Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And for those folks, there was the option of fighting for the Union. We know why some blacks weren't able to join the Union. What was the excuse of the whites who didn't agree with the Confederacy yet still chose to fight on THAT side?]
That's an honest question, but I would respectfully remind you that just b/c someone wore the uniform, it didn't mean he had the opportunity to "choose" to wear it or not wear it - or to "choose" to fight for the Union.
There were thousands of NC soldiers who were conscripted into service, some as young as the age of 15. One of my ancestors was conscripted into service . . . dragged off at 15 . . . with his mother and siblings left behind to survive alone. He was the "man" of the house and no, these folks did not have slaves and never HAD owned slaves. Soldiers came unto their farm in Iredell County and took the boy off, with momma begging and pleading to leave him to help her run the farm. He was taken to Salisbury. His mother gathered up the children and WALKED all the way from their farm in Iredell County to military headquarters in Salisbury, with children in tow (down to age 3) to confront military authorities and beg them to let her son go back home. She had to walk because the mules had been taken by the Confederate Army, as well.
I have relayed here that my gggrandfather was the largest plantation owner in this part of the state. His sons volunteered for the Army. All except for one, who had left for Missouri and joined the Union Army (in Cape Girardeau, I believe). He died of smallpox in a Confederate prison.
SO yes, some folks did go to great lengths to join the Union Army. There really were situations of brother against brother. I cannot imagine how that must have been, to have to make a decision to abandon your family and take up arms against your brothers.
For most folks, however, it was a matter of "let's get this over with" - so when they realized they were going to have to fight a war, they went to the local recruiting station and signed up. That is certainly what letters I have read indicate (in my family). I also find it important to note - most of these young men thought this war would be over quickly - as in A FEW MONTHS. How wrong they were. They thought they would be back home, taking care of the farm or their stores, by the next planting season.
I have done no research on the soldiers being honored in Union County, but my interest has certainly been piqued by all this discussion! I don't know how much we can actually discover about their life situations but I can assure you, I will share it if I find out anything I can relay.
I personally do not see this memorial as an attempt to "romanticize" the ugliness of the Civil War and especially not the situations of black men who served in the Confederacy. Their stories deserve to be told. As long as their is a genuine attempt at putting their service into context with the circumstances of their lives, then I think recognizing their service is appropriate.
And that's the bottom line on this particular subject
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,688,469 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
That's interesting, but what does it prove that he came back to Union County? Most freedmen stayed in the South under the protection of the freedman's bureau during Reconstruction. It was not until the KKK/Democratic Party regained full power and Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow put the final nail in the coffin of black citizenship at the end of the 19th century that the massive flight to the North began.
Mr. Ashcraft was sent to join the regiment. He could have just as easily gone to Jamestown, where the Mendenhalls & the Coffins had been running the underground railroad for generations. War or no war, they could have spirited him out of the Confederacy. He did not go to Jamestown. He went to the regiment. After helping with fortifications at Ft Fisher, he was the personal servant of Captain Thomas E Ashcraft, who was present at Appomattox.
Ashcraft, Thomas E. [Thomas Ellison Ashcraft] – Captain. Born in Union County and resided there when he enlisted at age 27. Occupation: Farmer. Appointed 1st Lt. Apr. 30, 1862. Present at surrender at Appomattox Court House Apr. 9, 1865. [Note: b.Dec. 29, 1834-d.Feb. 1, 1900. Buried at the Ashcraft Family Cemetery. He was on the Reunion Committee of Co. I, 53rd NC, Aug 9, 1879[1].] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....CoI53rdNC.html
Again, Mr. Ashcraft could have left. He went home with Captain Thomas Ashcraft.
Mr Wilson Ashcraft was wandering around North Carolina during the war. Both of the functions that he performed were also performed by white men. He said that he was born to "Big John" Ashcraft, not on "Big John"'s farm.
The Confederate Constitution was written on March 11, 1861. You need to go look up the answer yourself. You should be surprised to see that the Southern Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution had provisions to elliminate slavery at that time through attrition. It is in Section nine. Funny that the Emancipation Proclaimation was written so long after the start of the war which was "supposed" to be about freeing slaves according to northern history books. Weird? The Southern Constitution was in place before the Emancipation proclaimation.
That's a complete misinterpretation. The Confederate Constitution contained the same provision against importation of slaves from other countries, which had been outlawed by the U.S. Constitution since 1808. Slavery would have gone on unabated through natural reproduction as it had for the 60 years (really two centuries) prior. The Confederate Constitution, in the same section, also reiterated the unabashed right to hold slaves, preventing the Congress from "denying or impairing right of property" in slaves.
