Quotations on Black Confederates

Numerous Afro-Virginians, free blacks and slaves, were genuine Southern loyalists, not as a consequence of white pressure but due to their preferences. They are the Civil War's forgotten people, yet their existence was more widespread than American history has recorded. Their bones rest in unhonored glory in Southern soil, shrouded by falsehoods, indifference and historians' censorship.

There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the traitors and rebels.

To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear.

There are numerous accounts of black participation in the battle of First Manassas in the summer of 1861. Black combatants shot, killed, and captured Union troops. Loyal slaves were said to have fought with outstanding bravery alongside their masters. These reports also provide testimony to the fidelity of black Rebels in combat. One black soldier was moving about the field when ordered to surender by a Union officer. The Rebel replied, "No sir, you are my prisoner," while drawing a pistol and shooting the officer dead. He then secured the officer's sidearm and after the battle boasted loudly of having quieted at least one of "the stinkin' Yankees who cam here `specting to whip us Southerners." Another black Confederate who stood behind a tree allowed two Union soldiers to pass before shooting one in the shoulders, clubbing him with a pistol, while demanding the other to surrender. Both prisoners were marched into Confederate lines. An Alabama officer's servant marched a Zouave into camp proclaiming, "Massa, here one of dese devils who been shooting at us, Suh."

I have no doubt that if Congress would authorize their [the black Southerners'] reception into service, and empower the President to call upon individuals of States for such as they are willing to contribute, with the condition of emancipation to all enrolled, a sufficient number would be forthcoming to enable us to try the experiment [of determining whether the slaves would make good soldiers]. If it proved successful, most of the objections to the measure would disappear, and if individuals still remained unwilling to send their negroes to the army, the force of public opinion in the States would soon bring about such legislation as would remove all obstacles. I think the matter should be left, as far as possible, to the people and the States, which alone can legislate as the necessities of this particular service may require.

One cavalry officer related how he was held under guard by a shotgun-wielding black who kept the weapon trained on the Yankee's head with unwavering concentration. "Here I had come South and was fighting to free this man," the disgusted major wrote in his diary. "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head off."

For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union.

Some Negroes, however, soon became disillusioned because of the hardships they experienced during the early months of their freedom. Nine hundred freedmen assembled at Mobile on August 13, 1865, and by a vote of seven hundred to two hundred declared that the realities of freedom "were far from being so flattering as their imagination had painted it; that the prejudices of color were not confined to the South, but stronger and more marked on the part of the strangers from the North."

Former mayor John Dodson . . . presented them with a Confederate flag, assuring them that when they returned they would "reap a rich reward of praise, and merit, from a thankful people." Charles Tinsley, a bricklayer and a "corner workman," acted as spokesman for the Negroes. His remarks in acceptance of the flag were brief: "We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability. . . . There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell in the work before us; and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us."

Nor were runaways the only bondsmen who aided the Union war effort. Slaves who lacked opportunity to escape nonetheless found ways of contributing to Confederate defeat. At great peril to themselves, some slaves, concealed, fed, and directed runaways or escaped Federal prisoners of war on the journey to freedom. Others sabotaged farm and labor equipment or assumed an uncooperative attitude with owners and overseers, to slow down work and promote widespread insecurity among whites at home. In time such deeds paid great dividends, as Confederate troops deserted ranks to look after the welfare of loved ones at home.

Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September.

Perhaps the group that had the strongest vested interest in seeing the South victorious were the black slaveowners. In 1830 approximately 1,556 black slaveowners in the deep South owned 7,188 slaves. About 25% of all free blacks owned slaves. A few of these were men who purchased their family members to protect or free them, but most were people who saw slavery as the best way to economic wealth and independence for themselves. The American dream in the antebellum South was just as powerful for free blacks as whites and it included the use of slaves for self-improvement. They bought and sold slaves for profit and exploited their labor just like their white counterparts.

After their capture one group of white Virginia slave owners and Afro-Virginians were asked if they would take the oath of allegiance to the United States in exchange for their freedom. One free negro indignantly replied: "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave from this same group, upon learning that his master had refused, proudly exclaimed, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave agreed: "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." On another occasion a captured Virginia planter took the oath, but slave remained faithful to the Confederacy and refused. This slave returned to Virginia by a flag of truce boat and expressed disgust at his owner's disloyalty: "Massa had no principles." Confederate prisoners of war paid tribute to the loyalty, ingenuity, and diligence of "kind-hearted" blacks who attended to their needs and considered them fellow Southerners.

Wednesday, September 10: At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 o'clock P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number. . . . They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde.

Forrest said of the black men who served with him, and this seems to be a direct quote: These boys stayed with me, drove my teams and better Confederates did not live. . . . Those [black Southerners] among us during the war behaved in such a manner that I shall always respect them for it. . . . I have always felt kind towards them and always treated them kindly.

The public support and activities of Afro-Confederates, a minority within a minority, received considerable prominence. A Charlottesville newspaper reported an interview with Hames Ward, a slave who fled "Yankeedom" to warn his fellow slaves of abuse and racism in Union army camps and of blacks being forced to front lines during battles. He preferred being the slave of "the meanest masters in the South" than a free black man in the North: "If this is freedom, give me slavery forever."

Much is said about the slaves coming into Federal lines, and many complaints are made because they are not promptly given up. Are they not in the Confederate lines, and are they not used to build fortifications and do the work of rebels, and in many instances used to man rebel guns, and fight against the Union?

Well-to-do Creole Negroes . . . carried themselves with a military bearing; as they informed a commanding general on a later occasion, they came of a fighting race: "Our fathers were brought here as slaves bacause they were captured in war, and in hand to hand fights, too. Pardon me, General, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."

Are you suggesting that there was any southern state that allowed blacks to vote? Any one that allowed interracial marriages or blacks to enlist in the militia?

If this occurred, it would have been among the black creole/cajun populations of Louisiana. I don't know for certain if they voted, but they definately married interracially (they had some old spanish legal tradition for designating the offspring of interracial couples) and they did allow blacks to serve various capacities in the militia dating back to at least the War of 1812. Tennessee also passed and enacted a law in June of 1861 to prepare for the defense of the state. One of its provisions was to recruit blacks as soldiers.

Never mind all the southern states that made it illegal for blacks to move in there

Wrong. Southern states typically had laws that placed either time restrictions or certain residency or property requirements on free blacks that wanted to live there. The northern states I spoke of previously, tu quoque boy, banned blacks from setting foot their outright. The census bears witness to this fact as the majority of free blacks lived in slave states.

were there any Northern laws that sold free blacks into slavery?

New Jersey, where emancipation effectively declared all slaves free but grandfathered some of them from enjoying that freedom, requiring that they continue in a servitude status if they didn't meet certain age requirements. Most of the Jersey slave owners simply sold their investments down south. A few kept their slaves until the civil war.

So who were they supposed to sell them to? Slavery was illegal in Illinois.

Not entirely. Before the war Illinois had a bizarre "indentured servitude" system where people (mostly blacks who had been unfortunate enough to set foot on Abe Lincoln's lily white soil) were sold into specified work terms (often to pay a debt, real or otherwise, but sometimes they'd "sell" their kid or something to get a little quick money) at auction and through contracts. They normally exceeded a year in length and some of the terms went on for decades, all of it involuntary. It technically wasn't called slavery, but in every legal sense it was just that.

So to what do you attribute the growth in the black population of Illinois between 1820 and 1860?

Births to blacks already there plus the successful movement of blacks there in violation of the state's laws. In a similar pattern, it is currently illegal for people to immigrate into the United States without going through customs. Even so, the illegal mexican population here grows by several million every decade.

At a time when the free black population of southern states like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas was declining?

A quick comparison from 1850 to 1860 indicates the states of Maryland (where almost half of the black population was free), Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware ALL had net gains in the number of free blacks over the decade. Florida remained the same. You are also incorrect about Louisiana, which went from 17,462 to 18,647.

Yeah, way before the war.

