November 30, 2005
Yep...U.S. Used Slaves!
Myths of Slavery
by Laurence M. Vance
Story Here
“No subject has been more generally misunderstood or more persistently misrepresented.â€...Jefferson Davis
For your Information:
Local "UNION" founderies and farmers rented out their slaves for an average of $55 a year to help build the Capitol, the White House, the Treasury Department, and the streets laid out by city planner Pierre L'Enfant. This use of slaves by the u.s. government contenued briefly "close to a year" after the war ended!...PoP
Slaves Not Only Built The South, But Also Created The Wealth Of The North.
Historians have long known that the slave trade flourished in the nation's capital until 1865. But they knew few details about the slaves who worked in Washington, D.C.
More Here
And HERE
Slaves' role in building of Capitol
Slaves helped build White House and Capitol
D.C. Slaves Owner Pay Stubs Found
Filed under Southern Blogs by 
November 13, 2005
in Black Confederates
REBEL GRAY
http://www.rebelgray.com/index.htm
Many people reject the evidence that thousands of the South's 3,880,000 blacks, both free men and slaves, labored and fought, willingly, for the Southern Confederacy.
Why do they not believe, given the many accounts in the Official Records, contemporary newspaper reports, photographs, pension application records, and recollections of black Southerners? Here are 11 explanations.
1. It may force us to change what we believe. Changing our beliefs is troublesome and effortful. Most of us have always believed that both the Confederate and Union armies were all white, just like they are shown in the 1994 film Gettysburg.
2. It is not what most others believe. The leading guideline for adult behavior in questionable moral areas, according to the classic work of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is “What would people think?†(i.e., “what are other people doingâ€). We base our behavior—and ideas—on what others are doing, so that we appear “normal.†Since few others believe in black Confederates, we will not either, in order to fit in with the majority.
3. It might contradict a prejudice. Are we ready to accept that a black man could be every bit as brave, and every bit as dedicated, as a white man in combat? Rejecting the claim that blacks fought is consistent with a prejudice against blacks. Perhaps those who reject out of hand the idea of black Confederates are expressing their own prejudice against blacks.
4. It complicates our simple stereotype of blacks vs. whites as separate groups. But in truth, are these groups more alike than different? Maybe seeing them as different groups allows us to perceive differences that are not really there? A more complex perception is of one larger group with many diverse individuals, not of two groups of similar individuals. The simpler perception that fits a black versus white stereotype is consistent with the view that there were no black Confederates.
5. How do we now teach Civil War history in 10 minutes? How do we summarize the reasons for the war in a few sentences, if in fact thousands of black Southerners fired in anger at the Northern troops coming "to free them"? At least one Northern soldier put his frustration at that incident into the Official Record of the War of the Rebellion: "Here I had come South and was fighting to free this man," the disgusted U.S. major wrote in his diary; "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head off" (Barrow et al., 2001, p. 43).
6. It complicates the simple portrayal of the North as Good, driving out the “Wicked Southern Slave master.†How can Northern soldiers serve in the role as Angels of Mercy, if black Confederates shot at them?
7. It weakens support for the claim that the War was About Slavery
We like simplicity. "The War was About Slavery" is simple, as simple as a Pepsi commercial. For a society raised on Pepsi commercials, the One Factor Theory (slavery) has enormous appeal. If many blacks chose to fight for the South, how could the War have been exclusively concerned with slavery? Maybe there were other issues. Now we might have to examine economic factors (No—not that!).
We also have to consider why individual black Southerners fought. Some were slave owners themselves, and/or occupied respected positions in their communities as Free Men of Color (especially Louisiana and Virginia) or Free Women of Color (as in Charleston, with its 6000 free blacks, mostly women)
.
Suggesting the slavery was not the only factor brings up a number of annoying truths about slavery, like these:
Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves until about half way through the war;
Lincoln fired two generals who did free slaves in 1861 and 1862;
Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his actual control; (imagine the President today stating that the minimum wage is henceforth and forever going to be $25 an hour-- in Mexico and Canada).
The under ground railroad didn't stop at the Mason/Dixon line. It reached all the way to Canada because such states as Illinois (the land of Lincoln) had laws that a black could be whipped if found within the state for more than three days. There were 5 slave states among the Northern states; Slavery was legal in these Northern states after the "emancipation" of slaves that were not under Northern control; Lincoln's idea of how to deal with emancipated slaves was to send them to Africa, and a new African country was created for this purpose; Slavery was legal in the north even after the fall of the Confederacy. The flag that flew over slave ships was the United States' Stars and Stripes, never a Confederate flag.
Do we want to bring up these facts about slavery?: That Africans were captured by other Africans to be sold into slavery? That Africans sold other Africans to Yankee, not to Southern, slave dealers, for transport in Yankee slave ships? That blacks as well as whites owned slaves?
Do we want to recognize that slavery had never been safer than in 1860: Lincoln personally supported a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, which he signed, and Illinois had already ratified it when war broke out.
"The institution of slavery had never been more secure for the slave owners, with the Supreme Court in their back pocket, with the Constitution itself expressly protecting slavery, and mandating the return of fugitive slaves everywhere-- a mandate Lincoln said he would enforce; with Lincoln also declaring he had no right to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; with Lincoln personally supporting a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever . . . There is nothing the South could have asked for, for the protection of slavery, that wouldn't have been gladly provided, just as long as the South remained in the Union" (Adams, 2000).
