majority of slaves were WHITE!

IRISH: THE FORGOTTEN WHITE SLAVES

They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But are we talking about African slavery? King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbour.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.

Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.

Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped, branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more, in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is also little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded this chapter of Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

But, why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims not merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be the one that their English masters intended: To completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

Lincoln was a POS!

this picture is of 39 men that were ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations(hunting off of their assigned reservation)Yes the "Great Emancipator" as the history books so fondly referred to him as. Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. So, on December 26, 1862, the "Great Emancipator" ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota. You have no idea the things that are hidden from you with the textbooks assigned to you as a child by your government. Stay mindful people, be aware....in the age of information being ignorant is indeed a choice. 

The first recorded American slave owner was a black man.

Anthony Johnson came to colonial 

America in 

the 1600s. 


top 10 black slave owners 

Lincoln the terrible

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.
In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.
For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.
Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he

1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial---which he did.
4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.
Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics. The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians---this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children---civilians---white and black, slave and free alike---were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican Publishing Co. 2007, ISBN 9871589804661).
Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states---where he could not reach them---and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states---where he could have freed them at once.
The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed.
The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny.
In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

Lincoln was FOR SLAVERY

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

 Lincolns letter to Horace Greely


Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist.
he supported the Corwin amendment which would have permanently ensconced slavery in the U.S.

Lincoln did NOT believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
 on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” 

Lincoln is no hero. Eloquent - yes. Persuasive - yes. Effective - yes. And a radical progressive who centralized power in D.C., punished secession, and waged total war against his own people.

Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and much of his actions that have been accepted were outside the scope of the intended power of the president. Not to mention Abe Lincoln supported measures to send the slaves Liberia.
Abe Lincoln also used slave labor on his own farm. He "borrowed" them from a family friend since Illinois didn't allow slave ownership at the time.

Lincoln was a Tyrant who suspended the Right to Habeaus Corpus several times.
He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American boys and men.
The Civil War wasn't about slaves. It was about Federal Industry verses States Agrarian Culture. Federal Power vs. States Rights.

Lincoln knew how to give great speeches. He was the ultimate politician. He knew what needed to be said & when. I do wish people would dig deeper into history & learn about the true man & motives.
Lincoln became a martyr.
He set the motions going forth to destroy the original intents of the founders.
Lincoln is basically the father of our present country & government, not G. Washington.

Lincoln was the problem that turned our country into what it is by violating the voluntary compact among the states to join together and leave as they saw fit.

Official records say

The Official Records constitute the most extensive collection of primary sources of the history of the war. They include selected first-hand accounts, orders, reports, maps, diagrams, and correspon...dence drawn from War and Navy Department records of both Confederate and Union governments.Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805, Lt. Col. Parkhurst's Report (Ninth Michigan Infantry) on General Forrest's attack at Murfreesboro, Tenn, July 13,1862: "There were also quite a number of Negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day." Official Records, Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138, report of the Union commander: "Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements." Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part n, pg. 253 - April 6, 1865 "The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State." Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph, Colonel B. C. Christ, 50th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, official report of May 30, 1862, Pocotaligo, SC., "It is also difficult to state the force of the enemy, but it could not have been less than from 600 to 800. There were six companies of mounted riflemen, besides infantry, among which were a considerable number of colored men."
Official Records, Vol. XIII, Chapter XXV, pg. 688 - "...We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the rebellion." - September, 1862

Official Records, Correspondence, Etc., Vol. II, pg. 218 - "...they [the Confederacy] have, by means of sweeping conscription, gathered in countless hordes, and threaten to overwhelm the armies of the Union, with blood and treason in their hearts. They flaunt the black flag of rebellion in the face of the Government, and threaten to butcher our brave and loyal armies with foreign bayonets. They arm negroes and merciless savages in their behalf." - July 11, 1862 - Rich D. Yates, Governor of Illinois

Official Records, Vol. XIX, Chapter XXXI, pg. 617 - Record of the Harper's Ferry Military Commission (U.S. Army)
Question. "Do you know of any individual of the enemy having been killed or wounded during the siege of Harper's Ferry?" Answer. "I have strong reasons to believe that there was a negro killed, who had wounded 2 or 3 of my men. I know that an officer took deliberate aim at him, and he fell over. He was one of the skirmishers of the enemy[Confederate, ed.], and wounded 3 of my men. I know there must have been some of the enemy killed." Question. "How do you know the negro was killed?" Answer. "The officer saw him fall." Official Records: Series 2, Vol. 6, Part 1 (Prisoners of War) p. 17-18 - "...before one single negro or mulatto was mustered into the U.S. service you had them organized in arms in Louisiana. You had Indians and half-breed negroes and Indians organized in arms under Albert Pike, in Arkansas. Subsequently negroes were captured on the battle-field at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken's Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange."
Official Records, Vol. XLI, Chapter LIII, pg. 670 - PATTERSON, [November] 24, 1864 - "Colonel MAUPIN: I have arrived with my squad on return. Captain McClanahan has gone on the upper road for Pilot Knob; will all arrive there to-morrow. No rebel force below. We have turned up eleven bushwhackers to dry and one rebel negro. No man hurt on our side. The men are generally well."

