in 1875 and 1876, respectively. When the full court upheld Bradley’s ruling in 1876, it dealt a lasting blow to federal law enforcement authority throughout the South.

Thus did a white supremacist crime mutate into a white supremacist triumph. This is why I called my book about the Colfax Massacre, The Day Freedom Died.

My goal was to provide the first definitive account of the massacre--from its origins in the antebellum plantation economy of Louisiana’s Red River Valley, to its repercussions in constitutional law today. It is too late to correct a 135-year-old injustice. But I felt an urgent need to correct the record. For the injustice at Colfax was compounded by cover-up. White Louisianans have systematically distorted the event, blaming rampant “Negroes” for provoking their own murders and erecting marble monuments and historical markers in honor of the guilty. This cover-up, unfortunately, was abetted for many years by historians, Northern and Southern, who taught that Reconstruction had collapsed due to its own misguided attempt to include unworthy black men in government. In that sense, I was following the revisionist trail blazed by historians such as John Hope Franklin, Kenneth Stampp, and Eric Foner. Thanks to them, the rights and wrongs of Reconstruction are now more accurately comprehended; the old fable of carpetbaggers and scalawags has lost currency and respectability.

But as I completed the book, I also wondered whether the time has come to take the interpretation of Reconstruction in a new direction. The work of Franklin, Stampp and Foner properly emphasized the political and economic weaknesses of Reconstruction, such as the Radical Republican Congress’s failure to distribute land to Southern blacks, or the Grant Administration’s evolution from a revolutionary force to a patronage machine.

However, Reconstruction not only failed because of such flaws in its design; it failed because it was resisted. It was resisted bitterly in the courts, where Southern lawyers made use of every conceivable cause of action—plausible or not—to tie Republican state governments in knots and to generate favorable propaganda. And it was resisted through cruel but sophisticated paramilitary campaigns, starting with the Ku Klux Klan’s rampage through the southeastern states in the late 1860s and culminating in the Red Shirts’ seizure of power in South Carolina in 1876. Southern litigation and southern terrorism attacked Reconstruction at its weakest points: a post-Civil War constitutional structure whose new rules of state-federal relations were open to judicial interpretation, and a Northern political climate in which sympathy for beleaguered freedmen did not exceed the desire to avoid a new Civil War. The rulings of Justice Bradley and his Supreme Court colleagues reflected Northerners’ interest in an exit from the intractable morass of the South.

For all the savagery they visited upon black freedmen and their white Republican supporters, for all their warfare against Republican-led state militia units, the white Reconstruction-era paramilitaries in Louisiana—as far as I can determine—never killed or wounded a single Federal soldier. Indeed, white supremacist politicians went out of their way to praise U.S. generals in their public statements, even as they may have cursed them in private. The reason was simple: the white supremacists assumed that, as long as they did not actually harm U.S. troops, white Northern public opinion would not support the all-out invasion that could have crushed them. And they were right.

Eventually, the U.S. government retreated from the post-Civil War South just as it would retreat from Vietnam and Somalia a century later—and as it may yet retreat from Iraq. What began as a bold effort at democratization and nation-building ended as a politico-military quagmire. I mean this as a provocative analogy, not an exact one: Washington’s duty to its own citizens, regardless of the cost, was more apparent than its duty to Southeast Asia or Africa. Still, for the idealistic men (and women) who traveled South from New England during and after the Civil War, places such as Coushatta, Louisiana and Vicksburg, Mississippi were almost as alien, culturally, as Mogadishu and Baghdad are to U.S. soldiers and diplomats today.

Surveying the ruins of Reconstruction after he left the White House, Ulysses S. Grant concluded that the South had needed neither home rule nor episodic federal intervention, but benevolent dictatorship. “Looking back, over the whole policy of Reconstruction, it seems to me that the wisest thing would have been to have continued for some time the military rule,” he said. “That would have enabled the Southern people to pull themselves together and repair material losses. Military rule would have been just to all: the Negro who wanted freedom the white man who wanted protection, the Northern man who wanted Union. As state after state showed a willingness to come into the Union, not on their terms but upon ours, I would have admitted them. The trouble about the military rule in the South was that our people did not like it. It was not in accordance with our institutions. I am clear now that it would have been better to have postponed suffrage, reconstruction, State governments, for ten years, and held the South in a territorial condition. But we made our scheme, and must do what we can with it.”

Grant’s analysis—a characteristic mixture of hard-headed militarism and wishful idealism—has its attractions. But, as Grant acknowledged, “our people did not like it.” The white South was firmly united behind “redemption,” while the Republican Party was an agglomeration of industrialists, farmers, Negro freedmen, and Northern-born officeholders in the South. This coalition lacked unity; it lacked conviction; it lacked certitude. And certitude was the one thing the white South had in abundance. The South pushed and pushed on Republican fault lines until they cracked. The Confederate States of America lost the Civil War. But the South won Reconstruction.

http://hnn.us/articles/48986.html

Posted at 03:17 pm by Psychomike
Make a comment  

May 31, 2008
Lincoln Vs Mises Institute

THOMAS J. DiLORENZO OF THE MISES INSTITUTE ON LINCOLN

Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954) is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute.[1] He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech.

DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present, and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe. DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending its right to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner.[2] He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal for ending the Great Depression.[3]

DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute events. via Wikipedia

 
At this link you can find interviews and talks by Mr. DiLorenzo on Lincoln and the Civil War. Many historians and economists are looking at the actual facts of Lincoln's administration and economy, not wishful thinking and propaganda.

Posted at 08:11 am by Psychomike
Make a comment  

Next Page