We don’t believe in black Confederates because when we question that the war was "about slavery," we eventually get around to the question: “What Was The War About?†and “Why were 360,000 Northern boys and men killed?â€
Slavery had died out everywhere in the world except Brazil, and was on its way out in the Southern American States. Slavery had ended almost everywhere in the world without war. Was the death of 600,000 Americans worth ending slavery 10 or 15 years sooner?—or than ending it as it had been ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, by compensated emancipation?
8. Many whites disbelieve that there were black Confederates because of "White Guilt." Many white Americans feel undeserving of their wealth. Certainly, many are undeserving. Some give a small part of their wealth to the poor, and this seems to make them feel better. Others hire the poor to work for them—and then bask in their role as benefactors. Massachusetts writer—and abolitionist-- Henry Thoreau saw through this chimera 20 years before the War. He wrote concerning charity towards the poor at the end of the chapter “Economy,†in his masterpiece Walden. Regarding his wealthy friends who “helped†the poor, by paying them to work in their kitchens, Thoreau wrote: "Let them work in their own kitchens."
One target for giving wealth has traditionally been black causes. A major recipient has been the NAACP, which endorses a movement to shift massive wealth to former slaves. Establishing that some of these slaves supported the Southern States, and that some blacks today, descendants of those slaves, still support the ideals of the Confederacy (and there were other ideals besides slavery), is inconsistent with the fundamental causes of White Guilt.
9. It is inconsistent with the culture of Victimhood. If blacks chose to fight for the South, how can blacks be passive, helpless, unwilling victims? One black liberal dismissed evidence that blacks fought for the Southern Confederacy by referencing the "abused wife syndrome": An accusation that these poor helpless blacks were victims and unable to act with volition and control over their environment. But what do we say of the blacks captured by Yankees who escaped and returned to their units?— Or of the more than 40 blacks attending the 1890 UCV Reunion, pictured in another essay? One has to believe an “abused wife syndrome†that is powerful indeed, to explain the activities of these black Confederates.
10. It brings up the annoying question: Why did blacks fight? If the reasons blacks fought for the South include the same reasons whites fought for the South, or any of the same reasons that anyone fights for any cause in any war, then we have to look at those fighting black Confederates as deliberative, volitional, reasoning, diverse, individuals, just like the whites we talk about, when we talk about why whites fought for the South. This topic is dealt with as a separate essay.
11. It brings up another annoying question: Why did anyone fight for the North? No one really knows why men go to war to fight. Once they get there, they don't fight for their flag, or their country, or God. They fight for their comrades. Some of the issues involved in the discussion of why men fight are presented in another essay in this series, “Why Did Blacks Fight for the Confederate States of America.â€
The literature documenting why men fight is rich: Some of the writers who have tried to explain why men fight include Erich Maria Remarque, Hans Helmut Kirst, Heinrich Böll; William Broyles, and McPherson; Ambrose, etc. Southerners fought because the North invaded the South.
But why did Northerners fight? We do not want to ask that question, and discussing why blacks fought for the South leads us ultimately to the question: Why did anyone fight for the North?
What would you say to a boy from Iowa, bleeding to death in front of a wall near Fredericksburg in December 1862 (note the date: Before the “Emancipationâ€)-- "Your life was lost to help force Arkansas back into a Union she does not wish to be part of"? Or how about: “You gave your life to help force Florida back into a Union that she does not wish to be part ofâ€?
Why did anyone fight for the North? We know why 1 of 5 of them fought-- they were literally off the boat from Ireland or Germany. These immigrants arrived at Ellis Island, and stepped from their ship into a New York Infantry Regiment. They fought in order to get citizenship. But what about the other 4 of 5 Northerners who served in the Union forces? It is indeed a difficult question to answer.
12. We Want to Believe the War Was About Slavery
Accepting that thousands of blacks fought for the Confederate States of America forces us to rethink the common assumption that the War was “about slavery.†Surely no one would dismiss slavery as an important factor. But to most modern Americans, slavery was the factor, perhaps the only factor. Again, to the extent that we believe that thousands of black Confederates fought for their country, our belief in slavery as the cause of the War is threatened. This need for cognitive balance is examined at length in another essay. To summarize that essay: We ask, “what balances the deaths of 600,000 Americans during the years 1861 to 1865?†We need some reason to balance that great tragedy. What is it?
Getting even for Fort Sumter? No. Settling States Rights issues? No-- That answer never seems to explain why so many Americans died. Settling Tariff issues? No-- Same shortcoming, plus, few modern Americans can stay awake during any discussion of tariff issues. How about, to Preserve our Great Experiment in Democracy! No-- it is hard to sell this idea to modern Americans as the reason that more than half a million Americans died. The argument typically holds that had the Confederacy established itself, then there would have been more secessions, until ultimately we would have had a separate country, or two, in everyone’s back yard.
Finally, the End of slavery: Yes: Now there’s a reason we can celebrate: Slavery is bad; The South had slavery; therefore the South was bad and the Good North fought against the South, and slavery ended. Any child can grasp this argument; try explaining tariff issues to that person. Try explaining States Rights to that person—try explaining the issue of free trade and Northern versus Southern import and export economies—try explaining the diverging cultural bases of the North and the South. You will get a big yawn. Consider Ken Burns’s popular and acclaimed The Civil War—the most popular PBS series in history. To his great credit, Mr. Burns shows the appalling tragedy of 600,000 thousand dead Americans. And running throughout this 11 hour drama is the theme that ending slavery was the reason for these deaths. At one point a black woman historian makes that point explicit: The Union lifted the War to a higher plane, she explains. Clearly, Burns has accepted the idea that the War was “over slaveryâ€â€”if only to give some sense to the TV audience who might wonder why America fought itself, and to do it in the TV schedule he had to work with.
