Re: Black Confederates. Yes, black men fired at men in Blue

[oletex]

Further black men took up the chore of masterfully building defensive positions with the aim of protecting the men in Gray. But too say slaves in the south were organized into combat units supporting the war effort would be very wrong. As wrong as saying none did in fact make the choice to emotionally support the south, at least initially when the north invaded. The efforts by many to oversimplify or to support some point or other has lead to many misconceptions.

Some truths:

* The war was not fought by the north or Lincoln or the union soldiers to "free the slaves"...nor was the preservation of slavery the single driving factor of states leaving the union (although the aims of the ultra rich cannot be separated from the ownership of slaves and central to that aim was moving into newly formed states and territories WITH THEIR SLAVES). However, there were in fact blacks driven to repel the northern invaders early on since that was the great hysteria amongst the people of the south of all colors at the beginning.

* A result of the war was the south seeing the handwriting on the wall and much conversation about freeing slaves to put them into uniform which was a panic causing, game changing fear in the north. After Gettysburg it appeared to be the only way the south could still win the war so Lincoln attempted to and did cut that movement off at the knees by issuing the emancipation proclamation to counter the south doing that very thing. And only doing it in the states still in rebellion. So freeing the slaves was still not the primary aim or even a goal at all as the carrot again for the rebellious states was stop fighting, come back into the union like others and some border states and keep your slaves.

* Some slaves in the service of the southern armies were emotionally attached to the state of their birth, some slaves were put into position of having to defend themselves and their masters but short of several mixed race Louisiana units none of record were organized into fighting units. Nor short of those units is their any record on any volunteering to fight for the south. Many slaves in the first 2 years of the conflict took advantage of the ebb and flow of battle and movements and general chaos to escape slavery to the north. And after the proclamation most all knew what side they wanted to win.

Bottom line is the freeing of the slaves was a result of the war and a result that evolved. And many wonder in modern day why Lincoln waited til after Gettysburg to issue a statement. Simply stated he wanted and planned to send the slaves away and wanted to keep that option on the table. And or allow the southern states a way to keep them as an incentive, just quit the fight and come back. Lee and others desperately wanted to free and arm half a million slaves or more and put them in the army. Had the south took that route there is little doubt the south would have won and slavery would have died a slower death and maybe this country would have a different look. But yes there were thousands upon thousands of black confederates, they just happened to be builders, combat engineers, cooks, drivers and support personnel. Records of organized fighting units would have been made had their been infantry however. And those in Louisiana where many mixed race people owned slaves and were planters themselves are the only ones of record. So in it's purest form, there were no black confederate combat units. Outside the Bayou state. And the likely only die hard black supporters of the confederacy after Gettysburg were the free black slave owners who were planters and business owners.

 

[Dawgman94]

Hey helealun

 

[Lakemont Dawg]

Further black men took up the chore of masterfully building defensive positions with the aim of protecting the men in Gray. But too say slaves in the south were organized into combat units supporting the war effort would be very wrong. As wrong as saying none did in fact make the choice to emotionally support the south, at least initially when the north invaded. The efforts by many to oversimplify or to support some point or other has lead to many misconceptions.

Some truths:

* The war was not fought by the north or Lincoln or the union soldiers to "free the slaves"...nor was the preservation of slavery the single driving factor of states leaving the union (although the aims of the ultra rich cannot be separated from the ownership of slaves and central to that aim was moving into newly formed states and territories WITH THEIR SLAVES). However, there were in fact blacks driven to repel the northern invaders early on since that was the great hysteria amongst the people of the south of all colors at the beginning.

* A result of the war was the south seeing the handwriting on the wall and much conversation about freeing slaves to put them into uniform which was a panic causing, game changing fear in the north. After Gettysburg it appeared to be the only way the south could still win the war so Lincoln attempted to and did cut that movement off at the knees by issuing the emancipation proclamation to counter the south doing that very thing. And only doing it in the states still in rebellion. So freeing the slaves was still not the primary aim or even a goal at all as the carrot again for the rebellious states was stop fighting, come back into the union like others and some border states and keep your slaves.

* Some slaves in the service of the southern armies were emotionally attached to the state of their birth, some slaves were put into position of having to defend themselves and their masters but short of several mixed race Louisiana units none of record were organized into fighting units. Nor short of those units is their any record on any volunteering to fight for the south. Many slaves in the first 2 years of the conflict took advantage of the ebb and flow of battle and movements and general chaos to escape slavery to the north. And after the proclamation most all knew what side they wanted to win.

