Hurley in US Today...

[HM3-8404 103]

UVAobserver is very well educated on this subject as am I, while in the military I was often speaking of this subject with some of my African American friends one of whom was from South Carolina and very proud of being a southerner. He was up on his Civil War history, had numerous books and copies of documents which he was very proud of and showed to all of us Gray Boys as he called us" uneducated white friends from the south". We would all just accept what the history books told us so he would say " you should be proud of your heritage and don't let those Yankees tell you there version of the Civil War, he said it's called history because who ever wins writes HIS sTORY. He brought this to my attention  

 

Abraham Lincoln September 18, 1858 Charleston " I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office.... I am not in favor of Negro citizenship."

 

Now that does not sound like the Lincoln I read about in school. That sounds alot like the jacknut politicians we have in charge today. The Civil War was not cut and dry good guys vs. bad guys. Parsons gave three examples of speeches by politicians from that era, now I can remember at least three speeches by politicians from the second gulf war that said Bush started the war just so his family could take their oil. Back then just as now 90% of politicians spend more time trying to divide the country Dem vs. Rep then trying to unite it. If you asked 99% of southern solders who were in the trenches fighting, slavery would not be mentioned. 

 

The Civil War began at Fort Sumter in April 1861, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't given until January 1, 1863. To me that alone proves the war was not only about slavery.

 

During Biblical times slavery was common place and the Bible even gives rules for slavery different rules for Jewish slaves than Gentile slaves. Thankfully we as a civilization have grown ethically in our view toward the evil of slavery, and others things such as womens rights.

 

Unfortunately some racists have hijacked the flag and thus what it stands for. I had family members who fought in the Civil War for the south for sure and also like most of us from this area the north most likely, but I can say for sure that my family did not own slaves and my grandfather showed me a cave that his grandmother used to hide runaway slaves in to help them escape to freedom. The same Lady who had brothers and sons fighting for Virginia and the south. Then just like now solders fought for their families' safety and to defender their country. Politicians find reasons to fight and solders pay the price, that's why we should always back our troops even if you don't believe in why we are fighting. That feels like what most proud southerns are doing with rebel flags they are just supporting those family members who answered the call to duty.

 

My intent in writing this was not to offend anyone. The quote from Lincoln has a word in it twice that may not be PC today and I would NEVER use it myself, it is a quote and in the time period it was used in it was the official word used for African Americans. If anyone is offended please let me know and I will take it down. The reason I used it to begin with was to show just how muddy the water was on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line leading up to the war.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

UVAobserver is very well educated on this subject as am I, while in the military I was often speaking of this subject with some of my African American friends one of whom was from South Carolina and very proud of being a southerner. He was up on his Civil War history, had numerous books and copies of documents which he was very proud of and showed to all of us Gray Boys as he called us" uneducated white friends from the south". We would all just accept what the history books told us so he would say " you should be proud of your heritage and don't let those Yankees tell you there version of the Civil War, he said it's called history because who ever wins writes HIS sTORY. He brought this to my attention

 

Abraham Lincoln September 18, 1858 Charleston " I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office.... I am not in favor of Negro citizenship."

Great post.

 

I think the entire quote, in context, is even more damning:

 

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.â€

 

Not exactly a modern-day Moses.

 

Lincoln historically talked out of both sides of his mouth on race and slavery. He HAD to, in order to cobble together the remnants of the Whig party to make a reasonable challenge to the Democrats, who had held power for nearly two decades.

 

And it wasn't just Lincoln.

 

"The question before us is, whether [people of African ancestry]...compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."

 

Republican William Seward, 1858

 

It just goes on.

 

Slavery was commonly thought of as economic issue first, moral issue second. There was enough of a switch in that opinion by 1860 to split the Democratic Party, flip the election to Lincoln, which guided South Carolina's hand to secede.

 

------------------------------------------

 

As an aside, judging from the tenor of your post, it appears like Parsons made another inflammatory post, despite some on-point material therein. It's getting pathological, almost psychopathic, the need to post ONLY when he *thinks* he has some intellectual or philosophical high ground. It's not becoming of a reasonable person to continue to act in such a strange manner.

 

I expect him to post again to get the last word in, per the usual.

[1inStripes 933]

People forget the Emancipation Proclamation only pertained to those who were a part of the CSA.  Kentucky was the last state to legally maintain slaves.  That was not ended until 8 months after Lincolns death.

