The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[Zincwarrior]

Of course
Slaves were there for menial labor not combat

A few may have picked up guns in battle but were not uniformed combat troops

If they pocked up guns they would have been killed. It was a death sentence crime for slaves to carry firearms without their masters.

 

[rightwinger]

If they pocked up guns they would have been killed. It was a death sentence crime for slaves to carry firearms without their masters.

They were not allowed to teach slaves to read, how would they give them guns?

 

[Zincwarrior]

They were not allowed to teach slaves to read, how would they give them guns?

Exactly.

 

[IM2]

If there were slaves serving as soldiers, records would have clearly delineated as to who was a slave and who was a regular soldier. Records needed to be accurate, lives depended on it

Newspapers in the South would be outraged at their brave boys serving alongside slaves

The Union would have killed and captured slaves in uniform. It would have been big news in the north

Some slaves escaped, others acted as spies for the Union. Escaped slaves were called contrabands. What needs to end are these silly insinuations that blacks gladly decided to fight for the Confederacy.

 

[rightwinger]

Some slaves escaped, others acted as spies for the Union. Escaped slaves were called contrabands. What needs to end are these silly insinuations that blacks gladly decided to fight for the Confederacy.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, over a million slaves escaped to Union lines

 

[IM2]

They were not allowed to teach slaves to read, how would they give them guns?

Simple, the slaves were to be used as cannon fodder

 

[JoeB131]

They were not allowed to teach slaves to read, how would they give them guns?

Everyone forgets how panicked the South was after the Nat Turner revolt, and after that, Harper's Ferry, where they were absolutely terrified that emancipated slaves would murder them in their beds.

No, they weren't giving slaves guns in exchange for their freedom, nor were they giving guns to emancipated slaves.

 

[the watcher]

Revisionist history and selective editing. The contributions of the Tuskegee Frogmen and the men of NAASA were removed from the schoolbooks.

 

[Quantrill]

After the Emancipation Proclamation, over a million slaves escaped to Union lines

What's the source of your information for this statement?

And, why would the slave escape to the Union when they were not free in the Union?

They were not allowed to teach slaves to read, how would they give them guns?

Half truth. Which states made it law that slaves could not learn to read?

And, did many slave owners teach them to read anyway?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

The reason I defend the confederates is the same reason I defend George Washinton [sic].

Fighting for freedom vs Fighting for slavery

 

[Quantrill]

Fighting for freedom vs Fighting for slavery

So...fighting for the Constitution is not fighting for freedom?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So...fighting for the Constitution is not fighting for freedom?

Quantrill

Texas v White

 

[Quantrill]

Texas v White

So fighting for the Constitution is not fighting for freedom?

Quantrill

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Actually most 'freed slaves' were either forced to work on govt. seized plantations or forced into 'contraband camps', where they suffered from the very same conditions prison of war camps suffered from, and died by the hundreds of thousands from disease and starvation. They couldn't be allowed to flee to the North. Most of the 'abolitionist' pols were of the ship them back to Africa types, not people who cared about black people and their 'freedom'. While the 14th Amendment was passed and much noise was made over it, it was not enforced by Grant or anybody else. Most of the black population remained in the South and was forced into share cropping, a condition not much different from slavery, and in many case worse.

While they were starving in these camps, the North was busy exporting lots of food to Europe; it was a similar deal to the Irish famines, where the local Irish were allowed to starve to death while the English plantation owners exported grains to Germany.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1883656.pdf

Great Britain's wheat crop (exclusive of the crop of the islands of the British Seas), which in 1858 and 1859 aver aged 16,000,000 quarters annually, in 1860 fell to 13,135, 124 quarters, in 1861 to 11,078,948 quarters, in 1862 to 12,271,546 quarters, in 1863 to 13,957,554 quarters. In 1864 it rose to 17,922,048 quarters.2 The average yearly price per quarter in 1860, 1861, and 1862 rose to 53s. 3d., 55s. 4d., and 55s. 5d., respectively, but in 1863 fell to 44s. 9d. and in 1864 to 40s. 5d.3 For three successive years the coun try's grain crops were failures, and she was forced to im port twice as much grain as usual. In the emergency it was the United States, at war, that supplied the new de mand,-the same United States that had cut off the cotton.

