----
" In 1860 South Carolina seceded alone from the old union of States. Her people, in Convention assembled, invited the slaveholding States (none others) of the old Union to join her in erecting a separate Government of Slave States, for the protection of their common interests. All of the slave states, with the exception of Maryland and Kentucky, responded to her invitation. The Southern Confederacy of slave States was formed.
It was on account of encroachments upon the institution of slavery by the sectional majority of the old Union, that South Carolina seceded from that Union. It is not at this late day, after the loss of thirty thousand of her best and bravest men in battle, that she will suffer it to be bartered away; or ground between the upper and nether mill stones, by the madness of Congress, or the counsels of shallow men elsewhere. "
-----
Now I guess that comes pretty dern close to the phrase I used "We the slave-holding states join with our sister slave-holding staes to form a confederacy of slave holding states..."
Perhaps this saintly old South Carolianian, didn't know what he was saying when he claimed even after four years of terrible war, that his beloved old stae had seceded from the Union on account of "encroachments upon the institution of slavery ".Poor confused man! I am sure had you been there yuo could have corrected him and showed him just where he had it all wrong.
For you to try to make a false case about whether my paraphrase was lifted directly out of a particular document is just plain absurdity, clearly I was using the tone of this document that heads this thread, but it is the last sinking straw you have in your meager quiver to try to shoot me down, I guess, to have to resort to a pathetic and endless demand that I produce the very document I had already posted to start the thread. Silliness!.
Unfortunately, for you to take and hold your positions you first have to ignore the very writings and real time words of the very men who were leading and calling the shots in the CSA.
I also wonder why you avoided BB's question when he asked you if this same editorialist from Charleston was completely unaware, totally out of touch with reality, that "65,000" blacks had faithfully served the CSA (according to you anyway) when he wrote this editorial saying no one but the lowest of the lowest type of men would allow a nigger to fight?
Forrest had 44 black slaves fighting alongside him and his men risking their lives for the south. Did Forrest have 4,400 whites with him? If so it makes his unit alone the ratio of 1 black to 100 whites.
Using that ratio you 65,000 blacks each had 100 dierect witnesses to their bravery and sacrifice and loyalty to the south. That makes 6, 500,000 actual eye witness white soldiers who fought side by side with these brave black men, who saw them on the battlefield. But of course no such number of 6 million white soldiers fought for the CSA, less than 2 million, but statisticly if 65,000 blacks served there should not be a single white soldier who was not aware of it who did not witness the black soldiers with his own eyes. The whole army knew, yet the editorialists and congressmen did not? What did the white population do to honor and help these black soldiers and their families?
The equivalent of 65 black regiments, and 650 black companies were fighting and giving all for the CSA according to you, when the vote went down, when this editorial was written, when Hunter refused Lee.
How many southern officers of high rank had to have known of these equivalent to 65 regiments of black men? How many colonels, majors, and captains and lieutenants directly in the field leading these brave men into battle stood by, complete mutes, and spoke not one word to congess on the behalf of these 65,000 extraordinary black men as the debate on emancipating black soldiers raged in their own congress? How many white combat officers ignored in silence the insults hurled against black soldiers in the public press by men like the Charleston editorialist?
If 65,000 black men fought for the CSA they were uncommonly brave. If thousands upon thousand of white officers remained silent about these men's deeds of self-sacrifice, they were cowards, and it doesn't speak well for the bravery and decency of the whites the slaves stood up with on the line does it?
If 65,000 black men fought for the CSA the CSA did them dirt in return and precious few white officers and soldiers had the balls to stand up for the blacks in return. If 65, 000 men stood up for the Confederacy, the Confederacy did NOT stand up for them, If that is the case, this "fact" should be the Shame of the CSA not the thing of Pride you wish it to be.
"We will use you on the battlefield, stand by while you fight like men, but remain silent as you are degraded in public, and lift not a finger in your defence while your mother and your sisters, your father and your brothers, your wife and your children, even you yourselves are considered nothing more to us but property by our lawmakers. Fight on brave blacks soldiers, you are nothing but so much cattle in the eyes of our laws." Is that the message the black soldiers received from their congess and their own officers, and their fellow soldiers, in return for their loyalty and service, of which you are so proud?
There were less than 80 CSA congressmen who voted "no emancipation" for black slaves in combat.
What did these 2 million white brother-in-arms do to support and help their own comrades, their black brothers-in-arms, when this congressional debate was taking place, when this editorial and dozens like it were published in their papers? When the Charleston editorialist said only white trash would fight beside a nigger, did these 2 million fellow soldiers of the brave black soldiers speak out or hold their tongues?