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."

Please provide me the number of the post in which I used the phrase "slave for at least a year."

And I quote from your post 62, "They normally exceeded a year in length and some of the terms went on for decades, all of it involuntary." I paraphrased. So sue me. Your claim was still wrong.

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

Interesting. One of your posts mentions the mysterious missing Article XIV, and the other post simply refers to a law preventing it and not a constitutional provision. So which was it? And how can this mysterious missing article be slipped in so neatly between Article XIII and the Schedule, both of which appear in the text of the 1848 constitution that I provided earlier? Looks like a conspiracy of massive proportions to me </sarcasm>.

Interesting. One of your posts mentions the mysterious missing Article XIV, and the other post simply refers to a law preventing it and not a constitutional provision. So which was it?

You aren't reading carefully enough. Article XIV, as I previously wrote and as I documented in three separate links, was a separately ratified provision of the Illinois State Constitution in 1848 put before the voters and passed in 1848. The law preventing blacks from crossing the Illinois border was passed by the legislature in 1853 and in accordance with Article XIV of the 1848 Constitution.

And how can this mysterious missing article be slipped in so neatly between Article XIII and the Schedule, both of which appear in the text of the 1848 constitution that I provided earlier?

Considering that you now have both the text of Article XIV and three separate links detailing its nature, how you could consider it either mysterious or missing is beyond me. That said, it is with ease that they placed it where they did because Article XIII was the final provision of that nature. After all, where else were they to place Article XIV except for after Article XIII? Randomly inserted half way through Article III?

Looks like a conspiracy of massive proportions to me

A conspiracy to keep free blacks from living in Illinois and to severely penalize those few who did make it there anyway? Yeah. Pretty much.

Your claim was still wrong.

Now this is strange...

... a document from 05/28/1855 in St. Clair County, IL for a mulatto "servant" named Abraham Kinney grants him his emancipation upon turning age 21. Remarks on the page however indicate he was "born free," or so to speak. 21 years is definately greater than 1 year, non-seq, and poor Mr. Kinney spent his first two decades of life as a servant of a Mr. John Thomas before being emancipated.

Here's another one. Mulatto "servant" James W. George was emancipated at age 12 on 04/05/1855. His former master, John O. Pierce, stated himself to have known the company of Young Mr. James "FOR ABOUT 12 YEARS." 12 years is also greater than a year, non-seq.

Here's another one from 10/02/1850 for Ishaw, described as "a negroe" age 27. He was determined emancipated on that day on the grounds that "HE CAME OF AGE SIX YEARS AGO" - meaning he spent the first 21 years of his life as John Reynolds' slave...er..."servant" in Illinois

Seems as if your "slave, but only for a year" provision wasn't practiced very much, non-seq.

... how you could consider it either mysterious or missing is beyond me.

I'm just considering the source.

A conspiracy to keep free blacks from living in Illinois and to severely penalize those few who did make it there anyway? Yeah. Pretty much.

Obviously they weren't very good at it, given the growth in the black population. Maybe they should have talked to the states that were more successful at it?

Seems as if your "slave, but only for a year" provision wasn't practiced very much, non-seq.

I'm not surprised, given you don't seem to have bothered to even read the Black Codes that you condemn so strenuously. Under the original laws, male children born to indentured servent were indentured themselves until they were 35. That was modified to age 21 when the first state constitution was ratified in 1818. A year later the Black Codes mandated that new indentures were limited to a year only. All of which combine to show your claim and that of 4CJ that new indentures as late as the 1860's were for 99 years or some such ridiculous figure.

In 1828 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled on the 1807 Indenture law, calling it an abomination and voiding the law. However, since the state constitution had protected indentures made under that law in Article 6, Setion 3, the court felt that they could not void those indentures. So they continued to their end.

