Enslaving The Free: The Gettysburg Campaign (2 Viewers)

[jazzeum]

The following provides a very good description of the background and the actual events relating to the seizure (the slave raids) by Confederate forces of free Blacks in Pennsylvania in June 1863.

http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/enslaving-the-free-the-gettysburg-campaign/

This article, A Regular Slave Hunt: The Army of Northern Virginia and Black Civilians in the Gettysburg Campaign, is also very good, http://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/slavehunt.pdf

By the way, if you are interested in the issues surrounding slavery and emancipation, Civil War Emancipation is a very good blog and resource.

The border areas between North and Sout, particularly Pennsylvania and Ohio on the one hand and Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky, were a tinderbox. A fantastic book on the subject is Stanley Harrold's Border War: Fighting Over Slavery Before the Civil War.

 

[Poppo]

How evil were these confederates....It sounds worst than Hitler, isnt' it? Just a little reminder: the civil war was not made to free the slaves.

And what is the sense of such articles? that the southern states are still evil and should repent for the next centuries? Were the ex slaves better treated in the north than in the south, after war? well, no. Today, is the integration better happening in cities like New Orleans or in the big ghettos of northern cities?

 

[jazzeum]

These articles are to point out what happened, nothing more and not to start one of those debates we tend to have periodically. They were posted here for those who might be interested in reading about what happened in 1863. The articles are based them in fact and well researched. Now, if you don't like the articles, there is nothing forcing you to read them.

 

[OzDigger]

These articles are to point out what happened, nothing more and not to start one of those debates we tend to have periodically. They were posted here for those who might be interested in reading about what happened in 1863. The articles are based them in fact and well researched. Now, if you don't like the articles, there is nothing forcing you to read them.

Thanks for the clarification Brad, I thought such threads were only to justify a belief that One side had morals and the other did not.

 

[Deitz]

Brad,
Thank you for the article. I was not aware that this type of action occurred during the Gettysburg campaign .
Brian

 

[Poppo]

Thanks for the clarification Brad, I thought such threads were only to justify a belief that One side had morals and the other did not.

Which morals....Do you think that the blacks were better treated in the north (before and after the war) than in the south? Well, not at all.Ex in the north they were thrown out of the trains while in the south they travelled with the whites as they were often considered as a part of the family. The northern public opinion didn' t care at all of slavery apart from a bunch of radical and often violent abolitionists.Very simply the north didn't need the slaves anymore because their industrial economy preferred to exploit poor european immigrants and the africans were not able to work in industry at that time. After the war, ex slaves received no compensation and were exploited by the big northen industry, maybe more heavily than in their previous condition. And don t forget that the slaves were found, carried and sold by the northern ships and traders, the south had no navy.

The war happend for many reasons and surely not to free the slaves, but to keep the Union united.....The question of slavery has cleverly been exploited( after the war) by the north to justify their action....So, what is more striking is the puritan northern moralism of refusing to see the reality and the usual distortion of facts. The puritan attitude to share the world in good and evil; but the reality is much more complex than a fairy tale.

 

[Jack]

These articles are to point out what happened, nothing more and not to start one of those debates we tend to have periodically. They were posted here for those who might be interested in reading about what happened in 1863. The articles are based them in fact and well researched. Now, if you don't like the articles, there is nothing forcing you to read them.

I enjoy the articles as I have not read widely on the Civil War. The magic of history is that once you move beyond the 'facts' there is a world of interpretation to enjoy.

 

[OzDigger]

Which morals....Do you think that the blacks were better treated in the north (before and after the war) than in the south? Well, not at all.Ex in the north they were thrown out of the trains while in the south they travelled with the whites as they were often considered as a part of the family. The northern public opinion didn' t care at all of slavery apart from a bunch of radical and often violent abolitionists.Very simply the north didn't need the slaves anymore because their industrial economy preferred to exploit poor european immigrants and the africans were not able to work in industry at that time. After the war, ex slaves received no compensation and were exploited by the big northen industry, maybe more heavily than in their previous condition. And don t forget that the slaves were found, carried and sold by the northern ships and traders, the south had no navy.

The war happend for many reasons and surely not to free the slaves, but to keep the Union united.....The question of slavery has cleverly been exploited( after the war) by the north to justify their action....So, what is more striking is the puritan northern moralism of refusing to see the reality and the usual distortion of facts. The puritan attitude to share the world in good and evil; but the reality is much more complex than a fairy tale.

Not necessarily. Brad's previous threads concerning the bad things that the South had done in the ACW gave me the impression he believes the North is morally superior to the South, but was open to debate on the matter. However his recent post indicates he doesn't want any discussion with those that disagree, the threads are apparently only for our education.

