Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
Ken
Posts: 16450
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:00 pm
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 12:41 pm The Civil War is actually a good example of the sorts of lies that are told in support of war.
Yes, you’ve expounded at length on why the acts of gross violence perpetrated by the north are OK as long as they were for a good cause.
Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it? But for some reason you find it particularly difficult. Why is that?

Everything I wrote in this thread is right there above. Feel free to scroll up and copy/paste/quote the examples of what you are talking about.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
ken_sylvania
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by ken_sylvania »

Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:10 pm
Josh wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:00 pm
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 12:41 pm The Civil War is actually a good example of the sorts of lies that are told in support of war.
Yes, you’ve expounded at length on why the acts of gross violence perpetrated by the north are OK as long as they were for a good cause.
Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it? But for some reason you find it particularly difficult. Why is that?
Quite rich coming from you...
1 x
Soloist
Posts: 5748
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by Soloist »

I vote we ban the civil war, the ducks and the beavers from this Ukraine thread.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
Ken
Posts: 16450
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by Ken »

ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:41 pm
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:10 pm
Josh wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:00 pm

Yes, you’ve expounded at length on why the acts of gross violence perpetrated by the north are OK as long as they were for a good cause.
Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it? But for some reason you find it particularly difficult. Why is that?
Quite rich coming from you...
I am always happy to correct myself if I incorrectly mischaracterize what someone else here writes. Normally I quote what they write when responding to make sure that doesn't happen. But I get it wrong sometimes as does everyone.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
ken_sylvania
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by ken_sylvania »

Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 6:11 pm
ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:41 pm
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 5:10 pm

Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it? But for some reason you find it particularly difficult. Why is that?
Quite rich coming from you...
I am always happy to correct myself if I incorrectly mischaracterize what someone else here writes. Normally I quote what they write when responding to make sure that doesn't happen. But I get it wrong sometimes as does everyone.
OK, sounds good. The quote below in its context seems to imply that JohnHurt had made some kind of a claim that there were Confederate units full of Black soldiers. I don't think that JohnHurt said anything of the kind.
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 1:26 am Second, the idea that there were Confederate units full of Black solders is one of the oldest and shoddiest of historical myths. Actual southern historians have long dispensed with such nonsense. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... and-legend or https://uncpress.org/book/9781469653266 ... federates/
1 x
Ken
Posts: 16450
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by Ken »

ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 6:17 pmOK, sounds good. The quote below in its context seems to imply that JohnHurt had made some kind of a claim that there were Confederate units full of Black soldiers. I don't think that JohnHurt said anything of the kind.
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 1:26 am Second, the idea that there were Confederate units full of Black solders is one of the oldest and shoddiest of historical myths. Actual southern historians have long dispensed with such nonsense. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... and-legend or https://uncpress.org/book/9781469653266 ... federates/
OK, let's look at what JohnHurt actually wrote. Here is his complete paragraph:
There were many black Confederate soldiers that fought for the South, and fought for the same reasons as the 95% of Southerners that did not own slaves but still fought against the Union. The black Confederate soldiers fought for their own freedom from a tyrannical government that was taxing them to death. White Southerners have always respected their black Confederate comrades, then and now.
"many Black Confederate Soldiers that fought for the South"
"fighting for their own freedom against a tyrannical government that was taxing them to death"

In point of fact, it was against the law to arm Black soldiers in the Confederacy until the Confederate Congress in a last gasp of desperation passed a law to authorize Black troops in the final weeks of the war but there is no evidence any were ever enlisted. Let's look at the timeline. Atlanta was burned on Nov 15, 1864. Sherman's march to the sea happened November 15 – December 21, 1864. The Confederate Congress finally authorized the enlistment of Black troops on March 13, 1865 and then Lee surrendered at Appomattox less than 4 weeks later on April 9 1865. You do the math. Even had they tried to enlist Black troops (and there is no evidence that they did) how would they have recruited, trained, equipped, and deployed such troops in that time frame? When much of the South was already in ruin and Lee was engaged in a last desperate set of rear guard actions trying to escape to the west until Grant finally caught up to him?

