Conference smurf::civil_war

    You wanna see racism??? Try South Boston.  All others are amateurs.
    
    Anyhow, I would like like to recommend an excellent historical novel
    called "Freedom", which is totally based on all the events surrounding
    the EP....forget the author....very famous guy.
    
    The most common misconception about the EP was that it freed all the
    slaves.  In fact, it freed only those in states which were in a
    "state of rebellion".  
    
    It was "announced" early (kinda like a DEC product announcement) to 
    try and influence some members of the Confederacy to return to the
    fold prior to Jan 1, 1863.  The net effect was that slavery was
    abolished in the Confederacy, but remained in effect in places like
    Kentucky, Maryland, etc.  It was the ultimate political document.
    
    It was also not well received in many circles in the Union Army.
    Many soldiers' letters complain bitterly about fighting for the
    "niggers", when they were under the impression they were fighting
    to preserve the Union.  Several Ohio regiments, for example, simply
    packed up and went home they felt so strongly about it.
    
    BTW, I apologize for the use of the term "nigger", but it was the
    word most commonly used by Union soldiers when referring to blacks.
    
    To quote Corporal Edward Mahogany of the 37th Mass Regiment:
    
         "The boys are pretty blue now days, and no wonder when they
         see how things are going on.  I don't care but a little about
         this glorious union now, and wish there was no such thing as
         a nigger in the United States.  Our band was playing the tune
         of John Brown, and some of the boys cussed him (Brown) for
         causing a row about the niggers and deserved hanging."
    
    Anyhow, the EP will remain a part of American mythology, and I
    suppose that millions of kids will continue to be ill-informed about
    its real intent.

    Another overlooked fact, that I found in the National Archives back in
    the early 1970's, was the fact of the 180 or so Negro regiments that were
    formed and some were fighting about the time of the EP.  Very few White
    units from either the North or the South were aware of this unless the
    happened to be fighting with or against them.  Most Negro units were
    used for support and utility duties, such as building roads or mess
    duties.  
    
    Racism toward Negro soldiers and civilians at the time was condoned and
    in some cases sanctioned by officials on both sides.  Unlike the White
    soldiers, the Negro soldier of any rank, except for the 60 some odd
    Negro officers, were paid $10 per month instead of the standard $13
    per month for the White privates.   Compensation for the disparity did
    not come to some of the Negro veterans until after the end of the
    Civil War. 
    
    The Emancipation Proclamation did serve for many, as a rallying point
    to make this a moral war as well as an economic war.
    
    
    Doug Gray
         

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution  01-JUN-93
    *Cross-Posted in History Notes
    
    A shrewed move by President Abraham Lincoln to kee the British out of 
    the Civil War almost backfired in favor of the South, a University of 
    Alabama professor claims in a new book.
    
    "Contrary to what history books have said, the Emancipation
    Proclamation actually increased British momentum to support the South,"
    write Howard Jones, author of "Union in Peril" (University of North
    Carolina Press, $34.95).  "The British saw the Emanicpation
    Proclamation as a cheap stunt by Lincoln to win the war by... stirring
    up a slave revolt.  He was depicted in British newspapers as the
    archdemon."
    
    Britains entry into the war would have affected the duration if not the
    outcome.  But British Secreatary of War George Conrnewall lewis
    persuaded his goverment not to intervene.  Britain abolished slavery in
    the 1830's.

    RE .3:
    
    	Would you mind giving some more detail from the author's argument? 
    For instance, when he says "the British" viewed the Proclamation as a
    cheap stunt (or whatever), what sections of British society are being
    referred to?  The diplomats?  The press?  Middle class public opinion? 
    Parliament?  The answer could greatly affect the soundness of his
    contention, since, after all, Britain did _not_ intervene when there
    were powerful economic motives to do so.  There were also economic
    motives _not_ to do so, such as the need for American wheat, which came
    from the Union, not the Confederacy.  So, it would be interesting to
    see what evidence the fellow is citing.
    
    MikeR