Great Britain was astonished. In 1861, the year when American cotton ceased to arrive in Great Britain, the British imports of American wheat and wheat flour were 36,000,000 bushels, three times more than ever before; in 1862, 37,000,000 bushels. The lowest point during the war was in 1864,-20,000,000 bushels.1 Russia and Germany were the other great granaries of Great Britain, but the shipments of wheat and wheat flour from the one country to Great Britain actually fell off in 1861, 1862, and 1863; while those of the other increased, and that but slightly, only in one year,-1862.2 French importations to Great Britain in wheat and wheat flour, usually ranking next after those from Germany and Russia, in the first three years of the war fell off enor mously, being only 25 per cent. of what they were in 1860, for the sufficient reason that France also, along with Great Britain and all of Southern Europe, suffered crop reverses in 1861. The French crop in this year was 25,765,000 quarters, as compared with an average yearly crop of 32,000,000 quarters in 1858, 1859, and 1860. Importa tions, which in 1858, 1859, and 1860 had averaged about 400,000 quarters, suddenly rose to almost 5,400,000 quar ters in 1861.3 Of these increased importations from one third to one-half came from the United States. The Ameri can shipments to France before 1861 were practically noth ing; but in the year following the poor harvests they were 10,000,000 bushels of wheat and wheat flour, 5,000,000 bushels the next year.4

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v White

^

 

[Quantrill]

^

You can't even pay attention to what you said. You said, 'fighting for freedom vs fighting for slavery'. Post #(170) The contrast you made with freedom is slavery.

I in turn asked if fighting for the Constitution was not fighting for freedom? Which has everything to do with slavery.

You in turn keep saying, Texas vs. White, which has nothing to do with slavery.

In other words, the fighting for freedom because of slavery was fighting against the Constitution. The South was fighting for the Constitution which legalized slavery.

So...how does it feel....traitor to the Constitution?

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

So fighting for the Constitution is not fighting for freedom?

Quantrill

They weren't fighting for the "Constitution"; they were fighting so a few jerks could keep owning other people.

And not even because the end of slavery was imminent. It would have still taken decades for enough legislators to be elected to outlaw it.

Actually most 'freed slaves' were either forced to work on govt. seized plantations or forced into 'contraband camps', where they suffered from the very same conditions prison of war camps suffered from, and died by the hundreds of thousands from disease and starvation. They couldn't be allowed to flee to the North. Most of the 'abolitionist' pols were of the ship them back to Africa types, not people who cared about black people and their 'freedom'. While the 14th Amendment was passed and much noise was made over it, it was not enforced by Grant or anybody else. Most of the black population remained in the South and was forced into share cropping, a condition not much different from slavery, and in many case worse.

Wow, now you are just making things up, aren't you? Hundreds of thousands? Really? Even Axis Mikey wouldn't try to peddle bullshit like that.

You kind of stumble into a reality, that the North won the War and lost the peace. Grant did send troops in to eliminate the KKK, but presidents after him (shamefully) allowed Jim Crow, sharecropping, and debt peonage to re-establish a racial hierarchy that unfortunately endures to this very day.

So the North didn't really want to enforce civil rights, and the South wanted to pretend the Civil War was a great "lost cause" that was about issues other than slavery.

Kind of like when a white trash father goes on a drunken rampage, but the next day, everyone pretends it didn't happen.

 

[rightwinger]

You can't even pay attention to what you said. You said, 'fighting for freedom vs fighting for slavery'. Post #(170) The contrast you made with freedom is slavery.

Ummm…the South was fighting for the freedom to own slaves

 

[JoeB131]

You can't even pay attention to what you said. You said, 'fighting for freedom vs fighting for slavery'. Post #(170) The contrast you made with freedom is slavery.

I in turn asked if fighting for the Constitution was not fighting for freedom? Which has everything to do with slavery.

You in turn keep saying, Texas vs. White, which has nothing to do with slavery.

In other words, the fighting for freedom because of slavery was fighting against the Constitution. The South was fighting for the Constitution which legalized slavery.

So...how does it feel....traitor to the Constitution?

Quantrill

I think you are a little confused, as usual.

The Constitution isn't about "slavery", it just didn't outlaw it like it probably should have. The Founders (many of whom were slave owners themselves) realized slavery was in moral opposition to a country built on "All Men are Created Equal", but hoped that it would wither and die like it was doing in the rest of the world.

And if Cotton hadn't turned into such a bonanza economically, it probably would have.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

They weren't fighting for the "Constitution"; they were fighting so a few jerks could keep owning other people.

And not even because the end of slavery was imminent. It would have still taken decades for enough legislators to be elected to outlaw it.



Wow, now you are just making things up, aren't you? Hundreds of thousands? Really? Even Axis Mikey wouldn't try to peddle bullshit like that.

You kind of stumble into a reality, that the North won the War and lost the peace. Grant did send troops in to eliminate the KKK, but presidents after him (shamefully) allowed Jim Crow, sharecropping, and debt peonage to re-establish a racial hierarchy that unfortunately endures to this very day.

So the North didn't really want to enforce civil rights, and the South wanted to pretend the Civil War was a great "lost cause" that was about issues other than slavery.

Kind of like when a white trash father goes on a drunken rampage, but the next day, everyone pretends it didn't happen.

You're an uneducated moron and troll. Historians have documented it and published maps of where the camps were located, on rivers and railroads; no excuses for not shipping food to them. Run along and spam some other threads.