Posted on 05/21/2005 1:31:37 PM PDT by CurlyBill
Contrary to popular historical education and Southern revisionists, there is much evidence that African-American's served their country not only in the Union army but also in the Confederate army and navy. This evidence is found in the diaries, journals, newspaper articles and documents written by soldiers, officers and politicians.
Many institutions have set about to dismantle these findings by declaring them as `revisionist,' however the proof that these written accounts exist at all shows that slaves were present in the service of their state and country.
It was the commanders in the field who saw the greatest potential in the use of the African-American slave long before the politicians would admit their value. On January 2nd, 1864 Major General Patrick Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee, circulated a petition among several officers calling for the enrolling and arming of slaves into the Southern Army.
The petition read in part, "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter---give up the Negro slaves rather than become a slave himself." It was signed by three other generals, four colonels, three majors, one captain, and two lieutenants.
Politicians were horrified by the idea. Confederate Major General and political advisor to Jefferson Davis, Howell Cobb pointed out, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Davis had Cleburne's petition suppressed, yet the idea would not go away.
In February 1865, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Confederate President Jefferson Davis requesting authorization to fill his ranks with slaves, saying that they were already physically fit, and mentally conditioned to be well disciplined. In March, the Confederated Congress passed a bill that when to Davis' desk.
While it was awaiting his signature General Lee wrote the President again, "I do not know whether the law authorizing the use of Negro troops has received your sanction, but I respectfully recommend the measures be taken to carry it into effect as soon as practible." It was signed on March 13th and by the first of April, Colonel Otey, 11th Virginia Infantry, was assigned to duty in Lynchburg, VA, to recruit, muster and organize black units for the Confederate army.
Although this unit saw no action according to official accounts other records indicate they were drilling and standing by to defend the city. There are also historical documents indicating that thousands of slaves served in the Southern army as noncombatants in roles like cooks, teamsters and musicians.
And when called upon they would fight along side `freemen' who served in such outstanding state-militias like the 1st Louisiana Native Guard; Company A and F, 14th Mississippi Confederate Calvary; Company D, 35th Texas Calvary; or the 1,150 black sailors who served in the Confederate navy.
Finally, the first military monument in the US Capitol which honors African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument, erected in 1914. It depicts a black Confederate soldier marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is a white soldier giving his child to a black woman for safety.
We may never understand everything about those five remarkable years, but we cannot ever stop trying. And it is time to realize that the historical record has been obscured to the truth on the part of the African-American's role in the Southern Army as a soldier and sailor and to bring these facts to light as both a matter of pride and education.
Slavery may have been the moral motivation for Northern troops. But there were many dynamics in that war.
bizarre thread I have to say
I am just wondering what the draft riots were all about then. If a group of people came from being treated like property then why treat other people like property? That's just strange to me. Well shouldn't be. No one wants to be a slave, and when afforded the first opportunity to be a master, human nature has opted for that route.
It doesn't make sense in today's mentality BUT I can easily see how a slave would fight for the Confederacy, something they're familiar with than the Union side.
It's true what you say Mark but doesn't take away from the point that slavery was wrong. After all, not all Jews were in the holocaust and in fact hunted down other Jews in Germany, Poland and elsewhere. Yet, I've never heard anyone say the same about Jews.
You make a valid point, one I was aware of. You are assuming that the life of a freedman during those forty years was markedly better than a slave's in the period before.
On balance, I am not sure that the Civil War even accomplished the goal of advancing the cause of Black Americans. The costs in terms of blood and treasure aside, all the other effects of the War, were, imho, distinctly negative.
This brings to mind another distinction...the Constitution never said blacks were three-fifths of a person. It referred to 'all other Persons' which in context meant those who were not Free men or indentured/temporary servants. I can't speak to the political status of antebellum free blacks, but according to the document they were entitled to full representation.
That compromise actually turned out in favor of abolition, as it denied the South greater political power commensurate with its large slave population.
Well okay I understand. I just wonder why people bring up the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves in the South as if that changes anything. I see it done a lot in FR and wonder why that happens. Is it a response to liberals or something?
It is usually brought up in response to someone saying that the only logical thing for a slave to do is to support the invader.
Sadly, as evidenced even by today's headlines, people are not always logical about welcoming an invader, even if that invader is on a mission to free them.
The fact that free blacks owned slaves simply points to the widespread philosophical acceptance of slavery as an institution. Many were the arguments that the slaves were better off as slaves, than they had been in their primitive lives. This even has a familiar tone to it in that our civil masters think that they can decide what is good for us better than we can decide it for ourselves.
okay I understand. I think.... thanks.
Ping!
ping
Draft Riots, in the American Civil War, mob action to protest unfair Union conscription. The Union Conscription Act of Mar. 3, 1863, provided that all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 45 were liable to military service, but a drafted man who furnished an acceptable substitute or paid the government $300 was excused.
A defective piece of legislation enforced amid great unpopularity, it provoked nationwide disturbances that were most serious in New York City, where for four days (July 13–16, 1863) there occurred large-scale, bloody riots. Many elements in New York sympathized with the South, and the war had aggravated long-standing economic and social grievances.
Aroused by the statements of Gov. Horatio Seymour and other Democratic leaders that the conscription act was unconstitutional, the populace was incited to action. Laborers, mostly Irish-Americans, made up the bulk of a tremendous mob that overpowered the police and militia, attacked and seized the Second Ave. armory containing rifles and guns, and set fire to buildings.
Not sure why I brought up the draft riots. I didn't intent to but that's still good info you posted. I've not seen Gangs of New York. I was thinking of why some Scots and Irish would immigrate over here became slave masters and if they were oppressed in their own lands why would they come over here and engage in oppression. You would think they'd be motivated to treat people in ways they were not treated back home.
good points to think about
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.