 

[Poppo]

Not necessarily. Brad's previous threads concerning the bad things that the South had done in the ACW gave me the impression he believes the North is morally superior to the South, but was open to debate on the matter. However his recent post indicates he doesn't want any discussion with those that disagree, the threads are apparently only for our education.

Pity that all the articles are strongly against the south, and no the slightest critic to the north...But I am not amazed, this is the dominant history written by the winners. We can call it "political history".

But a true historian or searcher in history should have no prejudices, should be balanced, understanding the historical context of those times. It is what I always try to do studying history.

 

[Jack]

Pity that all the articles are strongly against the south, and no the slightest critic to the north...But I am not amazed, this is the dominant history written by the winners. We can call it "political history".

But a true historian or searcher in history should have no prejudices, should be balanced, understanding the historical context of those times. It is what I always try to do studying history.

The true historian attempts to limit the impact of his prejudices. We are all products of our upbringing and experiences and as such we strive for balance but the idea of completely removing bias/prejudice is aiming a bit high. I am white, middle class, middle aged, Catholic and Australian and no matter how committed to the truth I am, that must influence my outlook. Unless we accept that bias is not the same as a lie it is difficult to accept that good people can be on the other side of an argument.

 

[Scott]

Thanks for the clarification Brad, I thought such threads were only to justify a belief that One side had morals and the other did not.

Not "evil" just wrong and out of date.

 

[larso]

At the end of the day, regardless of everything else, being on the same side as slavery means you are in the wrong. They knew it well enough at the time too.

 

[jazzeum]

Brad,
Thank you for the article. I was not aware that this type of action occurred during the Gettysburg campaign .
Brian

I enjoy the articles as I have not read widely on the Civil War. The magic of history is that once you move beyond the 'facts' there is a world of interpretation to enjoy.

Happy to do so as I was not aware of it myself until a few months ago.

Brad

 

[OzDigger]

At the end of the day, regardless of everything else, being on the same side as slavery means you are in the wrong. They knew it well enough at the time too.

I'm not on any side as such, I don't have a dog in this fight as they say, just seems a bit odd to start a controversial thread like this and not want debate.

 

[braddinpa]

One of the interesting things was there was a free African American family who lived very close to the clump of trees (Bryan or Brian Farm). Of course they hit the Road before the battle. Here is a link describing a little bit about it. http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/Places/BryanHouse.php

 

[jazzeum]

I posted these articles in the wake of the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg and the discussion that was being held on the Forum. I thought some might find it interesting and perhaps might lead to reading more about these events and the conflicts in the border area, as depicted in the Stanley Harrold book. The Forum has been useful in finding what others are reading and I have recently purchased a book recommended by Al (Lancer) about Gettysburg and that was my objective here. This is not the first time I have posted articles or books that some might find interesting and educational.

I was not attempting to moralize but bringing to the attention of some who may not have been aware of them of things that happened and, yes, they happened. They are facts. You may not like the articles but I'm not forcing you to read them. The principal article was by a person who was -- the article was written in 2001 -- a senior historian at Antietam National Battlefield and an authority on the Civil War in Maryland and Pennsylvania. His article has been cited in books, most recently Allen Guelzo's The Last Invasion.

My initial inclination is to say that I'm sorry I posted them but since at least a couple of people have found them interesting it was worth the effort.

Robert Penn Warren, one of our greatest writers (who was born in the South, by the way), in his book The Legacy of the Civil War, wrote about this tendency to moralize, calling the North, sarcastically, in its attempt to assume a position of moral superiority, The Treasury of Virtue and the South, again sarcastically, in its attempt to justify the Confederacy, the Great Alibi. We might try to heed his words.

 

[Poppo]

At the end of the day, regardless of everything else, being on the same side as slavery means you are in the wrong. They knew it well enough at the time too.