Bottom line is the freeing of the slaves was a result of the war and a result that evolved. And many wonder in modern day why Lincoln waited til after Gettysburg to issue a statement. Simply stated he wanted and planned to send the slaves away and wanted to keep that option on the table. And or allow the southern states a way to keep them as an incentive, just quit the fight and come back. Lee and others desperately wanted to free and arm half a million slaves or more and put them in the army. Had the south took that route there is little doubt the south would have won and slavery would have died a slower death and maybe this country would have a different look. But yes there were thousands upon thousands of black confederates, they just happened to be builders, combat engineers, cooks, drivers and support personnel. Records of organized fighting units would have been made had their been infantry however. And those in Louisiana where many mixed race people owned slaves and were planters themselves are the only ones of record. So in it's purest form, there were no black confederate combat units. Outside the Bayou state. And the likely only die hard black supporters of the confederacy after Gettysburg were the free black slave owners who were planters and business owners.

1. Blacks were formed into integrated units with whites in early 1865 by the Richmond government, 2 years after Patrick Cleburne first suggested it in a letter to his chain of command.
2. It has been stated on this forum many times that Secession was about Lincoln's imminent inauguration following the November elections while the War was about States' Rights and self determination on all issues, not just slavery.
3. The President's Emancipation Proclamation, an Executive Order familiar to us today, was issued after the Battle of Sharpsburg, MD in September 1862, not Gettysburg in July 1863. It didn't take effect until January '63, IIRC.
4. With or without blacks in their ranks, the south could never have beaten the north as long as the north was willing to wage war. Conversely, the north could never have subjugated the south as long as the south was willing to fight a guerrilla campaign.

Good post, oletex. Thanks!

 

[oletex]

1. Blacks were formed into integrated units with whites in early 1865 by the Richmond government, 2 years after Patrick Cleburne first suggested it in a letter to his chain of command.
2. It has been stated on this forum many times that Secession was about Lincoln's imminent inauguration following the November elections while the War was about States' Rights and self determination on all issues, not just slavery.
3. The President's Emancipation Proclamation, an Executive Order familiar to us today, was issued after the Battle of Sharpsburg, MD in September 1862, not Gettysburg in July 1863. It didn't take effect until January '63, IIRC.
4. With or without blacks in their ranks, the south could never have beaten the north as long as the north was willing to wage war. Conversely, the north could never have subjugated the south as long as the south was willing to fight a guerrilla campaign.

Good post, oletex. Thanks!

The war causation was very complex on several levels. A perfect storm came together.

(1) Power concentrated in the hands of an elite few in the south. New, upstart, bull headed Republican party in the north vs the same radical Democrat activism that has been on display for generations.

(2) No income tax @ the federal level so D.C. was hugely dependent upon the import/export activity to survive. And that means probably less than 5,000 individuals and families were rowing the boat. It was tariffs vs today's middle class taxes if you will.

(3) 3rd party run in the election. I believe Lincoln got less than 40% of the vote.

(4) Lincoln would not negotiate nor step aside. Ultra rich in the south were determined to ride King Cotton to their own kingdoms in the southland so anything short of allowing them to do so may have never flew in any event.

(5) The people who actually fought the war were motivated by tribal feelings in the south. The recruits in the north were motivated by bonuses and money. Actually much of the recruiting was done in poor parts of Europe. And none fought to bring down slavery. None of the rank and file soldiers who walked hundreds of miles to fight in that war did so to protect a life of luxury for a few they had never personally witnessed. None of them. Lincoln's decision to invade being the trigger. He had a call(s) to make. Step aside. Kiss the fannies of about 1300 powerful families in the south. So he choose to slaughter millions upon millions in the long term. Cast poverty for maybe 200 years and untold loss of treasure and property upon that portion of the nation. As did the powerful families in the south.

(6) Stopped at a South Georgia crumbling and almost gone town on the way back from Florida yesterday and visited an old grave yard badly in need of repair. Rode by several mansions, two of which were plantation homes. Most will be crushed by time and developers. The 3 Cole brothers tombstones, all 3 in a row. All three privates in the 46th Georgia. Two died in the war, 1862 and 1865. They joined to protect their homes and families, not to continue slavery. Lincoln was murdered and sits in exalted forever fame. His motivation was not the stoppage of slavery, rather it was to protect his party, serve his fairly won presidency and protect his reputation against presiding over the downsizing of his country. He choose violence, the Cole brothers choose violence and eventually violence overcame 3 of the four. But you can bet your bippee the Cole brothers were far closer to victims than was Lincoln or Jeff Davis when he sat in that federal prison. Hell of a deal. Biggest thing ever in this corner of the world.

BTW, J Davis and his 1300 benefactors share at least half the blame here. Likely more. Owners of those mansions choose fortune and a life of luxury. Greed. And I rode down the Jefferson Davis highway across South Georgia. Lincoln Mall, Jefferson Davis Highway. We salute mass killers at times.

 

[FeralDawg]

All three of these posts are more information and common sense than I've ever seen out of the Chat the whole 15-20 years I've posted here. Good work people.
Thank you!

 

[Dawgman94]

All three of these posts are more information and common sense than I've ever seen out of the Chat the whole 15-20 years I've posted here. Good work people.
Thank you!