[parsons 178]

O

Parsons gave three examples of speeches by politicians from that era, now I can remember at least three speeches by politicians from the second gulf war that said Bush started the war just so his family could take their oil. Back then just as now 90% of politicians spend more time trying to divide the country Dem vs. Rep then trying to unite it. If you asked 99% of southern solders who were in the trenches fighting, slavery would not be mentioned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I didn't give 3 speeches by politicians. I gave speeches of delegates selected and sent to states considering secession to explain why their state had seceded and to induce the state legislatures they were addressing to secede.

 

As to your second point, I'm sure the average Nazi soldier fought as nobly and believed with as much conviction as the average Confederate soldier that the cause he was fighting for was just. Unfortunately, the government each was fighting for was established for a very ignoble purpose.

[parsons 178]

Lincoln believed, as did most Americans of that era, that blacks were intellectually inferior.  He also stated repeatedly that slavery was immoral.  The  Southern states' belief that he was opposed to slavery and would aid those seeking to abolish slavery is the reason the Confederate states began attempting to secede.  That's not my opinion. That's historical fact. 

[parsons 178]

 it appears like Parsons made another inflammatory post, despite some on-point material therein. It's getting pathological, almost psychopathic, the need to post ONLY when he *thinks* he has some intellectual or philosophical high ground. It's not becoming of a reasonable person to continue to act in such a strange manner.

 

I expect him to post again to get the last word in, per the usual.

 I don't care if you find it inflammatory, it's the truth.  If I went to Ferguson and stood on a street corner and proclaimed that Darren Wilson was just in shooting Michael Brown that was also be inflammatory.  It would also be the truth.

[redtiger 1,742]

Lincoln believed, as did most Americans of that era, that blacks were intellectually inferior.  He also stated repeatedly that slavery was immoral.  The  Southern states' belief that he was opposed to slavery and would aid those seeking to abolish slavery is the reason the Confederate states began attempting to secede.  That's not my opinion. That's historical fact. 

Both North and South wanted to keep Blacks in a lower position of servitude. The differences are really very few imo (not trying to say slavery was ok)

[parsons 178]

Read slave narratives if you believe the differences were minimal. There are upwards of 2000 narratives available, but I would suggest The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass , William Wells Brown's Narrative, or Solomon Northups' Twelve Years a Slave.

[HM3-8404 103]

So parsons I will take your baited statements and build on them. First of all I fought for my country, which by your reasoning I'm going to go out on a limb and say you probably haven't. If you did then thank you for your service. Secondly I have a strong Native American pedigree, so with your reasoning I should  have a big gripe with the U.S. government since between the years of roughly 1776-1900 my people were wiped out mostly, ever hear of the trail of tears? So to take your reasoning, every soldier from those years which includes the Union army 1861-1865 are all murders, they treated my people way worse than the southern soldiers did slaves.

This reasoning has zero logic, neither Sheldon Cooper nor Spock could stand on it. I don't run around telling them to take the American flag down because it could offend me because all those years ago those horrible things happened. There is a reason only those folks in high places Generals and such were hung after WWII. Did they hang every German who fought in the war? No or course not only those responsible you know the ones in charge. Look I have friends from Iraq, Iran, Colombia, Russia from working in the DC area. As a matter of fact the nicest person I've ever met is a Muslim from Iraq, she talks the talk and walks the walk, alot of my Christian friends could learn how to treat people from her. She knows I was in the military during the Iraq conflicts and still treated me like family. 

Like I said before, you support the troops. Will history judge me as an oil hungry killer who went to the Middle East to kill people for oil, because they never found those weapons of mass destruction, am I to blame for that, was I able to say "no dude count me out on this one until you find proof". I will go ahead and answer that H_LL no.

I joined the military voluntarily with the intent to defend my family and country once you're in you don't have any say so. If you refuse to do what you are told they put you in prison or just shoot you. I don't own any oil companies, oil wells, heck I'm not even sure I have a can of oil in the garage. Just like 95% of the southern soldiers didn't own slaves, most of those folks either joined thinking they were doing the right thing to defend their families or were drafted and had no choice. They got bad or at least misleading info much like I did. 

I'm not ready to judge every rebel or German, or Russian ,or Muslim as evil because some have done bad things.

 

The Two main reasons that the Civil War was started and this really is a fact is. 

