Virginia Textbook Controversy: Virgin...

Virginia Textbook Controversy: Virginia Textbook Contains Incorrect Civil War Information - wtvr

There are 71 comments on the WTVR story from Oct 21, 2010, titled Virginia Textbook Controversy: Virginia Textbook Contains Incorrect Civil War Information - wtvr. In it, WTVR reports that:

You've heard the saying: "you can't believe everything you read". Now that phrase applies to a textbook used by teachers in some Virginia classrooms.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WTVR.

Snicker

Birmingham, AL

#21 Oct 22, 2010
fedupwiththemess wrote:
<quoted text>Nope...I blame whitey. Why was whitey over in africa buying humans to do his dirty work? Not talking about slavery in other countries. Talking about the USA only. Blacks were the ONLY race of folks who were slaves in the USA and treated like animals. You are reapong what you sowed.....WHITEY!
You are beyond stupid. No one alive today "sowed" anything, and no one alive today was a slave. Very few whites alive today have ancestors that owned slaves, very few whites owned slaves during the days of slavery. None of my ancestors did. MY ancestors hid run away slaves in the caves around our home place, but a black person will talk s*** to me as if I personally owned slaves. Blacks sold blacks into slavery. There is no way people could have enslaved anyone without the help of their own people. There is still slavery today but people like you had rather dwell on things that took place hundreds of years ago. People are so freaking ignorant about slavery and the Civil War even when reading actual handwritten accounts and articles. Blacks were not the only race of slaves in the states and Americans were not the only slave owners.

Black Americans continued to hold slaves through the Civil War. In 1860, some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves. In South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 blacks were owned by black slaveholders.

Born a slave in 1790, William Ellison owned 63 slaves by 1860, making him one of Charleston's leading slaveholders. In the 1850 census for Charleston City, the port of Charleston, there were 68 black men and 123 black women who owned slaves. In Louisiana's St. Landry Parish, according to the 1860 census, black planter Auguste Donatto owned 70 slaves and farmed 500 acres of cotton fields.

Black slaveholders were the exception to the rule, but so, too, were white ones. Only a small minority of Southern whites owned slaves, little more than five percent of the white population if calculated by individual owner, or some 20 to 25 percent if all the members of the slaveowners' families are included. This means that 75 percent or more of Southerners neither owned slaves themselves nor were members of families who did.

-- Roger D. McGrath, in "Slavery's Inconvenient Facts," Chronicles magazine, November 2001.
Snicker

Birmingham, AL

#22 Oct 22, 2010
Barros Serrano wrote:
Confederats still trying to cloak their perfidy in rationalizations...
EVIL was the fight to preserve slavery... all those so engaged were traitors and reprobates.
For crying out loud, get an education!
mat

Powhatan, VA

#23 Oct 22, 2010
If people do any amount of research they can easily find where black confederate soldiers were a big part of the Confederate cause. In Lynchburg 70 black men enlisted to fight for the defense of Virginia soon after it seceded. In Hampton 300 blacks volunteered to serve in artillery batteries. With numbers like that locally I can see there being thousands of black Confederates across the south.

In August 1868, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest stated to a reporter about black soldiers " these boys stayed with me...and better Confederates did not live."

General Robert E Lee himself stated "when you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South". Fredrick Douglas also said about black Confederates "there were not only cooks and servants but real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets ready to shoot down and do all that soldiers must do to destroy the Federal government".

