WHY TWO MINUTES OF LOST FOOTAGE FROM THE CIVIL WAR ARE SO IMPORTANT

Featured

Oh my here we go again—-Why Two Minutes of Lost Footage From The Civil War Are So Important | Student of the American Civil War (wordpress.com)

Mackey, thinks he has found a smoking gun to prove once and for all times that the War of Yankee Aggression was all about slavery. This time he wants to use an article that is found here—‘The Civil War’ Documentary 25 Years Later | Time

In this article Shelby Foote is quoted as saying– The answer Burns gets is both complex and troubling. “There are so many reasons that can be assigned after the fact,” Foote says, “slavery being the main one, and that’s Lincoln’s identification of the problem.” And with that one sentence, in those few words, a glimpse of America’s darker side showed itself—a side that has since been exposed to the light.

Well that is fine and I would believe it if there were some sources listed to back up this statement, there is not so I take it as just two men talking, expressing their opinions if you will.

Now I have posted many past articles, using documents of the period to prove that slavery had nothing to do with the start of the war. You are free to research these articles and point out any thing that is incorrect. Mackey believes otherwise, but the big difference is he never posts anything to support his view. Why? because it is faulty, a lie. He cannot found the documents, try as he may that proves his point.

Mackey goes on to try and make us believe the Secession Documents are some sort of war declaration or that they represent the entire Confederacy. Nothing is farter from the truth. Not one of these documents mentions going to war. While all 4 FOUR do mention this is not the only reason for secession. and it is only 4 out of thirteen states, not hardly the majority of the Confederacy. Another lie being promoted by Mackey.

I do however, agree with Mackey on being cautious of quoting Foote or any historian. I say do the research yourself, find the documents and read them yourself, that is the only way you will know.

“This Savage and Cold-Blooded Idea”

“This Savage and Cold-Blooded Idea”

From: bernhard1848@gmail.com

The Confederate States held nearly 261,000 Northern soldiers in their prisons of which 22,526 died in captivity; Northern prisons held 200,000 Southerners of which 26,500 died – the higher percentage is the latter. Southern authorities provided food to prisoners equal to the meager rations for soldiers while Northern prisons were surrounded by bountiful fields and harvests.

Bernhard Thuersam, http://www.Circa1865.com The Great American Political Divide

“This Savage and Cold-Blooded Idea”

“John M. Daniel, from the Richmond Examiner, 25 November 1863:

“The Yankee policy with respect to the exchange of prisoners has been clearly exposed. It is based upon the simple principle that our men are intrinsically worth more than theirs, and that if they continue to hold our prisoners and to allow their own to remain in our hands they will be the gainers. Such, in fact, is the whole scheme of the war. If, by dint of superior numbers and a lavish expenditure of blood, they can inflict such losses upon the South as to render it incapable of further resistance, their point, I think, is gained . . . “

While this savage and cold-blooded idea is at the bottom of their reasoning, they are aware that it is necessary to cloak their purposes under as decent a veil as they can find. It will not do to tell their soldiers, or the classes from which they expect to recruit their armies, that they regard them merely as fighting animals, to be used sparingly, or sacrificed wantonly, according to the varying necessities of the case.

It would be ruinous, frankly, to avow that they are delighted to retain a certain number of Confederates in prison at the expense of an equal or even greater number of their own men. An excuse must be found which will throw the odium of refusing exchange upon the Confederacy. Yankee ingenuity, unhampered by the restraints of an adherence to truth, can easily accomplish this . . .

We have sought to carry out the cartel of exchange in good faith. Let us not allow the Yankees to take advantage of their own wrong, and, while they avoid the odium attaching to the desertion of their own prisoners, retain the advantage of neutralizing thousands of our soldiers.

