Here's an interesting link to the series of essays dealing with black soldiers in the CSA's armed forces:
http://www.rebelgray.com/BLACKREBS.htm

What are you attempting to prove? There is no discussion here; just a series of essays from a member of "California Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans." I can write essays too!

Thread is copied (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=228374) from the Total War Center. Is there any point other than "discuss"?

I think most people who've read say Foote, Caton or similar is going to be familiar with the stories behind black units in the South's armies. To be fair to Pannonius though many people who haven't read one of those may well not be aware of the history involved, so perhaps he's just bringing it to people's attention.

What are you attempting to prove? There is no discussion here; just a series of essays from a member of "California Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans." I can write essays too!
It's a "world history" forum, not a courthouse, I don't have to prove anything. If you don't like it, don't read it.

There're black soldiers in Confederates army, so what?

We know that abolishment is not reason for American Civil War.

There're black soldiers in Confederates army, so what?
The essays were interesting enough to read.
I'll take a thread like this one over some "What if: Martians vs Haccapaelites?!?!?!" any day of a week.

Here's another somewhat related article:
http://southernloyalists.tripod.com/documents/id12.html

It's a "world history" forum, not a courthouse, I don't have to prove anything. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Well, you are supposed to start a discussion. That is the CFC rules on thread posting. So what do you want to discuss? Blacks fought for the South and owned slaves? That's not a discussion; that is a fact. It does not justify the system of slavery. It does not justify Southeners shooting cannon balls at American territory.

Well, you are supposed to start a discussion. That is the CFC rules on thread posting. So what do you want to discuss? Blacks fought for the South and owned slaves? That's not a discussion; that is a fact. It does not justify the system of slavery. It does not justify Southeners shooting cannon balls at American territory.
And now we have a discussion...

There're black soldiers in Confederates army, so what?
And blacks who owned slaves as well... I think RD pointed that out.
We know that abolishment is not reason for American Civil War.
Abolition, no.

However, slavery was the primary orunderlying factor of whatever point you want to argue that the CW was about.

Similar to this, I remember reading (once upon a time) that Jews or people with clear Jewish ancestry were allowed to serve as officers in Hitler's armies. I don't know how true it is and I'm not sure what these stories are meant to prove; that apartheid human institutions are often permeable due to either corruption or scarcity? Well, that point is probably not exclusive to apartheid.

Similar to this, I remember reading (once upon a time) that Jews or people with clear Jewish ancestry were allowed to serve as officers in Hitler's armies. I don't know how true it is and I'm not sure what these stories are meant to prove; that apartheid human institutions are often permeable due to either corruption or scarcity? Well, that point is probably not exclusive to apartheid.

Some are "closet Jews".

It's different in Confederacy--there's no open announcement that blacks have to be slaves, with no citizen rights etc, in fact, there're already free Blacks in US way before.

The South wasn't a racist government nor was the Civil War about slavery or blacks. It was about succession.

The majority of those who fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side didn't own slaves. Slaves were owned by the elite, not by your average Southerner.

There is no reason blacks shouldn't have fought for the South in the Civil War.

The South wasn't a racist government nor was the Civil War about slavery or blacks. It was about succession.

The majority of those who fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side didn't own slaves. Slaves were owned by the elite, not by your average Southerner.

There is no reason blacks shouldn't have fought for the South in the Civil War.
This is a bullcrap myth. The reason the South seceded (please spell it right, succeeded in a completely different word meaning an entirely different thing, it's confusing) in the first damn place was because the Republican candidate won, and the Republican Party was an abolitionist party. Of course, this was more for economic than moral reasons, but be that as it may, it was still anti-slavery.

So South Carolina seceded, was followed by a bunch of other states, formed their little Confederacy with the stated principle of slavery. The war started because Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact, but the Union wouldn't have fractured in the first damn place if it weren't for slavery.

Also, most yeoman farmers had a few house slaves, so it wasn't just the 'elite' who owned slaves. They just owned far greater numbers.

This is a bullcrap myth. The reason the South seceded (please spell it right, succeeded in a completely different word meaning an entirely different thing, it's confusing) in the first damn place was because the Republican candidate won, and the Republican Party was an abolitionist party. Of course, this was more for economic than moral reasons, but be that as it may, it was still anti-slavery.

So South Carolina seceded, was followed by a bunch of other states, formed their little Confederacy with the stated principle of slavery. The war started because Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact, but the Union wouldn't have fractured in the first damn place if it weren't for slavery.

Also, most yeoman farmers had a few house slaves, so it wasn't just the 'elite' who owned slaves. They just owned far greater numbers.
All correct. But it was the CSA that started the war by attacking first. Lincoln just warned them of war like in his inauguration speech. Slavery was the core of the economy of the South. It was a central issue.

All correct. But it was the CSA that started the war by attacking first. Lincoln just warned them of war like in his inauguration speech. Slavery was the core of the economy of the South. It was a central issue.
True, but I believe Lincoln would have wrangled Congress into allowing war at some point. The CSA was not going to willingly rejoin the Union no matter what Lincoln promised, and his primary goal was to restore the Union, so war would have become necessary.