This is not to say that being black in the South was a cakewalk, but there are many reports of blacks being abused and treated worse in the Northern States. It is history that blacks served for the Confederate cause. If the question is how many and why the answers shouldn't be too hard to find. You just have to read the history printed during the time of the Civil War and not after Reconstruction.
chesterfield

Richmond, VA

#24 Oct 22, 2010
Lilbird wrote:
<quoted text>
True, The United States of America was and is the only nation to ever declare (and in a written document at that) ALL men to have been created equally and with certain inaliable rights, that is the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ummm pretty hard to accomplish that when one is enslaved, I would think. As for calling them whitey, I'm not down with that. I just can't see blaming today's whites for what their predecessors did. On the other hand, I just don't understand honoring people who enslaved other human beings and treated them no better than animals, if even that good. I wish a white person could explain that to me in a way that I would be able to understand. I'm open to it, really I am.
you see we( the white people) are in the same boat YOU are in. In one hand YOU dont know anyone who was a slave back then and what they really went threw.....WE (white people) dont know ANYONE who had blacks as slaves....so we cant give you an answer on how we could have done that. The people who did this are dead and so are their answers!! In this day in time most of us (the white people) dont understand how they treated black people back then. People need to put this in the past.
Lilbird

Richmond, VA

#25 Oct 22, 2010
chesterfield wrote:
<quoted text>
you see we( the white people) are in the same boat YOU are in. In one hand YOU dont know anyone who was a slave back then and what they really went threw.....WE (white people) dont know ANYONE who had blacks as slaves....so we cant give you an answer on how we could have done that. The people who did this are dead and so are their answers!! In this day in time most of us (the white people) dont understand how they treated black people back then. People need to put this in the past.
Thank you kindly. I can understand where you're coming from about us pretty much being in the same boat. That was a totally different time from a totally different perspective. However, the one lurking question I do have for white people (who are alive today) can you not understand why it is that black people have a problem with folks celebrating a heritage that is considered honorable to you(whites) but abhorent to blacks. Afterall this heritage did include human bondage, it's ugly, yes but it's truth. Oh, yeah Africans sold their own people into slavery. But then, no where in Africa was it written that all men were created equal with certain alienable rights. Of course we did not live back then, but slavery is a barbaric system no matter when it occured or who did the enslaving. How can people honor people who would commit such an atrocity against another human being? And of all places......the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
Snicker

Birmingham, AL

#26 Oct 22, 2010
Slavery in the North: On the other hand, the paternal interest that 19th century Southern owners attempted to cultivate for their slaves was absent in the North, for the most part, and the colonies there had to resort to laws to prevent masters from simply turning their slaves out in the streets when the slaves grew old or infirm. And across the North an evident pattern emerges: the more slaves lived in a place, the wider the controls, and the more brutal the punishments for transgressions.


http://www.slavenorth.com/
Mort

Mechanicsville, VA

#27 Oct 22, 2010
Lilbird wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you kindly. I can understand where you're coming from about us pretty much being in the same boat. That was a totally different time from a totally different perspective. However, the one lurking question I do have for white people (who are alive today) can you not understand why it is that black people have a problem with folks celebrating a heritage that is considered honorable to you(whites) but abhorent to blacks. Afterall this heritage did include human bondage, it's ugly, yes but it's truth. Oh, yeah Africans sold their own people into slavery. But then, no where in Africa was it written that all men were created equal with certain alienable rights. Of course we did not live back then, but slavery is a barbaric system no matter when it occured or who did the enslaving. How can people honor people who would commit such an atrocity against another human being? And of all places......the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
for you its about slavery.for southerners its about states rights.a hot topic right now that our ancestors can appreciate.We were the masters you might have been a slave.your argument was lost long ago.you are treated as equals now.be happy and move on.
Snicker