It's alters

 

[HeulenHund2]

The war causation was very complex on several levels. A perfect storm came together.

(1) Power concentrated in the hands of an elite few in the south. New, upstart, bull headed Republican party in the north vs the same radical Democrat activism that has been on display for generations.

(2) No income tax @ the federal level so D.C. was hugely dependent upon the import/export activity to survive. And that means probably less than 5,000 individuals and families were rowing the boat. It was tariffs vs today's middle class taxes if you will.

(3) 3rd party run in the election. I believe Lincoln got less than 40% of the vote.

(4) Lincoln would not negotiate nor step aside. Ultra rich in the south were determined to ride King Cotton to their own kingdoms in the southland so anything short of allowing them to do so may have never flew in any event.

(5) The people who actually fought the war were motivated by tribal feelings in the south. The recruits in the north were motivated by bonuses and money. Actually much of the recruiting was done in poor parts of Europe. And none fought to bring down slavery. None of the rank and file soldiers who walked hundreds of miles to fight in that war did so to protect a life of luxury for a few they had never personally witnessed. None of them. Lincoln's decision to invade being the trigger. He had a call(s) to make. Step aside. Kiss the fannies of about 1300 powerful families in the south. So he choose to slaughter millions upon millions in the long term. Cast poverty for maybe 200 years and untold loss of treasure and property upon that portion of the nation. As did the powerful families in the south.

(6) Stopped at a South Georgia crumbling and almost gone town on the way back from Florida yesterday and visited an old grave yard badly in need of repair. Rode by several mansions, two of which were plantation homes. Most will be crushed by time and developers. The 3 Cole brothers tombstones, all 3 in a row. All three privates in the 46th Georgia. Two died in the war, 1862 and 1865. They joined to protect their homes and families, not to continue slavery. Lincoln was murdered and sits in exalted forever fame. His motivation was not the stoppage of slavery, rather it was to protect his party, serve his fairly won presidency and protect his reputation against presiding over the downsizing of his country. He choose violence, the Cole brothers choose violence and eventually violence overcame 3 of the four. But you can bet your bippee the Cole brothers were far closer to victims than was Lincoln or Jeff Davis when he sat in that federal prison. Hell of a deal. Biggest thing ever in this corner of the world.

BTW, J Davis and his 1300 benefactors share at least half the blame here. Likely more. Owners of those mansions choose fortune and a life of luxury. Greed. And I rode down the Jefferson Davis highway across South Georgia. Lincoln Mall, Jefferson Davis Highway. We salute mass killers at times.

Very well presented post, but just full of inaccuracies and half truths.
The ''fire eaters'' in the south made it clear electing Lincoln meant war, they were 100% dedicated to making it happen as soon as the 1860 election was finalized.

The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon.

There are endless private letters from Southern Generals down to privates that make it clear slavery was the principle issue. One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't.

As with any war it was waged collectively, but by individuals. Individuals always have Their own motives. Many in The North did care passionately about The Cause of ending slavery, many others fought out of a sense of duty to Country. Many were conscripts though, they sometimes had no motive other than to survive the war.

I agree that it was The Planter Elite in The South Who manipulated towards war, hell Americans still die for big Oil and the War Industries.

 

[Dawgman94]

Very well presented post, but just full of inaccuracies and half truths.
The ''fire eaters'' in the south made it clear electing Lincoln meant war, they were 100% dedicated to making it happen as soon as the 1860 election was finalized.
The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon.
There are endless private letters from Southern Generals down to privates that make it clear slavery was the principle issue. One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't.
As with any war it was waged collectively, but by individuals. Individuals always have Their own motives. Many in The North did care passionately about The Cause of ending slavery, many others fought out of a sense of duty to Country. Many were conscripts though, they sometimes had no motive other than to survive the war.
I agree that it was The Planter Elite in The South Who manipulated towards war, hell Americans still die for big Oil and the War Industries.

Why are you arguing with your self

 

[HeulenHund2]

Why are you arguing with your self

Why do You bother making empty post ?

 

[Lakemont Dawg]

Very well presented post, but just full of inaccuracies and half truths.
The ''fire eaters'' in the south made it clear electing Lincoln meant war, they were 100% dedicated to making it happen as soon as the 1860 election was finalized.
The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon.
There are endless private letters from Southern Generals down to privates that make it clear slavery was the principle issue. One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't.
As with any war it was waged collectively, but by individuals. Individuals always have Their own motives. Many in The North did care passionately about The Cause of ending slavery, many others fought out of a sense of duty to Country. Many were conscripts though, they sometimes had no motive other than to survive the war.
I agree that it was The Planter Elite in The South Who manipulated towards war, hell Americans still die for big Oil and the War Industries.