Official Records, Series 1, Volume 4, p.569 - Report of Colonel John W. Phelps, First Vermont Infantry: CAMP BUTLER, Newport News, Va., August 11, 1861 - "SIR: Scouts from this post represent the enemy as having retired. they came to New Market Bridge on Wednesday, and left the next day. They-the enemy-talked of having 9,000 men. They were recalled by dispatches from Richmond. They had twenty pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer Battery, manned by negroes. . . Their numbers are probably overrated; but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by negroes, I think the report is probably correct. "

Official Records, Series 1, vol 35, Part 1 (Olustee), Page 442-443, S.C., FLA., AND ON THE GA. COAST. Chapter XLVII - Report of Bgen Asboth, USA: "...when I proceeded to Milton, Fla., a distance of 9 miles, and after rebuilding the destroyed bridge on the Arcadia Creek, I came upon the enemy, about 100 strong, and consisting of Captain Goldsby's (Alabama) cavalry company and a new militia infantry company, mounted...Having received early information of the arrival of two army steamers at Bayou Mulatte, the enemy had sent his stores on seven wagons in time toward Pollard, and seemed prepared and decided to accept a fight in the camp at the upper end of the town, but fled, upon our impetuous charge, in all directions. We pursued them closely for 7 miles, and captured 4 privates of Goldsby's company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments, and 20 Austrian rifles."

Official Records, Series I, Vol. XVII, Chapter XXIX, Pg. 635-637 - December 28, 1863 - "...It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy's sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men...The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. - Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding"

Official Records, Series I, Vol. III, Correspondence, etc., pg 767-768 - "CAMBRIDGE, September 4, 1863. His Excellency A. LINCOLN, President of the United States: "...excitement here growing out of the recruiting of colored troops, and as some of the recruiting officers are acting rather indiscreetly, I fear, by taking slaves in their recruits, and the slaves of loyal as well as disloyal persons...to enlist slaves as well as free people is creating a great deal of anxiety among the people...we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us.

There were WHITE SLAVES too

it is a little known fact that a large portion of the SLAVES in the U.S. were NON-BLACK people. Just like most people think that no blacks fought for the Confederacy , that all slave owners were white or that there were No Northern slave states and that slaves were transported on Confederate ships, it is equally incorrect to believe that all slaves were black.
If anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.English slaves : Irish slaves, Convicts, Prostitutes ,Vagrants, Children [ The word Kidnapper ie Kid-Napper ; comes from the men (called "spirits) who use to steal children in London and Bristol in order to sell them as slaves in the new world] and others ( poor children, prostitutes children like in london, kidnapped Adults)

We will NEVER FORGET !

                         It's NOT OVER !

"Camp near Camden, S. C., Feb 26, 1865. My dear wife--I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. The chivalry [meaning the Honourable & Chivalrous people of the South] have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., are as common in camp as blackberries. The terms of plunder are as follows: Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place--one-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief and staff; one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff; one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company. Officers are not allowed to join these expeditions without disguising themselves as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a suit of rough clothes from one of my men, and was successful in this place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old-time milk pitcher) and a very fine gold watch from a Mrs DeSaussure, at this place. DeSaussure was one of the F. F. V.s of South Carolina, and was made to fork over liberally.. Officers over the rank of Captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, subordinate officers and privates keep back every thing that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breast pins, &c., of which, if I ever get home, I have about a quart. I am not joking--I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond rings and pins among them. General Sherman has silver and gold enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five. But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers and many besides had valuables of every description, down to embroidered ladies' pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too. We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over. This, (the currency), whenever we came across it, we burned, as we considered it utterly worthless. I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the "Old Bay State". It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States. The damned niggers, as a general rule, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we only wanted the able-bodied men, (and to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women). Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of niggers, by way of repaying secessionists. But the useless part of them we soon manage to lose; [one very effective was to "shoot at their bobbing heads as they swam rivers" after the army units crossed over], sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways. I shall write to you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro', or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly. Love to grandmother and aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and children. Don't show this letter out of the family. Your affectionate husband, Thomas J Myers, Lieut., P.S. I will send this by the first flag of truce to be mailed, unless I have an opportunity of sending it at Hilton Head. Tell Sallie I am saving a pearl bracelet and ear-rings for her; but Lambert got the necklace and breast pin of the same set. I am trying to trade him out of them. These were taken from the Misses Jamison, daughters of the President of the South Carolina Secession Convention. We found these on our trip through Georgia." End of Letter. The letter was addressed to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, Boston, Massachusetts. end