Birmingham, AL

#28 Oct 22, 2010
Lilbird wrote:
<quoted text> Thank you kindly. I can understand where you're coming from about us pretty much being in the same boat. That was a totally different time from a totally different perspective. However, the one lurking question I do have for white people (who are alive today) can you not understand why it is that black people have a problem with folks celebrating a heritage that is considered honorable to you(whites) but abhorent to blacks. Afterall this heritage did include human bondage, it's ugly, yes but it's truth. Oh, yeah Africans sold their own people into slavery. But then, no where in Africa was it written that all men were created equal with certain alienable rights. Of course we did not live back then, but slavery is a barbaric system no matter when it occured or who did the enslaving. How can people honor people who would commit such an atrocity against another human being? And of all places......the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
Because as Mort posted it was about State's Rights, not slavery. It has been well documented that slavery was on the way out in the South before the Civil War.(You do know slavery was all over the country at one time don't you?) There is so much hatred and confusion today because even though it is well documented that it wasn't, people still insist the war was over slavery, and insist on putting the blame for it on whites living today. Lincoln only resorted to abolishing slavery when the Southern States would not "fall into line" and he used it as one way to "punish" the South and preserve "the union". Lincoln had family members that owned slaves, and he felt blacks were inferior to whites.(Read his writings) Had the South won the war, which they came very close to doing, slavery would still have ended relatively soon afterward. People in the North were not then or now better educated or any better people than Southerners, but people still take their digs at Southerners. The truth is, if Northerners could have "made slavery work", and they tried, they would have had as many or most likely more slaves as any Southerner. Their inability to "make it work" is why slavery died out in the North, but not entirely. There were still Northern slave owners and Northern farmers that "rented" slaves from Southern owners, when the Civil War started. So yes, I will celebrate my Southern Heritage, and I don't feel one bit guilty because I, like every other Southerner, do not equate being Southern and proud with slavery.
Snicker

Birmingham, AL

#29 Oct 22, 2010
http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm

Blacks Who Fought For the South

Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.
Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me..- and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.
The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.
Lilbird

Richmond, VA

#30 Oct 23, 2010
Mort wrote:
<quoted text>for you its about slavery.for southerners its about states rights.a hot topic right now that our ancestors can appreciate.We were the masters you might have been a slave.your argument was lost long ago.you are treated as equals now.be happy and move on.
Lordy, lordy, white southerners should feel free to celebrate their so called southern heritage with the claim that their ancestors fought valiently over states rights but on the flip side black people need to get over it and keep our mouths shut and stop complaining about what our ancestors endured because we are now free. I just do not get why some white people feel that they have the right to continue to celebrate their southern heritage, which largely includes honoring their ancestors who fought in the Civil War or as many southerners like to refer to as "The War of Northern Aggession", as that old saying goes D'nial ain't just a river in Egypt. You know when we'll get over it. When people like you stop refusing to believe that it was ALL about states rights and nothing more. That is a BIG FAT LIE. Yea, for sure states rights was part of it but the issue of slavery had a rather substantial part to play in it as well. How can any sane person deny that? I suppose that is the argument you claim I lost long ago. BTW how about you take your own advice, the south lost, that was a long time ago, be happy and move on. No need for blacks to cry foul and no need for whites to celebrate. The following was taken from the Richmond Times Dispatch Editorial page today Sat Oct 23,2010...
"The Confederacy indeed embodied numerous individual and collective virtues. It fought in large part to perpetuate an injustice. The story records tragedy. Moreover, if "Southern Heritage" generally is to mean anything, then it must include slavery and Jim Crow and all the rest." And in fairness I also in clude the following that was written...."This relentless contention regarding the Civil War could be settled if all participants understood that to say that slavery caused the Civil War (which it without question did) is not to say that EVERY Southern soilder personally fought to preserve the peculiar institution. In most wars there is a disconnect between causes and reason's soilders fight. This is a nuance that seems to be lost." So I, as does many others realize that not all Southerners was fighting to preserve slavery as a way of life but many, many fought for that very reason, in particular those who had the most to lose.
Lilbird

