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 were "uncomfortable" moments when veterans of these regiments showed up at commemorative events in the years after the war."
Any Black man who fought for the South should be looked upon with the same respect as any White man who did. They did what they thought they had to, and I can respect that.
Known to us who live in the South but, hey, who listens to us?
Some of the "handful":
It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that "biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids". Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html
General Cleburne bump...
Even then, only a few troops were even in training by the end of the war and, none, apparently saw action. Very few slaves volunteered for this service in part because they were well aware that by 1865 the war was a losing cause. Read the book!
There was no such "policy" merely debate.
Whatever, n00b.
That's what the losing side considered. The winning side considered it a civil war and the winners write the history.
"Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South.""
Exactly. I don't think people in other parts of the country realize how much interaction between Blacks and Whites there actually is down here. Having spent a great deal of time in the Northeast and the Deep South, I can honestly say that there is far more interaction down here. In pont of fact, I have known many Blacks who are as proud of the South as any White man.
War aims change as the prospects for winning or losing change.
The Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery. There wouldn't have been a war if there were no slaves.
By 1864 it was clear to Confederate leaders that they were going to lose the war. Losing meant they would face charges of treason and insurrection--potentially hanging offenses. It is not surprising that these leaders would grasp at any option for evading that fate.
It is also not surprising that few slaves would sign on. By 1864 most slaves could see that the Confederacy was losing. Why would they enlist in a losing cause for a government that had previously enslaved them.
Even losing the war, the South did its best to subjugate Blacks as soon as the reins of power passed back into white supremacist hands after the end of the Reconstruction period.
I don't think this book "proves" the war wasn't over slavery.
Hello to you too.
If you ever get chance, meet a man named Nelson Winbush. His grandaddy, Louis Napoleon Nelson, fought for the Confederacy. Louis happened to be black. He was buried with full military honors with the color guard and he has the stories and pictures to prove it.
"Even losing the war, the South did its best to subjugate Blacks as soon as the reins of power passed back into white supremacist hands after the end of the Reconstruction period."
Blacks did not exactly have it easy in the North either, however. Let us not forget that fact.
Bump for later reading/reply (is it time for the Periodic Thread already? :) )
Maybe up North. I can't remember not knowing.
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 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."
The writer answers his own question.
But then, a quick re-read of the Articles of Confederation would generally answer the question. The thing that drove secession was not slavery per se, but as the Articles made clear, the issue of spreading slavery to new western states.
Lincoln was willing to compromise on slavery where it already existed. He was not willing to allow it to spread any further. The slavers knew that meant the slow-motion strangulation of their system as they became steadily outvoted in congress over the next few decades. So they were unwilling to concede that point either.
That, and the fact that they thought they could win.
So, no, even facing defeat, they were not willing to free their slaves.
Bump
> 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."
It doesn't sound like it was a very well supported policy in the South. How can this be proof of anything it it was never carried out (except for a few random individuals)?
65,00 CSA black soldiers. C'mon. Of course, a lot of slaves were used for the dirty work and a handful of personal servants occassionally took potshots at Yankees but the CSA did not allow black soldiers until the end of the war (whe it was too late). The only exception were some free blacks in the Louisiana home guard, but these were used for purely defensive purposes and in a very limited way.
If the war had nothing to do with slavery, then how come they wouldn't arm the slaves to save the 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.