The Black Codes in Illinois were not unique in the U.S. and I agree with the Supreme Court ruling that they were repugnant to the ordinance of 1878 and should never have been enacted in the first place. They were a blot on the history of that great state, but a part of our history that cannot be denied or explained away. But that is where we part company, it seems. I think that all Black Codes were abominations and you seem to have a problem with only the Northern ones. I accept that the North has nobody but themselves to blame for their racist policies, and you blame the North for yours. Total denial on your part.

I'm just considering the source.

So you distrust the University of Illinois and the Illinois State Archives on matters of Illinois history.

Obviously they weren't very good at it, given the growth in the black population.

In 1840 there were 3,500 free blacks out of a population just under 500,000. That means blacks were 0.7% of the Illinois population.

In 1860 there were 7,600 blacks out of a population of over 1.7 million. That means blacks were 0.4% of the Illinois population.

So the black population as a percentage of the whole in Illinois actually went DOWN between 1840 and 1860 by almost half at the same time when the white population went up. So yeah, I'd say they were pretty successful at accomplishing what they wanted.

...yet as late as 1855 indentures for children were still running the full 21 year term. As I said, your "slave, but only for a year" claim simply does not seem to be the case in practice.

All of which combine to show your claim and that of 4CJ that new indentures as late as the 1860's were for 99 years or some such ridiculous figure.

I don't believe that I ever said anyone was indentured for 99 years in 1860. I did say and continue to maintain that there were people serving multi-year indentures as late as 1860. This fact is proven by the existence of records showing people who were emancipated in that year and others in its proximity upon the completion of their 21 year indenture from childhood. Do you deny that these records exist?

I think that all Black Codes were abominations and you seem to have a problem with only the Northern ones.

No, non-seq. To date the entirity of your argument for dealing with those northern ones has been the tu quoque - you cite what you believe to be an "equal and opposite reaction" in the form of a southern one then pretend as if the northern one isn't worth talking about EVEN IF the northern ones predated the southern ones by half a century and even if the southern ones were directly based upon the northern ones as a model.

I'll also note that you raised a huge comparative tu quoque stink by demanding that southern states be named where blacks served in the militia, married with whites, owned property and the sort - things that were completely banned in Illinois and many other states in the north. I cited you two where they could serve in the militia (Louisiana and Tennessee) and one where the cajun/creole black population could do most of the other stuff (Louisiana). To date you seem to have abandoned this discussion, most likely due to your realization that in many areas the anti-black statutes of the north were worse for free blacks than those in the south.

So you distrust the University of Illinois and the Illinois State Archives on matters of Illinois history.

Distrust my alma mater? Perish the thought. You, on the other hand...If you told me the sun rose in the east and set in the west I would double check.

Nonsense. According to you the actual free black population should have gone down, as it did in several southern states, not doubled.

Distrust my alma mater? Perish the thought.

Then why do you still question that Article XIV existed just as their site says.

You, on the other hand...If you told me the sun rose in the east and set in the west I would double check.

Which is precisely your problem. You refuse to acknowledge plainly observable and easily identified facts because doing so would require you to concede a point to your opponent.

Nonsense.

The last I checked census figures base their calculations on minority group size by percentages of the whole population. It's the statistical standard and its what determines congressional district makeup every redistricting year. They do that because numerical growth in any given minority group is expected. It's the size of that growth in relation to all the others that matters though, and in Illinois the free black population shrunk as a percentage of the whole by almost half.

According to you the actual free black population should have gone down, as it did in several southern states, not doubled.

To date you have offered only a tiny handful of southern states where it went down. One, Louisiana, had complex and unique legal definitions of what constituted blacks, making fluctuations in the numbers frequent from year to year based simply on who was defined as black. The other two, Arkansas and Mississippi, had virtually no significant population of free blacks to begin with. They numbered in the hundreds and weren't a significant group in those states. Thus a fluctuation is statistically meaningless. Complaining that they declined in the 1860 census is about like complaining that the number of Eskimos declined in the most recent census for Morrocco.

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.