 

The TRUTH about Black confederates

There’s an old saying about war that the victors write the history. In no case is it truer than the war of northern aggression.


Twelve Reasons We Don’t WANT Believe in Black Confederates

Many people reject the evidence that thousands of the South's 3,880,000 blacks, both free men and slaves, labored and fought, willingly, for the Southern Confederacy.

Why do they not believe, given the many accounts in the Official Records, contemporary newspaper reports, photographs, pension application records, and recollections of black Southerners? There are many instances of official records where a black confederate soldiers rank was scratched out and TEAMSTER or COOK written in. MANY black veterans of the confederate army attended and were welcomed as brothers at re-unions of the grand armies after the war. In addition there were Black soldiers ( including black officers ) INTERGRATED into the CONFEDERATE ARMY from the BEGINNING of the war. Blacks were excluded from the U.S.ARMY until the North was in danger of losing because of draft resistance. Even then Blacks were SEGREGATED into all black units led by WHITE officers.

Here are 12 explanations.

1. It may force us to change what we believe. Changing our beliefs is troublesome and effortful. Most of us have always believed that both the Confederate and Union armies were all white, just like they are shown in the 1994 film Gettysburg.

2. It is not what most others believe. The leading guideline for adult behavior in questionable moral areas, according to the classic work of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is "What would people think?" (i.e., "what are other people doing"). We base our behavior—and ideas—on what others are doing, so that we appear "normal." Since few others believe in black Confederates, we will not either, in order to fit in with the majority.

3. It might contradict a prejudice. Are we ready to accept that a black man could be every bit as brave, and every bit as dedicated, as a white man in combat? Rejecting the claim that blacks fought is consistent with a prejudice against blacks. Perhaps those who reject out of hand the idea of black Confederates are expressing their own prejudice against blacks.

4. It complicates our simple stereotype of blacks vs. whites as separate groups. But in truth, are these groups more alike than different? Maybe seeing them as different groups allows us to perceive differences that are not really there? A more complex perception is of one larger group with many diverse individuals, not of two groups of similar individuals. The simpler perception that fits a black versus white stereotype is consistent with the view that there were no black Confederates.

5. How do we now teach Civil War history in 10 minutes? How do we summarize the reasons for the war in a few sentences, if in fact thousands of black Southerners fired in anger at the Northern troops coming "to free them"? At least one Northern soldier put his frustration at that incident into the Official Record of the War of the Rebellion: "Here I had come South and was fighting to free this man," the disgusted U.S. major wrote in his diary; "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head off" (Barrow et al., 2001, p. 43).

6. It complicates the simple portrayal of the North as Good, driving out the "Wicked Southern Slave master." How can Northern soldiers serve in the role as Angels of Mercy, if black Confederates shot at them?

7. It weakens support for the claim that the War was About Slavery

We like simplicity. "The War was About Slavery" is simple, as simple as a Pepsi commercial. For a society raised on Pepsi commercials, the One Factor Theory (slavery) has enormous appeal. If many blacks chose to fight for the South, how could the War have been exclusively concerned with slavery? Maybe there were other issues. Now we might have to examine economic factors (No—not that!).

The war was about MONEY!

The year before the war 85% of Federal revenues came from Southern states.

We also have to consider why individual black Southerners fought. Some were slave owners themselves, and/or occupied respected positions in their communities as Free Men of Color (especially Louisiana and Virginia) or Free Women of Color (as in Charleston, with its 6000 free blacks, mostly women).

Suggesting the slavery was not the only factor brings up a number of annoying truths about slavery, like these:

Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves until about half way through the war ( when he was trying to get re-elected and there had been a massacre of civilians in the NORTH who were protesting the war ) and then ONLY in the Southern states. The slaves weren't freed in the NORTH until a year AFTER the war ended. History ALWAYS forgets that there were NORTHERN SLAVE STATES!

Lincoln fired two generals who did free slaves in 1861 and 1862;

Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his actual control; he only emancipated those slaves in the confederate controlled areas, (imagine the President today stating that the minimum wage is henceforth and forever going to be $25 an hour-- in Mexico and Canada).