Ultimately we believe the War was about the Ending of Slavery because that is the only cause that provides the cognitive balance we need.
The great evil of more than 600,000 deaths “balances†in our minds against the great evil of slavery.
Many of us will never believe that Lee Oswald acted alone in killing President John Kennedy (no “balanceâ€)—many of us will believe that the U.S. entering World War I was a great victory—we will not believe that 160,000 more lives were wasted, and that our tipping the balance against Germany and Austria in 1918 lead directly to Hitler, and to WWII with another 100,000,000 dead, and to 40 years of Cold War. “Ending Slavery†provides that cognitive balance for the War of 1861-- Never mind that slavery ended everywhere else in the world without bloodshed. Never mind that other factors explain that the North and South became different countries long before 1860. Slavery provides that simple cognitive explanation.
Any evidence that blacks fought for the South is inconsistent with the notion that the War was only about slavery.
References:
Adams, Charles. (2000). When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Barrow, C. K., Segars, J. H., & R.B. Rosenburg, R.B. (Eds.) (2001). Black Confederates, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna.
REBEL GRAY
http://www.rebelgray.com/index.htm
Many people reject the evidence that thousands of the South's 3,880,000 blacks, both free men and slaves, labored and fought, willingly, for the Southern Confederacy.
Why do they not believe, given the many accounts in the Official Records, contemporary newspaper reports, photographs, pension application records, and recollections of black Southerners? Here are 11 explanations.
1. It may force us to change what we believe. Changing our beliefs is troublesome and effortful. Most of us have always believed that both the Confederate and Union armies were all white, just like they are shown in the 1994 film Gettysburg.
2. It is not what most others believe. The leading guideline for adult behavior in questionable moral areas, according to the classic work of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is “What would people think?†(i.e., “what are other people doingâ€). We base our behavior—and ideas—on what others are doing, so that we appear “normal.†Since few others believe in black Confederates, we will not either, in order to fit in with the majority.
3. It might contradict a prejudice. Are we ready to accept that a black man could be every bit as brave, and every bit as dedicated, as a white man in combat? Rejecting the claim that blacks fought is consistent with a prejudice against blacks. Perhaps those who reject out of hand the idea of black Confederates are expressing their own prejudice against blacks.
4. It complicates our simple stereotype of blacks vs. whites as separate groups. But in truth, are these groups more alike than different? Maybe seeing them as different groups allows us to perceive differences that are not really there? A more complex perception is of one larger group with many diverse individuals, not of two groups of similar individuals. The simpler perception that fits a black versus white stereotype is consistent with the view that there were no black Confederates.
5. How do we now teach Civil War history in 10 minutes? How do we summarize the reasons for the war in a few sentences, if in fact thousands of black Southerners fired in anger at the Northern troops coming "to free them"? At least one Northern soldier put his frustration at that incident into the Official Record of the War of the Rebellion: "Here I had come South and was fighting to free this man," the disgusted U.S. major wrote in his diary; "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head off" (Barrow et al., 2001, p. 43).
6. It complicates the simple portrayal of the North as Good, driving out the “Wicked Southern Slave master.†How can Northern soldiers serve in the role as Angels of Mercy, if black Confederates shot at them?
7. It weakens support for the claim that the War was About Slavery
We like simplicity. "The War was About Slavery" is simple, as simple as a Pepsi commercial. For a society raised on Pepsi commercials, the One Factor Theory (slavery) has enormous appeal. If many blacks chose to fight for the South, how could the War have been exclusively concerned with slavery? Maybe there were other issues. Now we might have to examine economic factors (No—not that!).
We also have to consider why individual black Southerners fought. Some were slave owners themselves, and/or occupied respected positions in their communities as Free Men of Color (especially Louisiana and Virginia) or Free Women of Color (as in Charleston, with its 6000 free blacks, mostly women)
.
Suggesting the slavery was not the only factor brings up a number of annoying truths about slavery, like these:
Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves until about half way through the war;
Lincoln fired two generals who did free slaves in 1861 and 1862;
Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his actual control; (imagine the President today stating that the minimum wage is henceforth and forever going to be $25 an hour-- in Mexico and Canada).
The under ground railroad didn't stop at the Mason/Dixon line. It reached all the way to Canada because such states as Illinois (the land of Lincoln) had laws that a black could be whipped if found within the state for more than three days. There were 5 slave states among the Northern states; Slavery was legal in these Northern states after the "emancipation" of slaves that were not under Northern control; Lincoln's idea of how to deal with emancipated slaves was to send them to Africa, and a new African country was created for this purpose; Slavery was legal in the north even after the fall of the Confederacy. The flag that flew over slave ships was the United States' Stars and Stripes, never a Confederate flag.
Do we want to bring up these facts about slavery?: That Africans were captured by other Africans to be sold into slavery? That Africans sold other Africans to Yankee, not to Southern, slave dealers, for transport in Yankee slave ships? That blacks as well as whites owned slaves?
Do we want to recognize that slavery had never been safer than in 1860: Lincoln personally supported a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, which he signed, and Illinois had already ratified it when war broke out.