1. The north wanted to charge tariffs on the south's cotton to ship it to the factories in the north for the making of textiles. The south threatened to ship directly to England as a away       around this. So greed for #1

2. The south wanted the slave vote to be 3/5 ths of a white vote for election purposes, and the north wanted it to be 2/5 ths of a white vote. Which just so happened to tip the election     process one way or the other. So power of the nation for #2 

 

Myself and UVAobserver have both quoted Lincoln for you in a pretty damning light.

 

Oh and here is another fact for you African Americans could only be cooks on U.S. Naval vessels even up after WWII. So I guess all U.S. Sailors are evil also.

 

If you have served our great country I would be floored.  

[HM3-8404 103]

My stance on this is I don't believe in slavery in any way it's wrong period, I don't uphold it in any context including Biblical accounts it really upsets me. I truly believe all men and women are created equal, each individual should be afforded the same opportunities by how they apply themselves and how hard they work. People should not be treated differently by their race, religion so on and so on. At the same time you should be able to respectfully honor your forefathers for the sacrifices they have made and the duty they carried out in good faith to there country and families. 

I'm not proud of our country's legacy of slavery, and by country I mean some folks forget that slavery was every where in the country at one time and in some northern states during the Civil War ie Kentucky and parts of Maryland and West Virginia. The south had alot to be proud of they had the best Generals, the best sharp shooters the average southern trooper was equal to a northern sniper, we had the best minds, ever hear of the Gatling gun, and put up a very good fight 9,000,000 vs 21,000,000. 

 

Because you like facts so much parsons here's one for you. During the Civil War the south sent an envoy to France with a deal that said if France would officially recognize the Confederate States as it's own country and sell arms to us that we would release all slaves as part of the deal.

 

And another is have you noticed that hardly any of the newly freed slaves moved up north? That's because laws were put in to place to keep that from happening. You see the northern states had plenty of "slave labor" the newly arrived Irish, Scottish, and Germans.

[redtiger 1,742]

Read slave narratives if you believe the differences were minimal. There are upwards of 2000 narratives available, but I would suggest The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass , William Wells Brown's Narrative, or Solomon Northups' Twelve Years a Slave.

I have read parts of both The Narrative of Fredrick Douglass and Twelve Years a Slave.

 

My point was more what if the Emancipation Proclamation had never been written. Blacks would have existed as true 2nd class citizens(if citizens at all) working for whites, earning a very low wage, living in squalor, no voting rights, no right to hold office, banned from marrying whites, have been subject to random physical punishment, etc. I dont think that is too far removed from slavery, at least not enough to say they would have been so much better off.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

People forget the Emancipation Proclamation only pertained to those who were a part of the CSA. Kentucky was the last state to legally maintain slaves. That was not ended until 8 months after Lincolns death.

I have read parts of both The Narrative of Fredrick Douglass and Twelve Years a Slave.

 

My point was more what if the Emancipation Proclamation had never been written. Blacks would have existed as true 2nd class citizens(if citizens at all) working for whites, earning a very low wage, living in squalor, no voting rights, no right to hold office, banned from marrying whites, have been subject to random physical punishment, etc. I dont think that is too far removed from slavery, at least not enough to say they would have been so much better off.

For every newly-freed slave that had the upward mobility of Frederick Douglass, there were tens of thousands of newly-freed slaves that had their freedom but literally nothing else. They lived in shacks that were virtually carbon-copies of their slave quarters, and they either (1) sharecropped a similar percentage of food they were given as slaves or (2) toiled in the same factories as the Scotch-Irish that were little more than indentured servants.

 

Using Frederick Douglass as a counter-example is like using Bill Gates as an example of uoward mobility from the middle class. Douglass is literally THE highest example of upward mobility among freed slaves. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

Douglass is a sterling example of reading how abhorrent conditions were for the slaves similarly situated as he, which again is the minority of situations. And Douglass's writing is eloquent and inspired. Don't misunderstand me. It's just absurd to use it as a comparative study among Douglass's peers post-Civil War.

[parsons 178]

So parsons I will take your baited statements and build on them. . 

Like I said before, you support the troops. Will history judge me as an oil hungry killer who went to the Middle East to kill people for oil, because they never found those weapons of mass destruction, am I to blame for that, was I able to say "no dude count me out on this one until you find proof". I will go ahead and answer that H_LL no.

I joined the military voluntarily with the intent to defend my family and country once you're in you don't have any say so.

 

 

 Baited statements?   I was saying the same thing you are attempting to ....... that men of good character and noble intent have often fought on behalf of governments for causes that were evil or unjust.  

[Deleted Account 5,203]

As I ponder the subject more, the two things that come to my mind are (1) W.E.B. DuBois's "talented tenth" theorem, and (2) the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came 99 years after the end of the Civil War and 101 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

It took 50 years until DuBois hypothesized that a mere 1/10 of his race possessed the intellectual talents to be leaders of men in society. It took right at 100 years to start driving the stakes into the heart of Jim Crow (excluding the Brown v. Board decision in 1957, which didn't gain traction until this Act).

 

I think back to the sheer absurdity of the proclamation that black culture was so much better off as a result of the Civil War. Would be a humorous intellectual juxtaposition if it weren't such a somber, dark subject worthy of reverence.

[parsons 178]

The Two main reasons that the Civil War was started and this really is a fact is. 

1. The north wanted to charge tariffs on the south's cotton to ship it to the factories in the north for the making of textiles. The south threatened to ship directly to England as a away       around this. So greed for #1

2. The south wanted the slave vote to be 3/5 ths of a white vote for election purposes, and the north wanted it to be 2/5 ths of a white vote. Which just so happened to tip the election     process one way or the other. So power of the nation for #2 

 

Obviously you've been reading internet blogs for your reference material.  The South did not secede over the Morrill tariffs or voting rights. Google the Lost Cause to find out where your bogus reasons for the war originated.

 

  I've already provided speeches from the secession conventions in which delegates spoke on behalf of their individual states and explained their reasons for seceding.  We also have the Declarations of Causes drafted by several of the seceding states.  I'm sure you're going to tell me that they were lying when they stated  their reasons in these documents.....

 

Opening paragraph, Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

 

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

 

 

From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

 

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union...She was received into the confederacy...as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

 

In all the non-slave-holding States...the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States

 

...all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations...

 

From the South Carolina Declaration of Secession:

 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

Opening paragraph, Georgia Declaration of Secession:

 

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

 

[parsons 178]

I have read parts of both The Narrative of Fredrick Douglass and Twelve Years a Slave.

 

My point was more what if the Emancipation Proclamation had never been written. Blacks would have existed as true 2nd class citizens(if citizens at all) working for whites, earning a very low wage, living in squalor, no voting rights, no right to hold office, banned from marrying whites, have been subject to random physical punishment, etc. I dont think that is too far removed from slavery, at least not enough to say they would have been so much better off.

For every newly-freed slave that had the upward mobility of Frederick Douglass, there were tens of thousands of newly-freed slaves that had their freedom but literally nothing else. They lived in shacks that were virtually carbon-copies of their slave quarters, and they either (1) sharecropped a similar percentage of food they were given as slaves or (2) toiled in the same factories as the Scotch-Irish that were little more than indentured servants.

 

Using Frederick Douglass as a counter-example is like using Bill Gates as an example of uoward mobility from the middle class. Douglass is literally THE highest example of upward mobility among freed slaves. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

Douglass is a sterling example of reading how abhorrent conditions were for the slaves similarly situated as he, which again is the minority of situations.

By simply comparing living conditions you’re deliberately ignoring the fact that slaves were subject to legalized brutality, rape, and the selling off of their relatives. As Observer would say… that is being intellectually dishonest.

 

Regarding Observer’s comments….who the heck said anything about the upward mobility of Frederick Douglass? It’s also disingenuous to imply that the conditions that Douglass endured while a slave were more severe than the average slave.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Who would win between Parsons and Cleveland Brown in a last clap contest? My money's on Parsons.

 

[RichlandsAlum 678]

The complexities of this entire issue are well captured by the fact that this discussion is centering on Hurley.  There are at least a couple of families with deep roots in Buchanan County who:

 

1.  Had several members fight on behalf of the Union, and

2.  Identified themselves as Republicans well before the liberal/conservative realignment of parties within Virginia.

 

I'm married into one of those families and I'm pretty sure that Hurley legend Smiley Ratliff met the second criterion.

 

And as prickly as those relationships could have been over the span of the last 150+ years, I don't recall hearing tales of any blood feuds resulting from Civil War allegiances or dissonance over Hurley's choice of a nickname.  "USA Today" might have done better to probe farther south for an example to serve its apparent editorial purposes in this case.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Interesting perspective, thank you much for sharing. I would've liked it, but I've reached my daily allotment.

[parsons 178]