A little recall: in the 17th and 18th centuries slavery was in all the Union. Then the north developped a merchant and then industrial-financial economy and they left the slavery because they didn' t need them anymore. The south had an economy totally agrarian, especially based on plantations. In the early 19th century the southerns had had the "peculiar institution" for 200 years, they heritated it ,they didn' t choose it. The southern leaders knew very well this could not go on, and they were searching for a way to solve this unbearable situation without destroying their economy and bankrupt. So the south didn' t enjoy the slavery, they knew it had to finish..In early 19th, they forbade the trade of slaves, for example. The northern leaders didn' t care for the question of slavery or agreed to free progressively the slaves with indemnisation; then economic reasons and a growing of tentions between the 2 sections, more and more provocations from the northern side, brought to the war.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Gentlemen, it is very rarely in war that one side or the other has a moral highground. Just about the only case I can think of in modern history is the western allies vs the Nazis. In the case of the U.S. Civil War, I believe it was principally a war between the Confederate agrarian elite, who had until the mid-1850's controlled enough if the population to ensure the majority in the House of Representatives and the presidency were under their control, and the industrial elite of the North, to whom immigration to the burgeoning cities in the North had recently shifted the balance if power. These elites propagandized their positions into States rights vs. the abolition of slavery to motivate the common population to fight for the interests of these elites. However, I certainly disagree with the position that the Confederate leaders, rather than the Union leaders, were the ones seeking a compromise solution. In fact the Supreme Court, which was controlled by Justices appointed by Southern presidents, struck down the compromise which would have allowed an eventual peaceful solution in the Dred Scott decision, which permitted a Southerner who moved into a free state to keep his or her slaves as possessions on that free state. It was the southern leadership, who had always been in control up to that point in the nations history, who forced the war to occur once Lincoln was elected, despite Lincoln's promise that if necessary to preserve the union, he would se no slaves freed. To me, this conclusively demonstrates that the war was not about slavery, but about control. The Southern elite, who had always had control of the Federal government up to that point, was simply unwilling to cede control to the Northern elite. Like all elites in all nations throughout history, it was their wealth and power, not any moral principals, which motivated the elite in both the North and the South to get more than half-a-million brave young American men killed. That is the sad truth.

 

[Rob]

I posted these articles in the wake of the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg and the discussion that was being held on the Forum. I thought some might find it interesting and perhaps might lead to reading more about these events and the conflicts in the border area, as depicted in the Stanley Harrold book. The Forum has been useful in finding what others are reading and I have recently purchased a book recommended by Al (Lancer) about Gettysburg and that was my objective here. This is not the first time I have posted articles or books that some might find interesting and educational.

I was not attempting to moralize but bringing to the attention of some who may not have been aware of them of things that happened and, yes, they happened. They are facts. You may not like the articles but I'm not forcing you to read them. The principal article was by a person who was -- the article was written in 2001 -- a senior historian at Antietam National Battlefield and an authority on the Civil War in Maryland and Pennsylvania. His article has been cited in books, most recently Allen Guelzo's The Last Invasion.

My initial inclination is to say that I'm sorry I posted them but since at least a couple of people have found them interesting it was worth the effort.

Robert Penn Warren, one of our greatest writers (who was born in the South, by the way), in his book The Legacy of the Civil War, wrote about this tendency to moralize, calling the North, sarcastically, in its attempt to assume a position of moral superiority, The Treasury of Virtue and the South, again sarcastically, in its attempt to justify the Confederacy, the Great Alibi. We might try to heed his words.

I personally do not want to get into the North was good the South evil argument as I don't believe its anywhere near as simple as that, but I do want to say this. I am just loving all the threads Brad puts up and am soaking them up like a sponge. As a relative newcomer to this conflict I find them very interesting and often gripping and moving. Please keep posting them Brad.

Rob

 

[Rob]

Gentlemen, it is very rarely in war that one side or the other has a moral highground. Just about the only case I can think of in modern history is the western allies vs the Nazis. In the case of the U.S. Civil War, I believe it was principally a war between the Confederate agrarian elite, who had until the mid-1850's controlled enough if the population to ensure the majority in the House of Representatives and the presidency were under their control, and the industrial elite of the North, to whom immigration to the burgeoning cities in the North had recently shifted the balance if power. These elites propagandized their positions into States rights vs. the abolition of slavery to motivate the common population to fight for the interests of these elites. However, I certainly disagree with the position that the Confederate leaders, rather than the Union leaders, were the ones seeking a compromise solution. In fact the Supreme Court, which was controlled by Justices appointed by Southern presidents, struck down the compromise which would have allowed an eventual peaceful solution in the Dred Scott decision, which permitted a Southerner who moved into a free state to keep his or her slaves as possessions on that free state. It was the southern leadership, who had always been in control up to that point in the nations history, who forced the war to occur once Lincoln was elected, despite Lincoln's promise that if necessary to preserve the union, he would se no slaves freed. To me, this conclusively demonstrates that the war was not about slavery, but about control. The Southern elite, who had always had control of the Federal government up to that point, was simply unwilling to cede control to the Northern elite. Like all elites in all nations throughout history, it was their wealth and power, not any moral principals, which motivated the elite in both the North and the South to get more than half-a-million brave young American men killed. That is the sad truth.

Wow, well said Louis. So good to see someone actually say out loud and clear as day that the allies had the moral high ground over the Nazi's, its almost as if we should be ashamed to say that these days for fear of the dreaded ' All as bad as each other ' argument...nope, we were not!

Very interesting post re the ACW too.

Rob