I have consistently said that Union soldiers at first hated the idea of black soldiers, but it didn't take them long to see the wisom of the move militatily. How they felt toward blacks in their personal lives outside of war is unknowable. I suppose a Unionist could challenge these remarks daring me to prove how many didn't like it, and how many changed their minds etc etc and endlessly nitpick the issue.
The issue isn't "well, they did it too!" Again, in a discussion of what the CSA congress did, and why, and what the consequences to themselves were, nothing a yankee says, does, or imagines, matters in the least.
-------
"Modern day CSA admirers are not proud of slavery, and it is minimized as a key issue. But they are very proud of black confederates, which they believe tends to support their theories that underplay slavery as an issue at all. Those attitudes shape their historical perceptions in retrospect.
" This is a typical mainstream thought, and extremely bigoted as well. "
So, what is "bigotted"? to say that modern CSA supporters are proud of black confederates, or that they are not so much proud of slavery? Or that their attitudes shape their perceptions?
I think everyone's attitude shapes their perceptions, so that can't be it.
It sure seems like the CSA supporters, at least in this forum, are proud of the black confederates, but i am willing to admit I am wrong, if you wish me to re-examine my thinking. I just don't think this is what you thought was "bigotted'.
That leaves only this: CSA supporters are not proud of slavery, and tend to downplay its importance as a key issue?
OK, maybe so, but from my own observation on this board I see precious few modern CSA thinkers saying slavery was key to the conflict. Their ancestors however seem to have had no hesitation to say it was their main concern and had no reason not to. Between the ancestors and the moderns there seems to be a divergence in thinking. That is not hard to understand, I think. It is only natural. Nor is it "bigotry" to point it those differences.
But since "they did it too!" is so popular around here, I will say it is no different up North.
Lincoln's racial attitudes were shaped by his times as well. Today his contemporary thoughts are out of step with the times, and some folks today are not so proud of things he said that his audiences in his day saw little to question. Modern Lincoln supporters tend to downplay those remarks that we might find more offensive today, and emphasize those that more align with our modern views and understandings. That is just human nature.
Everyone's perceptions are influenced by their own times, old and modern. That isn't "bigotry", it is just plain common sense.
Now, I wonder, if I opened a discussion in this forum about decisions the USA congress did to help or obstruct their own war effort, would the Unionists in this forum keep demanding I prove that "the South did it too"? To discuss Lincoln's relationship with his congress, would I be asked over and over about what Davis did?
"Black confederates" is a relatively new topic, that I thought worthy of discussion. The choices the CSA politicians made on that issue was absolutely vital to the CSA, not because I say so, but because LEE said so. And before him Ewell, Cleburne, Hindman, and Oates and so many more CSA military said so. In talking about how the CSA handled this issue, why they did what THEY did, and how it affected THEIR success or failure in the war, I have repeatedly said "yankees are irrelevent in this issue". And not one Unionist in this forum jumped up to claim I was "bigotted".