Gladly would the Yankee Government, in order to deprive us of their services, agree to lodge [our soldiers] at the Fifth Avenue or the Metropolitan, and to feed them upon turtle soup and champagne. It would be a vastly cheaper way of disposing of them than maintaining armies of hirelings to oppose them in the field . . . “

(Empire of the Owls, Reflections on the North’s War Against Southern Secession, H.V. Traywick, Jr., Dementi Milestone Publishing, 2013, excerpts, pp. 253-254)

*****************

No Sacrifice Too Great for Independence

No Sacrifice Too Great for Independence
“On 12 October [1864] a radical editorial appeared in the [Richmond] Sentinel. Probably influenced by [Judah P.] Benjamin, it wrote that the South “would sooner sacrifice slavery a thousand times than to be conquered by the Yankees and have it sacrificed by them. If it becomes necessary we can enlist the Negro element on our side. We can make all the offers that the Yankees can, and some they cannot.”
Other editorials in somewhat similar vein followed on 14 and 24 November – after Lincoln had been re-elected and Sherman was marching to the sea. In the latter editorial the Sentinel flatly advocated the arming of the slaves in case General Lee and the other military authorities felt it was necessary for Southern success.
The Negroes who fought in the ranks were to be given their freedom at the end of the war. For it was not a case, the Sentinel said, where the Confederate people could cling to pre-conceived notions and prejudices about slavery. If they did not arm the Negroes to fill their depleted ranks, they were likely to lose their independence, and no sacrifice was too great to keep them from getting under the Yankee yoke.
Simultaneously with the appearance of these editorials the Confederate Congress had assembled on 7 November, and Jefferson Davis, reputedly on Benjamin’s suggestion, recommended the employment of 40,000 slaves in the army but not to be used as soldiers except in the last extremity; after the war they were to be emancipated.
It was an opening wedge for the use of large numbers of Negro troops in the Confederate ranks . . . [and] General Lee, Governor Smith of Virginia, Senator Brown and Benjamin argued ably for the measure on the ground of military necessity. In a letter on 21 December to his old college-mate Frederick Porcher of Charleston, who had written him primarily to urge the arming of the slaves, Benjamin indicated that President Davis was only waiting for public opinion to ripen on the subject.
Early in February, 1865, the Confederate peace commissioners, Judge Campbell, Alexander H. Stephens, and R.M.T. Hunter, returned from their unsuccessful meeting with Lincoln and Seward at Fortress Monroe. A mass meeting was then held in the African Church at Richmond on 9 February to rally the people for a further desperate effort. The African Church, then the largest auditorium in Richmond, was frequently borrowed from its Negro members for such assemblies.
{Judah Benjamin spoke] “I want all the bacon, everything which can feed soldiers, and I want it as a free gift to the country. Talk of rights! What rights do the arrogant invaders leave you? Look to the trenches below Richmond. Is it not a shame that men who have sacrificed all in our defence should not be reinforced with all the means in our power? Is it any time now for antiquated patriotism to argue refusal to send them aid, be it white or black?
I wish to call your attention to some figures, which I wish you to seriously ponder. In 1860 the South had 1,664,000 arms-bearing men. How many men have the Yankees send against us? In 1861, 654,000; in 1862, 740,000; in 1863, 700,000; in 1864 they called out 1,500,000.
Here you have the figures that they brought out 3,000,000 men against 1,664,000 Confederates., who lived at the beginning of the war to draw sword in their country’s service. Our resources of white population have greatly diminished, but you had 680,000 black men of the same ages, and could Divine prophesy have told us of the fierceness of the enemy’s death grapple at our throats, could we have known what we now know, that Lincoln has confessed, that without 200,000 Negroes which he stole from us, he would be compelled to give up the contest, should we have entertained any doubts upon the subject?”
Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Statesman, Robert Douthat Meade, Oxford University Press, 1943, pp. 305-307)

Money to Fill New York Regiments:

Americans in the South fought primarily for family, hearth and State, in sharp contrast to those in the North who required strong financial incentives after casualties mounted. From the time of the Northern draft of 1863 to the conclusion of the war, the Northern States, counties, cities and towns paid over $286 million; the Northern government itself paid out more than $300 million – and with substitute fees paid the total of all would be at least $750 million. This would have paid for the emancipation of every slave several times over, and saved the lives of a million Americans.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com
Money to Fill New York Regiments:
“At the outbreak of the war, New York had four million people, and during the course of the war it furnished the equivalent of 400,000 three-year enlistments to the armed forces. This represented about seventeen per cent of the total northern enlistment and was in proportion to the state population.
Before the war ended, 40,000 New Yorker’s gave their lives to the enterprise. It is interesting to keep in mind that thirty per cent of New York enlistees were foreign-born: 40,000 came from Ireland, 41,000 from Germany, over 12,000 from England, 12,000 were Canadian, 3600 from France, 2000 from Wales, and 2000 from Switzerland. On top of this, 5000 Negroes were in New York regiments.”
In the conscription activity of 1863, the Republican-organ Oswego (New York) Times emphasized the material benefits which would accrue to those possessing the “lucky draft numbers.” A US Bounty of $102, State Bounty of $100, City Bounty of $300 (if offered as the Mayor suggested); Total of $502.00. Then one year at $13. per month, one year’s service totaling $156. “$658 or almost $2. per day! Soldiering will be the best business for the future.”
On August 4 [1863] the draft came to Oswego. While most draftees accepted the [conscription] law . . . the Times reported that some were applying to the British Vice Consul for papers giving them protection as aliens. A few were said to be “skedaddling” across the Canadian border. The Times noted also, that the draft had developed an extraordinary number of sharks in the area. “Several half-starved lawyers, who don’t often get any business, have been taking advantage of the anxiety of drafted men to become exempt, to charge the most exorbitant rates for their services in making out the necessary papers.”
A year later a second draft stared Oswegonians in the face. It might be avoided, of course, if the quota could be raised by enlistment; but for a time the latter lagged. Groping for a solution an imaginative group of twenty-five men sent the local recruiting agents, E.B. Burt and A.B. Getty to Newport News, Virginia, in a military district occupied by Federal troops under General Benjamin Butler, for the purpose of procuring substitutes among the freedmen; expecting, it is assumed, that they could be hired cheaply.
The agents wrote that they found a few substitutes, though the place was filled with bounty-jumpers, but that General Butler had issued an order prohibiting the removal of freedmen from the district; that they would therefore try to enlist them [freedmen] as part of the Oswego quota, provided the city would pay the bounties required. The City Council quickly voted bounties up to $300, including the agents’ fees, but the project fizzled and the agents returned home empty handed.
The Times writer considered this scheme quite ingenious until he discovered that Jefferson County [New York] was trying the same experiment. As has been seen, when enlistments lagged, bounties served as a stimulant. As early as July 1862, the State was offering $50 and the County [Oswego] an additional $50, By January 1864, the County was paying $300 bounties, and by December, 1864, the sum was increased to $300 for one year, $500 for two years, and $700 for three years.
Meanwhile, the Federal government had increased its offer to $300. Thus a volunteer might pick up $1000 if he had patience to wait for the installments; this, when laborers wages were about one dollar per day! To those who remained hesitant, the Mexico [New York] Independent offered the happy thought that the war would not last long, and they might never fire a gun or draw a sword.”
(New York State in the Civil War, Robert J. Rayback, New York State Historical Association, 1961, pp. 69-70; Oswego Counties Response to the Civil War, Charles M. Snyder, New York State Historical Association, 1961, pp. 81-84)