The under ground railroad didn't stop at the Mason/Dixon line. It reached all the way to Canada because such states as Illinois (the land of Lincoln) had laws that a black could be whipped if found within the state for more than three days.

There were 5 NORTHERN slave states.;

Slavery was legal in these Northern states after the "emancipation" of slaves that were not under Northern control;

Lincoln's idea of how to deal with emancipated slaves was to send them to Africa, and a new African country was created for this purpose; it's called LIBERIA.

Slavery was legal in the north even after the fall of the Confederacy. The slaves in the north weren’t freed until a year after the war.

The flag that flew over slave ships was the United States' Stars and Stripes ,

NEVER did a slave ship sail under the Confederate flag.

the slave industry BEGAN in the NORTH and was FINANCED by NORTHERN BANKERS.

Do we want to bring up these facts about slavery?: That Africans were captured by other Africans to be sold into slavery? That Africans sold other Africans to Yankee, not to Southern, slave dealers, for transport in Yankee slave ships? That blacks as well as whites owned slaves?

Do we want to recognize that slavery had never been safer than in 1860: Lincoln personally supported a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, which he signed, and Illinois had already ratified it when war broke out.

"The institution of slavery had never been more secure for the slave owners, with the Supreme Court in their back pocket, with the Constitution itself expressly protecting slavery, and mandating the return of fugitive slaves everywhere-- a mandate Lincoln said he would enforce; with Lincoln also declaring he had no right to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; with Lincoln personally supporting a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever . . . There is nothing the South could have asked for, for the protection of slavery, that wouldn't have been gladly provided, just as long as the South remained in the Union" (Adams, 2000).

We don’t believe in black Confederates because when we question that the war was "about slavery," we eventually get around to the question: "What Was The War About?" and "Why were 360,000 Northern boys and men killed?"

Here is the REAL REASON  http://www.iahushua.com/hist/lincoln.html
Slavery had died out everywhere in the world except Brazil, and was on its way out in the Southern American States. Slavery had ended almost everywhere in the world without war. Was the death of 600,000 Americans worth ending slavery 10 or 15 years sooner?—or than ending it as it had been ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, by compensated emancipation?


8. Many whites disbelieve that there were black Confederates because of "White Guilt." Many white Americans feel undeserving of their wealth. Certainly, many are undeserving. Some give a small part of their wealth to the poor, and this seems to make them feel better. Others hire the poor to work for them—and then bask in their role as benefactors. Massachusetts writer—and abolitionist-- Henry Thoreau saw through this chimera 20 years before the War. He wrote concerning charity towards the poor at the end of the chapter "Economy," in his masterpiece Walden. Regarding his wealthy friends who "helped" the poor, by paying them to work in their kitchens, Thoreau wrote: "Let them work in their own kitchens."

One target for giving wealth has traditionally been black causes. A major recipient has been the NAACP, which endorses a movement to shift massive wealth to former slaves. Establishing that some of these slaves supported the Southern States, and that some blacks today, descendants of those slaves, still support the ideals of the Confederacy (and there were other ideals besides slavery), is inconsistent with the fundamental causes of White Guilt.

9. It is inconsistent with the culture of Victimhood. If blacks chose to fight for the South, how can blacks be passive, helpless, unwilling victims? One black liberal dismissed evidence that blacks fought for the Southern Confederacy by referencing the "abused wife syndrome": An accusation that these poor helpless blacks were victims and unable to act with volition and control over their environment. But what do we say of the blacks captured by Yankees who escaped and returned to their units?— Or of the more than 40 blacks attending the 1890 UCV Reunion, pictured in another essay? One has to believe an "abused wife syndrome" that is powerful indeed, to explain the activities of these black Confederates.

10. It brings up the annoying question: Why did blacks fight? If the reasons blacks fought for the South include the same reasons whites fought for the South, or any of the same reasons that anyone fights for any cause in any war, then we have to look at those fighting black Confederates as deliberative, volitional, reasoning, diverse, individuals, just like the whites we talk about, when we talk about why whites fought for the South.
11. It brings up another annoying question: Why did anyone fight for the North? No one really knows why men go to war to fight. Once they get there, they don't fight for their flag, or their country, or God. They fight for their comrades. Some of the issues involved in the discussion of why men fight are presented in another essay in this series, "Why Did Blacks Fight for the Confederate States of America."

The literature documenting why men fight is rich: Some of the writers who have tried to explain why men fight include Erich Maria Remarque, Hans Helmut Kirst, Heinrich Böll; William Broyles, and McPherson; Ambrose, etc. Southerners fought because the North invaded the South.