Richmond, VA

#31 Oct 23, 2010
Snicker wrote:
<quoted text> Because as Mort posted it was about State's Rights, not slavery. It has been well documented that slavery was on the way out in the South before the Civil War.(You do know slavery was all over the country at one time don't you?) There is so much hatred and confusion today because even though it is well documented that it wasn't, people still insist the war was over slavery, and insist on putting the blame for it on whites living today. Lincoln only resorted to abolishing slavery when the Southern States would not "fall into line" and he used it as one way to "punish" the South and preserve "the union". Lincoln had family members that owned slaves, and he felt blacks were inferior to whites.(Read his writings) Had the South won the war, which they came very close to doing, slavery would still have ended relatively soon afterward. People in the North were not then or now better educated or any better people than Southerners, but people still take their digs at Southerners. The truth is, if Northerners could have "made slavery work", and they tried, they would have had as many or most likely more slaves as any Southerner. Their inability to "make it work" is why slavery died out in the North, but not entirely. There were still Northern slave owners and Northern farmers that "rented" slaves from Southern owners, when the Civil War started. So yes, I will celebrate my Southern Heritage, and I don't feel one bit guilty because I, like every other Southerner, do not equate being Southern and proud with slavery.
You speak of states rights and how the North would have fully embraced slavery if it had worked for them. You speak of how Lincoln really felt about black people, as if we didn't already know, duh. You know some of us have finally learned to read, thank you very much. I'm speaking of a forgotten people, whose names and contributions have been obliterated for all time. So while you are celebrating your proud Southern Heritage, I'm sitting here wondering what it must have been like for those who came before me. Celebrate all you like. I'm Southern born and bred and have no desire to live any place else, but what so called Southern Heritage am I supposed to be proud of?? So what about blacks who have lived in the South all our lives? Maybe if we knew and understood more about the enslaved people who contributed so much to this country, in particular the South then maybe we could really celebrate. How about we try to find the names of these faceless, nameless people whose biologies have been largely left unrecorded. Hard to do a lot of celebrating when you don't know what or who you're celebrating. If my acestors had been at least treated like they were human and adequate records had been kept, irrespective of the fact that they were slaves, we blacks could at least be able to trace our lines and find out some things about the people we descended from, then we too could have more to celebrate. No but white people couldn't even do that in a land that claimed that ALL men were created equal with certain alienable rights, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Let's see a slave accomplish that feat.
Snicker

Birmingham, AL

#32 Oct 23, 2010
Lilbird wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak of states rights and how the North would have fully embraced slavery if it had worked for them. You speak of how Lincoln really felt about black people, as if we didn't already know, duh. You know some of us have finally learned to read, thank you very much. I'm speaking of a forgotten people, whose names and contributions have been obliterated for all time. So while you are celebrating your proud Southern Heritage, I'm sitting here wondering what it must have been like for those who came before me. Celebrate all you like. I'm Southern born and bred and have no desire to live any place else, but what so called Southern Heritage am I supposed to be proud of?? So what about blacks who have lived in the South all our lives? Maybe if we knew and understood more about the enslaved people who contributed so much to this country, in particular the South then maybe we could really celebrate. How about we try to find the names of these faceless, nameless people whose biologies have been largely left unrecorded. Hard to do a lot of celebrating when you don't know what or who you're celebrating. If my acestors had been at least treated like they were human and adequate records had been kept, irrespective of the fact that they were slaves, we blacks could at least be able to trace our lines and find out some things about the people we descended from, then we too could have more to celebrate. No but white people couldn't even do that in a land that claimed that ALL men were created equal with certain alienable rights, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Let's see a slave accomplish that feat.
You have a "black" every freaking thing from BET to Black colleges. Black History month, holidays etc. What more in the hell could you possibly want. If you read and comprehend, why do you still lie? Were YOU a slave? Were any of your ancestors slaves? Just because a person is black does not mean they descended from slaves. Keep arguing if you want, but I know the history of slavery. And believe it or not, there were whites treated as badly as slaves and in some cases worse. And don't forget us Native Americans, they arranged a little cross country death march for my ancestors when they stole our land. So don't whine to me about your ancestors. If you don't know about your black heritage and slavery it is only because of your ignorance. It's out there to learn. How could YOU as a black person not know about it when it's shoved down our throats every single day? I'd suggest you pay more attention during Black History month. I know all about my Indian Heritage and I don't remember there being an Indian History month.
Someone

