Rebels and Red Coats - Native Americans & Blacks in the American Revolution

by Simon 69 Replies latest jw friends

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    The war wasn't about slavery. It was about the 'union'. The north had suffered many setbacks.

    After 17 months of war things were not going well for the North, especially in its closely watched Eastern Theater. In the five great battles fought there from July 1861 through September 17, 1862, the changing cast of Union generals failed to win a single victory. The Confederate army won three: First Bull Run (or First Manassas) on July 21,1861; Seven Days ­ six major battles fought from June 25-July 1, 1862 during the Union army's Peninsular Campaign that, in sum, amounted to a strategic Confederate victory when McClellan withdrew his army from the peninsula; and Second Bull Run (or Second Manassas) on August 29-30, 1862. Two battles were indecisive: Seven Pines (or Fair Oaks) on May 31-June 1, 1862, and Antietam (or Sharpsburg) on September 17, 1862. In the West, Grant took Fort Donelson on February 14, 1862 and captured 14,000 Confederate soldiers. But then he was caught by surprise in the battle of Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing) on April 6-7, 1862 and lost 13,000 out of a total of 51,000 men that fought in this two-day battle. Sickened by the carnage, people in the North did not appreciate at the time that this battle was a strategic victory for the North. Then came Antietam on September 17, the bloodiest day in the entire war; the Union army lost more than 12,000 of its 60,000 troops engaged in the battle.
    Five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.
    The Emancipation Proclamation was a "war measure," as Lincoln put it. Foreign correspondents covering the war recognized it as a brilliant propaganda coup. Emancipation would take place only in rebel states not under Union control, their state sovereignty in the matter of slavery arguably forfeited as a result of their having seceded from the Union. The president could not abolish slavery; if not done at the state level, abolition would require a constitutional amendment. Slaveholders and their slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and parts of Virginia and Louisiana occupied by Union troops were exempt from the edict. Slaves in the Confederacy would be "forever free" on January 1, 1863 ­ one hundred days after the Proclamation was issued ­ but only if a state remained in "rebellion" after that date. Rebel states that rejoined the Union and sent elected representatives to Congress before January 1, 1863 could keep their slaves. Such states would no longer be considered in rebellion and so their sovereignty regarding the peculiar institution would be restored. As the London Spectator put it, in its October 11, 1862 issue: "The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

    And so, using the slavery issue as a war tool, the north prevailed. But it didn't stop there. After winning the war in 1865, it occupied the south until 1877. During this time, govt was filled w northerners and blacks, while native southerners were marginalised w repressive laws. One law, for instance, required a southern white woman to stand aside for a black man, or he could have his way w her.

    In reaction to this repression, the kkk was born.

    Simon does have a point about how racism is based in history.

    SS

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    hmmm, the Civil War.... oh yeah, that brings up another interesting point.... I find the British dislike for slavery hypocritical considering it is well known that they sided with the Confederacy during the War because they needed the cotton and other southern products for their vast mills. Someone should have stood up to that Superpower with a huge march through London with people carrying signs protesting "NO BLOOD FOR COTTON".

  • happyout
    happyout

    SS,

    You said "One law, for instance, required a southern white woman to stand aside for a black man, or he could have his way w her.

    In reaction to this repression, the kkk was born. "

    I find this totally preposterous. Please cite a legitimate historical reference (a legal writ, link to a legal website, or something) that proves this. And it is ridiculous to say that the KKK was born in reaction to oppression, when the founders and members of the KKK just a few years back were themselves the oppressors (and slaveowners).

    Happyout (totally pissed off at the implied sympathetic reason for the birth of such a hate filled group)

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Happy

    After the northern occupation ended in the late 70's, most of the kkk at the time disbanded. My post was to give additional background to continued racism. That the nature of the kkk has changed since it started isn't being argued against.

    I will look for the reference that you ask for.

    SS

  • Englishman
    Englishman
    I find the British dislike for slavery hypocritical considering it is well known that they sided with the Confederacy during the War because they needed the cotton and other southern products for their vast mills.

    Double Edge makes a very valid point. At the time of the American Civil War, Europes 2 most powerful countries Britain and France, were both monarchies. As such, they related quite happily towards the South, seeing in them the same sort of system that was present in their own respective countries, one of rule by a single person over many others, in this case rule by an individual plantation owner over his "subjects". Monarchies also don't like to see rebellion in other countries which is how they viewed the North.

    Paradoxically, it was ultimately the slavery question that stopped their impending support, they feared a backlash from the common people in their own respective countries and sadly bowed out.

    Englishman.

  • obiwan
    obiwan

    I didn't know that Double Edge, thanks for that info.

  • waiting
    waiting

    yo double edge,

    Thanks for the information - I certainly didn't know about American Indians being taken into mass slavery with the help of their "fellow americans" - slavery to the British. I couldn't find where you put the source address so I can go read some more. Please do so? Thanks.

    It would be hard to find a whole nation of any people who have never held or sold slaves, bondage servants, endentured servants, concubines, etc. Few nations throughout history that weren't willing to expend thousands of their own countrymen for the rulers vision.

    I think it has more to do with human nature than one government. Humans dominate each other - in general.

    "Manifest Destiny" had a lot to do with it. So did "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire." So did Russia's quest to be more European. Probably a lot of other slogans too.

  • blondie
    blondie

    http://users.rcn.com/wovoka/Pmchap1-03.htm

    I think this might be it, waiting.

    Blondie (Google to the rescue)

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    Just got back on the board.... thanks blondie for providing waiting with a link.... that was different than the one I used, but it IS the same paper.... thanks again.

  • Stacy Smith
    Stacy Smith

    Yes this site is all about being an ex dub.

    Does the owner have an obsession about America or something??? At least he does his best to make Americans feel welcome.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit