| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Slaves as Southern soldiers? |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Slaves as Southern soldiers? |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
||||||||||
| Slaves as Southern soldiers? | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
121st Post |
|
PvtClewell Member 
|
I think Cleburne Fan's post (No. 2) hits on the issue quite directly. If significant numbers of armed blacks are already fighting for the Confederacy, why does Gen. Patrick Cleburne feel the need to make his 'Cleburne Memorial' proposal to arm the slaves in the first place? Cleburne's proposal was forwarded to Pres. Davis by Gen. W.H.T. Walker, and Davis ordered the proposal to be suppressed. Cleburne was subsequently passed over for promotion three times. This also begs the question of what was the official reaction of the Confederate government? Davis micromanaged the war almost as intently as Lincoln did. Does it make sense then that Davis would be unaware of armed slaves in his armies? Or was he turning a blind eye to the issue?Where is the logic? The Confederate Congress, after a bill to arm slaves was proposed in February, 1865, voted for the enlistment of slaves on March 13, 1865, with the stipulation (Sec. 5 of the statute, which can be found in the Official Records) "That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof." That even makes the gradual emancipation for service to the Confederacy, which Gen. Lee endorsed, problematical. If the Confederate government waits to the final weeks of the war to officially arm its slaves, then why are we having this debate?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
122nd Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
There comes a point in every thread when you just have to agree to disagree and let it die. Minds and opinions are not going to be changed. Sources will be cited and called biased both ways. I think perhaps the thread has run it's course. I do want to say though that I appreciate the civility of the thread since it's resurrection.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 12:02 am |
|
123rd Post |
|
ole Member 
|
Once again, a spang on observation Kernel Private. Didn't and couldn't happen. You don't give muskets to monkeys. No telling where they were going to shoot. Just a thought. Ole
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 12:05 am |
|
124th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
borderuffian wrote:
I had a class with Eric Foner at Columbia. I've talked to him a number of times and he was of immense help in formulating and writing my master's thesis. He never brought his politics into his lectures or our discussions, and I believe that he, and the others mentioned, are much more professional than to use their scholarship to promote political agendas. "Now that's funny. In one sentence- no one has "ever been kinder to a similar group/movement than it has been to the Confederacy." And in the next they're called the "Lost Cause mythology." Yes, the Lost Cause is a myth. It was a carefully constructed image of the Old South and its struggle for independence that is still prevalent in historiography today. In the past few decades a number of historians have began to analyze the way that the history of the Era was constructed and by whom.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 12:12 am |
|
125th Post |
|
barrydancer Member
|
javal1 wrote: There comes a point in every thread when you just have to agree to disagree and let it die. Minds and opinions are not going to be changed. Sources will be cited and called biased both ways. I think perhaps the thread has run it's course. I do want to say though that I appreciate the civility of the thread since it's resurrection.I think you may be correct, though it has been fun getting back into the board a bit. I think bias is whatever doesn't agree with one's point of view, and I'm sure I've been guilty of it on a number of occasions.  I hope I haven't been uncivil to anyone, as well. Last edited on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 12:55 am by barrydancer |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 18th, 2009 12:29 am |
|
126th Post |
|
borderuffian Member 
|
barrydancer wrote:
But they assign 'mythology' to only one side. That is biased.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 08:17 am |
|
127th Post |
|
ole Member
|
And accurate.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
128th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
borderuffian wrote:
Myths usually fall (or stand) on their own. No need to be one or more sides. The myth of the Lost Cause is exposed when compared to the same person's ante bellum words... HankC
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 10:01 pm |
|
129th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
Albert Sailhorst wrote: Without name-caling and dismissing opinions as "ridiculous", I think this is a very interesting, educational topic! True, but those who engage in name-calling and denunciations have the upper hand here and it's not likely to change. It's impossible to have any real discussion on the subject as long characters like these rule the roost. So long...
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 12:07 am |
|
130th Post |
|
ole Member
|
You might want to inform Javal.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 12:24 am |
|
131st Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
Actually javal requested that this thread be allowed to die about 5 or 6 posts back. It was ignored. If someone decides to reject my strong suggestion, I'm really rather indifferent to the complaints of those who then find themselves too thin-skinned to be disagreed with. I've seen no name-calling. I've seen one member call something ridiculous, which is within his rights since he quoted what he thought was ridiculous. As of now I refuse to close the thread and relieve members of the onus of acting like adults. The only way you're not going to be disagreed with is by not expressing an opinion. I personally couldn't care less if there were 10 or 10,000 black Confederates. But if y'all want to argue about it incessantly, then don't be surprised when it gets heated.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 08:00 am |
|
132nd Post |
|
ole Member
|
It's like the sharp tooth that you can't resist poking with your tongue. I really don't know why the black Confederate raises so much heat. He was or he wasn't a volunteer. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but it certainly gets some ink. Which is exactly why I visit these boards. If it don't stink, don't stir it. Ole.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 08:01 pm |
|
133rd Post |
|
pamc153PA Member
|
I think it's called, politely, a hissy-fit where I come from. I started the thread, and even I'm getting tired of it. Got a lot out of it, but don't need to rehash what's already been hashed--not learning anything new--or watch people poke each other with sticks, then run away. . . Ole, Javal, I am in agreement. Pam
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 03:48 pm |
|
134th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
It always turns out this way when yankees get tired hearing about anything they disagree with but bring up Robert E. Lee for discussion and it will go on and on and on and on and repeat and repeat and repeat. Just my take on it.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 04:10 pm |
|
135th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
Some people enjoy history, others prefer fiction that fits their feel good illusions. Thankfully the majority here prefer history... some just can't handle that.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
136th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: Some people enjoy history, others prefer fiction that fits their feel good illusions. Thankfully the majority here prefer history... some just can't handle that. I would think you would also be interested in the truth.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 08:22 pm |
|
137th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: Some people enjoy history, others prefer fiction that fits their feel good illusions. Thankfully the majority here prefer history... some just can't handle that. Which group are you in?
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
138th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
pamc153PA wrote: I think it's called, politely, a hissy-fit where I come from. I started the thread, and even I'm getting tired of it. Got a lot out of it, but don't need to rehash what's already been hashed--not learning anything new--or watch people poke each other with sticks, then run away. . . No hissy-fit just an observation Some previous and follow-up posts prove out exactly what I said.
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
139th Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer
|
If you think your "truth" is the only truth, this probably isn't the board for you. If someone can't tolererate disagreement without it becoming some vast conspiracy, too bad. It's called a discussion board for a reason. THREAD CLOSED
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:19 am | Page: ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Slaves as Southern soldiers? | Top |
