'Slave Power' British Empire?

TFSmith121

Banned
My apologies

I confess myself confused. Are you addressing me or to CaliBoy1990? If me, you're welcome; if CaliBoy1990, I apologise for the presumption.

More to CB on this particular string; sorry if the quote was a little off.

But it is always a pleasure to read your posts.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There was this minor thing called the Thirteenth Amendment

I couldn't be further from a "neo-confederate revisionist," but while I agree that the war (from the South's perspective) was fundamentally about slavery, I don't agree that Lincoln was an abolitionist. This site offers a pretty good summation of Lincoln's views on slavery:

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/lincoln/essays/lincoln-and-abolitionism

(A quick summary: Lincoln personally disliked slavery, but recognized that it was sanctioned by law, and unlike abolitionists, was not willing to denounce the law and/or Constitution to bring about its conclusion.)

There was this minor thing called the Thirteenth Amendment, true?

Lincoln was an abolitionist; he was also a master politician who knew such a change was not something he could decree, certainly not in a democracy, even one at war, and not something that necessarily would stick after the end of the war, if he did it by decree...

Best,
 
Last edited:
I apologise if I've misunderstood you.
I don't think you have, and I'm struggling to elaborate any differences between our arguments. We concur that the British were less pro-slavery than the average colonist, not because they were all saints but because they were more disinterested. Though I didn't state it explicitly, I also agree that there was a range of attitudes on the American side. It comes back to the equation:

Net balance of British abolitionism - Influence of Southern slaveowners + Influence of Northern abolitionists = 1830s abolition date.

The War of Independence split an anti-slavery North off from an anti-slavery Britain, and glued it to a pro-slavery South using a political system designed to prevent an executive from pushing through radical moves. This was then compounded by the fact that independence forces America to define a national identify in opposition to Britain. Even where Britain and America had shared interests, the US had to deny that these exist because it doesn't want to risk the appearance of being close to Britain. Look at the independent declaration of the Monroe doctrine, versus Canning's original suggestion that the two co-operate in announcing it.

Where Britain and America had differing interests, meanwhile, the inevitable tendency is for both sides to try and show clear blue water. America has universal suffrage, while in Britain the government falls on the difference between a £6 rental and rating franchise. Britain boards American ships illegally engaged in the slave trade, the US threatens to invade Canada in revenge. Racial equality becomes "a philosophical idea, an English idea, but it is eminently un-American" (Representative Charles J. Biddle [D- Penn.]).

Without an independent America, you subtract the need to create a national identity, take the decision-making power out of a slave state and move it across the other side of the Atlantic, and give Northern and British abolitionists a single goal to work towards in concert.

a very long list
Sounds like my modus operandi.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No, you have it, bang on;

Does that not depend on what we define as an abolitionist? Lincoln didn't believe that slavery should be ended by force in defiance of US law to the contrary (personally, I would believe so and I hope that so would everyone in this day and age, but that's a different time to the 1860s), but he did believe that slavery was morally wrong and shouldn't happen, and that the USA couldn't stand if part of it were slave states and the other part were free states (which implies that he hoped for the slave states to stop being slave states). Perhaps my terms are in error but I would call that abolitionism.

No, you're bang on - trying to portray Lincoln as something other than an abolitionist is like trying to protray FDR as something other than a democrat (small "d")...

The simple fact the deep south state seceded when they did makes it clear where Lincoln fell on the spectrum regarding slavery; again, there is a reason the secession winter followed his election in 1860...it was not because they thought he was going to protect slavery.

Again, this is not difficult to suss out for anyone with any intellectual honesty...but if anyone needs a source, Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion lays it pretty clearly:

http://books.google.com/books?id=il...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best,
 
No. Many people - even some slaveowners, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - found slavery morally troubling. What distinguished abolitionists from the rest was that they were committed to formally abolishing it, and if that weren't possible, to use whatever means to informally get as many slaves to freedom (via the Underground Railroad) as possible. Lincoln, prior to the war anyway, was not prepared to go that far. Even though slavery bothered him, he recognized that the Constitution protected slaveowners' rights, and that their slaves were their legal property. He did not want slavery to spread further than it was, but was not going to interfere with it where it existed. He hoped that by geographically restricting slavery to the 15 states, it would gradually die out on its own.