"The institution of slavery had never been more secure for the slave owners, with the Supreme Court in their back pocket, with the Constitution itself expressly protecting slavery, and mandating the return of fugitive slaves everywhere-- a mandate Lincoln said he would enforce; with Lincoln also declaring he had no right to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; with Lincoln personally supporting a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever . . . There is nothing the South could have asked for, for the protection of slavery, that wouldn't have been gladly provided, just as long as the South remained in the Union" (Adams, 2000).
We don’t believe in black Confederates because when we question that the war was "about slavery," we eventually get around to the question: “What Was The War About?†and “Why were 360,000 Northern boys and men killed?â€
Slavery had died out everywhere in the world except Brazil, and was on its way out in the Southern American States. Slavery had ended almost everywhere in the world without war. Was the death of 600,000 Americans worth ending slavery 10 or 15 years sooner?—or than ending it as it had been ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, by compensated emancipation?
8. Many whites disbelieve that there were black Confederates because of "White Guilt." Many white Americans feel undeserving of their wealth. Certainly, many are undeserving. Some give a small part of their wealth to the poor, and this seems to make them feel better. Others hire the poor to work for them—and then bask in their role as benefactors. Massachusetts writer—and abolitionist-- Henry Thoreau saw through this chimera 20 years before the War. He wrote concerning charity towards the poor at the end of the chapter “Economy,†in his masterpiece Walden. Regarding his wealthy friends who “helped†the poor, by paying them to work in their kitchens, Thoreau wrote: "Let them work in their own kitchens."
One target for giving wealth has traditionally been black causes. A major recipient has been the NAACP, which endorses a movement to shift massive wealth to former slaves. Establishing that some of these slaves supported the Southern States, and that some blacks today, descendants of those slaves, still support the ideals of the Confederacy (and there were other ideals besides slavery), is inconsistent with the fundamental causes of White Guilt.
9. It is inconsistent with the culture of Victimhood. If blacks chose to fight for the South, how can blacks be passive, helpless, unwilling victims? One black liberal dismissed evidence that blacks fought for the Southern Confederacy by referencing the "abused wife syndrome": An accusation that these poor helpless blacks were victims and unable to act with volition and control over their environment. But what do we say of the blacks captured by Yankees who escaped and returned to their units?— Or of the more than 40 blacks attending the 1890 UCV Reunion, pictured in another essay? One has to believe an “abused wife syndrome†that is powerful indeed, to explain the activities of these black Confederates.
10. It brings up the annoying question: Why did blacks fight? If the reasons blacks fought for the South include the same reasons whites fought for the South, or any of the same reasons that anyone fights for any cause in any war, then we have to look at those fighting black Confederates as deliberative, volitional, reasoning, diverse, individuals, just like the whites we talk about, when we talk about why whites fought for the South. This topic is dealt with as a separate essay.
11. It brings up another annoying question: Why did anyone fight for the North? No one really knows why men go to war to fight. Once they get there, they don't fight for their flag, or their country, or God. They fight for their comrades. Some of the issues involved in the discussion of why men fight are presented in another essay in this series, “Why Did Blacks Fight for the Confederate States of America.â€
The literature documenting why men fight is rich: Some of the writers who have tried to explain why men fight include Erich Maria Remarque, Hans Helmut Kirst, Heinrich Böll; William Broyles, and McPherson; Ambrose, etc. Southerners fought because the North invaded the South.
But why did Northerners fight? We do not want to ask that question, and discussing why blacks fought for the South leads us ultimately to the question: Why did anyone fight for the North?
What would you say to a boy from Iowa, bleeding to death in front of a wall near Fredericksburg in December 1862 (note the date: Before the “Emancipationâ€)-- "Your life was lost to help force Arkansas back into a Union she does not wish to be part of"? Or how about: “You gave your life to help force Florida back into a Union that she does not wish to be part ofâ€?
Why did anyone fight for the North? We know why 1 of 5 of them fought-- they were literally off the boat from Ireland or Germany. These immigrants arrived at Ellis Island, and stepped from their ship into a New York Infantry Regiment. They fought in order to get citizenship. But what about the other 4 of 5 Northerners who served in the Union forces? It is indeed a difficult question to answer.
12. We Want to Believe the War Was About Slavery
Accepting that thousands of blacks fought for the Confederate States of America forces us to rethink the common assumption that the War was “about slavery.†Surely no one would dismiss slavery as an important factor. But to most modern Americans, slavery was the factor, perhaps the only factor. Again, to the extent that we believe that thousands of black Confederates fought for their country, our belief in slavery as the cause of the War is threatened. This need for cognitive balance is examined at length in another essay. To summarize that essay: We ask, “what balances the deaths of 600,000 Americans during the years 1861 to 1865?†We need some reason to balance that great tragedy. What is it?
Getting even for Fort Sumter? No. Settling States Rights issues? No-- That answer never seems to explain why so many Americans died. Settling Tariff issues? No-- Same shortcoming, plus, few modern Americans can stay awake during any discussion of tariff issues. How about, to Preserve our Great Experiment in Democracy! No-- it is hard to sell this idea to modern Americans as the reason that more than half a million Americans died. The argument typically holds that had the Confederacy established itself, then there would have been more secessions, until ultimately we would have had a separate country, or two, in everyone’s back yard.
