A BILL To provide for Raising Two Hundred Thousand Negro Troops.
SECTION 1. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the President of the Confederate States be and he is hereby authorized to receive into the military service, any number of negro troops not to exceed two hundred thousand.
SEC. 2. That the President be and he is authorized, to assign officers already appointed, or make appointments of officers, to raise and command said troops; and the same, when raised, shall be organized as provided under existing laws.
SEC. 3. That no negro slave shall be received into the service without the written consent of his owner and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of War to carry into effect this act.
SEC. 4. That it is hereby declared, that Congress does not hereby assume to change the social and political status of the slave population of the States, but leaves the same under the jurisdiction and control of the States to which it belongs.
You will note that in it the congress refuses to free the slaves for their service. If you will look up the constitutions in effect at the time in Mississippi and Virginia and Florida and Texas and South Carolina and every other southern state you would also see that each and every one contained a clause stating that the legislature would pass no laws emancipating slaves or interfering with slave ownership. So I'll repeat my question. How could slaves be promised freedom for their service if granting such freedom was illegal?
And while we're at it, I looked at that link you posted and I have another question for you. In it, they condemn Lincoln as "a racist who opposed equal rights for black people, who loved minstrel shows, who used the N-word, who wanted to deport all blacks..." Since men like Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jackson were also racists who opposed equal rights for blacks, who wanted to keep all blacks in slavery, and were just as likely to use the N-word as Lincoln was, then weren't they just as racist and aren't they just as deserving as condemnation as Lincoln is as a result? If not then why not?
>>>I noticed that you completely ignored my question of how you claim that slaves were promised freedom for service could be possible.<<<
Even the liberal Ken Burns believed the blacks were offered freedom for serving in the Confederate Army (see Burn's PBS Series, "The Civil War"). Therefore, I cannot trust your knowledge or interpretation on this matter, Non-Sequiter. Nor should anyone trust anything you have posted, on any matter.
Sounds like a go-fetch activity. Can you support these claims?
it's called HYPOCRASY, sanctimoniousness, DISHONESTY & SELF-righteousness!
the UNcomfortable TRUTH is that NOBODY in the 17th/18th/19th century was "advanced" in their beliefs about race/religion/ethnicity, when compared to today.
free dixie,sw
MANY of the northeastern "leading abolitionists" OWNED, managed, invested in companies that were IN the trade and/or OWNED slaves, right up until slavery was finally outlawed.
free dixie,sw