But there is, I think, a distinction to be made between Lincoln's views and the views of, e.g., Thomas Jefferson (even disregarding Jefferson's morally contemptible status of continuing to hold slaves for his own financial standing even while recognising that slavery was wrong). Jefferson believed that slavery was necessary in his time and that only later, when it was no longer necessary, should it be abolished. Lincoln believed that slavery should be abolished (the House Divided speech, if we dare to presume him honest in what he said there, shows that he believed that all the slave states should become free states), but was merely unwilling to break the law to enforce this. In that I would compare him to (for example) a socialist who believes that capitalism is morally wrong but wants to work within the framework of the law to end capitalism rather than destroying it by force; that doesn't make the socialist any less capitalist, just as it doesn't make Lincoln any less abolitionist, if we define "abolitionist" as "a person who wants slavery to be abolished".

I'm willing to accept that, until the secession had already occurred, Lincoln was not in the boldest and most radical mainstream group-favouring-the-abolition-of-slavery (I'm resisting saying 'abolitionist group') that included men like Fremont (the likes of John Brown are a level less mainstream than that). But just as the unwillingness to break the law for the sake of destroying capitalism doesn't make an anti-capitalist socialist not an anti-capitalist (it makes them less "extreme" but still an anti-capitalist), the unwillingness to break the law for the sake of destroying slavery doesn't make an abolitionist not an abolitionist. And it strikes me as unreasonable to define the term abolitionist such that it requires the willingness to break the law to advance the cause of abolitionism (that cause being the abolition of slavery).

I don't think you have, and I'm struggling to elaborate any differences between our arguments.

I'm glad of that, then. And thank you.

Without an independent America, you subtract the need to create a national identity, take the decision-making power out of a slave state and move it across the other side of the Atlantic, and give Northern and British abolitionists a single goal to work towards in concert.

This, I think, is where we differ. My argument isn't that the progress of British abolitionism would be more advanced without the American Revolution, but that it would be pretty much unaffected, because of the lack of influence that Americans had in London. Though this does mean that the USA remaining under the British Empire would greatly hasten the end of American slavery (the American South's chances of successfully defeating the American North were remote enough already; of successfully defeating the American North and Great Britain at the same time, I begin to see webbed wings), it wouldn't change the time slavery ended in Great Britain, at least by any direct mechanism.

More to CB on this particular string; sorry if the quote was a little off.

Sorry for the confusion.

But it is always a pleasure to read your posts.

Best,

Thank you.

No, you're bang on - trying to portray Lincoln as something other than an abolitionist is like trying to protray FDR as something other than a democrat (small "d")...

The simple fact the deep south state seceded when they did makes it clear where Lincoln fell on the spectrum regarding slavery; again, there is a reason the secession winter followed his election in 1860...it was not because they thought he was going to protect slavery.

Again, this is not difficult to suss out for anyone with any intellectual honesty...but if anyone needs a source, Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion lays it pretty clearly:

http://books.google.com/books?id=il...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Best,

Though I'd agree that Lincoln was an abolitionist, I'd disagree that the fact that the Southern states seceded when they did proves it. It proves that the Southern states believed that he would abolish slavery throughout the entire United States even if they didn't secede, but that doesn't imply that he necessarily would have done. Obviously he didn't get the chance IOTL, but is there any evidence to the effect that Lincoln had plans—not just hopes that it would happen someday and somehow, but plans—to make slavery illegal in the entire United States before the secession? Given that it's known that he believed slavery to be legally protected, it could plausibly be argued, in the absence of such evidence, that he wouldn't have actually tried to take that step if the Southern states hadn't seceded, in spite of him personally believing that the abolition of slavery throughout the entire United States would be a good thing (unless I've misremembered, on this thread it is not being disputed that Lincoln did believe this).
 
No, you're bang on - trying to portray Lincoln as something other than an abolitionist is like trying to protray FDR as something other than a democrat (small "d")...

The simple fact the deep south state seceded when they did makes it clear where Lincoln fell on the spectrum regarding slavery; again, there is a reason the secession winter followed his election in 1860...it was not because they thought he was going to protect slavery.

Again, this is not difficult to suss out for anyone with any intellectual honesty..

I don't know why you seem to have a defensive attitude about this. Saying that Lincoln was not an abolitionist does not mean that he was pro-slavery. There are shades of gray here.