Now that's an odd assertion. According to this site at the Illinois State Archives, indenture records exist through 1863, or about half way through the war.

http://www.sos.state.il.us/departments/archives/servant.html

And that's just the tip of the iceburg for Illinois, which had one of the most complex system of Black Codes in the entire nation (and yes, they were called Black Codes in Illinois as early as the 1820's). Heck, in 1824 an Illinois Court even convicted its Governor for the "crime" of manumitting his slaves in violation of the state's Black Codes. In 1848 the Illinois Constitution made it illegal to bring blacks into Illinois for the purpose of setting them free. In 1853 it was made a crime in Illinois for any person to bring any free black across the state border. All the while, Lincoln sat in silence and declared his support of keeping Illinois "pure" as a land for free white people alone.

Births to blacks already there plus the successful movement of blacks there in violation of the state's laws.

But you had called it "Abe Lincoln's lily white soil" or some such crap. Yet the black population more than doubled between 1840 and 1860, something which did not happen in any of the southern states. Were free blacks in Illinois unusually fertile?

You are also incorrect about Louisiana, which went from 17,462 to 18,647.

But it had stood at 25,502 in 1840. Where did they go? Illinois?

Now that's an odd assertion.

Not odd at all, given your usual level of scholarship. The Black Codes required any black or mulatto to prove his status as a free person and not a runaway slave. Any one unable to provide a proper certificate of his freedom was deemed a runaway slave and was subject to arrest. His arrest was advertised by the sheriff and, if no owner appeared, he was indentured for one year, at the end of which time he was entitled to a certificate of his freedom. But the indenture was for a year only, not your 'forever and a day' period.

And that's just the tip of the iceburg for Illinois, which had one of the most complex system of Black Codes in the entire nation...

No, they were rather straight-forward.

...and yes, they were called Black Codes in Illinois as early as the 1820's

A name later taken by the southern states.

Heck, in 1824 an Illinois Court even convicted its Governor for the "crime" of manumitting his slaves in violation of the state's Black Codes.

Again, total bullsh*t. Governor Coles's "crime" wasn't that he manumitted his slaves, something allowed by law, but that he had not posted the necessary bond. Any person bringing slaves into Illinois with a view towards emancipating them was required to execute a bond in the sum of one thousand dollars as a guaranty that the person emancipated would not become a county charge. Governor Cole did not, so he was fined $2000, two hundred dollars per freed slave.

In 1848 the Illinois Constitution made it illegal to bring blacks into Illinois for the purpose of setting them free.

Crap again. Here is a link to the text of the 1848 Constitution. It's a pdf so you need Acrobat. It says nothing of the kind.

All the while, Lincoln sat in silence and declared his support of keeping Illinois "pure" as a land for free white people alone.

I would imagine Lincoln would have kept silent. Most of what you said was wrong, the rest just ain't true. What was there to comment on?

But you had called it "Abe Lincoln's lily white soil" or some such crap.

That's what he certainly wanted it to be, and that's what Illinois' laws were explicitly intended to do - keep blacks out and make it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE if one even so much as crossed the state's borders.

Yet the black population more than doubled between 1840 and 1860, something which did not happen in any of the southern states.

The illegal mexican population in the US grows by several million every decade yet by definition not one of them is obeying the laws by being here. So was the case in Illinois.

As for doubling the population, Illinois' free blacks went from a tiny 3,598 in 1840 to 7,628 in 1860 - technically doubling in number yet a numerical gain of only 4,000 - a gain that only puts it barely ahead of the geographically tiny and rural state of Delaware.

Check out Maryland for a comparison, which had 62,078 in 1840 and 83,942 in 1860 - a gain of over 20,000 free blacks.

Virginia gained almost 10,000 in this same period.

North Carolina gained 8,000 in this same period.

Not odd at all, given your usual level of scholarship. The Black Codes required any black or mulatto to prove his status as a free person and not a runaway slave.

There you go again, parrot boy - taking facts that I used to prove YOU were wrong, spicing them up with a few googled details, and parroting them back to me as if you were actually correcting something!

The fact is that you stated in post 63 that "yeah" the indentured servitude in Illinois had happend "way before the war." Under any reasonable definition "way before the war" means several years if not decades. Yet as I showed you by that link to the Illinois State Government's archives, indentures persisted until 1863.

But the indenture was for a year only, not your 'forever and a day' period.