Millions for Bounties But Not Emancipation

Millions for Bounties But Not Emancipation
The Northern States were quite willing to raise millions of dollars for bounty-enriched mercenaries to subdue the American South, but never advanced a compensated emancipation plan to free the slaves — assuming that emancipation was the desired result.
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com
Millions for Bounties But Not Emancipation
“It is very well known that the Northern people were so averse to military service that enlistments were, in most cases, procured by high bounties. When the Central Government began to draw imperative requisitions of men on the States, the local authorities, instead of simply drafting the required numbers from among their own militia, almost universally made arrangements for purchasing mercenaries to supply their “quotas;” thus relieving their own citizens from the dreaded service.
The price usually paid, towards the end for the human cattle for Confederate shambles, was not less than fifteen hundred dollars each. A sorry commentary by the way, upon the courage and patriotism of that people, that so large a bribe was needed to persuade them to “save the nation.” But thus it came to pass that not only the States, but cities, counties, country towns, and even the rural subdivisions called, among the people, townships, raised loans. Laws were passed to authorize them to make such loans, and to levy taxes necessary to provide for their interest.
The aggregate of these bounty-debts cannot be estimated by us from any evidences in our reach; but some data will be given to enable the reader to approximate it. The city of Philadelphia alone, it is believed, owes a debt of forty-four millions ($44,000,000) chiefly for bounties. It was a very “loyal” city. It claims about six hundred thousand (600,000) souls. The State of New York admits a bounty-debt of its own of $26 millions. But cities, counties and townships, within the State have also their own little debts for this and similar objects in addition.
A few other items may aid in our approximation. The federal Secretary of War informs us that in the latter part of the war there were 136,000 re-enlistments of the veterans honorably discharged. It is well known that these usually received the highest bounties. If we place them at fifteen hundred dollars ($1500) each, these cost the Northern people two hundred four millions ($204,000,000). The system of bounties was general from May 1863 until the end of the war.
The government itself fixed the minimum price of a man at $300 by appointing that sum as the cost of an exemption from the draft. But it is well known that few substitutes were purchased at so cheap a rate. The Secretary of War informs us that after May 1, 1863, there were one million six hundred thirty four thousand (1,634,000) enlistments. Placing the cost of each of these enlistments at three hundred dollars ($300), which is far below the average bounty, somebody had to pay for them four hundred ninety millions ($490,000,000).
The “bounty jumpers” as it is well known perpetrated immense frauds; and the number of bounties paid to them was far larger than that of the enlistments. The interest and principal of it (the debt) must be paid by the same people who have the federal debt to pay. If the policy pursued by the Government as to the local obligations incurred in the war of the Revolution is again to prevail, all these bounty-debts should be assumed and funded by the United States. Already this claim is heard in many quarters.
The recognized State and federal debts as we have seen, amount to three billion, four hundred forty three million dollars ($3,443,195,000). It is most manifest, that the total mass of public debt now resting on the American people (nearly the whole incurred in the late war) for the payment of which provision must be made by taxation, must be at least four billions of dollars ($4,000,000,000).
Mr. Andrew Johnson, late president of the United States and an ardent advocate for the war, always affirmed constantly that the total cost of the war to the taxpayers would prove to be five billions ($5,000,000,000). He, of course, is good authority. And the interest on this debt is from 5 to 7 and one-fifth per centum!”
(Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Volume IV, Secular, C.R. Vaughn, editor, Sprinkle Publications, 1897/1994, pp. 143-145)

Lincoln’s Political Millennium

Lincoln’s Political Millennium
“Lincoln’s personal opinions about and his actual public policies toward African Americans are evidence, according to Bradford, that partisan politics were behind Lincoln’s high-sounding rhetoric . . . His claim that a nation half free and half slave cannot endure in spite of a historical record to the contrary, the Black Codes of his home State of Illinois, the racist attitudes of his Northern electoral base, his support for recolonization of African Americans to Liberia, selective emancipation, and the plight of freedmen overall (at the Hampton Roads Conference of 1865 Lincoln is quoted as saying they can “root, hog, or die”) give an empty ring to his rhetoric of universal human rights.
As Bradford poignantly remarked, “For the sake of such vapid distinctions he urged his countrymen to wade through seas of blood.” . . . [Can] one reasonably assume that Lincoln was zealously obsessed with the pursuit of power for a just cause and that the “seas of blood” that flowed during his tenure were justifiable consequences of his “new birth of freedom” he alluded to in his Gettysburg Address? Or, was there a more mundane motive behind Lincoln’s policies, with the ensuing war unexpectedly getting out of hand?
There can be little question that Lincoln and his Republican supporters had a mundane public policy agenda that overshadowed the rhetoric and legacy of their tenure in power. That agenda was Hamiltonian, insofar as it required a substantial transfusion of power from the States to the national government, in order for the latter to more effectively promote the style and pace of development toward a commercial empire and the corresponding opportunities for personal and national profits that such rapid commercial development entailed.
The politically contentious issues of internal improvements, the national bank, and [tariff] protectionism made giant strides on behalf of national supremacy during the Lincoln Administration. In fact the Gilded Age can be traced to the political economy of those Republicans who controlled the national government in the early 1860s:
“It is customary to deplore the Gilded Age, the era of the Great Barbeque. It is true that many of the corruptions of the Republican Era came to a head after Lincoln lay to rest in Springfield. But it is a matter of fact that they began either under his direction or with his sponsorship. Military necessity, the “War for the Union,” provided an excuse, and umbrella of sanction, under which the essential nature of the changes made in the relation of government to commerce could be concealed [Bradford, Remembering Who We Are, 146].”
Lincoln’s rhetoric in the Gettysburg Address reveals the importance of a Republican Party committed to the fulfillment of Hamilton’s dream of a commercial empire. The emergence of a commercial empire within the conceptual framework of Lincoln’s incorporation of the Declaration [of Independence] into the Constitution (or vice versa) would result in the political millennium he alludes to in the Gettysburg Address.
And Lincoln had good reason to be optimistic. During the Republican Party’s Civil War and postbellum dominance, the use of government as a means toward commercial expansion and personal aggrandizement was shifted into overdrive.
[And] Lincoln’s expansive interpretation of presidential powers made him the most imperial president in American history, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for predisposed successors. The incarceration of approximately twenty-thousand political prisoners, the closing of over three hundred newspapers, the interruptions of State legislatures, the blockade of the South, the unilateral suspension of habeas corpus, explicit and implicit defiance of the Supreme Court, the sanctioning of the creation of West Virginia, private property seizures, and electioneering/voting irregularities have all been rationalized as necessary war measures.
[Bradford suggests] the evidence indicates that “in this role the image of Lincoln grows to be very dark – indeed, almost sinister . . . Thousands of Northern boys lost their lives in order that the Republican Party might experience rejuvenation, to serve its partisan goals.”
(A Southern Reactionary’s Affirmation of the Rule of Law, Marshall L. DeRosa; A Defender of Southern Conservatism, M.E. Bradford and His Achievements, Clyde N. Wilson, editor, University of Missouri Press, 1999, pp. 111-113)

Mackey, Why Should We Care?

Oh boy talking about talking out of both sides of his mouth and being on his knees for the Black race, Mackey is your man.

He has just recently posted this article Battle of New Market about the USCT (United States Colored Troops) not the US Army mind you, that was a segregated outfit until the 1950s not like the integrated Confederate Army.

In this article Mackey tells us that Hundreds of Black soldiers fought and died herewhile storming Confederate earthworks under withering fire. ‘When they came out it was a complete slaughter,’ Agelasto said. Out of the 16 Medals of Honor awarded to African Americans during the Civil War, 14 soldiers earned them right here.” But is this a true statement? It does not agree with actual factual history, at least not that I can find. 

For this research I used Foxes Regementail Report to look up the loses. The USCT at the battle of new Market is not listed here Foxes Return Chapter 3.

Now going to this page, Foxe’s Chapter 2The battle of New Market is not listed, however the losses for the USCT is listed, in no battle are they listed as losing hundreds of men.

Next I went to Foxe’s Report Chapter 4. There I did find a list of USCT losses at New Market. “Hard fighting was also done by colored troops at Chaffin’s Farm, September 29, 1864, where Paine’s Division (colored)of the Eighteenth Corps, and Birney’s Colored Brigade of the Tenth Corps–in all, about 10,000 strong–were actively engaged. These troops participated in the assaults on Fort Gilmer and the intrenchments at New Market Heights. Among the regiments sustaining the heaviest losses were the following:”

Regiment Killed Wounded Missing Total
6th U.S. Colored Infantry 41 160 8 209
5th U.S. Colored Infantry 28 185 23 236
4th U.S. Colored Infantry 97 137 14 178
36th U.S. Colored Infantry 21 87 108
38th U.S. Colored Infantry 17 94 111

Allowing for any mistakes I may I made in addition, I come up with 204 KIA out of some 10,000 engaged. Not bad if you want to know the truth. Compare this with the Non-black soldiers who were lost.

