In Response to Col. Bateman

Col. Bateman,

In response to your article “It’s about Slavery Stupid” at http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/civil-war-was-about-slavery-022814#comments

The only reason I am contacting you by email is because I could not get your blog page to work. I could only see one comment out of 59 and I could not post a reply. I had rather exchange facts out in the open so everyone can see them. If you decide to contact me your by email your comments will be posted to the links after this paragraph. As stated below you are invited to a working website that allows non-members to view all posts. If you want to defend your position you are more than welcome to do so.

http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_post.php?nt.2

and

Cold Southern Steel at — https://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/in-response-to-col-bateman/

First of all the WBTS WAS NOT about slavery at all.  I can prove you are wrong. Your sources are nothing more than cherry picked quotes.

Second, I have documented about 10,000 Negroes who served the Confederacy in one way or another. Feel free to visit http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2 to challenge any entry you disagree with.

Third. I challenge you to a civil, factual historical debate. We can use the Southern heritage Advancement Preservation and Education forum at http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

Leave your insults at home bring all the facts you have, I assure you that you will need them.

 George Purvis                                                                                 Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “In Response to Col. Bateman

  1. I am posting Col. Bateman’s email address because he has it on the blog he writes for.
    ***************************************************

    From: Robert Bateman To: georgetom purvis Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 10:53 PM
    Subject: RE: Slavery and the WBTS

    George,

    Show me a source from a southern slave, or freedman, who personally stated that he voluntarily fought for the rebellion against the United States.

    Your site will not let me see anything like that. Standing by.

    I do not own a blog site of my own. Don’t know what you are talking about there. But I do write for Esquire magazine.

    Bob Bateman
    ************************************

    My response to the above:

    Robert,

    To access the information go to the menu at the left and in the drop down menu select any info. you wish to view.

    LOL LOL LOL That is good. I admit I cannot come up with any exact statements from any of these men, it is documented they all did serve. Frankly I am not going to read the whole entire website again looking for a quote. For some names you can go to http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?31

    If you go to SHAPE main http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

    and look to the left you will see a welcome box where you can join SHAPE. After I activate your account you can post at will.

    Now as I said regarding the issue of slavery and the war, it is simple the war had nothing to do with slavery. Historical facts support my statement.

    Regards,

    George Purvis

  2. From: Robert Bateman To: georgetom purvis Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:59 PM
    Subject: RE: Slavery and the WBTS

    George,

    So you deny the actual men who made the declarations of their causes for secession? You are calling those Confederates liars, when they announced the reason for secssion?

    Interesting.

    But if not, how do you propose that those 1861 rebel leaders should be interpreted regarding causation. Did you evem read their statement?

    Bob Bateman

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

    And my reply–

    georgetom purvis ToRobert Bateman Col. Bateman,

    Sir, rest assured I have read the Declarations of Secession and the Cornerstone Speech more than once. I must say I am not surprised that these are the two documents you hold up to prove the war was all about slavery. I would like to point out a couple of facts about each.

    First the secession documents do not mention going to war for any reasons they are simply a list of grievances which caused the South to leave the Union Taxes, Indians raids,bailouts and improvements in other states are also listed as causes. In reality the Southern states could have seceded because of the color of Lincoln’s eyes.

    Second, the Cornerstone speech. If you will go to http://civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm you will notice this statement at the top of the page “The Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version exists.”

    Looking at the bottom of the page we see this statement —
    “[REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]”

    If you can prove these facts about the Stephen’s speech inaccurate, please do so. At any rate if Stephen’s speech is assumed to be 100% accurate, he is still not calling for war! Here is something that Should be noted, Stephens in his “What I Really Said*” denies much of this speech and goes on to say this– My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished.

    Now sir I ask you, please present your facts proving the war was all about slavery. If you have no more facts to present to support your argument, I shall present my facts proving that slavery was not a cause of the war.

