Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 02/14/06 10:21:37 AM |
Age 38, AZ |
Short and sinmple,...I think you need to do more research. The Confederate States DID NOT seceed over slavery, the SOuth DID NOT start slavery and slavery existed in the North as well. As a matter of fact, General U. S. Grant was a slave owner and did not release his until 1868, when he HAD to release them! Second, the CSA had African Americans serving in it's ranks LONG before the US. Most of the Louisiana Regiments were African American, and some were even officers! Get your facts straight before bashing the history of someone's culture.
|
Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 02/10/06 12:25:03 AM |
Age 42, TN |
The right to seceed may have been questioned but that the question was illegitimate. Several states, even some, in the north hesitated at our birth to join until the right of secession was established. Finally, the 'exclamation' proclamation only freed slaves in the rebeling States. It is interesting that of the generals Grant and Lee it was Grant that retained ownership of his slaves because "good help is so hard to find ".
Getting away from States rights and strenghting the Federal gov. is a proven recipe for disaster. Where are the watchmen on the wall? George
bush is not conservative and shows his ignorance by not articulating that we are a REPUBLIC (does he know this or does he care not?) and have no responsibility to "brang d'mocricy to th' mid'le east".
|
Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 01/31/06 11:40:20 AM |
Age 53, AR |
The accounts by David Barton are stories of honorable men that allowed the principles of the Word of God to transcend the elements of hate and racism. I wish that I could say that I enjoy such presence as those few men of high character and bravery. Here in the rural Mississippi River delta there is a story that few outside our area seldom know. As a public school teacher for many years, I have been required to attend many assemblies where the black pledge and the black national anthem are included in the activities. This designed devisiveness is not encouraging the unity, nor the Christian spirit that may have characterized the men featured in the article. I see no leaders of such caliber around us. It is easy to think highly of a very few courageous men. It is far different to stand in their stead. Let us pray for courageous Christian men of all races to unite under the banner of Christ and surrender the flags of race.
|
Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 01/31/06 11:16:32 AM |
Age 70, FL |
Please amphify you comments in the second paragraph concerning founding fathers rejecting secession as an option, and list references.
I have read that the West Point Military Academy taught the various states had this "right" up and until the 1840's. I wish I had the reference, but in moving some 18 times I've lost many books.
Thanks.
|
Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 01/31/06 09:03:58 AM |
Age 52, FL |
I am Jimmy Shirley. Mr. barton should post an article about the slaves who remained faithful to their masters as an example of Christian faithfulness. There are indeed hundreds of examples in The Slave Narratives as well as in the Official Records of the war and the times.
In addition, there are hundreds of examples of Christian testimony in the treatment, and attitudes, about the institution of slavery among many Southern men, such as Robert E. Lee ,'Stonewall' Jackson and Patrick Cleburne.
It should be well known that Abraham of the Old Testament owned slaves and God did not command him to free them. In the New Testament, Jesus did not condemn slavery, neither did the Apostles. Only the character of it was addressed. And, as good Christian men, most of the Southern people who did own slaves conducted their affairs with them as they were commanded to do by the Word of God, meaning in a kindly, forebearing way.
The fact is war was not required to end the institution of slavery in the US. Indeed, the remaining slave States were gradually moving toward gradual manumission. Which would have resulted in more favourable race relations today. Even if it had taken until about 1900 to accomplish this it would be far more preferrable to the killing of nearly 700,000 American lives, including civilians.
Mr. Barton falls under the same trap as the worshipping of MLK by the demonising of the Christian South. In fairness, he should write another article extolling the Christian virtues of the Southern men, and women, who exhibited their Christianity with regards to their slaves.
|
Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 01/31/06 08:40:56 AM |
Age 52, FL |
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
The point in posting these figures is to show that the times then were far more complex than Mr. Barton would have us believe. Space will not permit me to share more but suffice to say that there were a large number of Black Southerners who took up arms for the CSA.
|
Re: Black History Issue 2006
| Posted On: 01/31/06 08:11:33 AM |
Age 57, TX |
I can remember only that the Civil War was fought over greed, not slavery--not threats of secession. It was the North's appetite for raw-materials of the South--that was eventually played-out by robbing Southerners of their homesteads--you remember--the Carpetbaggers? Now the North had it all--manufacturing, raw-materials and the profits from importing slaves and selling them to the South.
Geographical difference in attitudes--to and from Black Americans are even more prevalent today. The relationship between Southerners and Black Americans is noticeably more peaceful that the relationship between Northerners and Black Americans.
Also, study the historical Census maps--notice how the migration patterns of Black Americans has been from the East Coast of the USA--to the Southern States and to the West? If the South was a hostile environment for Black Americans, the migratory patterns would be in another direction.
As is true in many instances, history is fashioned, then printed to promote certain agendas--in efforts to distort the truth. I believe that is a contributing factor in--Why Americans continue to repeat history--because the actual history of America, that is not in print, is soon forgotten, then repeated.
Thanks for letting a 5th generation Texan voice his opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
