Sometimes, some folks logic defies my understanding !
The Folks from up north have a marker that glorifies the use of slaves to build the U.S. Capitol !
It pays honor to their efforts!
Were the slaves willing participants?
_____________________________________________________________
I guess if the North used slaves for labor that's OK, However-----
Andy Hall posted this
The force of negroes on the island consists of 481 effective men. Of these 40 are at the saw-mills, 100 cutting and carrying sod (as all the works are of sand, consequently the sodding must be done all over the works), 40 carrying timber and iron, which leaves 301 on the works, including [harbor] obstructions. The whole force of negroes consists, as above, of 481 effective, 42 cooks, 78 sick; total, 601.
In order to complete the defenses of Galveston it will require the labor of 1,000 negroes during three weeks, or eight weeks with the present force. The work of soldiers amounts to very little, as the officers seem to have no control whatever over their men. The number of soldiers at work is about 100 men, whose work amount to 10 negroes’ work.
In order to complete the defenses of Galveston it will require the labor of 1,000 negroes during three weeks, or eight weeks with the present force. The work of soldiers amounts to very little, as the officers seem to have no control whatever over their men. The number of soldiers at work is about 100 men, whose work amount to 10 negroes’ work.
___________________________________________________________
Now then would it be OK to place a marker to honor the Impressed Slaves who worked on fortifications in the south?
Or better yet a marker in a cotton field!
I somehow feel the NAACP would be up in arms over such a marker!
But what's the difference?
Geographical location !
I guess it's OK to uphold and honor slavery in the north, but the "Evil South" can not make the same claim!
So what's up with that ?
If the South was "Wrong" by using unwilling Impressed Slaves during the war, how can the North be "Right" for doing the same thing?
Can someone please explain the difference?
Once again the Yankee bloggers are not in line to give a reply!
ReplyDeleteI feel it's a fair question!
I have sent links to a few of them and I can see by my traffic log they have been to the blog, Yet they choose to remain silent!
Mr. Simpsom, Hall, Levin, and Meyer, you guys flaunt your education, so here is your chance to show a High School Graduate your mental superiority! Just tell me why it's OK for the North to honor "Impressed Slaves" but not the South ?
I have several comments.
ReplyDeleteFirst off: Washington, DC was, and is, part of the South. Both MD and VA, from which the District was created, were slave states. For Census purposes, the District is still considered part of the South.
Second, the marker does not "glorify" the fact that slaves helped to build the Capitol. There is a difference between commemoration and glorification. This marker commemorates the fact that slaves built the place.
Third, nothing in the marker implies or infers that the slaves did anything willingly. The fact that the marker notes that the workers were "Enslaved" makes it clear that the slaves were not acting of their own volition, but rather, out of that of their slavemasters.
Would it be OK to "place a marker to honor the Impressed Slaves who worked on fortifications in the south?" The answer is, it would be great to have markers that commemorate the work of the slaves, if it is done in a way that acknowledges their humanity and enslavement, as opposed to honoring or glorifying slavery, their slavemasters, or the Confederacy.
Good Points !
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply!
"First off: Washington, DC was, and is, part of the South".
Yes but it was the Capitol used by Mr Lincoln and the Federal forces that invaded the south.
Thats why I put it in the North's area.
"There is a difference between commemoration and glorification"
You are correct! Thank you!
But I guess it's a matter of preception.
Two sides of the same coin, so to speak!
"Third, nothing in the marker implies or infers that the slaves did anything willingly."
I can't argue with that !
"The answer is, it would be great to have markers that commemorate the work of the slaves ---"
I agree, But I feel that most efforts in "Dixie" would be attacked by the NAACP.
??
ReplyDelete{Yes but it was the Capitol used by Mr Lincoln and the Federal forces. Thats why I put it in the North's area.}
Yes, but the Capitol was used and populated by Southerners before the Civil War, and after the Civil War. Indeed, the marker notes that the Capitol was built between 1803 and 1807; the president at the time was a Southerner (Thomas Jefferson). Meanwhile, Lincoln wasn't even born until 1809, and not elected president until 1860.
****
{But I feel that most efforts in "Dixie" would be attacked by the NAACP.}
Do you have any evidence that the NAACP attacked the marker you mention?
If a marker or other commemoration is done in a way that faithfully acknowledges the humanity and enslavement of these folks, I don't think the NAACP would have a problem. I think it would be great to see black Southerners and white Southerners collaborate on such projects. Maybe people will follow the example of the marker you cite and be inspired to make one of their own in their particular locale.
Of course, if it were up to me, I'd like to see more done to commemorate the hundreds of thousands of slaves who fled to freedom during the war, under very difficult circumstances. That is a uniquely Southern story that is ignored in our public spaces.
However the Capitol was still under construction during Mr Lincolns term, using slave labor!
ReplyDelete"Do you have any evidence that the NAACP attacked the marker you mention"?
None what so ever, But the marker I mentioned is in the North! The geography makes a difference.
Of course,
"if it were up to me, I'd like to see more done to commemorate the hundreds of thousands of slaves who fled to freedom during the war, under very difficult circumstances. That is a uniquely Southern story that is ignored in our public spaces."
"hundreds of thousands of slaves who fled to freedom "
Please quote your source for this number, I'm not disputing it! I just would like to find out more, as well as where the thousands of slaves were allowed to settle. When you include the Black Exclusionary laws that forbid blacks from living in the areas they had fled to. Which is why the undreground RR went all the way to Canada.
As well as Mr Lincolns plan for colonization, It seems that the slaves who found freedom were not welcome in their new homes.
No matter how "WE" look at it Slavery was the sin of a nation !
What good does it do to flee the opression of slavery, if you move to an area that does not want you there?
Out of the frying pan and into the fire ?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm
So what happened to the Slaves who escaped to freedom?
ReplyDeleteThe London Quarterly Review cites The New York Church Journal: "The Rev. Mr. Fiske, [Union] army ch...aplain says, 'Out of an average number of 4000 blacks under my charge at Memphis during the months of February, March, and April 1863, there died during that time 1200. Three-fourths of them had no change of raiment; probably one-fourth of the women had but one garment between them and utter nakedness. Many children were kept night and day rolled in the poor blanket of family-its sole apparel. Multitudes had no beds. There were no floors in their leaky tents, and no chance for fires. The wonder is not that so many died, but that so many lived. The suffering of this people is our national dishonor. If they are not rescued, History will run this—The American people enticed within their lines tens of thousands of slaves, alluring them with promises of liberty. They proceeded to pick out all the able-bodied men to reinforce their armies, huddled the rest together in great camps, and left them to perish of hunger and nakedness by the hundred. How will that page of history be read?'
He [the slave] labors for months, and at last is only paid with promises, unless perchance it may be with kicks, cuffs, and curses. Under such treatment he feels that he has... exchanged one master for many masters; these continued abuses sadden and depress him, and he sighs to return to his former home and master. He, at least, fed, clothed, and sheltered him..."
ReplyDelete