    Best Regards,
    George Purvis
    Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education

  3. If the South would have accepted the Corwin (13th) amendment before the war, they could have kept their slaves, so why secede based only on slavery? Did Lincoln not admit to using the Emancipation as a war jester at hampton roads in Feb, 65 when he compared slaves to groveling hogs? Lincoln was a Marxist and the South saw him for the traitor to the original constitution that he was. At that Hampton Roads conference the Union delegation even discussed allowing the Southern States to kill the new 13th amendment if they laid down their arms and rejoined the Union. VP Stephens wrote this in his book which seldom gets referenced but should in light of the fact that Yankees will throw down his cornerstone speech as proof of their point. Well if they want to quote Stephens than read his book!

    • Thanks Kevin. There are many instances that prove the war wasn’t about slavery, the Cornerstone and the Secession Documents are the two sources nearly all Union leaning people use as their proof positive.

      Would you post here Lincoln’s entire hog comment and give the source/ I have never heard that statement.

      George

      • The story of the peace conference is related by a participant who was vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, in volume two of his work entitled A Constitutional View of the War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results, at pages 589 through 625.

        The subject of slavery then came up and Mr. Stephens asked President Lincoln what would be the status of the slave population in the Confederate states, and especially what effect the Emancipation Proclamation would have if the Confederates rejoined the Union. President Lincoln responded that the Proclamation was only a war measure and as soon as the war ceased, it would have no operation for the future. It was his opinion that the Courts would decide that the slaves who were emancipated under the Proclamation would remain free but those who were not emancipated during the war would remain in slavery. Mr. Seward pointed out that only about two hundred thousand (200,000) slaves had come under the operation of the Proclamation and this would be a small number out of the total. Mr. Seward then brought up the point that several days before the meeting, there had been a proposed 13th constitutional amendment to cause the immediate abolition of slavery throughout the United States, but if the war were to cease and the Confederates rejoined the Union, they would have enough votes to kill the amendment. He stated that there would be thirty-six (36) states and ten (10) could defeat the amendment. The reader should be reminded at this point that President Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address before the war, gave his support to the first 13th amendment pending at that time which would have explicitly protected slavery where it already existed.

        Mr. Stephens then inquired as to what would be status of the states in regard to their representation in Congress and President Lincoln replied that they would have their full rights restored under the Constitution. This would mean that there would be no punishment or reconstruction imposed. President Lincoln then returned to the slavery question and stated that it was never his intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed and he would not have done so during the war, except that it became a military necessity. He had always been in favor of prohibiting the extension of slavery into the territories but never thought immediate emancipation in the states where it already existed was practical. He thought there would be “many evils attending” the immediate ending of slavery in those states. Judge Campbell then asked Mr. Seward if he thought there would be good race relations in the South upon immediate emancipation and inquired about what would happen to the freed slaves. President Lincoln responded by telling an anecdote about an Illinois farmer and how he avoided any effort in finding food for his hogs, and his method would apply to the freed slaves, in other words “let’em root!” The Confederate delegation showed no interest in protecting slavery in the Confederacy with their only interest being independence from the Union and the protection of the right to secede, which raised the subject of West Virginia. Mr. Hunter asked President Lincoln whether West Virginia, which had seceded from the State of Virginia, would be allowed to remain a separate state and President Lincoln stated that it would.

        Lincoln recognized the right of West Virginia to secede but refused to recognize the right of the South to secede. Mr. Hunter indicated that President Lincoln’s proposal amounted to an unconditional surrender but Mr. Seward responded that the North would not be conquerors but rather the states would merely have to recognize national authority and the execution of the national laws. The South would regain full protection of the Constitution like the rest of the states.

        President Lincoln returned to the question of slavery stating that he thought the North would be willing to be taxed to compensate the Southern people for the loss of their slaves. He said that he had many conversations to the effect that if there was a voluntary abolition of slavery the American government would pay a fair indemnity and specified that four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) would probably be appropriated for this purpose. Mr. Seward said that the Northern people were weary of the war and they would be willing to pay this amount of indemnity rather than continuing to pay for the war.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s