Finally, the End of slavery: Yes: Now there’s a reason we can celebrate: Slavery is bad; The South had slavery; therefore the South was bad and the Good North fought against the South, and slavery ended. Any child can grasp this argument; try explaining tariff issues to that person. Try explaining States Rights to that person—try explaining the issue of free trade and Northern versus Southern import and export economies—try explaining the diverging cultural bases of the North and the South. You will get a big yawn. Consider Ken Burns’s popular and acclaimed The Civil War—the most popular PBS series in history. To his great credit, Mr. Burns shows the appalling tragedy of 600,000 thousand dead Americans. And running throughout this 11 hour drama is the theme that ending slavery was the reason for these deaths. At one point a black woman historian makes that point explicit: The Union lifted the War to a higher plane, she explains. Clearly, Burns has accepted the idea that the War was “over slaveryâ€â€”if only to give some sense to the TV audience who might wonder why America fought itself, and to do it in the TV schedule he had to work with.
Ultimately we believe the War was about the Ending of Slavery because that is the only cause that provides the cognitive balance we need.
The great evil of more than 600,000 deaths “balances†in our minds against the great evil of slavery.
Many of us will never believe that Lee Oswald acted alone in killing President John Kennedy (no “balanceâ€)—many of us will believe that the U.S. entering World War I was a great victory—we will not believe that 160,000 more lives were wasted, and that our tipping the balance against Germany and Austria in 1918 lead directly to Hitler, and to WWII with another 100,000,000 dead, and to 40 years of Cold War. “Ending Slavery†provides that cognitive balance for the War of 1861-- Never mind that slavery ended everywhere else in the world without bloodshed. Never mind that other factors explain that the North and South became different countries long before 1860. Slavery provides that simple cognitive explanation.
Any evidence that blacks fought for the South is inconsistent with the notion that the War was only about slavery.
References:
Adams, Charles. (2000). When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Barrow, C. K., Segars, J. H., & R.B. Rosenburg, R.B. (Eds.) (2001). Black Confederates, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna.
Filed under Southern Blogs by
November 12, 2005
Those of you who are young Southern Americans, or have roots and ancestors going back into the history of the South, should take heed of the chance to truly be independent in your life.
Liberty, Freedom, Independence. Only three words, but they represent lofty ideals; and, if you are Southern, they are your inheritance that came from people from the South such as; Patrick Henry; sponsor of the 1st Amendments, "our bill of rights", John Paul Jones; founder of our American Navy, George Washington; " Founder of our Country" , Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence , also from the South, Andrew Jackson, "Ole Hickory" - Jim Bowie, Davey Crockett, Sam Houston, Thomas Travis, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest . These are only a few of the great men you need to read of and honor their sacrifice and the values that they stood for. Our schools today do not teach this message. Only the message of their failures in an effort to portray them as bad Americans.
What do you inherit? Not monetary wealth, fame or power - but a history, a legacy, a heritage that you should cherish. For this inheritance can not be bought by you - it was already purchased with the blood, sweat, tears, pain, sacrifice and suffering of your ancestors.
Your ancestors worked hard for a better life for their families and you are now reaping the benefits of their sacrifice. Most came from Europe, with a strong Christian background, only asking for the opportunity to build a better life.
Some came from Africa, brought to America in chains and ALL have become what is now America, the USA. None came from a single Southern vessel; they were brought here by British, Portuguese and yankee ships flying the flag of THAT country, (not under a Confederate flag). All became Americans, and in the end, most would never have traded that facet of their being for anything. Very few Southerns were wealthy enough to own slaves, (less than 7%). Many whites were in fact indentured servants in order to win passage to the "New World". Representatives from the South pleaded to the Northern slave traders to STOP any more importation of slaves, to no avail. The Confederate flag (St. Andrews Cross) had not been even thought of at this time.
In 1776, your ancestors took up arms against what they labeled a tyrant Britain, and led a fledgling confederation of colonies to independence. In 1861, your ancestors ( from the South) legally & peacefully broke away from an ever increasing tyrannical government that sought to dominate, control, and economically control by tariff (taxes) 24% , off the sweat of blacks, colonize the Southern states and her people -" the same reasons for the rebellion of 1776". (No Taxation without representation). You owe it to yourself and to your ancestors to learn about this, an integral part of their history - and yours as well. Those that care less of history tend to repeat it or either fall into an abyss of ignorance. After the fall of the Confederacy, an oppressive reconstruction period was imposed on the Southern people. Under Subjugation they worked hard to get back into the political and economic system to try to make their children's prospects better. They again took up arms to defend the United States in the Spanish American War, the 1st Great War, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam and all wars thereafter. In fact Southern patriots (Black & White), took an active part in winning these conflicts while trying to secure liberty, freedom and independence in a greater proportion than any other section of the country per population. Again, in Desert Storm and the current anti-terrorist actions, our Southern people - men and women - are leading the way in fighting for freedom and for that better life for others.
You don't read about these things very often in history books. You don't hear the news media reporting from this viewpoint. You may even find political leaders and celebrities not only suppressing and ridiculing your heritage, but outright lying about it to promote their own political agendas.
Hate is not part of what you are, although to listen to some politicians, watch TV or movies, you would think most Southern blacks and whites can't stand each other. Thankfully, we know better. We share far more than most of us realize.