Still LMAO at you Dennis. Considering you can't, or won't, answer the simple questions from the previous thread on this subject, I'm only replying here to throw the official Dawgchat Bullshit Flag on you. Again. Find the source of the letter you quote in your last thread and post it here..."One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't." That is 100% total BS and you know it, although you won't, or can't, admit it. BTW, Hallmark movies don't count as primary sources.

Crickets again?

While you're at it, why not rethink this idiotic statement too?..."The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon." It was President Lincoln, inaugurated the month prior on March 4, 1861, who was bound and determined as his first order of business to maneuver and resupply the garrison at Sumter in Charleston's harbor-State land following secession, not US-which directly led to South Carolinians issuing the formal surrender demand which Robert Anderson refused. The Federals' eviction was the result. Lincoln then tore up the Constitution in order to send hundreds of thousands of newly conscripted Yankee troops on an invasion of the South in an attempt to force it back into a marriage it no longer desired.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

Regardless of who "started" that war, or what percentage of blame each of us can determine from whose perspective, the ultimate reality of today is that most true southerners (born and raised in the areas formerly known as the "Old South") have reason to resent a certain, prevailing, smug attitude about it all from descendants of people, whose ancestors were not remotely involved in that era of history. The most common case in point is most folks from "up North" tend to carry this holier than thou attitude as if they were/are personally responsible for seeing the light and ending slavery forever across the planet. Really?

Most of us recognize that slavery is NOT a good thing, but the smug thuggery never ends. For instance, my wife's family are second generation Ukrainian/Germans from upstate NY. They feel proud to be associated with the Union's most celebrated cause back in the day. Are you kidding me? They have/had as much to do with the Civil war and resulting political drama as I have had to do with the hatred between the Serbs and the Croats. And we ALL know someone or groups of folks with the same or less ties to those times in this country, who rarely miss a turn at effete snorting about how "they" saved us from ourselves and put an end to slavery worldwide. Laughable. Sad and maddening, but laughable, still.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Still LMAO at you Dennis. Considering you can't, or won't, answer the simple questions from the previous thread on this subject, I'm only replying here to throw the official Dawgchat Bullshit Flag on you. Again. Find the source of the letter you quote in your last thread and post it here..."One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't." That is 100% total BS and you know it, although you won't, or can't, admit it. BTW, Hallmark movies don't count as primary sources.

Crickets again?

While you're at it, why not rethink this idiotic statement too?..."The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon." It was President Lincoln, inaugurated the month prior on March 4, 1861, who was bound and determined as his first order of business to maneuver and resupply the garrison at Sumter in Charleston's harbor-State land following secession, not US-which directly led to South Carolinians issuing the formal surrender demand which Robert Anderson refused. The Federals' eviction was the result. Lincoln then tore up the Constitution in order to send hundreds of thousands of newly conscripted Yankee troops on an invasion of the South in an attempt to force it back into a marriage it no longer desired.

What question are You referring to D.A. ? That might be a reasonable thing to clarify. As for the letter, it is in a book, am I going to fetch it for You ? f... Your ignorant ass, find it Yourself.
Lincoln was intent on resupplying Sumter. It was the fire eaters choice whether to allow it to proceed or use it as an excuse to go to war.
Lincoln had been threatened with War since first entering the 1860 election. It made sense to find out if those making the threats were intent on going through with them.
Nobody forced the traitors to fire on Federal troops, they were simply given an option for the sake of clarity. If not Sumter, they would have attacked somewhere else, maybe in a location less easily withdrawn from.
Sumter was a tactical decision by The North, it was an excuse for war by The south.

 

[Lakemont Dawg]

What question are You referring to D.A. ? That might be a reasonable thing to clarify. As for the letter, it is in a book, am I going to fetch it for You ? f... Your ignorant ass, find it Yourself.
Lincoln was intent on resupplying Sumter. It was the fire eaters choice whether to allow it to proceed or use it as an excuse to go to war.
Lincoln had been threatened with War since first entering the 1860 election. It made sense to find out if those making the threats were intent on going through with them.
Nobody forced the traitors to fire on Federal troops, they were simply given an option for the sake of clarity. If not Sumter, they would have attacked somewhere else, maybe in a location less easily withdrawn from.
Sumter was a tactical decision by The North, it was an excuse for war by The south.

Point proven. Your favorite team's mascot, Dennis?

 

[HeulenHund2]

Point proven. Your favorite team's mascot, Dennis?

That is correct, You proved My point.
What question is it You keep claiming I won't answer ?
Put it out there or STFU.

 

[Lakemont Dawg]

That is correct, You proved My point.
What question is it You keep claiming I won't answer ?
Put it out there or STFU.

The QUESTION is, and was, WHICH of these FACTS will you dispute with proof?

1. There were tens of thousands of slaves still held in the northern and border states when the south finally quit fighting in 1865. Those slaves, and New Jersey's "apprentices for life", were not actually freed until the 13th Amendment went into effect in 1866.
2. President Lincoln freed zero slaves by proclamation in his lifetime. The areas the Union Army controlled -even in the occupied south- were not allowed to be emancipated by him.
3. And get this, most of the free blacks in the country, according to the 1860 census, chose to live in the South.
4. Dennis, the Maggot, is a fatty, an idiot and a liar who hates all things Southern.