Well then. I guess since it was only a "slave for a year" program it must be alright in your mind. Yeah. That makes it a lot better for the victim. /sarcasm

A name later taken by the southern states.

Quoth the Non-Sequitur: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"

Again, total bullsh*t. Governor Coles's "crime" wasn't that he manumitted his slaves, something allowed by law, but that he had not posted the necessary bond.

Not according to the Illinois State Library's website, which reads "In March [of 1824], Governor Coles is sued for having manumitted his slaves—a clear violation of the state’s "Black Codes" ("Black Laws"). Found guilty in lower courts, this verdict is later overturned by the State Supreme Court." (http://www.state.il.us/hpa/lib/GenPrideAfAm.htm)

If this is in error, the fault rests with the Illinois state government. If it is not in error, you are the one in the wrong.

Crap again. Here is a link to the text of the 1848 Constitution. It's a pdf so you need Acrobat. It says nothing of the kind.

That link is incomplete and lacks Article XIV, which was approved with the 1848 constitution but ratified separately from it in a statewide referendum. It became a part of the document when voters approved it that year. It reads as follows:

"The General Assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state; and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free."

But it had stood at 25,502 in 1840. Where did they go? Illinois?

There are any number of possibilities for the discrepency. First and foremost probably has to do with Louisiana's Spanish and French legal provisions. They designated the offspring of interracial marriages into distinct categories of "mulatto" (first generation), "quadroon" (second generation, or quarter ancestry), and "octoroon" (third generation, or eighth ancestry). Often by the second and almost always by the third of these generational categories, the exact distinction of record became blurred in official records of events. Somebody who was classified as "octoroon" in one census, and thus a free black, could be classified in Louisiana as white in another only a few years later if his skin was light enough.

Interesting, considering that Lincoln wasn't born when the original indenture law passed, and was all of 10 years old when those Blake Codes were passed. If he was expressing an opinion on these subjects at that age then he was even more precocious than I thought.

But far ahead of states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. In fact, the free population of Illinois in 1860 was larger than 7 of the 11 confederate states, and grew at a faster rate than all of them. And all without a slave population to emancipate, and in the teeth of those darned Black Codes.

Interesting, considering that Lincoln wasn't born when the original indenture law passed, and was all of 10 years old when those Blake Codes were passed.

He was also a famous and experienced Illinois politician when the notoriously anti-black provisions of the 1848 Constitution passed. He was still a famous and experienced Illinois politician in 1853 when the legislature made it a criminal offense for blacks to simply cross the state's borders.

But far ahead of states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

Always quick to indulge in the tu quoque, eh non-seq? It's amusing to see your list choices considering that "etc." in your case is in reality very little beyond those three you mentioned. And the three you mentioned aren't even accurately portrayed by you! Alabama actually did have growth in its free black population. It and Mississippi did not have a large free black population to begin with though (IIRC MS was just a few hundred) so growth wasn't every really expected there. Arkansas was a rural frontier state at the time with virtually no urban populations and a low population in general. It is therefore of little surprise that they didn't grow in much of anything during that era.

Well then. I guess since it was only a "slave for a year" program it must be alright in your mind.

No, it just shows your 'slave for at least a year' claim to be the nonsense that it is.

Not according to the Illinois State Library's website...

But according to the Illinois State Historical Society Link

That link is incomplete and lacks Article XIV

And of course you can provide a link to the 1848 Constitution containing the mysterious missing article?

No, it just shows your 'slave for at least a year' claim to be the nonsense that it is.

Please provide me the number of the post in which I used the phrase "slave for at least a year." In doing so, also please note that I have already identified the post where you claimed the end of indentured servitude to have predated the war by the equivalent of several years or decades.

But according to the Illinois State Historical Society Link

Take it up with those two agencies then.

And of course you can provide a link to the 1848 Constitution containing the mysterious missing article?

Its passage is mentioned under 1848 on the previous State Library link I gave you. You can find the article itself at this page from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign:

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/RiverWeb/Projects/Ambot/Archives/vignettes/people/Black%20Illinoisans-19th%208B9.html

It is also referenced in the artice here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilmaga/macoupin/1879bios/palmer_johnm.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.