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.
"How could that be? Did the slave have citizenship? No, of course not. Therefore, it can't by definition be his country."
Could you tell the soldiers in the U.S. Army who aren't U.S. citizens that? I'm sure they will appreciate the knowledge that the U.S. isn't and never will be their country.
As there are foreigners in the U.S. Army today, there were during the Civil War blacks fighting for the South because they anticipated being granted their freedom--not because they had it, because they wanted it. There were blacks fighting for America during the American Revolution given the same incentive.
"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."
Child abusers are very often people who were abused themselves.
Re: "I just wonder why people bring up the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves in the South as if that changes anything."
Because it is interesting, counterintuitive, ironic. It is just the sort of thing that makes history a passion for some people. I hated history in High School because all life was rung out of it. This is life it has twists and turns that are unexpected. Hollywood makes millions selling stories to people who want entertainment. Fictions writers make millions selling fake stories to people. Here is real life for free and it belongs to all. Why would we want to know about it.
true
You have a point. History is fascinating and best pursued on one's own time. I had a very good history education in school but nothing like reading on your own.
Another piece of conventional wisdom about the old South that people don't realize is that ol' Dixie was not united at all behind the rebellion. A lot of independent-thinking Southerners, especially in the highland areas, had no use for the Confederacy. The numbers of white Southerners who were fervent supports of Lincoln and the cause of the old Union was many times more than the number of black Southerners who fought for the CSA.
Re read the article, look under militia, cavalry, Navy, and 'outstanding'.
Since 'we are all immigrants' is a popular saw these days, take a look into your family tree and let me know how many 'servants' 'indentured servants' or simply 'laborers show up in the record. Bet we've all got some.
Finally, maybe Mark in the old south can help out here, I've heard of slaves being armed for both hunting and property defense, I've been told of slaves hiring out to work in the community and sharing the wage with their 'msters' (hate htat word) and I know that many slaves HAD to be better educated than most around them because they administered the plantation's business.
I never did make that accusation about anyone on this thread. I do notice that in many threads about black people and slavery and that many freepers are quick to point out that blacks owned slaves as if that make slavery okay OR absolves the white establishment of the time of any guilt.
Can't agree, once the die was cast the North could not end the war by anything other than victory or defeat.
Whatever the South's motives, the North was fighting to regain or retain the geography and to institutionalize it's dominance over the resources of the South.
It also didn't create the slave rebellion that was it's sole purpose.
Not absolution but sharing of a history, which is something we all should pay more attention to.
I do not see how these two statements are in disagreement:
My statement: "..if the offer had been made mid war, there may have been a different outcome."
Your response: "Can't agree, once the die was cast the North could not end the war by anything other than victory or defeat."
My statement indicates the (by no means certain) victory for the South and so does yours or did you slip in the words "or defeat" to confuse me? :-)
On the contrary, I suggest that you read the Scott v Sandford decision yourself. Taney ruled that blacks, free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States and had no rights as such.
What I perceive, through many years' arguments on this subject? Northerners appear to emit the impression that should they in anyway engage in learning of "non-stereotypical" stories about the Old South and the Civil War -- that in some way, they'd be submitting to supporting "slavery". Stories about particular of the abolitionists most certainly put me in mind of modern day "Anarchy/Ruckus" activists' antics.
Over the years, just out of curiosity, I had wondered -- given how every one MUST put somewhere in any opinion on "slavery" or "The Civil War" their hearty dislike and disapproval of slavery -- as a "safety disclaimer -- against the near Salem hysteria of predictable outcry -- how such an argument would run.
But then, I view the feminist theory that married women with children "are as slaves"; and that any traditional homemaker is only an "indoctrinated indentured servant of the oppressor patriarchy"; and, I understand why the need for such a "disclaimer" still MUST be said in these modern times. Just for one single example.
I look at every single group allied and associated with the Democrat party, and their rhetoric is always along the lines of "freeing the slaves". Feminist, Gay, anti-capitalists, globalists, poor, homeless, minority, socialists, even the educrats "freeing the children from the evilness of their parents". And, I understand why the history of the Civil War and of the Old South must be kept alive. And the richness of the stories be told on and on. It's because, if the word "slavery" continues to be so disgustingly abused, slavery will return. And the old South does not wish that.
The liberals continue to abuse the word "slavery" and continue to abuse truth and history in order they might use a very painful time for all in America's history to extract a political and economic advantage to themselves for the newer-aged so-called abolitionists masquerading in these times. When history is altered, revised, shut-down and censored, freedom for all becomes a battle.
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.