Crickets, I know.......

 

[oletex]

Still LMAO at you Dennis. Considering you can't, or won't, answer the simple questions from the previous thread on this subject, I'm only replying here to throw the official Dawgchat Bullshit Flag on you. Again. Find the source of the letter you quote in your last thread and post it here..."One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't." That is 100% total BS and you know it, although you won't, or can't, admit it. BTW, Hallmark movies don't count as primary sources.

Crickets again?

While you're at it, why not rethink this idiotic statement too?..."The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon." It was President Lincoln, inaugurated the month prior on March 4, 1861, who was bound and determined as his first order of business to maneuver and resupply the garrison at Sumter in Charleston's harbor-State land following secession, not US-which directly led to South Carolinians issuing the formal surrender demand which Robert Anderson refused. The Federals' eviction was the result. Lincoln then tore up the Constitution in order to send hundreds of thousands of newly conscripted Yankee troops on an invasion of the South in an attempt to force it back into a marriage it no longer desired.

Actually what if there were a private who said something similar? Saw a show on TV where a guy gets off sexually to popping balloons. There's always someone out there. The truth is the truth. Maybe the 1300 wealthy families/opportunists who had came to the south to take advantage of the black dirt, Whitney's invention and the African slave trade were primarily responsible for leaving the union to gain even more power and wealth. (they were). But what they really wanted was to be allowed to do so in peace. They did not choose war. War, in the form of Lincoln's invasion, choose them. But Jeff Davis gave Lincoln the go ahead excuse by firing on a US military institution. And he gave the order. Directly to the Commander on the ground there. Those two have the ultimate culpability. Bottom line is nothing justifies the human tragedy. Further the simple truth is no group wanted the black people here other than the wealthy slave owners in both north and south and border states, the slave traders and shippers and the Africans who got rich off the capture and sale of humans. Lincoln wanted to deport them and there were riots up north and raw hatred toward them. And the average person in the south had no opportunity to share crop as long as the huge land owners (rich people from the south, industrialists and their offspring from the north who came south and lots of European rich, even some free blacks and a surprising number of Indians who had adopted the white culture) owned slaves and choose to not use white lower class labor. Things were radically different then but politics were errily similar. Lincoln used a scorched earth policy to protect his political fortunes and his party. Basically he was willing to kill and destroy almost endlessly to protect his election and in lieu of letting some part of the nation leave the union. Some feel that is justified. Same as some feel it was justified for Davis to give him the opening to do so. The Crown did the same thing when the new world tried and did break away.

Interestingly enough what if Hawaii tried to go on their own and fought for it. Some there are talking about it. Would we send he Army to kill and destroy and burn til they stood down even if the killing and destroying took 4 years? And took, say 100,000 lives and leveled much of the islands.

 

[HeulenHund2]

The QUESTION is, and was, WHICH of these FACTS will you dispute with proof?

1. There were tens of thousands of slaves still held in the northern and border states when the south finally quit fighting in 1865. Those slaves, and New Jersey's "apprentices for life", were not actually freed until the 13th Amendment went into effect in 1866.
2. President Lincoln freed zero slaves by proclamation in his lifetime. The areas the Union Army controlled -even in the occupied south- were not allowed to be emancipated by him.
3. And get this, most of the free blacks in the country, according to the 1860 census, chose to live in the South.
4. Dennis, the Maggot, is a fatty, an idiot and a liar who hates all things Southern.

Crickets, I know.......

The only slaves in Union States after 1821 were owned by Southerners in transport.
Dread Scott and The Missouri Compromise allowed those owned by Southerners and in those in the 4 border states to remain slaves in an attempt by Northern law makers to avoid war.

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed under ''The War Powers Act'', it could not legally include non-warring states, the border states were officially neutral, though around 181k fought for The North and 85K for the South.
The 13th amendment was already drafted it was signed into law freeing ALL slaves in all U.S. Territories in 1865, soon after Appomattox.
As for how many slaves were in those 4 n0n-combatant border states, I don't know and it's irrelevant since The 13th Amendment freed them in 1865.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Actually what if there were a private who said something similar? Saw a show on TV where a guy gets off sexually to popping balloons. There's always someone out there. The truth is the truth. Maybe the 1300 wealthy families/opportunists who had came to the south to take advantage of the black dirt, Whitney's invention and the African slave trade were primarily responsible for leaving the union to gain even more power and wealth. (they were). But what they really wanted was to be allowed to do so in peace. They did not choose war. War, in the form of Lincoln's invasion, choose them. But Jeff Davis gave Lincoln the go ahead excuse by firing on a US military institution. And he gave the order. Directly to the Commander on the ground there. Those two have the ultimate culpability. Bottom line is nothing justifies the human tragedy. Further the simple truth is no group wanted the black people here other than the wealthy slave owners in both north and south and border states, the slave traders and shippers and the Africans who got rich off the capture and sale of humans. Lincoln wanted to deport them and there were riots up north and raw hatred toward them. And the average person in the south had no opportunity to share crop as long as the huge land owners (rich people from the south, industrialists and their offspring from the north who came south and lots of European rich, even some free blacks and a surprising number of Indians who had adopted the white culture) owned slaves and choose to not use white lower class labor. Things were radically different then but politics were errily similar. Lincoln used a scorched earth policy to protect his political fortunes and his party. Basically he was willing to kill and destroy almost endlessly to protect his election and in lieu of letting some part of the nation leave the union. Some feel that is justified. Same as some feel it was justified for Davis to give him the opening to do so. The Crown did the same thing when the new world tried and did break away.

