Posted on 01/05/2018 12:07:18 PM PST by DoodleDawg
Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.
“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”
“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.
Pension records gleaned from the S.C. Department of History and Archives show no black Confederate soldiers received payment for combat service. And of the more than 300 blacks who did receive pensions after they were allowed in 1923, all served as body servants or cooks, the records show.
Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.
That repeal resulted in a handful of African-American units in states such as Virginia and Texas. But there were none in South Carolina, which prohibited African-Americans from carrying guns in the state’s service throughout the war for fear of insurrection, according to the archives.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
Spot on. If Old Abe could have personally killed 700,000 i one blow he was one hell of a rail splitter.
Well how do General! A belated Merry Chirstmas and a Happy New Year to ya!
You’re butthurt cause i forgot to tell dawg to call u for help
My bad
I shoulda mentioned you of course
Frederick Douglass
“It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. “
Course Jonah Goldberg posse Freepers know better than Douglass who lived it in real time.....their mantra like any neoyankee is “welll Douglass was not a reporter or soldier so how did he know”
Lengthy article from Walter Williams...neoyankees whom I’ve found to be soft on culture war in general don’t like him either but here’s his take
-——http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/00/black_confederates.html.......
I can go on and on with this....my guess it will matter none to you
“The war was about money, and only about money. They created the propaganda that it was about “slavery” because they didn’t want people to know the real motives for it. If they knew the real motives, the public would have been against it.”
Hmmmm, seems to be a time honored scenario that has been repeated through the ages. Just substitute “slavery” for some other issue and it works every time.
I would agree. They fought for the Union, too.
Not if you were black and cooked for the Confederate army, no.
An interesting piece, though I'm pretty certain his remarks & quote about Grant are bogus.
As for the rest, it's curious that since the Civil War ended, no record of black Confederate fighting-soldiers (as opposed to support personnel) survives.
I suspect the reason is that white Confederates didn't want African-Americans, even freed-blacks, armed or recognized as defenders of the Confederacy.
Walter Williams quotes Horace Greeley:
They are. The whole thing is pretty bogus.
Well... right away you should check to see which regiments they were because most East Tennesseans served the Union army, not the Confederacy, and that would almost certainly include any "free men of color."
The Confederacy put considerable efforts into suppressing and oppressing East Tennesseans support for Union, and that included in Western North Carolina the Shelton Laurel Massacre.
First, there are no "south haters" on Free Republic.
But many of us dislike the lies some Southerners tell about their own ancestors, and ours.
Second, everybody understands that many slaves served the Confederate army, at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.
They are acknowledged to have served in every possible role, except actual combat.
Regarding combat we have only a few anecdotal reports, but no official records, no black infantry units until the war's end and those never fought.
As for a man-servant standing beside his master, loading master's rifles, and possibly carrying on after master was killed -- sure, it could happen.
But there are no official records confirming such things.
DiogenesLamp: "Exactly.
At least you grasp the concept in theory if not in practice."
And this baldly posted by arguably the greatest fantasizer on Free Republic.
The information about Grant is incorrect. He freed the only slave that he personally owned in March of 1859. The three or four female slaves that attended to Julia Grant, during the war years, were the property of Fredrick Dent, her father, Grant never owned them. These slaves were freed on Jan 11 1865, when the State of Missouri outlawed slavery. The XIII Amendment was ratified in December 1865.
But there were no Maryland legislators jailed -- none, zero, nada jailed for any reason -- on April 29, 1861 when they voted four to one against (53-13) secession.
Then on May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, bringing into effect the US Constitution:
This made pro-Confederates (aka "copperheads") in Union states treasonous, and subject to arrest.
So the vote on April 29 was four to one against secession and by September 17 would have been two to one against secession if the arrested pro-Confederates were allowed to vote.
And two to one is also roughly the number of Marylanders who served the Union versus Confederate army.
So Maryland, like Delaware, Kentucky & Missouri, was a Union state, period.
Antietam/Sharpsburg, Marylanders fought with distinction on both sides:
So you are good with legally elected representatives being arrested because of their political opinions? Typical Lincoln propaganda. Why were none of the Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis tried for treason after Lee’s surrender? Here’s why..
Salmon P. Chase
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His [Jefferson Davis’] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.”
If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were right, so were Lee, Davis and Jackson.
I find it odd, that Conservatives would ever agree with the expansion of the Federal government and if secession was not the legal domain of the states, why did states including New York and Rhode Island have secession powers written in to their state constitutions?
Lincoln made illegal war on the South.
DiogenesLamp: "Only because Lincoln laid the foundation for doing so.
The Federal Government was never so all powerful prior to 1861."
Total fantasy & rubbish.
In fact, Lincoln did nothing but win the Civil War, using constitutional tools available.
After the war, by 1870 Federal government spending (except for debt payments) had returned to the same level as 1858 under Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan = 2.5% of GDP.
That 2.5% of GDP, for non-debt reduction spending, remained the average until well after World War One, when FDR's New Deal increased it to 15%.
After WWII spending rose to 20% and in recent years often exceeds 25% of GDP.
Nothing Lincoln did or said could explain or justify events beginning 70 years after his death.
“My policy sought only to collect the Revenue” (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861). A. Lincoln, 4 July 1861.
“I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” A. Lincoln. Inaugural address, March 1861.
It would be interesting to see the quote in context and find out what was left out by the ellipsis. But even with the partial quote it's hard to disagree with Chief Justice Chase. Secession isn't treason as defined by the Constitution. But rebellion is. And that's what led to the Davis treason indictment.
If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were right, so were Lee, Davis and Jackson.
Washington, Jefferson, and Adams won. Lee, Davis, and Jackson lost. Winning your rebellion excuses a multitude of sins.
I find it odd, that Conservatives would ever agree with the expansion of the Federal government and if secession was not the legal domain of the states, why did states including New York and Rhode Island have secession powers written in to their state constitutions?
I don't think they have it written into their state constitutions,especially Rhode Island which didn't adopt a constitution until 1842. But even if they did, it's the U.S. Constitution "..and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Constitution does not allow for unilateral secession as was attempted by the Southern states.
Lincoln made illegal war on the South.
Lincoln fought the war the South forced on him.
That quote is not in Lincoln's address to Congress on July 4, 1861: Link
Making quotes up does not bolster your case.
“I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” A. Lincoln. Inaugural address, March 1861.
That at least is accurate. What's your point?
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.