If you read the first link I provided above you will find this question definitely answered. And there are also entire books dedicated to debunking this myth:
Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers. There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war and no documentation whatsoever exists for any black man being paid or pensioned as a Confederate soldier, although some did receive pensions for their work as laborers. Nevertheless, the black servants and the Confederate soldiers formed bonds in the shared crucible of conflict, and many servants later attended regimental reunions with their wartime comrades.

This is not to say that no black man ever fired a gun for the Confederacy. To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it.

In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common. The non-existence of black combat units is further indicated by the records of debates in the Confederate Congress over the issue of black enlistment. The idea was repeatedly rejected until, on March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, although with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves.

Active fighting ended less than three weeks after the law was passed, and there is no evidence that any black units were accepted into the Confederate Army as a result of the law. Whatever black combat service might have occurred during the war, it was not sanctioned by the Confederate government. Even beyond the Official Records, there is no known letter, diary entry, or any other primary source in which a Confederate mentions serving with black soldiers.
As for John Hurt's second point? That poor southern Whites and Blacks were being "taxed to death" by the Federal government? Perhaps JohnHurt would like to share with us what those taxes were. There was no income tax. The first income tax did not start until the US imposed one in 1861. A 3% tax on income above $800 which was about 4-times the average wage at that time. But of course that wasn't imposed on the Confederacy. The main Federal taxes at that time were tariffs which were imposed on imported manufactured goods, mainly from Britain, but also France and Germany. Basically no different from the Trump tariffs. They were taxes paid at the docks in custom houses by importers, not by poor farmers in Tennessee. And just like today, they did not apply to goods made in the USA. So tell us John. What Federal taxes would a poor White or Black farmer in Tennessee have been subject to in 1860?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
ken_sylvania
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by ken_sylvania »

Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 7:04 pm
ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 6:17 pmOK, sounds good. The quote below in its context seems to imply that JohnHurt had made some kind of a claim that there were Confederate units full of Black soldiers. I don't think that JohnHurt said anything of the kind.
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 1:26 am Second, the idea that there were Confederate units full of Black solders is one of the oldest and shoddiest of historical myths. Actual southern historians have long dispensed with such nonsense. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... and-legend or https://uncpress.org/book/9781469653266 ... federates/
OK, let's look at what JohnHurt actually wrote. Here is his complete paragraph:
There were many black Confederate soldiers that fought for the South, and fought for the same reasons as the 95% of Southerners that did not own slaves but still fought against the Union. The black Confederate soldiers fought for their own freedom from a tyrannical government that was taxing them to death. White Southerners have always respected their black Confederate comrades, then and now.
"many Black Confederate Soldiers that fought for the South"
"fighting for their own freedom against a tyrannical government that was taxing them to death"

In point of fact, it was against the law to arm Black soldiers in the Confederacy until the Confederate Congress in a last gasp of desperation passed a law to authorize Black troops in the final weeks of the war but there is no evidence any were ever enlisted. Let's look at the timeline. Atlanta was burned on Nov 15, 1864. Sherman's march to the sea happened November 15 – December 21, 1864. The Confederate Congress finally authorized the enlistment of Black troops on March 13, 1865 and then Lee surrendered at Appomattox less than 4 weeks later on April 9 1865. You do the math. Even had they tried to enlist Black troops (and there is no evidence that they did) how would they have recruited, trained, equipped, and deployed such troops in that time frame? When much of the South was already in ruin and Lee was engaged in a last desperate set of rear guard actions trying to escape to the west until Grant finally caught up to him?

If you read the first link I provided above you will find this question definitely answered. And there are also entire books dedicated to debunking this myth:
Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers. There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war and no documentation whatsoever exists for any black man being paid or pensioned as a Confederate soldier, although some did receive pensions for their work as laborers. Nevertheless, the black servants and the Confederate soldiers formed bonds in the shared crucible of conflict, and many servants later attended regimental reunions with their wartime comrades.

This is not to say that no black man ever fired a gun for the Confederacy. To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it.

In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common. The non-existence of black combat units is further indicated by the records of debates in the Confederate Congress over the issue of black enlistment. The idea was repeatedly rejected until, on March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, although with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves.