Interestingly enough what if Hawaii tried to go on their own and fought for it. Some there are talking about it. Would we send he Army to kill and destroy and burn til they stood down even if the killing and destroying took 4 years? And took, say 100,000 lives and leveled much of the islands.

F...k The Confederacy. It was as evil a state as has existed.
All of this minute detail is smoke.

 

[oletex]

The only slaves in Union States after 1821 were owned by Southerners in transport.
Dread Scott and The Missouri Compromise allowed those owned by Southerners and in those in the 4 border states to remain slaves in an attempt by Northern law makers to avoid war.

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed under ''The War Powers Act'', it could not legally include non-warring states, the border states were officially neutral, though around 181k fought for The North and 85K for the South.
The 13th amendment was already drafted it was signed into law freeing ALL slaves in all U.S. Territories in 1865, soon after Appomattox.
As for how many slaves were in those 4 n0n-combatant border states, I don't know and it's irrelevant since The 13th Amendment freed them in 1865.

You are mistaken by your assertion sir

F...k The Confederacy. It was as evil a state as has existed.
All of this minute detail is smoke.

Sorry but you do appear to be arguing with yourself. And you do appear to be throwing out a lot of detail for a guy who considers such as smoke. It's history of human affairs and much of the detail of that is a nasty business. BTW, New Jersey was the home of slaves til 1865. Since all the laws up north were different. You claim none had slaves past 1821. New York's last ones were freed in 1827. But Jersey's law said the off spring of a slave mother belonged to the mother's master til the ammendment in 1865. By then only 16 remained from the thousands and thousands in the 1830's 40's and so on. Not trying to make you angry at all. But if you make these blanket statements please understand you open yourself to correction. We all are surprised at times to find out how little we actually know. Not only about older history but current affairs. For instance I saw the movie 13 hours and didn't realize the annex was also under attack. Have a nice day......

 

[HeulenHund2]

You are mistaken by your assertion sir

Sorry but you do appear to be arguing with yourself. And you do appear to be throwing out a lot of detail for a guy who considers such as smoke. It's history of human affairs and much of the detail of that is a nasty business. BTW, New Jersey was the home of slaves til 1865. Since all the laws up north were different. You claim none had slaves past 1821. New York's last ones were freed in 1827. But Jersey's law said the off spring of a slave mother belonged to the mother's master til the ammendment in 1865. By then only 16 remained from the thousands and thousands in the 1830's 40's and so on. Not trying to make you angry at all. But if you make these blanket statements please understand you open yourself to correction. We all are surprised at times to find out how little we actually know. Not only about older history but current affairs. For instance I saw the movie 13 hours and didn't realize the annex was also under attack. Have a nice day......

BULLSHIT, I answered the guy's BULLSHIT questions, He has no ground to stand on. Forget the ''sorry'' BS too, I'm not interested in a civil discussion with people Who hold the terrible and dead ideas You do.
Your thinking fell into the dust bend of history a long time ago, and thank God for it.

 

[oletex]

BULLSHIT, I answered the guy's BULLSHIT questions, He has no ground to stand on. Forget the ''sorry'' BS too, I'm not interested in a civil discussion with people Who hold the terrible and dead ideas You do.
Your thinking fell into the dust bend of history a long time ago, and thank God for it.

Thank God? I'm not a religious person so out of courtesy to those who are I wouldn't think of bringing God into a cuss filled, foaming at the mouth tirade at internet posters who dared disagree or correct my cussing, fussing and fighting. And sometimes erroneous information. Speaking of a "fire eater"....lol! Have a nice day.....

 

[HeulenHund2]

Thank God? I'm not a religious person so out of courtesy to those who are I wouldn't think of bringing God into a cuss filled, foaming at the mouth tirade at internet posters who dared disagree or correct my cussing, fussing and fighting. And sometimes erroneous information. Speaking of a "fire eater"....lol! Have a nice day.....

I have no respect for Your position Sir, is that more to Your standards ?