Celebrate the Real Heroes - like your parents, a Grandfather, an Uncle or a mentor of the South. Don't be duped by the trash of our society, those that call themselves players or pimps. Don't be fooled by the advertising, the false images in TV and movies about what happiness and life is all about, about alternative lifestyles, or the demonization of the Christian contribution to this country, world peace, and civilization. For them it is all about power, control and money. They wish to enslave you, the way you think, the way you act, what you do - and only because they profit from your allowing yourself to be a lemming, ready to go over that cliff just because everyone else is too.
Celebrate the real heroes -" Your Ancestors", those who came before you, those who did what had to be done so that you could be here now, and don't grip because you've had it a little rough; - - Believe me, They had it MUCH rougher than you'll ever know. Today & Now; clear your mind totally from the race baiters and politically correct media and politicians. Do this by learning your own history, and celebrate it, whatever it may be. Become independent in thinking. Don't let the rap or rock musicians, movie stars, TV celebrities, fashion models, news media or athletic stars do your thinking for you. Again, for them it is all about power, control and money $ $ $ - period !
No one said that everything done by your ancestors was perfect. They were human and they, too, made mistakes, just like you and everyone around you. Yes, some were brought here against their wishes. But, in general, they all tried to do their best for the situations and times they lived in, (and don't be brainwashed too much by today's movies).
We may say our morals are not quiet the same as our forefathers yet our standards have also changed. - Morals are always a part of " what is wrong - & what is right " - That will never change. Standards are; what the general public conforms to, ( this is always changing according to what the public accepts or submits to )
So Today, make a pledge of independence from the false world that these high profile personalities and politicians try to trap you in. Instead celebrate your history and heritage. Celebrate your parents, grandparents, and ancestors. Learn about them, and about the ancestors of your friends. Live the values and traditions of your Southern roots. I promise; Once you go on this journey of your Forefathers, - you shall eternally be immersed in the joy of life.
Seek and ye shall find!
Tom Manning
SCV Camp 308
Ashville, Ala.
Filed under Southern Blogs by
November 11, 2005
by Al Benson Jr.
Over the years I have mentioned, in many articles, the connections between what went on in Europe in 1848 and what went on in America from 1861-65. A few of these are probably still out there on various Internet sites.
Many have looked askance, or down their noses, at my research and contentions. It has never occurred to them that 1848 in Europe could ever have anything to do with 1861 in the United States. That thinking is way outside the box for them and most would just as soon stay inside the box. They are comfortable in there discussing battles, generals, strategies, personalities, etc. They don't wish to go where I have been. Or, as one homeschooling mom once said to me when I brought up the subject of the sainted Mr. Lincoln: "I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln. I don't want to go there with you." She didn't. Thankfully, others have been willing to make the trip, not because of anything I said or did, but on their own, because they sought the truth.
John J. Dwyer, in his excellent new history book "The War Between the States--America's Uncivil War" has made the connections. He has duly noted: "What became the single overarching revolution of 1848 failed in all eighteen places where it broke out. But the ideas spawned would survive to define the century that followed...America's conflict of 1861-65 in rarely considered in this context, at least by Americans. An awareness of it is critical in grasping the key philosophical principles at stake in the struggle between what became the Northern and Southern governments. Just as European theology, fashions and culture influenced 19th century America, particularly the North, so did European political theory. The tens of thousands of Europeans who participated in the 1848 revolutions and them immigrated to America (again, especially the North) accelerated this influence...The revolutionaries of 1848 faced an America with three different cultures, economies, and religious bases. They determined to remove those differences by a series of political manuevers." And, in many instances, their instrument for removing those differences was "The Communist Manifesto."
We might, indeed should, ask how close Lincoln and then the Radical Reconstructionist crowd after him came to implementing Marxist goals in the United States. So let's take a brief look at what Marx advocated for the overthrow of a country and see how close Lincoln & Associates approximated it.
Marx advocated the elimination of private property. The radicals advocated mandatory property taxes, to be determined by and payable to the government, or else the "owner's" property is duly "confiscated" (stolen). Does that one sound vaguely familiar to anyone today?
Marx sought a progressive, "graducated income tax." Mr. Lincoln gave us the Internal Revenue Service in 1862 and we are still "doubly blessed" with that institution today.
Marx wanted state control of banking. During the war years we got the Federal Banking Act. And Marx also sought state-controlled currency. Lincoln's administration gave us the National Banking Act in 1863. Mr. Marx wanted state-controlled labor, and today we have federal wage controls.
The Marxists advocated state-controlled agriculture. The Southern Redistrubution Act redistrubuted much property in the South into collectives. Much more was taken for the construction of "public" educational facilities (indoctrination centers). Naturally, all of this property was under the control of Yankee carpetbaggers.
And then, the crowning achievement--state controlled education. Marx sought "free education for all children in public schools." The Morrill Land Grant Act, passed during Mr. Lincoln's tenure in office authorized federal aid to established, government-controlled colleges. Naturally, with such aid came the attached strings--federal government regulations. And today, we in the South, as well as in the rest of the country, suffer with the illegitimate child of "Reconstruction" the government school system, which works overtime teaching the South's children to be ashamed of their history and heritage and what their ancestors fought for.
In light of all this, just ask yourself how identical were the goals of Marx and Lincoln and his radical followers. Go back and read the list again. I may be a bit dense, but I can't seem to find any major differences between Marxism and Lincolnism, but then, that's just me.