Not happy with this report, try this one it would come from one of your fellow bigoted historians—

United States Colored Troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Colored_Troops

There were 2,751 USCT combat casualties during the war, and 68,178 losses from all causes.[3]

3. Cornish, The Sable Arm, p. 288; McPherson, The Negro’s Civil War, p. 237.

Now as to the Medal Of honor, well what as the criteria for winning the medal in those days? Were these just “feel good” medals or medals to boost moral among Black Troops???

So now let me get to the title of my post–  Mackey Why Should We Care?  You make every effort to insult descendants of Confederate veterans, you insult the bravery of the Confederate Soldier, you insult the reason the South was fighting they were being invaded) you bash the South, and it’s people at every turn and you continually show your ignorance about any and all facets of the war. You take every opportunity to insult the WHITE race by calling us racists. Have you used a mirror lately?  Knowing full well these are true statements why should we care about a battle in which a few men in the USCT fell, when you advocate removing anything and everything Confederate? 

 

 

Slavery In Virginia Or—-

Slavery in your own back yard?????

Got Al Mackey again ya’ll. Mackey with his never-ending hate for Southerners and white people tell us about some research that Dr. Maurie McInnis, President of Stony Brook University, regarding slavery in Virginia. Mackey’s post is located at SLAVE LABOR IN 19TH CENTURY VIRGINIA

You say, so what George we all know about slavery in the South and The United States, so what is new, how did you get Mackey??? Well folks it seems what Mackey is doing is just not being honest, at least not 100% honest,. But that is nothing new you say??/ Well it seems to Mackey somehow overlooked what is going on in the backyard of Stony Brook—Journalism Students Uncover Stories of Slavery on Long Island

“Those of us who live here don’t think of slavery as something that happened here. The way that we are taught or the way that we choose to think about it is that slavery happened far away, it was something in the South,” said Terry Sheridan, WSHU news director and SBU journalism instructor. “It was prevalent here. It was an important part of the Long Island economy and the economy of the Northeast.”

Mackey, you are just gonna have to do better—–

For Whites only

Everyone knows hhow al mackey goes on his rants and ravinbg about the “racist white Southerners– Confederates ” and so on. You never him him say anything about racism in the Union Army or the great emancipator, Abe Lincoln.

Mackey has just posted a blog entry in the last couple of daysWest of Slavery in which some author with his one sided view of slavery tells us that because of the Southernern slaveowners Negroes were brought to California and the territories. I am just guessing there was never such a thing as a Northern slave owner or a rcaist Yankee. But, and there is always a but lincoln was a racist, that is made clear in several of his sppeches here is just one example as it relates to the territories—

Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home-may find some spot where they can better their condition-where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. [Great and continued cheering.]

I am in favor of this not merely, (I must say it here as I have elsewhere,) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people every where, the world over-in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life.
[Loud and long continued applause.]

Source: The Lincoln -Douglas Final, Debate
My blog entry–https://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/2019/09/12/lincoln-douglas-final-debate-alton-illinois-oct-15-1858/

A Bigot With No Backbone

Hey Mackey the only thing you have going for you is your ignorance and lack of a backbone. Why don’t you stop calling Phil Leigh names and hiding with the the only supporter you have behind your trashy blog and take Phil on one on one? Maybe even take a shot at me????

1) The Name Calling Bigot

2.)The Cowards Blog

If one bothers to read Phil Leigh’s comments you will see he clearly states no fort is named for white Southerners. He never makes a negative comment about any minority or females. So right here you can see Mackey is not truthful

Pride Month– OMG

Yes now it seems that the celebration of Pride Month has become part of American History. Yes I do wonder how the United States has slipped so far down the toilet as to celebrate two people of the same gender having sex. You are proud of this??

The various media outlet5s freely post praises of this celebration from TV to news outlets. It is on the web, in various forms and you floks who are not queer do not speak up???? What is wrong with you. You will let this be pushed down your throat and do nothing (no comparison intended)??? SHAME ON US!!!