S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 Forum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 S.H.A.P.E Store
 Other Websites
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Members: 0

Click To Show - Guests: 20

Last Seen

Patrick Sun 21:56
gpthelastrebel Sat 17:08
MatthewBlile Fri 15:50
Robray Wed 14:28
D. L. Garland Wed 18:09
Forums
Moderators: gpthelastrebel, 8milereb, Patrick
Author Post
gpthelastrebel
Tue Dec 13 2011, 02:53PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
War of Conquest, Not Emancipation


Following the War Between the States, the freedmen were given the vote in Southern States to assure the election of Northern radical Republicans who exploited and bankrupted their new constituents. The Union League and Loyal Leagues organized former slaves into radical and violent voting blocs to oppose their disarmed white neighbors, who understandably organized the Ku Klux Klan for protection.

Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
www.cfhi.net


War of Conquest, Not Emancipation:

“Reconstruction” is a curious name to apply to the period following the war. Indeed, the war had left widespread destruction, but the government in Washington had no policy of reconstruction. The South was left to its own economic devices, which largely amounted to being exploited by Northern interests who took advantage of cheap land, cheap labor, and readily available natural resources. This exploitation and neglect created an economic morass, the results of which endure into the twenty-first century.

Not surprisingly, governments based on the leadership of carpetbaggers, scalawags, and freedmen, groups that represented a minority of the population, met widespread and violent opposition. This attempt to create a government based on racial equality was made even more ludicrous when many of [the] Northern States rejected the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, creating a situation where the States that said they had worked to free the slaves failed to grant equality to people of color.

(Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Escort and Staff, Michael R. Bradley, Pelican Publishing Company, 2006. Page 137)


Used With Permission)
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Tue Dec 13 2011, 03:06PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Klan Resisted the Seditious Influence of Carpet Baggers

There were many in the North who understood what fueled the rise of the Ku Klux in the postwar South. “The Nation” magazine commented on Klan activity in South Carolina in 1870 with: “this is all horrible, but we have no hesitation in saying that it is not an unnatural consequence of the caricature on government which has been kept up in that State for the last 4 years.” Very simply, had the abolitionists who brought war to the country in 1861 put their fanatical energies into peaceful and practical solutions to African slavery, no Klan would have emerged to protect white Southerners amid the ruin and devastation.

Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
www.cfhi.net


Klan Resisted the Seditious Influence of Carpet Baggers:

“While there is little doubt that [General John B. Gordon] became involved with the Ku Klux Klan – he was often referred to as the Grand Dragon of the Klan in Georgia – it is virtually impossible to penetrate the shroud of secrecy surrounding his association with it. Most of what is known about his role in the organization is contained in his testimony before a joint select congressional committee in July, 1871.

When asked directly what he knew of illegal organizations known as the Ku Klux, Gordon denied all knowledge of any combination by that name, except what he had read in papers or heard secondhand. He did, however, reveal his association with a secret organization whose sole purpose, he maintained, was the preservation of peace. Gordon stated that when approached by some of Georgia’s most respected men, he joined this “brotherhood of property-holders, the peaceable, law-abiding citizens of the State, for self-protection” from the threat posed by the black population that he thought was largely ignorant.

Although he asserted that he had personally “never entertained toward the Negro race anything but the very kindliest feelings,” Gordon again explained that it was the influx of “carpet-baggers” and their seditious influence upon the blacks that forced whites in the South to act. The introduction of this “class of men whose object seemed to be to stir up strife among the people, and to create animosity,” in his opinion, disrupted the normally harmonious relations between the races.

Organizing blacks into Union or Loyal Leagues, these unprincipled whites attempted to convince the former slaves that their interests “were in direct conflict with those of the white men of the South.” Gordon also blamed these “carpet-baggers” for reinforcing the commonly held notion that all of the lands in the South really belonged to the freedmen, and not to the whites.

Fearful that such incendiary preachings might well incite blacks to violence, native white Southerners had little choice but to act on their own, Gordon contended. Thus they formed what he called a “peace police organization” to protect themselves, their families, and their property from outrage. “We would have preferred death,” he asserted, “rather than to have submitted to what we supposed was coming upon us.”

Even though Gordon styled his association “purely a peace police – “a law-abiding concern” – he explained that native whites felt compelled to remain in the shadows because any attempt at public organization would be construed by the Federal authorities as a move antagonistic to the government. Gordon even asserted that his organization would gladly have united with Federal troops to quell racial disorders, but, as he pointed out, “we apprehended that the sympathy of the entire Government would be against us. “We did not want to have in our State a war of the races – to have property and our lives destroyed. We feared the peril to our women and children.”

