Posted on 02/21/2006 7:59:04 AM PST by stainlessbanner
Relatively few people are aware that during the Civil War, Confederate leaders put forth a proposal to arm slaves to fight against the Union in exchange for their freedom.
In his new book Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 2006), UCSC history professor Bruce Levine examines the circumstances that led to this startling and provocative piece of American history. In the process, he sheds new light on a little-known but significant story of slavery, freedom, and race during the Civil War.
The idea for the book came to Levine in the late 1980s when he was teaching at the University of Cincinnati and working on another book about the origins of the Civil War.
"The more I read about this episode, the more I realized how important it was to our understanding of the war; it wasn’t just an interesting little footnote,” said Levine. "After all, how could the war be about slavery if the Confederates were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to win the war? And it turned out that there was a cornucopia of information on that and related subjects available in letters, government documents, and newspaper articles and editorials.”
Levine traveled throughout the South, combing through archives for newspaper accounts of the war, letters sent to Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders, diaries of officers and troops, and memoirs by and about former slaves. He spent time exploring the internal documents of the Confederate government, which were captured by the Union army and are now stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
Levine found that Confederate leaders had been receiving--and rejecting--letters from various Southerners suggesting that they arm the slaves since the very beginning of the war.
But it was only in November of 1864, after the Confederates were defeated at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and finally Atlanta, that Davis reversed himself and endorsed the proposal to arm the slaves. The result was a fierce public debate in newspapers, drawing rooms, army regiments, and slave quarters throughout the South.
The book shows how the idea was proposed out of desperation and military necessity--the Confederates were badly outnumbered, slaves were escaping and joining the Union armies, and the South was close to defeat and to the loss of slavery. But as Levine points out, "the opposition of slave owners was ferocious--even though they were facing defeat and the end of slavery, they would not face those realities. They would not give up their slaves, even to save the Confederate cause itself."
"Only a tiny handful of slaves responded to the Confederate proposal," Levine added. "They viewed it as an act of desperation and were skeptical of the sincerity of promises of emancipation. The reaction of the slaves generally was 'Why would we fight for the Confederacy; it's not our country? They were very well informed through the grapevine."
Levine noted that the book is designed to emphasize how important the slaves’ actions were during that period of history.
"The story of the Civil War is usually told as a story of two white armies and two white governments," Levine said. "The popular image is of passive, grateful slaves kneeling at the feet of Father Abraham. But in fact, the slaves were very active in shaping the war and its outcome.”
"There are a lot of revelations in this book," Levine added. "The proposals discussed here provided an early glimmering of how the white South would treat blacks for the next century."
Levine is the author, coauthor, or editor of six previous books, including Work and Society (1977), Who Built America? (two volumes, 1990, 1992), The Spirit of 1848: German Immigrants, Labor Conflict, and the Coming of the Civil War (1992), and Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War (rev. ed. 2005). He has been a professor of history at UCSC since 1997.
There was a difference, in Davis's mind and in fact, between individual blacks (free and slave) serving in the Confederate army and navy in noncombatant roles, and sometimes taking a gun and shooting, and the government deliberately forming fighting units of slaves with the promise of emancipation.
While thousands of blacks certainly served in the Confederate army and navy, most of the time it was in a noncombatant role--for example, driving a supply wagon. Many blacks received Confederate veteran's pensions after the war from the ex-Confederate states (Tennessee gave out pensions to 400+ black veterans), but again, the service was akin to the modern soldier who drives a supply truck.
Good post, VVDoug!
Just began reading Grant's memoirs the other night. Beautiful writing.
Bottom line is that the South was fighting to preserve an antiquated system that was dependent upon agriculture. The war was a conflict between two cultures, but it was NOT between two seperate nations except in the minds of those diehards who still don't believe in a UNITED States of America. A divided country would have been taken advantage of by the European powers as they sought to keep America off of the world stage and pitted one side against the other.
The Civil War, as a course of study, is positively fascinating. It's like peeling an onion.
The troops who nearly gave up at Shiloh over fighting for the black man, I imagine, were from the southern parts of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and more. Correct? Maybe not?
Thanks for the great post!
1) The Confederates win a couple more battles due to poor Union generalship, the Northern public becomes weary of losing, decides there is little to lose from letting the South go, or
2) Lincoln is assassinated earlier, Johnson has no desire to continue fighting and agrees to a truce.
I would be gracious if somebody posted those here; I not longer have those reference materials.
The collapse of the American republic into two or more federations would probably have led to large scale empire building not only in the United States, but in Latin America. Remember that Napoleon III of France conquered Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine at a time when the Washington government had its hands full with the Southern secession. France, England, and other European nations would have recolonized the entire hemisphere. Neo-Confederates overlook the fact that the European states that were carving up Asia and Africa into colonies inn the late 19th Century would have done the same in Latin America and even the American West. If the Confederacy aligned with England and the remnants of the USA with Germany, World War I battles might have been fought near the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, as well as near the Seine and Rhine.
The war was a conflict between two cultures, but it was NOT between two separate nations...
The primary characteristic that defines America as a nation is a common idea and vision, not ties of race and ethnicity. Ethnically speaking, the South of 1860 was basically unchanged from the Southern colonies of 1776: a British Protestant majority and a mostly enslaved African minority. The North, originally predominantly British and Protestant, had experienced large immigration waves from Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries. While these immigrants were more or less physically indistinguishable from the descendants of British colonial settlers, there were considerable language and religious differences. Nonetheless, the beginning of the "Melting Pot" was in evidence. Several Union generals were first or second generation Irish or German Americans (Sheridan and Schurz, for example).
Had the Southerners achieved independence, there would have been two nations as distinct as the United States and Canada, or Sweden and Norway.
Depends -- which war *do* you want to talk about? Secession was about the preservation of slavery, and this SC professor claiming that something which came about because of Lee's putting it forward (quite late in the war, when all was all but lost) doesn't change that.
It would have been an amusing scene in history if, having freed and armed slaves, the slavers found themselves being shot from the front by Americans and from the rear by their former slaves.
Sure, if the British had cared enough, they could have run the blockade. But eventually there would have been some ships caught. Britain would have been obliged to respond. A state of war would have ensued. Now, as of 1862, the British had fought and lost two wars within 90 years. The war of 1812 was within memory of the British leadership. Within the last ten years they'd fought distant bloody wars in Crimea and in India (putting down the Sepoy Mutiny). There was little desire for another. Further, open warfare with the US would leave Canada in a precarious position, would end US grain shipments to Britain, and might even bring Russia into play as a US ally.
Ultimately, there just wasn't nearly enough upside to Britiain in the deal. There was cotton and there was dividing a rising rival. And that was it.
Should be "fought and lost two wars against the United States within 90 years."
Let's be literal on this. They were slave rebellions not "servile insurrections. I suppose whether they ended happily is a matter of perspective. Haiti is a mess but I'd rather be free there, than a slave on a plantation.
Even if their act of murder robs their supposed owner of his life? I think that's a rather extreme position—wouldn't you?
The Americans took precisely this extreme position when the rebelled at what they called George III's effort to "enslave" them. It isn't extreme at all given the situation. I am not recommending aimless killing but killing for self-defense. For example, if a slave escapes and the owner is trying to capture him, the slave has ever right in the world to shoot him.
. While I won't begin to claim that slavery was an entirely pleasant institution, I think the fact that Southern slaveowning men who went off to war left their families (wives and children) in the care of their slaves speaks volumes to the reality of the intricate relationships which existed on the Southern plantation.
Perhaps but the slaves were acting rational. They knew that they were in the minority (except in South Carolina) and the violent resistance was futile. Instead, they voted with their feet by the thousands to flee to Northern lines. For the same reason, very few were willing to volunteer to fight for the CSA especially by the end of the war.
Let me also not that the Confederate Constitution did not give members the right to secede.
And the Members who ratified that Constitution interpreted it the same way which they interpreted the Constitution of 1787—They were withholding their absolute right of Secession, and would use it again if necessary. Towards the close of the War, the State of Georgia was coming close to executing that very same action—withdrawing themselves from the Confederacy.
The CSA Constituiton was very explicit in cases where the issue was considered important. For example, the U.S. Constitution did not use the word "slave" thus leading some (such as Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass) to argue that it did sanction the institution. Just to be safe, however, the framers of the CSA constitution were explicit and spelled it out. Apparently, they did not feel that the right of secession was important enough to explicitly spell out. I think this says something about their true priorities e.g. protection of slavery, not states rights. Also, unlike the U.S. Constitution, it gave *national* protection to the right of individuals to own slaves.
Ah, but you forget that it explicitly outlawed the Slave trade with foreign nations (Sec 9.1-2), something which even the Federal constitution didn't do. And, if you'll recall the design of American governance, it did not "give national protection to the right of individuals to own slaves," but rather it forbade the General Government from legislating to that effect (Sec 9.4). While the difference between those two statements may not be obvious at first, I think you'll find that they do serve vastly different philosophies, both of which in contrast illustrate the actual grievances which led to the Civil War.
The ban of the slave trade was primarily for strategic reasons. The Brits were waging war on the international slave trade and the CSA wanted to attract them. Besides, banning importation of slaves would only serve to raise the value of existing slaves.
I disagree with your other points. The CSA constitution is quite explicit in protecting slave property regardless of the states: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Also, of course, it specifically requires the states to protect slave property brought into the state.
BTW, I believe local control trumps states rights.....thus blacks had the right to seize their plantations and run them as they saw fit.
Can local control trump states rights, if local governments are the creation of the States of which they're a member? That's the distinct difference between the State->Federal relationship and the Citizen->State relationship, wouldn't you agree?
I don't worship at the alter of the Constitution of 1787 (which was probably illegally ratified). I value local control regardless of what that document says. I much prefer the Articles of Confederation. I value indiviudal rights more than either.
(And, to continue picking nits, you seem to be clearly advocating the right of one class of people to steal property from another class, possibly with the loss of the latter's life. Wouldn't it be much more just for these people to act within their lawful State legislatures to bring about their emancipation?) IIf the property was stolen in the first place (e.g created from the forced labor of slaves), those who worked the land (the slaves) were the legitimate owners. In this respect, I am a follower of Locke who argued that the initial title comes from sweat equity. The true thieves were were the masters not the slaves. Regards, ~dt~
Just enough to muddy the water a little. It's like highlighting gypsy deaths to "prove" that the Holocaust wasn't about the Jews. If Europe jails Holocaust deniers, maybe we should jail slavery "deniers" whose "pride" won't let them accept the facts? Naaaah. It's just a pathetic little squeek.
BTTT
Some Southerners wrongfully see the Union Army as a force led by Yankee Unitarian officers commanding poverty stricken immigrants fresh off the boat from Germany or Ireland, plus the criminal riffraff of the Northern prisons. In fact, the Northern population and the Union Army were both ethnically and politically diverse. Many were Scotch-Irish from the northern reaches of Appalachia (western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and northern West Virginia) whose dialect and culture were close to those of their fellow Scotch-Irish who fought for the Lost Cause.
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.