Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New book looks at startling Confederate policy during Civil War
Current ^ | 20 February 2006 | Scott Rappaport

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apologia; apologist; bookreview; confederate; dixie; freedom; milhist; policy; rationalization; slave; southern
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 next last
To: stainlessbanner

I meant that they were not conscripted.


241 posted on 02/22/2006 7:35:10 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

P.S. My point is with merit, if you read the link to the Smithsonian it states he refused to make abolition of slavery a Northern goal, in the early part of the Civil War, the beginning, so he did not always want to end slavery. He did not want to do so for fear of alienating slave holding border states. So when he did so, it was only the rebellious Confederate states.

All of the other comments you made took place years later.
If you read the link at the Smithsonian, he could have but refused to free all slaves for political reasons.

It is also in history that Pres. Lincoln gave 250,000 to a man to go to Haiti (or some country down there) to set up a means to transport blacks to that country. This person in charge made off with the money and everything fell through.

Also he was trying and considering how to move the blacks west of the Mississippi.

Am I critical of Lincoln, no, this is history, and we do not know what we would have done. I do think though, he should have set out to free all slaves.

Which goes back to my first post, that the Civil War was first and foremost a war of States Rights.


242 posted on 02/22/2006 7:35:22 AM PST by rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Not legally,

The legal restriction was at the national level. Davis had no control over who enlisted at the state and local level. Remember "state rights".
243 posted on 02/22/2006 7:38:29 AM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: smug
Read post 242, and everything you say points out even more the point of the war being a war of States Rights, the slavery issue was an issue that came in as a tool against the rebellious Confederate States.
244 posted on 02/22/2006 7:46:27 AM PST by rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So I am supposed to know what you meant and not go on what you all said?

Perhaps not, but as I read it I assumed he meant (blacks in the regiments).

in March 1865 they were formed into all black units?

Who said they were? It is my understanding that they were filled out with white soldiers whom had recovered from wounds well enough to go back into the lines.
245 posted on 02/22/2006 7:49:48 AM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: rose
I am not disagreeing with you. My relatives that fought for the Confederacy didn't have any slaves. Why would they fight for that? No more so than my nephew in Afghanistan is fight for abortion rights.
246 posted on 02/22/2006 7:55:51 AM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Who was it that said, "Southerners loved blacks individually, but hated them as a race. Northerners loved blacks as a race, but hated them individually"? Or something like that.

By the way, I tend to lean to the idea that the Civil War was not so much a civil war, but really that old signal of Southern apology, The War between the States. And I am also sympathetic to the arguments that the war was not so much about slavery per se, but about Northern ambitions for greater federal control over national policies being radically rejected by politically outnumbered Southerners. But of course slavery was an obvious focus of Northern and Southern political fighting, and so, what the hell, I accept the one-sentence description: The Civil War was fought to end slavery. There's enough truth in the description and, after all, I don't see much use in 2006 to be wrangling seriously over the question outside the ranks of history buffs. It's an interesting topic to muse about occasionally, however.

247 posted on 02/22/2006 8:09:02 AM PST by chinche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright

I don't think I'm proving your point at all. You brush off the rise of slavery in Texas from its inception as a republic to admission as if it is irrelevant, saying it wasn't 'entrenched,' but the slave population was rising BECAUSE the institution was widely supported! Your suggestion in the 'what-if' is that the Republic could have been induced to give up slavery by a U.S. that required it as precondition for admission. But the possibility that slavery would be ended was at LEAST a significant reason for Texas seceding from Mexico--after Santa Anna ripped up the Mexican federal constitution and extended the Mexican slavery ban to Texas, Texas erupted in rebellion. In fact, one of Texas' first actions was to ban free blacks from the Republic. In March of 1836 Texans put a slavery guarantee in their constitution, too. Hell, they even elected Lamar, who worked his fanny off for years to keep Texas independent and slaveholding. Lamar only ever came around to Union because he thought it would PROTECT slavery in Texas.

No, it does not at all seem likely to me that a country that had fought for its right to own slaves would suddenly acquiesce to give them up for the Union. Of course, we're arguing a what-if, and I don't want to belabor the point. We'll simply have to disagree. I don't mean to insult Texas by saying it, or demean the Texas Republic--I just figure different than you do about the purpose of Texan annexation to Texans.


248 posted on 02/22/2006 8:10:46 AM PST by LibertarianInExile (Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: smug
My relatives also fought in the Civil War and did not own slaves. My grandmother's mother shot, killed a Union soldier for trying to take her last chicken. They buried him under the house, Nashville, Tennessee.