(John Brown Gordon, Ralph Lowell Eckert, LSU Press, 1989, pp. 145-147)


Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sun Apr 07 2019, 04:55PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Blunt Facts Openly Stated and Faced

From: bernhard1848©att.net

Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was not original and copied Lord Dunmore’s edict freeing slaves in 1775 Virginia for the purpose of arming slaves and inciting the murder of colonial Americans. British Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane would do the same on April 2, 1814, proclaiming all slaves freed in order to cripple the American war effort.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"


Blunt Facts Openly Stated and Faced:

“The Emancipation Proclamation, an incredible act, must be laid wholly to Lincoln and the small group of fanatical Abolitionists and radicals whose hatred of the South and of Southern people seems to have known no bounds. It disgusted the majority of Northern citizens and was out of favor even with the troops who were fighting Lincoln’s war at the hearthstones of the South.

It was characterized in Northern thought as the act of “an absolute, irresponsible monarch.” Justice Curtis of the United States Supreme Court, who had dissented in the Dred Scott case, publicly called it an unconstitutional act issued without legal right by the President. North and West it was denounced. In a speech against conscription and arbitrary arrests, Governor Horatio Seymour of New York declared it a “proposal for the butchery of women and children, for arson and murder, for lust and rapine.”

Truly it could not have emanated from a “great” man. Governor Seymour reminded Lincoln that the war was supposedly being fought solely to suppress “rebellion,” not to change the social system of the United States. [President] Jefferson Davis thought: “Our own detestation of those who have attempted the most execrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man, is tempered by profound contempt for the impotent rage it discloses.”

What Abraham Lincoln stood for, what Jefferson Davis stood for, culminated in a terrible civil war, an Emancipation, a “Reconstruction,” and three unconstitutional so-called amendments forced upon the Constitution and upon the American people along with an exasperating race problem – all be perversion of the form of government; by dictatorship and armed might, lawless and utterly ruthless, bringing ruin and desolation to half the country of that day, initiated by “reformers” and intermeddlers. These are blunt facts, some never before openly stated and faced, in our history.”

(The Constitutions of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, A Historical and Biographical Study in Contrasts, Russell Hoover Quynn, Exposition Press, 1959, page 21)
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sun Apr 07 2019, 05:02PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Proclamations to Incite Slave Revolt

From: bernhard1848©att.net

Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation of 1863 to incite race war was patterned after Lord Dunmore’s of November, 1775, and Vice Admiral Cochrane’s of April, 1814. In Lincoln’s case, the edict freed no slaves in territory under Northern military control and assumed he was in a position of authority in States like North Carolina, which had left the old Union.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"


Proclamations to Incite Slave Revolt:

“War with Great Britain brought unexpected trouble to the planters of coastal Georgia, many of whom had strong family and commercial ties to the British Empire. No doubt [the planters’] blood boiled when [they] read the April 2, 1814 proclamation of Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, who commanded “His Majesty’s Ships upon the North American Station.”

The admiral promised that unhappy settlers, meaning the slaves of the Southern States, would be welcome aboard British vessels, freed from bondage, and sent to British possessions in North America and the West Indies, “where they will meet with all due encouragement.”

Pierce Butler was reminded of the similar pronouncement issued by the Earl of Dunmore [Royal Governor of Virginia] during the Revolution. In his mind it was, once again, a dangerous emancipation proclamation that might lead to violent insurrection….Admiral Cochrane’s proclamation was much more realistic than Lord Dunmore’s. The Revolution had altered the British position in that the loss of the American colonies removed six hundred thousand slaves from the empire. In 1814, it was not Great Britain who was the greatest slaveholding nation in the world. With slavery no longer the economic force it had been, abolitionists came to the forefront in England and were better able to argue their cause.

The pleasant quiet [along the Georgia coast] ended abruptly on January 10, 1815, when an expeditionary force of Royal Colonial Marines landed on Cumberland, the southernmost of Georgia’s barrier islands. Unaware that Andrew Jackson had repulsed the British at New Orleans….[Admiral] Sir George Cockburn….directed the landing in Georgia. It was he who put the torch to public buildings in Washington…and who had conducted the vindictive raids on Chesapeake Bay. Following the ruthless burning of Washington, a citizen of Pughstown, Virginia, offered a reward of five hundred dollars for each of Admiral Cockburn’s ears – “on delivery.”

(Major Butler’s Legacy, Five Generations of a Slaveholding Family, Malcolm Bell, Jr., UGA Press, 1987, pp. 170-171)
Back to top
 

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System