Ask yourself how many of these little Marxist/Lincolnist treats we all live with today, even under our supposedly "conservative" administration. Maybe we have already become the Marxist/Lincolnist States of Amerika and don't even realize it. But, then, as they say "the brainwashed never wonder" especially if they were "educated" in a government school!
Over the years I have mentioned, in many articles, the connections between what went on in Europe in 1848 and what went on in America from 1861-65. A few of these are probably still out there on various Internet sites.
Many have looked askance, or down their noses, at my research and contentions. It has never occurred to them that 1848 in Europe could ever have anything to do with 1861 in the United States. That thinking is way outside the box for them and most would just as soon stay inside the box. They are comfortable in there discussing battles, generals, strategies, personalities, etc. They don't wish to go where I have been. Or, as one homeschooling mom once said to me when I brought up the subject of the sainted Mr. Lincoln: "I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln. I don't want to go there with you." She didn't. Thankfully, others have been willing to make the trip, not because of anything I said or did, but on their own, because they sought the truth.
John J. Dwyer, in his excellent new history book "The War Between the States--America's Uncivil War" has made the connections. He has duly noted: "What became the single overarching revolution of 1848 failed in all eighteen places where it broke out. But the ideas spawned would survive to define the century that followed...America's conflict of 1861-65 in rarely considered in this context, at least by Americans. An awareness of it is critical in grasping the key philosophical principles at stake in the struggle between what became the Northern and Southern governments. Just as European theology, fashions and culture influenced 19th century America, particularly the North, so did European political theory. The tens of thousands of Europeans who participated in the 1848 revolutions and them immigrated to America (again, especially the North) accelerated this influence...The revolutionaries of 1848 faced an America with three different cultures, economies, and religious bases. They determined to remove those differences by a series of political manuevers." And, in many instances, their instrument for removing those differences was "The Communist Manifesto."
We might, indeed should, ask how close Lincoln and then the Radical Reconstructionist crowd after him came to implementing Marxist goals in the United States. So let's take a brief look at what Marx advocated for the overthrow of a country and see how close Lincoln & Associates approximated it.
Marx advocated the elimination of private property. The radicals advocated mandatory property taxes, to be determined by and payable to the government, or else the "owner's" property is duly "confiscated" (stolen). Does that one sound vaguely familiar to anyone today?
Marx sought a progressive, "graducated income tax." Mr. Lincoln gave us the Internal Revenue Service in 1862 and we are still "doubly blessed" with that institution today.
Marx wanted state control of banking. During the war years we got the Federal Banking Act. And Marx also sought state-controlled currency. Lincoln's administration gave us the National Banking Act in 1863. Mr. Marx wanted state-controlled labor, and today we have federal wage controls.
The Marxists advocated state-controlled agriculture. The Southern Redistrubution Act redistrubuted much property in the South into collectives. Much more was taken for the construction of "public" educational facilities (indoctrination centers). Naturally, all of this property was under the control of Yankee carpetbaggers.
And then, the crowning achievement--state controlled education. Marx sought "free education for all children in public schools." The Morrill Land Grant Act, passed during Mr. Lincoln's tenure in office authorized federal aid to established, government-controlled colleges. Naturally, with such aid came the attached strings--federal government regulations. And today, we in the South, as well as in the rest of the country, suffer with the illegitimate child of "Reconstruction" the government school system, which works overtime teaching the South's children to be ashamed of their history and heritage and what their ancestors fought for.
In light of all this, just ask yourself how identical were the goals of Marx and Lincoln and his radical followers. Go back and read the list again. I may be a bit dense, but I can't seem to find any major differences between Marxism and Lincolnism, but then, that's just me.
Ask yourself how many of these little Marxist/Lincolnist treats we all live with today, even under our supposedly "conservative" administration. Maybe we have already become the Marxist/Lincolnist States of Amerika and don't even realize it. But, then, as they say "the brainwashed never wonder" especially if they were "educated" in a government school!
Filed under Southern History by
November 8, 2005
Successive secessions, succinctly
by N. Waller
You folks who dream of the South seceding, are you ready for others to apply the same gusto to the new Confederacy? Once it's established, what's to (for instance) stop Northern FL from seceding from Southern -- a long-cherished idea to some! -- or the Deep South from seceding from the Upper South? What about the "western" parts of Dixie deciding someday to go their own way together? Texas already wants to go completely independent again.
Blissfully forgotten in all the discussion about secesh is the basic fact of conservative psychology: our people would much rather fight each other than the enemy. And the first thing they do once they form an organization is to start squabbling and regrouping -- Southerners no less than anybody.
But really, I don't see why political secession is necessary if we first succeed en masse in personal, spiritual, doctrinal, and economic secession -- nor does it seem possible for the former process to ever succeed without the latter. OK, we want to do away with the hated IRS and income tax. How many are willing to take the surprisingly simple steps to safely get off the taxpayer treadmill right now? This is not Waller beating his breast about his own derring-do, merely an honest inquiry as to what mindset is really at work here.
So you don't want to secede from the IRS -- the utter embodiment of yankee tyranny and arrogance. How about canceling those yankeefied periodicals you're getting -- starting with the daily newspaper? Yes, the daily paper in your city is a low-down yankee hate rag. Ah, you don't feel you can give that up just yet -- then what about sitting your children down for just TEN MINUTES apiece each school night and sorting through the bilge they're getting from teachers, setting them straight as needed? Next, let's consider the yankee factor in radio, TV and movies -- no, let's quit while were ahead!
Many who favor secesh in SHNV ARE indeed doers and pioneers. Many are not. Some don't necessarily support it but use it as a mcguffin whereby to skewer media hypocrisy -- definitely a worthy pursuit as well! I just feel the rest of it needs airing, and may my purist friends forgive me.
LET'S JUST SAY . . . . that Southerners EDUCATED and EDIFIED themselves enough in TRUTH across the board, to the point that a mere 75% of us knew:
* the Ten Commandments
* at least 50 key Bible verses by heart -- the gutsy, politically incorrect, "CONTROVERSIAL" kind
* at least one verse of at least 50 standard hymns -- not "I'll Fly Away" but the gutsy, politically incorrect, "CONTROVERSIAL" kind!
* Fox's Book of Martyrs (abridged)
* the Declaration and Constitution
* basic law, history, economics, taxation INCLUDING THE NATURE OF PROPERTY
* the full names of their great-grandparents
* the way things used to be -- good and bad
* the full extent of Anglo-yankee perfidy, 1000 AD to present
If this were the case, there's no way we could remain enslaved to yankees in ANY sense or department of life. The bad ties that exist would self-destruct. Mainly, one of two things would happen: South would announce it was now politically seceding, and North would wish her a fond goodbye (knowing it was absolutely useless to fight it this time!), or North would prostrate her before South and beg for training in all important aspects of life. Truth sets people free; it's inevitable, like water makes things wet.
Numerically, very few Southrons have a handle on the above subjects apart from groups like the readership of SHNV -- and I wonder how many of US have them together, either, even though they're really not much of an undertaking. If we would get our OWN act together our problems would take care of themselves. In a society where most people know basic economic and demographic truth, for instance, unassimilable aliens will WILLINGLY leave, and ask only a peaceable one-way ticket out.
The older I get the more I realize how VIRTUALLY ALL of my own problems have been of my OWN making -- and how true this is of whole societies as well. Just thinking out loud here!
by N. Waller
You folks who dream of the South seceding, are you ready for others to apply the same gusto to the new Confederacy? Once it's established, what's to (for instance) stop Northern FL from seceding from Southern -- a long-cherished idea to some! -- or the Deep South from seceding from the Upper South? What about the "western" parts of Dixie deciding someday to go their own way together? Texas already wants to go completely independent again.
Blissfully forgotten in all the discussion about secesh is the basic fact of conservative psychology: our people would much rather fight each other than the enemy. And the first thing they do once they form an organization is to start squabbling and regrouping -- Southerners no less than anybody.
But really, I don't see why political secession is necessary if we first succeed en masse in personal, spiritual, doctrinal, and economic secession -- nor does it seem possible for the former process to ever succeed without the latter. OK, we want to do away with the hated IRS and income tax. How many are willing to take the surprisingly simple steps to safely get off the taxpayer treadmill right now? This is not Waller beating his breast about his own derring-do, merely an honest inquiry as to what mindset is really at work here.
So you don't want to secede from the IRS -- the utter embodiment of yankee tyranny and arrogance. How about canceling those yankeefied periodicals you're getting -- starting with the daily newspaper? Yes, the daily paper in your city is a low-down yankee hate rag. Ah, you don't feel you can give that up just yet -- then what about sitting your children down for just TEN MINUTES apiece each school night and sorting through the bilge they're getting from teachers, setting them straight as needed? Next, let's consider the yankee factor in radio, TV and movies -- no, let's quit while were ahead!
Many who favor secesh in SHNV ARE indeed doers and pioneers. Many are not. Some don't necessarily support it but use it as a mcguffin whereby to skewer media hypocrisy -- definitely a worthy pursuit as well! I just feel the rest of it needs airing, and may my purist friends forgive me.
LET'S JUST SAY . . . . that Southerners EDUCATED and EDIFIED themselves enough in TRUTH across the board, to the point that a mere 75% of us knew:
* the Ten Commandments
* at least 50 key Bible verses by heart -- the gutsy, politically incorrect, "CONTROVERSIAL" kind
* at least one verse of at least 50 standard hymns -- not "I'll Fly Away" but the gutsy, politically incorrect, "CONTROVERSIAL" kind!
* Fox's Book of Martyrs (abridged)
* the Declaration and Constitution
* basic law, history, economics, taxation INCLUDING THE NATURE OF PROPERTY
* the full names of their great-grandparents
* the way things used to be -- good and bad
* the full extent of Anglo-yankee perfidy, 1000 AD to present
If this were the case, there's no way we could remain enslaved to yankees in ANY sense or department of life. The bad ties that exist would self-destruct. Mainly, one of two things would happen: South would announce it was now politically seceding, and North would wish her a fond goodbye (knowing it was absolutely useless to fight it this time!), or North would prostrate her before South and beg for training in all important aspects of life. Truth sets people free; it's inevitable, like water makes things wet.
Numerically, very few Southrons have a handle on the above subjects apart from groups like the readership of SHNV -- and I wonder how many of US have them together, either, even though they're really not much of an undertaking. If we would get our OWN act together our problems would take care of themselves. In a society where most people know basic economic and demographic truth, for instance, unassimilable aliens will WILLINGLY leave, and ask only a peaceable one-way ticket out.
The older I get the more I realize how VIRTUALLY ALL of my own problems have been of my OWN making -- and how true this is of whole societies as well. Just thinking out loud here!
Filed under Southern Blogs by
Recent Comments