But why did Northerners fight? We do not want to ask that question, and discussing why blacks fought for the South leads us ultimately to the question: Why did anyone fight for the North?

What would you say to a boy from Iowa, bleeding to death in front of a wall near Fredericksburg in December 1862 (note the date: Before the "Emancipation")-- "Your life was lost to help force Arkansas back into a Union she does not wish to be part of"? Or how about: "You gave your life to help force Florida back into a Union that she does not wish to be part of"?

Why did anyone fight for the North? We know why 1 of 5 of them fought-- they were mercenaries literally off the boat from Ireland or Germany. These immigrants arrived at Ellis Island, and stepped from their ship into a New York Infantry Regiment. They fought in order to get citizenship. But what about the other 4 of 5 Northerners who served in the Union forces? It is indeed a difficult question to answer.

12. We Want to Believe the War Was About Slavery

Accepting that thousands of blacks fought for the Confederate States of America forces us to rethink the common assumption that the War was "about slavery." Surely no one would dismiss slavery as an important factor. But to most modern Americans, slavery was the factor, perhaps the only factor. Again, to the extent that we believe that thousands of black Confederates fought for their country, our belief in slavery as the cause of the War is threatened. This need for cognitive balance is examined at length in another essay. To summarize that essay: We ask, "what balances the deaths of 600,000 Americans during the years 1861 to 1865?" We need some reason to balance that great tragedy. What is it?

Getting even for Fort Sumter? No. Settling States Rights issues? No-- That answer never seems to explain why so many Americans died. Settling Tariff issues? No-- Same shortcoming, plus, few modern Americans can stay awake during any discussion of tariff issues. How about, to Preserve our Great Experiment in Democracy! No-- it is hard to sell this idea to modern Americans as the reason that more than half a million Americans died. The argument typically holds that had the Confederacy established itself, then there would have been more secessions, until ultimately we would have had a separate country, or two, in everyone’s back yard.

Finally, the End of slavery: Yes: Now there’s a reason we can celebrate: Slavery is bad; The South had slavery; therefore the South was bad and the Good North fought against the South, and slavery ended. Any child can grasp this argument; try explaining tariff issues to that person. Try explaining States Rights to that person—try explaining the issue of free trade and Northern versus Southern import and export economies—try explaining the diverging cultural bases of the North and the South. You will get a big yawn. Consider Ken Burns’s popular and acclaimed The Civil War—the most popular PBS series in history. To his great credit, Mr. Burns shows the appalling tragedy of 600,000 thousand dead Americans. And running throughout this 11 hour drama is the theme that ending slavery was the reason for these deaths. At one point a black woman historian makes that point explicit: The Union lifted the War to a higher plane, she explains. Clearly, Burns has accepted the idea that the War was "over slavery"—if only to give some sense to the TV audience who might wonder why America fought itself, and to do it in the TV schedule he had to work with.


Ultimately we believe the War was about the Ending of Slavery because that is the only cause that provides the cognitive balance we need.

The great evil of more than 600,000 deaths "balances" in our minds against the great evil of slavery.

Never mind that slavery ended everywhere else in the world without bloodshed. Never mind that other factors explain that the North and South became different countries long before 1860. Slavery provides that simple cognitive explanation.

Any evidence that blacks fought for the South is inconsistent with the notion that the War was only about slavery.


References

Adams, Charles. (2000). When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Barrow, C. K., Segars, J. H., & R.B. Rosenburg, R.B. (Eds.) (2001). Black Confederates, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna.

GOOGLE Black Confederates if you want to know the TRUTH!


Google The South was RIGHT and buy the book by Kennedy& Kennedy and READ it

 not only has the white mans heritage been disparaged but the BLACK MANS heritage as well.

also more here http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/colour.html

and here http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm

and here http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/

and here http://beaverlake.homestead.com/files/Black_Confederates.mht

and here http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles%202.htm

and here http://www.google.com/search?q=black+slave+owners&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

and many documentary videos

as well as Civil war re-enactor units like this one

25% of "SLAVES" were European

The term slavery has also been mis-applied and twisted by revisionists. The people historians count as slaves included ALL indentured servants including the approx. 25% who were EUROPEANS that paid for thier passage to north america by bieng indentured servants or were sold into slavery by ENGLAND..

                              http://afgen.com/forgotten_slaves.html

NOT ALL "SLAVES" were unhappy.

http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/slavery-whatexslavessaid.htm

      NOT ALL CONFEDERATE HEROES WERE WHITE