 

[HeulenHund2]

I have no respect for Your position Sir, is that more to Your standards ?

Also You use trite details to fool idiots into thinking I am incorrect about when Union states banned slavery, I am correct, You're blowing weak smoke.
My motivation is clear, what is Your motive in defending The Confederacy ? Please don't pretend You're not doing so.

 

[oletex]

Also You use trite details to fool idiots into thinking I am incorrect about when Union states banned slavery, I am correct, You're blowing weak smoke.
My motivation is clear, what is Your motive in defending The Confederacy ? Please don't pretend You're not doing so.

I'm not much into pretending. I do like to cut to the chase so to speak and share information that many are not privy too. An ideal situation would be your contention that none of the northern states had slaves past 1821. I had heard input contrary to your post so I choose to correct you. Nothing personal, it just is what it is. I only bothered research 2 states, NY and NJ and of course NY had none of record past 1827, however NJ only set the last ones free with the amendment in 1865. It is a matter of record they set 16 (supposedly the last 16) free that year. Give it up, btw, trying to set any agendas or define any narratives for me. Many are these days into creating some sort of neat little box holding a group who hold these or those pre-determined and pre-existing narratives. I go for common sense more than anything, not that it is any of your affair or real interest. Have a nice day.....

 

[HeulenHund2]

I'm not much into pretending. I do like to cut to the chase so to speak and share information that many are not privy too. An ideal situation would be your contention that none of the northern states had slaves past 1821. I had heard input contrary to your post so I choose to correct you. Nothing personal, it just is what it is. I only bothered research 2 states, NY and NJ and of course NY had none of record past 1827, however NJ only set the last ones free with the amendment in 1865. It is a matter of record they set 16 (supposedly the last 16) free that year. Give it up, btw, trying to set any agendas or define any narratives for me. Many are these days into creating some sort of neat little box holding a group who hold these or those pre-determined and pre-existing narratives. I go for common sense more than anything, not that it is any of your affair or real interest. Have a nice day.....

New Jersey was the last Union State to allow slavery. They banned any further enslaving in 1804. At that time They ordered all slaves to be freed when They became adults, but allowed those slaves Who were already adults in 1804 to remain property for Their natural lives. In practice though slavery was dead in NJ by 1820, only a very few remained.
If You consider that some kind of notable correction, I'll have a good chuckle at Your very minor point.

 

[HeulenHund2]

New Jersey was the last Union State to allow slavery. They banned any further enslaving in 1804. At that time They ordered all slaves to be freed when They became adults, but allowed those slaves Who were already adults in 1804 to remain property for Their natural lives. In practice though slavery was dead in NJ by 1820, only a very few remained.
If You consider that some kind of notable correction, I'll have a good chuckle at Your pointless very minor point.

By the way, Your way of looking at THIS subject is anything but ''common sense''. You reach out for minor details to try to make it seem as if there was equal good and bad on each side, THAT is a huge lie.

 

[Fivehade]

That is correct, You proved My point.
What question is it You keep claiming I won't answer ?
Put it out there or STFU.

why's he keep calling you Dennis? that you're name?

 

[HeulenHund2]

why's he keep calling you Dennis? that you're name?

I guess He thinks I'm somebody he knows named Dennis.
If not, I'm as in the dark as You are.

 

[Lakemont Dawg]

New Jersey was the last Union State to allow slavery. They banned any further enslaving in 1804. At that time They ordered all slaves to be freed when They became adults, but allowed those slaves Who were already adults in 1804 to remain property for Their natural lives. In practice though slavery was dead in NJ by 1820, only a very few remained.
If You consider that some kind of notable correction, I'll have a good chuckle at Your very minor point.

LMAO! "New Jersey was the last Union State to allow slavery" huh, Dennis the Maggot? So Delaware WASN'T a Union state? How about Maryland? Hell, how about south of Maryland in Washington, DC? Missouri? Kentucky? Hey, what about Union-created WEST Virginia? ALL had slaves legally until January 1866, except DC.

Crickets......

 

[HeulenHund2]

LMAO! "New Jersey was the last Union State to allow slavery" huh, Dennis the Maggot? So Delaware WASN'T a Union state? How about Maryland? Hell, how about south of Maryland in Washington, DC? Missouri? Kentucky? Hey, what about Union-created WEST Virginia? ALL had slaves legally until January 1866, except DC.

Crickets......

Wow, I even gave You the answer, and You're still too lame to get it right.
The border states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky were not Union, they were neutral.

 

[Lakemont Dawg]

Wow, I even gave You the answer, and You're still too lame to get it right.
The border states of Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky were not Union, they were neutral.