United States

#33 Oct 25, 2010
It is sad that the books can not be trusted to accurate.
mat

Powhatan, VA

#34 Oct 25, 2010
History is written by the winners of wars. Truth is covered up in an attempt to justify the original intent of the war. This is done in an attempt to fool the survivors into thinking it was worth it to sacrifice all they had. A just war, like the Revolutionary War, needs no explanation as to why it was fought...for freedom by the people seeking freedom. The Civil War was one of many wars that has had history rewritten to fit a political agenda. To this day most believe that Lincoln started the Civil War to free slaves which is totally false. However that story gave the widows and children of the many soldiers that lost their lives a feeling that their loved one died for a "just cause."

Ignoring the fact that black Confederate soldiers fought and died for the Southern cause by their own accord is a disgrace to their memory.
not a teahead

Cartersville, VA

#35 Oct 25, 2010
Snicker wrote:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/bl acks.htm
Blacks Who Fought For the South
Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.
Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me..- and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.
The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.
no one asked you to write a book, K.I.S.S.(keep it simple stupid)
not a teahead

Cartersville, VA

#36 Oct 25, 2010
Snicker wrote:
<quoted text> You have a "black" every freaking thing from BET to Black colleges. Black History month, holidays etc. What more in the hell could you possibly want. If you read and comprehend, why do you still lie? Were YOU a slave? Were any of your ancestors slaves? Just because a person is black does not mean they descended from slaves. Keep arguing if you want, but I know the history of slavery. And believe it or not, there were whites treated as badly as slaves and in some cases worse. And don't forget us Native Americans, they arranged a little cross country death march for my ancestors when they stole our land. So don't whine to me about your ancestors. If you don't know about your black heritage and slavery it is only because of your ignorance. It's out there to learn. How could YOU as a black person not know about it when it's shoved down our throats every single day? I'd suggest you pay more attention during Black History month. I know all about my Indian Heritage and I don't remember there being an Indian History month.
you gave up having an indian heritage when you opted to passing as white.
not a teahead

Cartersville, VA

#37 Oct 25, 2010
Snicker wrote:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/bl acks.htm
Blacks Who Fought For the South
Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.
Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me..- and better Confederates did not live." Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.
Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."
Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.
The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.
Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.
there were no thousands of blacks in the Confederate Army, now be for real. do you think whites back then trusted a black man with any kind of weapon?
Snicker

Decatur, AL

#38 Oct 25, 2010
not a teahead wrote:
<quoted text>
you gave up having an indian heritage when you opted to passing as white.
I've never "passed as a white" I'm proud of who I am. You should stop trying to pass as a human, it's not working.
Snicker

Decatur, AL

#39 Oct 25, 2010
not a teahead wrote:
<quoted text>
there were no thousands of blacks in the Confederate Army, now be for real. do you think whites back then trusted a black man with any kind of weapon?
Look it up yourself peehead, the links are there. Of course I know you may be too mentally challenged to do that.
Snicker

Decatur, AL

#40 Oct 25, 2010
not a teahead wrote:
<quoted text>
no one asked you to write a book, K.I.S.S.(keep it simple stupid)
If I was posting to you I would keep it simple. I know you can't read that well or comprehend what you are able to read.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News state inspections: unecessary repairs, report a... (May '10) 5 hr HILLBILLY 46
Review: Aim 4Fitness 13 hr Wendy 37
News Ukropa s future: Open Sundays, alcohol sales af... (Dec '09) 16 hr martin garey 13
News In tobacco-loving Va., bars to quit cold-turkey... (Nov '09) Sat martin garey 29
Hillary Ignored Pleas Jun 22 VN Vet 6
More Reason to Lawfully Remove Obama from Office Jun 17 Concerned Citizen 1
Joe King Danville Jun 13 Kathy King 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages