At a conference last week on slavery during the war, and one speaker (sorry, don't remember the name), attributed to the Louisiana Native Guard a pragmatic realism in their decision to offer themselves for service to the CS.
At that same conference a theme emerged (for me, you already know this) that enslaved people who had been caught up in the CS war machine just as often chose to return home upon escaping from trench-digging duty rather than running to the US Army and that had everything to do with family and possibly some sort of competency where they lived. Again, you already know this.
I've tracked a guy named John Rutherfoord who owned a plantation in Goochland and served in the General Assembly. He introduced several bills in the GA in the late 1850s designed to expel free black people from the state because he believed they were vectors for abolitionist ideas into the enslaved community.
All this to say that, yes, Tinsley's words make a lot of sense and they demonstrate a critical and calculating political vision/reality for who, and where, he was in 1861.
It's so easy in these cases to engage in analysis that is little more than self serving. This is where, as historians, we really need to be careful drawing conclusions where the available evidence isn't sufficient.
Kevin, I think all of the support for the South is self interest. Save wealth. Save control. Push for more power. I feel the freed blacks that supported the Confederacy are just as guilty as the whites. Human nature, self preservation. Not saying it was easy, they were in an extremely difficult situation but they did not support their own.
There is no doubt that this happened, just as it happened during the Holocaust and other times in history.
That isn't the language of Charles Tinsley or any other Black American, free or enslaved, in the south during that era. It was scripted. He may have "went along to get along" for his personal safety, but still, it was scripted.
Hi Gary. I don't know what you mean by "scripted." I do think the language was calculated if that is what you mean. This is most definitely "the language of Charles Tinsley" if we understand language as a means to navigating the world.
By scripted, I meant written by someone else for him. Sorry for using slang. But I stand firm ascertaining that this wasn't the language of Charles Tinsley. Thank you for your thoughts though.
At a conference last week on slavery during the war, and one speaker (sorry, don't remember the name), attributed to the Louisiana Native Guard a pragmatic realism in their decision to offer themselves for service to the CS.
At that same conference a theme emerged (for me, you already know this) that enslaved people who had been caught up in the CS war machine just as often chose to return home upon escaping from trench-digging duty rather than running to the US Army and that had everything to do with family and possibly some sort of competency where they lived. Again, you already know this.
I've tracked a guy named John Rutherfoord who owned a plantation in Goochland and served in the General Assembly. He introduced several bills in the GA in the late 1850s designed to expel free black people from the state because he believed they were vectors for abolitionist ideas into the enslaved community.
All this to say that, yes, Tinsley's words make a lot of sense and they demonstrate a critical and calculating political vision/reality for who, and where, he was in 1861.
It's so easy in these cases to engage in analysis that is little more than self serving. This is where, as historians, we really need to be careful drawing conclusions where the available evidence isn't sufficient.
Kevin, I think all of the support for the South is self interest. Save wealth. Save control. Push for more power. I feel the freed blacks that supported the Confederacy are just as guilty as the whites. Human nature, self preservation. Not saying it was easy, they were in an extremely difficult situation but they did not support their own.
There is no doubt that this happened, just as it happened during the Holocaust and other times in history.
Different people can only be equally guilty if they are equally powerful, and African Americans in the South were at the mercy of whites.
You said: " I feel the freed blacks that supported the Confederacy are just as guilty as the whites."
Just to be clear, I am not casting aspersions on anyone. My goal as a historian is to understand how people behaved at this point in time.
You are a sad sad person. I feel sorry for you.
That isn't the language of Charles Tinsley or any other Black American, free or enslaved, in the south during that era. It was scripted. He may have "went along to get along" for his personal safety, but still, it was scripted.
Hi Gary. I don't know what you mean by "scripted." I do think the language was calculated if that is what you mean. This is most definitely "the language of Charles Tinsley" if we understand language as a means to navigating the world.
By scripted, I meant written by someone else for him. Sorry for using slang. But I stand firm ascertaining that this wasn't the language of Charles Tinsley. Thank you for your thoughts though.
That never crossed my mind. I don't think someone like Tinsley would have needed anyone to speak for him. Thanks for the comment.