True, but I believe Lincoln would have wrangled Congress into allowing war at some point. The CSA was not going to willingly rejoin the Union no matter what Lincoln promised, and his primary goal was to restore the Union, so war would have become necessary.
It was already a war before Lincoln was inaugurated. Buchanan was the one who dispatched the Star of the West to resupply Ft. Sumter.

It was already a war before Lincoln was inaugurated. Buchanan was the one who dispatched the Star of the West to resupply Ft. Sumter.
I was talking about what would have happened if war hadn't broken out before Lincoln took charge.

This is a bullcrap myth. The reason the South seceded (please spell it right, succeeded in a completely different word meaning an entirely different thing, it's confusing) in the first damn place was because the Republican candidate won, and the Republican Party was an abolitionist party. Of course, this was more for economic than moral reasons, but be that as it may, it was still anti-slavery.

So South Carolina seceded, was followed by a bunch of other states, formed their little Confederacy with the stated principle of slavery. The war started because Lincoln wanted to keep the Union intact, but the Union wouldn't have fractured in the first damn place if it weren't for slavery.

Also, most yeoman farmers had a few house slaves, so it wasn't just the 'elite' who owned slaves. They just owned far greater numbers.

Oops, it was the top 10% owned 50% of the slaves. Still, the majority who fought weren't slave owners.

Lincoln said he had no interest in freeing the slaves. The war was about Southerner's right to succeed from the Union. Slavery was just the moral cause the North (you know, the winners write the history books), propagandized afterwards.

The South and North were to different countries. One was an agrarian nation while the other was industrialized.

Lincoln did not intend to free the slaves, but he did seek to restrict the spread of slavery in the territories. Southerners feared that this was so that the nation would eventually be overwhelmingly opposed to slavery and would abolish slavery in their children's or grandchildren's generation. Lincoln singed a proposed 13th amendment (which is rather odd, as presidents don't have the authority to veto proposed amendments and signing them doesn't mean anything) guaranteeing that the federal government could never abolish slavery where it already existed. This did not however appease the south.

Slavery was probably the largest reason the south wanted to secede, but not the only one. They also strongly disliked the high protective tariffs that Republicans supported. They had differences on foreign policy too. Many southerners wanted to conquer territory from Mexico (the Confederacy is sometimes said to have planned to eventually conquer everything down to the tip of South America), and did not like being led by a man who came to fame by denouncing the last war with Mexico as unjust. They also knew that Lincoln favored a stronger central government which they believed had already usurped too much power from the states. Ironically, their rebellion lead to all their fears coming true lie they could not have otherwise.

Even though slavery was not the only cause of the rebellion, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens (who had opposed secession) declared that the Confederacy was founded on the "great truth" that the black man was naturally inferior to the white man whom he naturally ought serve.

Oops, it was the top 10% owned 50% of the slaves. Still, the majority who fought weren't slave owners.
True enough.

Lincoln said he had no interest in freeing the slaves. The war was about Southerner's right to succeed from the Union. Slavery was just the moral cause the North (you know, the winners write the history books), propagandized afterwards.
Lincoln was an abolitionist, but was primarily concerned with preserving the Union. He publically stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave he would, and that if he could preserve the Union by freeing ALL slaves he would (and eventually did). Personally he was against the institution.

The war was about the Southerners' right to secede (please get it right, succeed is a completely different bloody word, it means a completely different thing), but the primary reason for their attempt to exercise said right - really the only reason, as the others were related to slavery - was slavery. So saying the war was about slavery is also correct.

And your last sentence is completely mistaken. Advocates of abolition often argued more from an economic viewpoint - free labour was better than slave labour - than any moral views. Many abolitionists had slaves of their own, paradoxically, particularly house slaves.

Also, I think you'll find that the South was more than capable of writing its own history afterwards, and that history is not just written by the victors, but also by the innocent bystanders, impartial observers, etc. Are all of them wrong? not to mention professional historians, whose job it is to sift through propaganda to find the truth? Please, you're smarter than that.

The South and North were to different countries. One was an agrarian nation while the other was industrialized.
Bull. The North was able to industrialise due to the economic wealth of the South. The two were inextricably linked. Cotton, tobacco and sugar from the South were sold to European, especially British markets. That capital was then used to buy farm machinery and household goods which were primarily manufactured in the North, not to mention considerable private investment. This capital was in turn used by Northern businessman to foster emerging industries. It would be the equivalent of saying the Ruhr is a different country from Schleswig-Holstein, or Sydney separate from my hometown of Goulburn, just a few hours away.

And you you know what else is amazing?

That... there were white soldiers that fought for the north! I know that sounds incredible, so I'll give you some links for proof.

http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-why-the-irish-fought-for-the-union.htm

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/63rdInf/63rdInfMain.htm

Here is a pic of a white union soldier for even more proof...

http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/usaHistory/CivilWar/Images/UnionSoldier.jpg

It was already a war before Lincoln was inaugurated. Buchanan was the one who dispatched the Star of the West to resupply Ft. Sumter.

Correct. Part of the problem is that people see dates in February and assume that in 1861 the President was inaugurated at the same time of the year he is in 2009. Thus, February is Lincoln's watch. However, Lincoln's inauguration was actually in March, not January.