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.
basically yeah
News Flash! There were Jewish Policeman in the Warsaw Ghetto.
At least the slaves had the excuse they didn't know how to read or write and the only propaganda they received was from their masters.
The reason Butler issued the order was the "ladies" weren't acting like ladies. They were yelling insults and verbal abuse at any Union soldier. Butler issued the order to the effect any woman not acting like a lady wouldn't be treated as one.
hmmm... yes, and the Emancipation Proclaimation freed all of the slaves in the US .... NOT!!
"A question solved by violence must remain unsolved forever."
- Jefferson Davis-
Incoming FReepmail
Got it .... and a reply has been sent.
It didn't have to free all the slaves. That could come later just as it did.
Fight the war, win the war and free the slaves. Mission accomplished.
Not the purpose of the war. The EP wasn't issued until long after the start of the war, and only because the north feared intervention by Europe. We clearly agree on the evils of slavery, but this issue has been laid as a cause of the war. If so, the north would NEVER have tolerated slavery in Union states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. BTW ... my home state of Maryland remained in the Union only because a large number of elected officials were thrown in jail. When the Feds come to take your guns one day, will you truckle?
Why would you drive Maryland into the arms of the Confederacy in order to free a couple thousand slaves when you can win the war and do it then?
Which is exactly what happened.
Shooter 2.5, you're still parroting the leftist view of slavery as cause and effect. Your also viewing half of your nation as the enemy.... including your home state. Think about Chuck Schumer of New York dictating Texas law on guns .... and you'll get my drift.
And you're still ignoring the exact wording the southern leadership said about the causes of the war.
I'm done. You can have the last post.
First: War is complex and there are usually many reasons for it, and the reasons change over the course of the war.
2nd: It is not EITHER slavery OR state's rights. In fact, they are mostly the same issue. Slavery was the number one issue of the day REGARDING state's rights. It is thus perfectly acceptable, if one is going to distill the reasons for the civil war down to one reason, for one to say either slavery or state's rights.
By that quote of Mr. Davis, the issue of American independence from the mother country is still unsolved. And had the CSA won separation on the battlefield that would be unsolved forever also. But both issues were solved and the final verdict is in. God rules in the kingdoms of men. (Daniel 4:25) He decided the verdict in 1865. I'll not question anyone honoring their individual Confederate ancestors or the majority of Confederate flag wavers who revere the rebel flag as a symbol of heritage and not hate. But there's no point in expending worry in trying to justify an overall movement that was rejected by the God of history in 1865. DEO VINDICE.
If there is ever a secession question again it will be decided upon new issues, not the divisions of the 1860s. Despite superficial differences, the true fault line is not now North-South, but rather Urban-Heartland or Coastal-Midland.
Although this account of black slave-soldiers is really grasping at straws, it is true that free blacks in the south fought for the Confederacy. I still remember a news report that featured a very dark black man who was quite furious when the State of Mississippi was considering getting rid of the Confederate flag which made up part of the state flag. His great-grandfather had served with distinction in the Comfederate Army and he was every bit as angry as the white descendants of Confederate soldiers.
A number of free blacks owned slaves themselves, of course. Half of the free blacks in the US in 1860 lived in the South. The first person to die during John Brown's takeover of the Harper's Ferry arsenal in 1859 was a free back telegraph operator who was killed by Brown's followers for attempting to notify Washington DC of the siezure.
People of that era often had a stronger loyalty to their state or region than they did to the harder-to-grasp United States. Mobility wasn't nearly as great and folks developed a much stronger sense of community than they do today - even in the South. This community loyalty may have even been rpesent in a segment of the slave population, especially if they had relatives who were free and living in the area.
And I appreciate articles, such as you've posted, more now than I ever did, and because I used to reside among the ignorant mantra soothsayers. I understand why discussion of the civil war still goes on in the South. DISCUSSION. I also, therefore, understand why "Northerners" persist in their pre-occupation of simplifying, reducto absurdum revisionist history making pontifications.
There is so much history in the Old South. It is so utterly rich in history. While in the west, I had to hunt out information on the South because what I was getting from educrats, media, and the "conventional wisdom" about the South was infantile, devoid of humanity. And this from people who consider themselves the "epitome of Humanitarians". bah.
"Conventional wisdom" about what went on in the Old South runs right alongside the lines of the Feminists' rhubarb:
Women are superior to men. For 4,000 years, women did not uphold office because they were oppressed by men. This is evil. Therefore, all men are evil.
Yes, slavery is rotten, especially when viewed through the standards we now have. The fact is, at the time of "slavery" owners, slavery had been a fact of life in nearly every country of the world. It took a "movement" to make it known to the world that slavery is not the path to freedom or a civil culture. That is also true. What is also true is that some slave owners were civil. And owned slaves. Were civil to their slaves. This here is the rub in most arguments:
BS on the "civil part", Alia -- they were slaves, ergo, there is no such thing as "civil".
On paper, that argument is on its face, sound. But in reality? It's a statement devoid of content or context.
Dittos, on bringing up the subject of freeblacks owning other blacks, blacks fighting in the Confederate army: the same "anti-south" argument is generally applied: these folks didn't know any better, or this or that. These are assertions made from somone using simple linear logic in argumentation. But it is devoid of context and content. It shuts down discourse upon "history". It nullifies any other facts as tho those facts are irrelevant and coming from someone in the here and now. It's a hindsight position weighing judgement upon people and places in the past, but devoid of the fullness and meaning of the lives of those who lived then
And just about all of the slaves.
According to Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision (Scott v Sandford) they were not. He ruled that blacks were not and could not be citizens.
"Did the slave have citizenship? No..."
This technically was correct. However, many "slaves" in the South were considered members of the family. Only about 20% of Southerners owned slaves. Of those only about 20% owned more than one slave. Most of them were field hands or helped in the house. They were called by the children "Uncle" or "Aunt". They certainly felt this was their country. In fact the first uniformed black troop was "The First South Carolina Volunteers" organized in 1862.
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.