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Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.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 ...
You have never seen Civil war photos of Black Confederate units?
Unfortunately, I can’t remember any urls or names of books and other publications of the era at the moment, but maybe someone will see this post and accommodate us.
5.56mm
Oh and another "honorable" southern was John B. Floyd who attempted to singlehandedly arm rebels with Union weaponry - while serving as US Secretary of War.
excellent list of events. A couple of items for future addition to that list. April 17th Davis solicits mariners to apply for for Letters of Marque against U.S. shipping.
April 29, Davis requests Confederate Congress grant him authority to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal.
May 6 Confederate Congress grants Davis authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Woodrow Wilson oversaw the creation and implementation of the Federal Reserve. If you don’t think that drastically increased the power of the federal government then you are crazy.
FDR oversaw Social Security and the so-called “New Deal. If you do not think those things drastically increased the power of the federal government then you are equally crazy.
I very seldom post fantasy and rubbish here unless I am joking.
Not exactly one of their better “strategic” moves, although I realize why they were inclined to do so, not having a navy to speak of.
Privateering had been outlawed by the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856, which equated privateering with piracy. The United States hadn’t ratified that treaty, and so was not strictly bound by it, but the legitimacy of privateering as a means of warfare had clearly shifted to the wrong side of what was then termed the “law of nations.”
This only served to irritate France and Great Britain at a time when the con-feds were desperately trying to curry favor.
I think you might call BroJoeK’s #117 a technical foul - it looks like his reply was aimed at another poster and only included you as a courtesy ping.
We are told that those early call-ups were responded to enthusiastically both South and North.
We are not given a timeline saying, for example, "by April 30 Confederate troops numbered X while Union troops numbered Y."
At that early time such numbers would be relatively meaningless anyway, since troops in "uniform" does not directly equate to "effective fighting forces."
But point remains: in the very beginning it was the Union that was vastly outnumbered.
It didn’t last long. Davis signed only a few letters of Marque. The British and French closed all of their ports to Confederate privateers. No place to sell their prize ships except run the blockade into a Southern port. The British, French and the United States government all declared that if they caught a Confederate privateer they would be treated as pirates, not prisoners of war. By mid 1862 no more Southern ship captains sailed under a letter of Marque from the Confederate Government.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!
My response was aimed to support your opinion and refute that of DiogenesLamp.
Near as I can tell, we're on the same side. ;-)
I have seen some photos purported to be of black Confederate units. After some research, they turned out to be doctored photos of USCT. Have seen many photos of black sailors on Confederate warships. Have also seen blacks in the background of photos of Confederate Army units. But I have never seen a documentable photograph of a Black Confederate Army unit. That is something I would like to see if it exists.
A large part of the failure of the con-fed privateers was that the intent of commissioning them was to smuggle in desperately needed supplies, technology, and arms.
Instead, the privateers immediately saw the profit of supplying French wines, caviar, and the latest European fashions.
think you are confusing blockade runners with privateers.
Confederate privateers under a letter of marque are authorized to capture U.S. flagged merchant ships, seize the ship and to sell the cargo and ship. Blockade runners were ships that picked up cargos in Europe, Bermuda, or many Caribbean ports and ran the blockade of U.S. Navy to a Southern port. Much more money to be made selling a cargo load of luxury items than a cargo hold full of blankets for the Confederate Army.
Yes, of course. Thank you for the correction.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791 letter]
That Constitution.
ML/NJ
You mean the Constitution that the Supreme Court determined secession from was un-Constitutional in 1869.
You think that Lincoln's War had nothing to do with this?
ML/NJ
No, but the War of Southern Treachery did.
Since secession was un-Constitutional, the Lincoln administration was justified in using force to correct and un-constitutional action by states in rebellion.
“...in before some Freeper posts that Lincoln personally killed 700,000 people in the Civil War...”
Lincoln killed vampires too, I saw it on TV! With his background as a rail splitter he was great at making wooden stakes.
No I haven't.
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.