One of the biggest problems I have with guns and gun culture, both for myself and for introducing new people to it, are the prevalence of Nazi and Confederate symbols at shows and on the people there. My girlfriend shoots, but refuses to go to anymore shows after one that was 30-40% Nazi crap. And i don't blame her. If you glory in the symbols of failed regimes that stood for nothing other than genocide and racism, why would you then wonder why people think you're a racist? There's "historical value" in the VietCong too, yet I rarely see tables covered in black pajamas and punji stake kits. There's a reason why in a sport/pastime/hobby that's -let's be real- is dominated by white males these are what interest people. And if there isn't, then somebody really needs to think about the perception. When you're trying to convince people that a perfectly normal person can buy and enjoy firearms, it's kinda hard when you're walking around a room of people that, judging from their wares, would gladly lynch you.
For your remedial education, there were black units, and even black officers who fought for the South in the War of Northern Aggression. There were even free black men who owned slaves. Naturally, this history is not taught by those that won that illegal war.
There were black units when the South was losing, and short of manpower, populated on the promise of freedom for those that served. There were French units in WWII, doesn't mean the French loved Nazis. It means people do what they need to to survive. Regular Confederate units usually massacred black Union units rather than take them prisoner. And it's funny how it's the "War of Northern Aggression" even though the South attacked first. They teach it in school. I was especially impressed by the part where almost the entire Confederate officer corp broke their oaths of allegiance to the country, based on defending the principle of not being told that they didn't have a right to own other people.
1. The war started in 1861. If the war was about ending slavery, WHY was the "emancipation prclamation" not issued until 1863? Why not immediatly proclaim itat the start of hostilities?
Because Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, and the South was fighting specifically for the right to mantain their trade in human beings. Since that was the Union's big bargaining chip, immediately ending that trade would've ended any hopes of reconciliation, and therefore been useless. More on that in a minute...
2. The famous "Emancipation Proclamation" was so worded that it freed only slaves in territories "in rebellion" that were under the control of the Union army - so essentially, it freed almost no one at the time it was issued. WHY was it wordedin such a way as to allow slavery to continue in Maryland, and other slave territory that DIDN'T seceed? After all, its about "ending slavery", right?
It was worded so that it freed slaves in territories still under rebellion were freed:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
It was again, specifically designed to pressure states back into the Union, by allowing them to retain their most valuable commodity; the free labor for their agricultural base made possible by the trade of human beings as cattle. A stae that hadn't participated in the rebellion, or that renounced it at that point would be allowed to retain their slaves. However, since only a handful of slave states had sided with the Union, the vast majority of slaves in the US were freed by the proclamtion; that the South continued to hold them as slaves was par for the course with initiating a war over the 'right' to buy and sell people.
3. Regale me again with how the newly freed black citizens were welcomed with open arms and re-settled in the North, with the same wages and housing opertunities as any other citizen... 'cause I seem to remember they were packed into ghettos and tenement slums, and if they could get work at all, it was at half the wage a similar white person drew for the same job...a condition which prevailed until World War II, except in the military, where blacks were denied proper promotions and awards, and kept in segregated units, until after the Korean war. Seems to me the North treated the freedmen just as shabily as they treated the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc.
So, if I understand this correctly, because there were racists in the North, blacks were actually better off as 2/3 human
property in the South? Better to be a well cared for dinette set, than a poor human being... That's some powerful logic right there.
I say this as a gun owner, Nazi hater (A trip to the Holocaust Museum in DC is why I own guns), minority, former student at Robert E. Lee Elementary and A.P. Hill Middle schools, native of a state that celebrates Lee/Jackson/King Day because Virginia sees no irony in celebrating one of the great civil rights leaders alongside to people that would've valued him primarily for how much he could carry.