In Article 4, Section 3, it provides that new states admitted to the Confederacy would have the right to hold slaves.
Article 1, Section 9
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
3. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Furthermore, this North v. South stuff is a defensive posture on the part of Southern apologists. No one here said a thing about the North being some bastion of humanity. The fact remains that, relatively speaking, blacks found far more opportunities for economic and personal freedom in the North than the South through the 20th century.
This discussion is about black slaves who were impressed into service of a government that sought to continue their status as property. It is about how best to remember them.
Agree.
I read a primary account a few months ago from some material contained in the state library - that referred to slave-soldiers. Sadly, I read it just b/c it was interesting but did not take notes. So I know there is some material out there, but the chances of finding anything other than pension or regimental records that refer to specific individuals will be a long shot.
Actually my posts in this topic were about the North vs South in regards to the institution of slavery. That is, the North was just as culpable and benefited from slavery just as much, if not more, than the South.
You decided to respond to this by bringing up why the war started and why the South left the Union. If you wish now to avoid that discussion because the documented history of that time differs from your opinion, then I'm OK with that. I don't seek to change your opinion.
In regards to why SC left the Union, there isn't any interpretation to it. The document is part of US history and it's the stated reason why they left the Union. I recommend that you read it if you are really interested.
Certainly, some segments of the North benefited from slavery. New York City financiers and New England textile mills for instance. The documented history of that era also indicates a strong political movement for gradual emancipation, as reflected in several state laws throughout the North. The debate over slavery began even before the revolution, and was a major sticking point in the Constitutional Convention. Northern leaders were against the institution but wanted to see a prudent, politically feasible reduction. The booming cotton market in 1830s put an end to that dream and southerners became more and more obstinate about their "peculiar institution."
As for hypocrisy. Do you not believe it is possible to benefit from a system and simultaneously note the injustice within that system? This is not hypocrisy, but humanity.
in re: SC, I've read the documents. Their stated reasons for leaving were restrictions on slavery. Now, first you said they needed to be considered in context, and then you said there was no interpretation required. Which is it? Do you always take the measured words of politicians at face value? That must leave you open to some rather tortured reasoning.
Certainly, some segments of the North benefited from slavery. New York City financiers and New England textile mills for instance. The documented history of that era also indicates a strong political movement for gradual emancipation, as reflected in several state laws throughout the North. The debate over slavery began even before the revolution, and was a major sticking point in the Constitutional Convention. Northern leaders were against the institution but wanted to see a prudent, politically feasible reduction. The booming cotton market in 1830s put an end to that dream and southerners became more and more obstinate about their "peculiar institution."
Read this one before saying much more. The Northern hypocricy is understandable, I suppose, but still pathetic: Click on all the links:
As for hypocrisy. Do you not believe it is possible to benefit from a system and simultaneously note the injustice within that system? This is not hypocrisy, but humanity.
No it isnt. It is hypocricy attempting to present itself as humanity. Gawdamighty...it never ceaces to amaze me the extent that northern apologists will re-write history to justify an invasion of the South...a people who had done them no wrong to begin with...
Quote:
n re: SC, I've read the documents. Their stated reasons for leaving were restrictions on slavery. Now, first you said they needed to be considered in context, and then you said there was no interpretation required. Which is it? Do you always take the measured words of politicians at face value? That must leave you open to some rather tortured reasoning.
How many HAVE you read? Only four mentioned slavery, and they all mentioned others reasons as well. The Upper South, as well as some of the Lower South States, never mentioned slavery at all.
Now then? WHY did the North only eliminate slavery when it was no longer profitable? Gosh darn....
Read this one before saying much more. The Northern hypocricy is understandable, I suppose, but still pathetic: Click on all the links:
Slavery in the North
As for hypocrisy. Do you not believe it is possible to benefit from a system and simultaneously note the injustice within that system? This is not hypocrisy, but humanity.
in re: SC, I've read the documents. Their stated reasons for leaving were restrictions on slavery. Now, first you said they needed to be considered in context, and then you said there was no interpretation required. Which is it? Do you always take the measured words of politicians at face value? That must leave you open to some rather tortured reasoning.
[/quote]
Great site. I actually used it for a college project back in 04!
I quit. I really don't actually care that much about these soldiers. History is history. None of us were alive at the time and nothing can be changed. By the way, there are blacks that are members of Sons of Confederate Soldiers and do not cry about their flag at meeting being Confederate.
I quit. I really don't actually care that much about these soldiers.
that's a bit harsh...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