Active fighting ended less than three weeks after the law was passed, and there is no evidence that any black units were accepted into the Confederate Army as a result of the law. Whatever black combat service might have occurred during the war, it was not sanctioned by the Confederate government. Even beyond the Official Records, there is no known letter, diary entry, or any other primary source in which a Confederate mentions serving with black soldiers.
As for John Hurt's second point? That poor southern Whites and Blacks were being "taxed to death" by the Federal government? Perhaps JohnHurt would like to share with us what those taxes were. There was no income tax. The first income tax did not start until the US imposed one in 1861. A 3% tax on income above $800 which was about 4-times the average wage at that time. But of course that wasn't imposed on the Confederacy. The main Federal taxes at that time were tariffs which were imposed on imported manufactured goods, mainly from Britain, but also France and Germany. Basically no different from the Trump tariffs. They were taxes paid at the docks in custom houses by importers, not by poor farmers in Tennessee. And just like today, they did not apply to goods made in the USA. So tell us John. What Federal taxes would a poor White or Black farmer in Tennessee have been subject to in 1860?
So the answer is "No, JohnHurt did not claim that there were Confederate units filled with black soldiers."
1 x
Ken
Posts: 16450
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by Ken »

ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 7:44 pmSo the answer is "No, JohnHurt did not claim that there were Confederate units filled with black soldiers."
And I did not claim HE used those specific words. I claimed it was an an old historic southern myth that has long since been debunked by many historians. The mythmaking and historical revisionism about the war began almost as soon as it ended. And it has been a project of many organizations such as the Daughters of the Confederacy for more than a century.

To tie this into this thread, I would point out that the similarities between Confederate revisionism and Russian revisionism is actually quite striking. All of it in service of slavery, racism, and genocide.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5360
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by ohio jones »

Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 8:09 pm
ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 7:44 pmSo the answer is "No, JohnHurt did not claim that there were Confederate units filled with black soldiers."
And I did not claim HE used those specific words. I claimed it was an an old historic southern myth that has long since been debunked by many historians.
Do not take another's statement and distort it to an extreme.
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 6:11 pm I am always happy to correct myself if I incorrectly mischaracterize what someone else here writes. Normally I quote what they write when responding to make sure that doesn't happen. But I get it wrong sometimes as does everyone.
Not "always." Sometimes, as in this case, you seem to double down on the mischaracterization and run off on a strawman bunny trail.
1 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
Ken
Posts: 16450
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

Post by Ken »

ohio jones wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 12:00 am
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 8:09 pm
ken_sylvania wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 7:44 pmSo the answer is "No, JohnHurt did not claim that there were Confederate units filled with black soldiers."
And I did not claim HE used those specific words. I claimed it was an an old historic southern myth that has long since been debunked by many historians.
Do not take another's statement and distort it to an extreme.
Ken wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 6:11 pm I am always happy to correct myself if I incorrectly mischaracterize what someone else here writes. Normally I quote what they write when responding to make sure that doesn't happen. But I get it wrong sometimes as does everyone.
Not "always." Sometimes, as in this case, you seem to double down on the mischaracterization and run off on a strawman bunny trail.
You can take what I actually wrote which was "the idea that there were Confederate units full of Black solders is one of the oldest and shoddiest of historical myths."

And replace it with a direct quote of John Hurt to the the effect of: One of the oldest and shoddiest of historical myths is the idea that "there were many black Confederate soldiers that fought for the South, and fought for the same reasons as the 95% of Southerners that did not own slaves but still fought against the Union. The black Confederate soldiers fought for their own freedom from a tyrannical government that was taxing them to death."

It doesn't change the meaning of my argument in the slightest. And I would still cite the same exact evidence to refute it. Except that it just makes the argument more personal and a more direct criticism of John Hurt himself rather than what I actually intended. Which is an criticism of a very common mythology perpetrated across the south that John is simply reflecting.

I am assuming that he is just repeating the common southern mythology that he probably grew up and is surrounded by. And THAT is what I am criticizing. This is the sort of thing that was actually taught in southern textbooks for many many decades. Along with other tropes such as the slaves were well taken care of and happy with their lives until the war of Northern Aggression came along and ruined everything. I lived in Texas for almost a decade and a half and worked in education so I'm not unfamiliar with these things. I worked for years with a history teacher who actually collected those old southern history textbooks as a hobby. It was eye opening.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Post Reply