Lincoln personally disliked slavery, and favored its eventual abolition - that is not in doubt. But that is not what we mean by an "abolitionist." The abolitionists within the Republican Party were a distinct faction that wanted it eliminated immediately, by whatever means possible, and were willing to take extralegal measures towards its elimination. That was not the view Lincoln, or most of the party leadership, held. Throughout his political career he wrestled with the internal conflict between his inclination to support the Constitution and his dislike of slavery.

In 1860, the Republican platform called for slavery to be banned in the western territories. It did not say anything about slavery where it currently existed. On both sides of the debate, there was a belief that if slavery did not expand geographically beyond the 15 states where it was legal, it would eventually die out. That was the basis for the Republican position, and also what the South feared.

The political leaders of the South did not actually believe abolition in the 15 states was imminent. They simply would not tolerate any restrictions on slavery, even ones that wouldn't directly affect them. They overreacted to Lincoln's election, and ironically ended up prodding him to take the decision he wouldn't have ever made in peacetime - abolishing slavery altogether.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
I'm not disagreeing with you;

Though I'd agree that Lincoln was an abolitionist, I'd disagree that the fact that the Southern states seceded when they did proves it. It proves that the Southern states believed that he would abolish slavery throughout the entire United States even if they didn't secede, but that doesn't imply that he necessarily would have done. Obviously he didn't get the chance IOTL, but is there any evidence to the effect that Lincoln had plans—not just hopes that it would happen someday and somehow, but plans—to make slavery illegal in the entire United States before the secession? Given that it's known that he believed slavery to be legally protected, it could plausibly be argued, in the absence of such evidence, that he wouldn't have actually tried to take that step if the Southern states hadn't seceded, in spite of him personally believing that the abolition of slavery throughout the entire United States would be a good thing (unless I've misremembered, on this thread it is not being disputed that Lincoln did believe this).

But this is simply speaking to the "Lincoln was no abolitionist" comments above, which you have already nicely responded to...

My takeaway is the most Lincoln hoped to do as president, absent secession and war, was to prohibit slavery where it could be - in federal territory.

This would mean the District, and (presumably) any new states organized west of the Mississippi; I think the admissions of Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada suggest how that would have been done through federal pressure, rather than fiat, and of course absent the war, West Virginia would not exist.

It is worth considering the balance of free vs slave states in 1860 (18-15, IIRC); Kansas would be admitted as a free state, but there was still a slim chance of slave states being carved out of what was (at the time) the New Mexico Territory.

I'd expect he would also have advocated for compensated emancipation, but given the utter lack of interest expressed in that idea during the war in Delaware, of all places, my guess is that would have been equally unsuccessful in peacetime.

But still, he was an abolitionist, in the sense of supporting the abolition of slavery - "if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong..." after all.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
This is semantics; Lincoln certainly opposed the

I don't know why you have a defensive attitude about this. Lincoln personally disliked slavery - that is not in doubt. But he was not part of the faction within the Republican Party that was calling for its abolition, nor was he prepared to support the Underground Railroad. Throughout his political career he wrestled with the internal conflict between his inclination to support the Constitution and his dislike of slavery.

In 1860, the Republican platform called for slavery to be banned in the western territories. It did not say anything about slavery where it currently existed. On both sides of the debate, there was a belief that if slavery did not expand geographically beyond the 15 states where it was legal, it would eventually die out. That was the basis for the Republican position, and also what the South feared.

The political leaders of the South did not actually believe abolition in the 15 states was imminent. They simply would not tolerate any restrictions on slavery, even ones that wouldn't directly affect them. They overreacted to Lincoln's election, and ironically ended up prodding him to take the decision he wouldn't have ever made in peacetime - abolishing slavery altogether.

This is semantics; Lincoln certainly opposed the expansion of slavery (or, conversely, supported the abolition of slavery) in the territories west of the Mississippi upon statehood; there was a slim chance that a slave state could have been carved out of the New Mexico Territory, after all.

He also supported its abolition in the District, which was federal territory.

Basically, I calling this out because the next step from "Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves" is "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" and that is a response that is seen repeatedly when these questions are raised.

Even on this very board...

Best,
 
And yet apparently you felt obliged to state "some of my best friends"...
You’ve managed to rack up a substantial post count without understanding how the ignore function works, so I’ll clarify. I can see your posts when someone else quotes them, and I generally find this provides an acceptable ratio of signal to noise. Having responded to you once via this method, curiosity got the better of me: I concluded that one of the three successive posts you made probably related to me, and I wondered whether you’d admitted you might have misinterpreted what I said. We all make mistakes, I suppose.

See, that's just wrong,
I’m curious. How did you manage to write this:

The issue of such men enlisting as US Volunteers, through the states as in the 54th Massachusetts, 1st South Carolina, etc. in 1861-63, or eventually directly under federal aegis as USCTs in 1862-65, required legislation
And never once question why such legislation would be required if there wasn’t a ban on black men serving? The answer, of course, is that there was:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia (Militia Act, May 8, 1792)

The only black soldiers that fought for America between 1792 and 1862 were raised in Louisiana, which had an opt-out. The act codified earlier bans on black soldiers in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and others- some of which were imposed, abolished and re-imposed, others which were imposed and left. Lest it be thought this was just down to the whims of the state, the Continental Army banned the recruitment of black soldiers on 10 July 1775 and a proposal to discharge serving black soldiers went in front of Congress on 26 September 1775: this was well and truly intended to be a white man’s war.

Though rules were relaxed later- partly because of manpower shortages, partly as reactions to British actions such as Dunmore’s proclamation- it really begs the question of which better demonstrates American attitudes towards black men carrying weapons. A few years of concession while hard pressed, or more than seventy years of racial discrimination after independence (plus those in the years before independence)- seems a fairly easy choice to me. In the interests of completeness, I should point out that Loyalists also complained about the British use of black troops, though this would seem to strengthen rather than weaken my point about respective levels of racism in Britain and America.

I think the most reprehensible component of this is what happened to slaves who served. Britain liberates and evacuates black Loyalists from Charleston, New York and Savannah- men, women, and children- despite the protests of Americans who want their slaves back. Meanwhile, black veterans from the American army have the muskets taken out of their hands and the fetters clapped back on. Live free or die- unless you’re Samuel Charlton, commended for bravery at Monmouth, in which case you get to do neither. Good enough to fight for the liberties of their owners, not good enough to enjoy those liberties themselves. I try to avoid making overt moral judgements in history, but this one leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth.

As well as how neatly your professed opinion gibes with the standard neo-confederate line.
So will you be writing to James McPherson and telling him he’s a neo-confederate?

“He was bound by the Constitution, which protected the institution of slavery in the states. In the first year of the war the North fought to preserve this Constitution and restore the Union as it had existed before 1861… The conflict was therefore a limited war with the limited goal of restoring the status quo ante bellum… since, in theory, the southern states were still in the Union, they continued to enjoy all their constitutional rights, including slavery”
“By the second year of war the slavery issue became bound up with the fate of the Union itself as Lincoln gradually came to the conclusion that he could not win the war without striking down slavery.”
(both from Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution)

Frankly, I thought mine was such a vanilla stance on the war that I was almost afraid to voice it- I like to think I’m a little more iconoclastic. But shout up if you can see one iota of difference between McPherson’s view and mine. That’s the actual opinion I’ve expressed, of course, not the parody you’ve invented to smear me as a racist and an apologist for slavery.

The Confederacy left the Union to protect slavery and the North went to war to force it back in: with slavery when it looked like that would be the easiest way, without it when views changed.

One can maintain that the North fought the war for the sake of keeping the Union together... and at the same time maintain that the South fought the war for the sake of slavery.

True, true.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And yet you're the one who wrote this:

At the least, I would suggest that the British willingness to enlist black soldiers and the American decision to ban them from serving

And yet, you acknowledge in your latest post that, in fact, Americans of African ancestry served in the US during the Revolutionary War, the 1812-15 war, various and sundry other conflicts, and - of course - the Civil War.

And of course, the bans you speak of didn't include the United States Navy; as witness both the Americans of African ancestry who served aboard USN vessels from 1793 onwards, and Africans themselves, the "kroomen" recruited in Liberia. Both were formally recognized by Congress in 1813, as note: “An act for the Regulation of Seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States” allowing “persons of color” to enlist.

Interestingly enough, Americans of African ancestry numbered from 15-20 percent of enlisted sailors, and Chauncey was famously quoted as saying "they are amongst my best men."

"I have yet to learn that the color of the skin, or cut and trimmings of the coat can effect a man’s qualifications…many of them are amongst my best men”. Commodore Isaac Chauncey on the Great Lakes frontier, 1813.

This came at roughly the same time as Jackson was quoted as telling the men of African ancestry in his army that " "I expected much from you…but you surpass my hopes…the American nation shall applaud your valor, as your General now praises your ardor."

So, again, perhaps your continual recitation of neo-confederate talking points means something other than what it appears to mean...

Perhaps.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Sorry, wrong again...

The only black soldiers that fought for America between 1792 and 1862 were raised in Louisiana, which had an opt-out.


Here's an American of undeniable African ancestry who served in the US (federal) forces, in the 1812-15 war, and not in Louisiana:

William Williams (alias Frederick Hall), a runaway slave from Prince George’s county (Maryland) served as a private in the 38th U.S. Infantry at Fort McHenry in Sept. 1814.

See:
http://www.nps.gov/people/william-williams.htm


Three of the four USN sailors impressed in the 1807 in the Chesapeake-Leopard incident were of African ancestry as well, but apparently being in "peacetime" they don't count...There were large numbers in the U.S. Chesapeake Flotilla in 1814, as well, but since they were also sailors, apparently they don't count, either.

Again, not unlike the neo-confederate position on USN sailors of African ancestry in the Civil War.

What a shock.
 
Last edited:
Not really. While Abolitionism certainly was accelerated by the American War of Independence it was the main factor. The key trigger was Somersett's Case where Lord Mansfield established that slavery was "so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law*". That judgement in turn was based on the Enlightenment philosophy and notions of liberty dating back decades. And once Somersett's Case had happened slavery was doomed in the British Empire. If there had been a different resolution to 1775 then you would have still seen the same growth in opinion in Britain that slavery was a moral wrong and should be abolished throughout the British Empire. Now in OTL "Slave Power" in the form of the very rich West Indies sugar interest was able to keep slavery going until 1833, add the Southern cotton interest and you've got a bigger bloc of people economically dependent on it but as in the North of the US outside those directly dependent on slavery public opinion is only going to move in one direction. So you'd probably see full abolition by 1850 at the absolute latest though you might get a rebellion. While the sugar island couldn't rebel, thy were far too vulnerable to the Royal Navy the Southern colonies wouldn't face such obstacles.


*i.e. specific legislation enabling slavery, not just common law principle of contract.

Wait a minute!

The Somerset case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett's_Case was concluded before the outbreak of hostilities, and is generally as one of the causes of the war.
 
I would note two things: first, that I'll try to steer around the various expressions of contempt being given on both sides here; secondly, that this seems to me to be a disagreement about which side of the situation to look at. robcraufurd points to the fact that there was a ban in US (ground) forces first place, and TFSmith121 points to the facts that the ban didn't apply to the USN and that some black men served in US ground forces in spite of it. One can choose to focus on different facts among those facts that are available, but that doesn't make either a fool or a neo-Confederate.

(By the way, I would also note that some British commanders did permit the re-enslavement of black people who had fought for Great Britain post-war, Cornwallis in particular, though I accept the point in general.)

Wait a minute!

The Somerset case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett's_Case was concluded before the outbreak of hostilities, and is generally as one of the causes of the war.

Ooh, I didn't spot that claim (that Somersett was pre-war). Nicely pointed out.

Since we're on the matter of Somersett, I think it's worth noting that we should be careful not to ascribe too much importance to Somersett by looking at things from an American perspective rather than a British one. After all, whereas in the USA it takes quite a lot of effort to undo such a judgement, in the United Kingdom it's quite simple; by the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, although precedent is valued in the absence of parliamentary intervention to the contrary, a simple majority in a simple vote of Parliament, any time it chooses to legislate (in contrast to the US system where it would take years to reach the Supreme Court), can dispense with precedent entirely. The obvious example is the usage of the death penalty for murder; centuries of precedent were overturned at one vote (though it was decided to suspend it on review and consider reintroduction, that was a choice of Parliament's, not something imposed upon Parliament). The point of all this is that in the UK, if opinion in Parliament later turned more or less abolitionist than the Somersett case's verdict, that verdict wouldn't be any meaningful barrier to stop that opinion from having its effects.
 
And of course, the bans you speak of didn't include the United States Navy; as witness both the Americans of African ancestry who served aboard USN vessels from 1793 onwards, and Africans themselves, the "kroomen" recruited in Liberia.
And I never said they did.
black soldiers
Though you’ll notice that I explained that the Americans were willing to recruit black troops where they were short of men. Given that before 1812, Albert Gallatin calculated that the American deep-sea merchant fleet relied on Britain for half its manpower- 9,000 men- the core of my argument remains. In fact, it’s strengthened by the use the US Navy made of its black sailors: a few specialist guides from Africa, and the rest barred from promotion to the highest echelons. The first black US Navy captain is Robert Smalls in 1863 (though, if I were to believe the US Navy website, it was actually Thomas Parham in 1966). The first black Royal Navy captain is Jack Perkins, who was probably born into slavery and who makes post in 1800.

So, again, perhaps your continual recitation of neo-confederate talking points means something other than what it appears to mean...
Maybe- just maybe- it means I’m trying to compare the relative levels of racism in Britain and America in the period around the War of Independence by looking at how they treated the idea of black people fighting? Like I said I was doing at the start, in a thread that has at its heart the topic of attitudes towards race?

The only reason I mentioned the Civil War was to try and provide people like you with a reasonable comparison point. So, out of curiosity, let's say you're in a Civil War thread and someone responded to the mention of the USCT by talking endlessly about the fact that the Confederates had a few companies of black Louisiana militia troops and a pitiful handful of black regular soldiers. What would be your reaction to that? I have a suspicion the term “neo-confederate” would enter into it.
 
This, I think, is where we differ. My argument isn't that the progress of British abolitionism would be more advanced without the American Revolution, but that it would be pretty much unaffected
When we say "British abolitionism" I think we need to distinguish between "British abolitionism", a political movement, "abolition in Britain", the ending of slavery in the British isles more or less accomplished by the 1770s, and "abolition in the British empire". My contention is that British abolitionism would have been strengthened by the closer links between Britain and America, which in turn would have led to abolition in the British empire more or less when it happened historically. However, there are obviously accidents that might happen along the way: the timing of reform might affect the timing of emancipation, the fact that the British government would be stumping up for compensated emancipation rather than Washington might encourage the slave-owners to cash in, a long series of wars similar to the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars might mean that abolition is put off until the end of them, etc.

Since we're on the matter of Somersett, I think it's worth noting that we should be careful not to ascribe too much importance to Somersett by looking at things from an American perspective rather than a British one.
I think the key importance of Somersett is what it shows us about British mentalities at the time. The two most important ones for me are that what Mansfield appears to have been intended to be a relatively limited judgement was seized upon by both the public and the judiciary, and that a member of the wealthy elite flat-out described slavery as odious.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You should believe the USN; they know of what they speak

The first black US Navy captain is Robert Smalls in 1863 (though, if I were to believe the US Navy website, it was actually Thomas Parham in 1966).

The fact you would presume to suggest otherwise is, um, interesting...

Smalls was never commissioned in the USN; his (postwar) commission was in the South Carolina militia, and that only lasted until Reconstruction ended.

He never held ANY substantive rank in the USN; essentially, he was a volunteer/civilian contractor to the US forces in South Carolina after bringing Planter out...

If the above is the depth of your understanding of the US military and its treatment of African Americans, in the Nineteenth Century or any other...wow. Explains a lot.

There's really nothing more I can say, other than good luck.

I'll leave the judgment of your opinions regarding British history and the abolitionist movement in Britain to others.

Best,
 
He never held ANY substantive rank in the USN; essentially, he was a volunteer/civilian contractor to the US forces in South Carolina after bringing Planter out...
So in other words, the force you held up as a shining example of egalitarianism took more than one hundred and sixty years to reach the level that the Royal Navy did. The fact that you take a sense of smug satisfaction from this, acting as if it confirms your argument rather than refutes it, just goes to confirm my decision to put you on the ignore list in the first place.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Really? When did I suggest that?

...a shining example of egalitarianism....

Seriously, this is what you got from my posts? Talk about being separated by a common language...

No, it's more that the lack of knowledge is only made obvious and undeniable, and yet provided with such overarching and absolute confidence in the very face of those who should presumably know, like the Naval Historical Center...

It is along the lines of, oh, I don't know, confusing Springfield, Massachusetts, with Springfield, Illinois...sort of raises the question of having to consider the source, does it not?

Like I said, good luck.
 
Top