Maggot, you can't actually do this 24/7 and still be so stupid sounding in your replies, huh? You wrote the words "Union State", not me. As best can recall, all the States I mentioned NEVER seceded, but did supply hundreds of thousands of Yankee troops for the "cause" and also never suffered under the Radical Republican Retribution of Reconstruction foisted on the Confederate States following the RE-UNION. Delaware not a Union State? LMAO! Now, Go The F away and kill yourself. Please.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Maggot, you can't actually do this 24/7 and still be so stupid sounding in your replies, huh? You wrote the words "Union State", not me. As best can recall, all the States I mentioned NEVER seceded, but did supply hundreds of thousands of Yankee troops for the "cause" and also never suffered under the Radical Republican Retribution of Reconstruction foisted on the Confederate States following the RE-UNION. Delaware not a Union State? LMAO! Now, Go The F away and kill yourself. Please.

You ignorant, toothless, racist POS.
If You are so desperate for ANY bit of success against Me, I suppose You have a tiny, but technical point.
I could have been more precise for those lacking common sense. The border states were a mix between southern agrarian and Northern industrial.
Those border states sent troops to both sides. Maryland was most interesting. Though They flirted with secession, far more served The North than The South. Still, most of the memorials around the state are Confederate. That is because, like You, some in that state are backward looking, hairy knuckled, Self loathing idiots.

I see You have 6 whole likes out of 3800 post, that's more than I'd of guessed.

 

[whitepug6]

F...k The Confederacy. It was as evil a state as has existed.
All of this minute detail is smoke.

All confederates from president to private soldier, were low down despicable traitors to the United States. They violated Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution and deserve to be lighted down in shame as turncoats who were as ignoble as Benedict Arnold.

 

[Fivehade]

You ignorant, toothless, racist POS.
If You are so desperate for ANY bit of success against Me, I suppose You have a tiny, but technical point.
I could have been more precise for those lacking common sense. The border states were a mix between southern agrarian and Northern industrial.
Those border states sent troops to both sides. Maryland was most interesting. Though They flirted with secession, far more served The North than The South. Still, most of the memorials around the state are Confederate. That is because, like You, some in that state are backward looking, hairy knuckled, Self loathing idiots.

I see You have 6 whole likes out of 3500 post, that's more than I'd of guessed.

come now DENNIS, you need to put more words in BOLD

 

[HeulenHund2]

come now DENNIS, you need to put more words in BOLD

No way, I'm the reserved type.

 

[HeulenHund2]

All confederates from president to private soldier, were low down despicable traitors to the United States. They violated Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution and deserve to be lighted down in shame as turncoats who were as ignoble as Benedict Arnold.

That is a bit further than My position. I do think the institution and it's leaders were as wrong as wrong gets. Even many of the common German soldiers in WWII were just pawns to the hierarchy though.

I damn the cause, but not every man who fought under it's flag.
We have tin plate pictures of MY ancestors in Their Confederate Unis holding Their rifles.

 

[whitepug6]

That is a bit further than My position. I do think the institution and it's leaders were as wrong as wrong gets. Even many of the common German soldiers in WWII were just pawns to the hierarchy though.

I damn the cause, but not every man who fought under it's flag.
We have tin plate pictures of MY ancestors in Their Confederate Unis holding Their rifles.

I have traitorous ancestors too. However, more than 100,000 southerners nobly served the United States during the War of Northern Annihilation.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Very well presented post, but just full of inaccuracies and half truths.
The ''fire eaters'' in the south made it clear electing Lincoln meant war, they were 100% dedicated to making it happen as soon as the 1860 election was finalized.

The people who literally started the war were those very fire eaters Who stayed in Charleston after the Secessionist Convention, they were the ones Who maneuvered to make sure Sumter was fired upon.

There are endless private letters from Southern Generals down to privates that make it clear slavery was the principle issue. One comes to mind of a private Who wrote home about how much more beautiful and well developed Penn. was than He'd expected. He went on to state He might like to live there someday, but since He'd never live in a country that didn't allow slavery, He guess He wouldn't.

As with any war it was waged collectively, but by individuals. Individuals always have Their own motives. Many in The North did care passionately about The Cause of ending slavery, many others fought out of a sense of duty to Country. Many were conscripts though, they sometimes had no motive other than to survive the war.

I agree that it was The Planter Elite in The South Who manipulated towards war, hell Americans still die for big Oil and the War Industries.

You should really exclude yourself from these conversations. You really only know what your left wing college professor has taught you. As big as the cotton trade was to the South, Rice was almost as big. The North needed those revenues to stay solvent. Slavery wasn't a moral thought to the north, it was a means to justify their ends. Abe was a tyrant. And he proved he'd kill anyone that got in his way.

The South didn't invade the north, the North occupied Southern property. They were given every opportunity to leave. But by leaving it didn't help Abe with this agenda.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

All confederates from president to private soldier, were low down despicable traitors to the United States. They violated Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution and deserve to be lighted down in shame as turncoats who were as ignoble as Benedict Arnold.

From a "black lives matter" Radical...

 

[whitepug6]

From a "black lives matter" Radical...

From a neo-confederate loser.