A book about Lincoln with history we do not always get is a book with a foreword by Walter E. Williams. The REAL LINCOLN; a New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Author: Thomas J. Dilorenzo
249 posted on 02/22/2006 8:17:33 AM PST by rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; Anybody

And because this topic has got some history buffs reading it, could someone direct me to some information about the legality of secession? This thread has jogged my memory about a question I had as a history student reading the Constitution. If the Southern states could not legally dissolve the Union, then why were they readmitted by Congress after the war? And how could West Virginia become a state? Breaking up a single state into more than one is prohibited in the Constitution. This has always bugged me about simple descriptions of the war and its causes. Here we have clear evidence that politicians at the time considered the Union dissolvable. Anybody have some thoughts or reading suggestions?


250 posted on 02/22/2006 8:21:18 AM PST by chinche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rose
I haven't read that yet, but if Walter Williams wrote the foreword I know it will be good.
251 posted on 02/22/2006 8:26:44 AM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

I am not defending Texas or its use of slavery but you forget that the Republic of Texas was in a very weak position.

Assuming the U.S. president required a "no slavery requirement" for annexation, it had four choices: join the U.S. but give up slavery, rejoin Mexico (a very real possibility) but give up slavery, become a British possession (a real possibility), but give up slavery, or remain independent and vulnerable. Please note that President Sam Houston was very much a wild card on this as he was in 1861 when he came out against secession.


252 posted on 02/22/2006 8:28:06 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
That assumption you have made is not the truth...sure uncle Tom's Cabin started the movement to free slaves...but it was the FACT that outraged the South the Greatest was not the loss of Slavery...it was not being able to sell our Cotton to Europe without going through the Carpet Baggers and Scalawags up North that controlled the commodities exchanges in Chicago and New damn York...

All the textile mills up north and above the Mason Dixon line...all the old families of England controlled the price payed to the Plantations and to the small share plots manned by Whites and Freed Slaves...

France was a good Friend of the South because that wanted to buy cotton direct from the Plantations and Co-Ops

So when the economic apple cart of the New York Textile Mills and Garment Industry balked, they were shrewed enough, just as todays Democrats to lie about their real intentions and use Slavery and Liberals sensitivities to the Slavery issue to push the South to its economic limit with these low prices and and at times stolen Cargo on the Docks of New York...

Robert E Lee, did not give up his citizenship in America to fight to preserve slavery...he fought out of honor for his brothers of the South, and his Strong belief in States Rights... I would say better than 90% of Southerners never owned slaves, and for you out there who are not aware... Many Blacks owned slaves to work their own farms!

You may also remember the horrible conditions that Northern Sweat Shops and Lung and health concerns were caused by the Yankee Capitalist, using there on slave labor in the form of child labor and indentured servitude, that because of debts accrued at the company stores, never released the worker from His or Her Debt!!!
253 posted on 02/22/2006 8:34:19 AM PST by Turborules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chinche
Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

Let's Ditch Dixie: The case for northern secession

President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession

The Constitutional Right of Secession

The Squalid 14th Amendment

254 posted on 02/22/2006 8:46:12 AM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Thanks very much. I'm reading your links.


255 posted on 02/22/2006 8:53:01 AM PST by chinche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

How come nobody every mentions the equally "squalid" 15th Amendment? Hmmm.....


256 posted on 02/22/2006 8:53:21 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright; chinche
The articles are good. Some of the debate turns into whose daddy can beat up who, though.

You might have to search through the threads for some gems, but they're out there. FR has some really sharp folks.

257 posted on 02/22/2006 8:56:53 AM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: rose
if you read the link to the Smithsonian it states he refused to make abolition of slavery a Northern goal, in the early part of the Civil War, the beginning, so he did not always want to end slavery.

Yeah, I read the link to the Smithsonian, a one-paragraph item written at a 7th-grade level. First, you appear to confuse "wanting" with "having the power." I'm sure President Bush "wants" to end abortion. Does he have the power to do so, though? No. You make the all-too-usual Lost Causer mistake of starting from the assumption that Lincoln was a dictator, then accusing him of being morally lax because he didn't use his dictatorial powers.

Indeed, Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a war aim at the beginning. Nor was it a war aim at the end. The war aim was to put down the rebellion and preserve the Union. The EP was a war measure. Before the war, Lincoln frequently said that he had neither any intention of abolishing slavery in the states where it existed, nor the belief that he had the power to do so. His concern was the slave states' insistence on expanding slavery into the territories and into new states. The war, however, gave him to opportunity end slavery in the south.

He did not want to do so for fear of alienating slave holding border states. So when he did so, it was only the rebellious Confederate states.

Wrong again. By the time of the EP on January 1, 1863, the border states were firmly Union. Now, if he'd done it a year and a half earlier, you might have a point.

All of the other comments you made took place years later.

But they were in the works, through normal political process. West Virginia debated ending slavery at their statehood convention in January 1862, passed an act phasing out slavery that July. Debates in all the Union slave states were ongoing, with Democrats holding out. The 1864 election was the turning point, tipping three of the four Union slave states toward abolition within weeks and allowing Congress the pass the 13th on to the states. We're talking about 24 months here to let democracy take it's course in states that stayed loyal to the Union and therefore weren't under Lincoln's authority as Commander in Chief.

If you read the link at the Smithsonian, he could have but refused to free all slaves for political reasons.

You'll have to point out where it says that. Here, I'll save you a step. Here's the whole three sentences of your source: "In spite of vocal prodding from abolitionists, President Lincoln steadfastly refused to make the abolition of slavery a Northern goal in the early stages of the Civil War, lest doing so would alienate slaveholding border states that remained loyal to the Union. By mid-1862, however, Lincoln’s concern for enhancing the moral weight of the United States in the eyes of the world convinced him that it was time to act. In September 1862, he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, which would take effect on January 1, 1863, and declared all slaves free in those regions of the South still in rebellion. Where does it say, "he could have but refused to free all slaves for political reasons." What it says is that early on he didn't make it as a "Northern goal" and that the EP "declared all slaves free in those regions of the South still in rebellion." It does NOT say that he could have freed slaves in Union states on his say-so.

t is also in history that Pres. Lincoln gave 250,000 to a man to go to Haiti (or some country down there) to set up a means to transport blacks to that country. This person in charge made off with the money and everything fell through.

Proof again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, Lincoln supported colonization schemes, including the disastrous Ile de Vache scheme, which took black volunteers to Haiti, then ditched them there and took the money. Inexplicably (I'm sure to you), Lincoln sent ships to return the black colonists to the US. Pretty poor deportation scheme, huh? The fact is that Lincoln, naively perhaps, thought many blacks wouldn't want to live among whites after they were freed. The colonization schemes he supported were always predicated on volunteers wanting to go, and he utterly rejected any notion of forcible deportation.

Which goes back to my first post, that the Civil War was first and foremost a war of States Rights.

Sure, a state's right to weaken the entire nation. to seize forts and armories and to fire on US troops, when an election doesn't go their way and they think that maybe the new administration might put some pressure on their rights to own black people. If that's the state's right you mean, I agree.

I do think though, he should have set out to free all slaves.

And maybe he did. Maybe in his heart that was always the goal. There's plenty of evidence of his opposition to slavery throughout his life. ("If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong".) But he was also constricted in his ability to make it happen--by the war, by congress, by the states, and by the Constitution.

In the end, though, it comes down to one, simple irrefutable fact: Before Lincoln, slavery. After Lincoln, no slavery.

258 posted on 02/22/2006 10:19:14 AM PST by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
I used the Smithsonian info because of it being condensed and said a lot in short form, you could leave the 7th grade education out, that comment is not necessary in our discussions.

You have made a very good and interesting reply, I will take time to read and go to my resources in history and get back later.

I am quite a senior citizen and was educated when education was good, have had extensive education. I do not make assumptions, sometimes I can be wrong but am trying
to base my critique on history, not feelings or prejudice.

I think Pres. Lincoln was a great president, whether I agree with all or not. He was human and flawed as we all are.

Will get back to you later.

I thank you for the discussion and reply later.
259 posted on 02/22/2006 1:44:23 PM PST by rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: rose
I used the Smithsonian info because of it being condensed and said a lot in short form, you could leave the 7th grade education out, that comment is not necessary in our discussions.

My apologies, then. There's a lot of verbal slash and burn in FR's Civil War threads, on both sides. It can seem brusque to someone not familiar with it. For most of us, I suspect, it's the reason to keep coming back. It's not like someone's going to say something one day and the other side will say, "Well, I guess you're right. Lincoln was a racist dictator" or "Now I understand--the South DIDN'T have a right to secede, and they only cared about slavery."

In regards to the Smithsonian pieces, though, I think that the larger point I was trying to make was that, comprising just three sentences, it simply isn't very good at expressing the Constitutional or political realities that Lincoln faced.

260 posted on 02/22/2006 1:59:37 PM PST by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson