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

Skip to comments.

America thinks the unthinkable: More than half of Trump voters and 41% of Biden supporters want red and blue states to SECEDE from one another and form two new countries, shock new poll finds
UK Daily Mail ^ | October 1 2021 | MORGAN PHILLIPS

Posted on 10/02/2021 2:19:06 AM PDT by knighthawk

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 821-829 next last
To: TwelveOfTwenty
I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here, beyond the fact that until the CW ended Lincoln had constitutional challenges to deal with in abolishing slavery.

Willful ignorance is no excuse. YES, he needed but did not necessarily want a 13th Amendment.

Near the very end of Lincoln's last public address on April 11, 1865 he stated,

[continuing]

Again, if we reject Louisiana, we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national constitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no more than three fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned; while a ratification by three fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable.

I repeat the question. "Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State Government?

What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States.

I don't see what you're trying to prove here.

You sure do know when to snip a quote.

Clearly, Lincoln's plan was to start and finish the reconstruction of the South before Congress, and the Radicals, came back into session. That night, Lincoln caught a bullet in the head and that was the end of that.

I don't see what you're trying to prove here either.

Really? If Lincoln had succeeded, and he had restored all the late states in rebellion to the Union as though they had never left, with full representation in Congress, when do you think the 13th (or 14th, 15th) Amendment would have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States?

We know how they were passed under Reconstruction and martial law, with military governors in charge of the southern states. That manner of coercion would not have happened had Lincoln succeeded in his plan.

461 posted on 10/19/2021 6:19:48 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War

The pictures themselves are worth a look.

The pictures of Black Confederate soldiers from Harper's Weekly are worth a look.

Harper's Weekly, January 1863, Front page

Rebel Negro Pickets as Seen Through a Field-Glass: Harper's Weekly, January 1863

And the splendor of Frederick Douglass writing of the "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," is precious as, to quote TwelveOfTwenty #425, "I believe Frederick Douglass."

Douglass' Monthly, Vol. 4, Number 4, September 1861, page 516

FIGHTING REBELS WITH ONLY ONE HAND

What upon earth is the matter with the American Government and people? Do they really covet the world’s ridicule as well m their own social and political ruin? What are they thinking about, or don’t they con­descend to think at all? So, indeed, it would seem from their blindness in dealing with the tremendous issue now upon them. Was there ever any thing like it before? They are sorely pressed on every hand by a vast army of slaveholding rebels, flushed with success, and infuriated by the darkest inspirations of a deadly hate, bound to rule or ruin. Washington, the seat of Government, after ten thousand assurances to the contrary, is now positively in danger of falling before the rebel army. Maryland, a little while ago consider­ed safe for the Union, is now admitted to be studded with the materials for insurrection, and which may flame forth at any moment. Every resource of the nation, whether of men or money, whether of wisdom or strength, could be well employed to avert the impend­ing ruin. Yet most evidently the demands of the hour are not comprehended by the Cabinet or the crowd. Our Presidents, Gov­ernors, Generals and Secretaries are calling, with almost frantic vehemence, for men.

Men! men! send us men! they scream, or the cause of the Union is gone, the life of a great nation is ruthlessly sacrificed, and the hopes of a great nation go out in darkness; and yet these very officers, representing the people and Government, steadily and persist­ently refuse to receive the very class of men which have a deeper interest in the defeat and humiliation of the rebels, than all others.—Men are wanted in Missouri—wanted in Western Virginia, to hold and defend what has been already gained; they are wanted in Texas, and all along the sea coast, and tho’ the Government has at its command a class in the country deeply interested in suppress­ing the insurrection, it sternly refuses to sum­mon from among that vast multitude a single man, and degrades and insults the whole class by refusing to allow any of their number to defend with their strong arms and brave hearts the national cause. What a spectacle of blind, unreasoning prejudice and pusilla­nimity is this! The national edifice is on fire. Every man who can carry a bucket of water, or remove a brick, is wanted; but those who have the care of the building, having a pro­found respect for the feeling of the national burglars who set the building on fire, are de­termined that the flames shall only be extin­guished by Indoo-Caucasian hands, and to have the building burnt rather than save it by means of any other. Such is the pride, the stupid prejudice and folly that rules the hour.

Why does the Government reject the ne­gro? Is he not a man? Can he not wield a sword, fire a gun, march and countermarch, and obey orders like any other? Is there the least reason to believe that a regiment of well-drilled negroes would deport themselves less soldier-like on the battle field than the raw troops gathered up generally from the towns and cities of the State of New York? We do believe that such soldiers, if allowed now to take up arms in defence of the Government, and made to feel that they are hereafter to be recognized as persons having rights would set the highest example of order and general god behavior to their fellow soldiers, and in every way add to the national power.

If persons so humble as we could be allowed to speak to the President of the United States, we should ask him if this dark and terrible hour of the nation’s extremity is a time for consulting a mere vulgar and unnat­ural prejudice? We should ask him if na­tional preservation and necessity were not bet­ter guides in this emergency than either the tastes of the rebels, or the pride and preju­dices of the vulgar? We would tell him that General Jackson in a slave State fought side by side with negroes at New Orleans, and like a true man, despising meanness, he bore testimony to their bravery at the close of the war. We would tell him that colored men in Rhode Island and Connecticut performed their full share in the war of the Revolution, and that men of the same color, such as the noble Shields Green, Nathaniel Turner and Denmark Vesey stand ready to peril every thing at their command of the Govern­ment. We would tell him that this is no time to fight with one hand, when both are needed; that this is no time to fight only with your white hand, and allow your black hand to remain tied.

Whatever may be the folly and absurdity of the North, the South at least is true and wise. The Southern papers no longer indulge in the vulgar expression, ‘free n-----s.’ That class of bipeds are now called 'colored residents.' The Charleston papers say :

‘The colored residents of this city can chal­lenge comparison with their class, in any city or town, in loyalty or devotion to the canse of the South. Many of them individually, and without ostentation, have been contributing liberally, and on Wednesday evening, the 7th inst., a very large meeting was held by them, and a Committee appointed to provide for more efficient aid. The proceedings of the meeting will appear in results hereafter to be reported'.

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. There is a negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end. That the negroes are numerous in the rebel army, and do for that army its heaviest work, is beyond question. They have been the chief laborers upon those temporary defences in which the rebels have been able to mow down our men. Negroes helped to build the batteries at Charleston. They relieve their gentlemanly and military masters from the stiffening drudgery of the camp, and devote them to the nimble and dexterous use of arms. Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other. If a bad cause can do this, why should a good cause be less wisely conducted? We insist upon it, that one black regiment in such a war as this is, without being any more brave and orderly, would be worth to the Govern­ment more than two of any other; and that, while the Government continues to refuse the aid of colored men, thus alienating them from the national cause, and giving the rebels the advantage of them, it will not deserve belter fortunes than it has thus far experienced.— Men in earnest don’t fight with one hand, when they might fight with two, and a man drowning would not refuse to be saved even by a colored hand.

Gen. Buell's Provost-Marshall, Henry Dent, at Louisville, Ky., issued an order to his (mounted) provost-guard to flog all Blacks, free or slave, whom they should find in the streets after dark; and for weeks the spectacle was exhibited, to the admiration of thousands of active and passive Rebels in that city, of this chivalric provost guard, wearing the national uniform, chasing scores of unquestionably loyal and harmless persons at nightfall through the streets, over the pavements, and down the lanes and alleys, of that city; cutting and slashing them with cowhide and cat, while their screams of fright and agony made merry music for the traitors of every degree. Many were lashed unmercifully; but with no obvious advantage to the national cause, nor even to the improvement of the dubious loyalty of those whom the exhibition most delighted and edified.

Horace Greeley, The American Conflict, Vol 2, Hartford, 1866, p. 245

After Grant left the army [before the WBTS], he was impoverished. Unable to sell his wife's two slaves, Grant, to provide food for family and slaves, had to cut and sell firewood house to house. His wife's male slave was trained for housework. Convention prohibited Grant's forcing the black to help with the cutting, splitting, and handling of firewood.

-- H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray, Portals Press, 1979, First Edition, p. 42.

Grant's understanding of Confederates' use of blacks may have resulted from his having been employed as a slave driver on his father-in-law's plantation. Moreover, Grant's wife owned slaves. Her ownership of her chattels continued during the war.

-- H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray, Portals Press, 1979, First Edition, p. 42.

Fifty years after the battle of Gettysburg, Union and Confederate veterans of the war met there in a friendly reunion. Pennsylvania contributed $450,000 toward the event, and the Federal Government appropriated $150,000, in addition to the regular army's contribution of camp equipment and maintenance. Other States helped pay the cost.

The Commission in charge of the affair, unfortunately, made provision for Union black veterans while apparently fortgetful or ignorant of the presence of black Confederate veterans. When some of the Confederate blacks arrived they found there was no provision made for them. They were given straw beds in the big tent, where they were discovered by a group of Tennessee white Confederates. The Tenesseeans, learning of blacks' difficulties, led them to their own camp, set aside a tent for them, and took care to provide for all their needs. (CV, Sept. 1913, 431)

CV = Confederate Veteran, Nashville, 1883-1932. (A monthly -- last issue vol. 40, no. 12)

-- H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray,, Portals Press, 1979, First Edition, p. 39.

ROLLA, December 2, 1861. From Lt. Col. John S. Phelps to Col. G.M. Dodge. "A portion of my own slaves are in my camp. They came when the people fled from Springfield and vicinity with a wagon and team, clothing and supplies for their support. They feared they might be stolen by persons in the army and they fled to me for protection."

(OR, ser 2, v 1, p. 781)

The north could hardly believe in the Secession, much less in armed Negroes. In 1862, however, Northerners read a headline and story in the New York Tribune, reprinted from a Union soldier's letter to the Indianap­olis Star (December 23, 1861):

ATTACK ON OUR SOLDIERS BY ARMED NEGROES

... a body of seven hundred negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed, a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home [New Market Bridge near Newport News] and attacked our men. It is time this thing was understood, and if they fight us with negroes, why should we not fight them with negroes, too? We have dis­believed these reports too long, and now let us fight the devil with fire. The wounded men swear they will kill any negro they see, so excited are they at the das­tardly act. It remains to be seen how long the Government will now hesitate, when they learn these facts. One of the lieutenants was shot in the back of the neck and is not expected to live.

H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blues and Gray, 1979, p. 5

Aside from the obvious fact that southerners for years disliked equally Carpetbaggers, "Yankees," and Republicans, regardless of their races, there is a simple truth that eloquently refutes the thesis used against our ancestors. It is a little known truth; nevertheless, it is factual: The overwhelming majority of blacks during the War Between the States supported and defended with armed resistance the cause of southern independence, as did Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities. In his book Blacks in Blue and Gray, H.C. Blackerby demonstrates that over three hundred thousand blacks, both free and slave, supported the Confederacy, far more than the number that supported the Union.

Charles Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segars, and R.B. Rosenburg, Black Confederates, (originally published as Forgotten Confederates), Pelican Publishing Company, 2001, at page 97.

Records indicate that 300,000 or more blacks served with Confederate armies part of the time. Some were soldiers. Others served in many ways, from horseshoers to guards.

462 posted on 10/19/2021 6:41:53 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
"You’re the one quoting me genius."
463 posted on 10/20/2021 7:15:26 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Correct. You are.


464 posted on 10/20/2021 11:40:46 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Lincoln orchestrated the Corwin Amendment. It was not ratified because the original 7 seceding states turned it down.

The original 7 seceding states had seceded, duh! The Union could have ratified the amendment if they had intended to, but even Buchanan admitted it was just an attempt to prevent secession.

It does not matter that it was Buchanan who signed it rather than Lincoln. Lincoln would have signed it because once again, he orchestrated it.

In which way did he orchestrate it?

You say it was to "prevent" secession. So?

Buchanan said it.

The fact is that the North was so willing to bargain away any prospect of banning slavery that they were perfectly happy to offer it up right away.

That's nonsense. The previous administration had pushed for it. That's like blaming Trump for the pictures of caged children that were taken during the Obama administration.

Nonsense like this leads me to believe you're one of those lefty dems who are trying to stick our side with their history.

Get it? The North was not interested in banning slavery.

Right. The abolitionists weren't interested in banning slavery. The escaped slaves who joined the Union Army and Navy weren't interested in abolishing slavery. No one was interested in abolishing slavery. They just accidentally did it.

Yes the 4 states which did issue declarations of causes did mention the North's violation of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution.....because that was irrefutable proof that the Northern states had broken the deal.

I can spam too.

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:

Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"

From Selected Quotations from 1830-1865

And, from the declarations of secession.

From Georgia: "They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races".

From Mississippi: "It advocates negro equality, socially and politically".

From Texas: "She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"

Also from Texas: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Another from Texas: "that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

Not only I say that. They themselves said they did not enter the war to abolish slavery. Yet you refuse to take them at their word.

We've been over that. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain about having to keep the country united when many opposed or didn't care about abolition. If you can't understand it by now, you won't if I explain it again.

Racism was universal in the world at the time.

Granted.

Hardly anybody was on board with abolishing slavery.

Nope, just enough to abolish it after the war.

Practically everybody else in Europe and the Americas got rid of slavery without a massive bloodbath at this time.

I know. All of those quotes above didn't come from the North, the UK, or South America.

You have it backwards. South Carolina is sovereign. Any claims of the federal government meant nothing to them in their sovereign territory.

Fort Sumter wasn't their sovereign territory.

No, I meant 1810. That's when slave trading became illegal in the United States. Yankee slave traders continued however well into the mid 19th century - illegally - by greasing the palms of corrupt government officials.

I never denied the illegal slave trade continued, in fact I pointed that out.

BTW, other than the examples of individual troops there were accounts of entire companies and of "thousands, manifestly a part of the Confederate Army."

Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865)

The previous link does not make your case.

I should have known you wouldn't read them. Allow me to help.

From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."

And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."

Of course he was right and wrong. Right in that the CW was about slavery, and wrong in that the North did follow through after winning.

465 posted on 10/21/2021 4:50:59 AM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Will whoever keeps asking if this country can get any more insane please stop?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
And the splendor of Frederick Douglass writing of the "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," is precious as

I never said there were no confederacy loyalists among the black troops serving in the confederacy, only that it wasn't all of them. There certainly weren't 300,000, the number you posted later, that were willing to defend the nation that was enslaving them. More on that later.

to quote TwelveOfTwenty #425, "I believe Frederick Douglass."

Good, then you believe this. "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Horace Greeley, The American Conflict "After Grant left the army [before the WBTS], he was impoverished. Unable to sell his wife's two slaves, Grant, to provide food for family and slaves, had to cut and sell firewood house to house. His wife's male slave was trained for housework. Convention prohibited Grant's forcing the black to help with the cutting, splitting, and handling of firewood."

I'm not sure what your point is here, except that Grant owned slaves from his wife. Yes, everyone knows that. Everyone also knows his views changed as he served along side of black troops and he became an advocate for racial quality.

Various excerpts from books that say what woodpusher wants to hear.

To sum things up, you seem to be pointing out that blacks served in the Confederate military. We know that. Some were slave owners themselves.

Records indicate that 300,000 or more blacks served with Confederate armies part of the time. Some were soldiers. Others served in many ways, from horseshoers to guards.

That's an open claim. If five actually served in the army while 299,995 were forced to serve as slaves, then this would be correct but it wouldn't be saying anything.

And what records? There are any number of resources that would dispute that number. I've listed a few below.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865)

Here's one blogger that isn't impressed.

Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""

Just because someone can publish their beliefs in a book doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept their conclusions. It wasn't 300,000. It wasn't even near the 100,000+ slaves that escaped to join the Union Army.

H.C. Blackerby, Blacks in Blues and Gray

Is this the same H.C. Blackerby that started a failed comic book publishing company in the mid 40s?

YES, he needed but did not necessarily want a 13th Amendment.

Well that's definitive.

Really? If Lincoln had succeeded, and he had restored all the late states in rebellion to the Union as though they had never left, with full representation in Congress, when do you think the 13th (or 14th, 15th) Amendment would have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States?

That was an interesting question. Are you saying the former slave holding states would have refused to vote for abolishing slavery?

There is only one meaning for emancipation, and joining the army does not apply. Fremont had declared all slaves in his military district to be free. Lincoln countermanded that order, and then relieved Fremont of his command. General Hunter wrote, "Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these three States—Georgia, Florida and South Carolina—heretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free." Lincoln crushed Hunter's brainfart.

Having seen the full context, I stand corrected. You are right on this, but that isn't the whole story. Lincoln wanted to avoid alienating the border states. From "David Hunter":

"President Abraham Lincoln quickly rescinded this order,[6] because he was concerned about its political effects in the border states, which he was trying to keep neutral. Their leaders advocated instead a gradual emancipation with compensation for slave holders.[7] Despite Lincoln's concerns that immediate emancipation in the South might drive some slave-holding Unionists to support the Confederacy, the national mood was quickly moving against slavery, especially within the Army.[8]"

The Lincoln joke was in September 1848 as stated in my #447. It was not rebutted by Lincoln's speech of January 27, 1838, more than ten years earlier.

I never said that he rebutted one with the other. I just pointed out that he condemned the violence, and that his comment was a bad joke. Here is what I said again.

"Yes, Lincoln made an insensitive joke about it, similar to Reagan's Russia joke. No excuses for this one."

"He also condemned this violence and indirectly blamed slavery for it in his Lyceum Address"

In William Henry Herndon, Herndon's Informants, Letters, Interviews and Statements about Abraham Lincoln

The only thing I got out of this was that Lincoln wasn't much of a speech writer early in his career.

For a Black opinion of your absurdity regarding Lincoln's Lyceum speech given ten years before his speech at Worcester, Massachusetts, see Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory

All I got out of this was that the author was not impressed with Lincoln's speech (to put it mildly), and that Lincoln put his career above abolition.

The first point is a matter of opinion, which I'm sure many would agree with. Having read it, I would have expected more details myself, but as your friend is so fond of pointing out, I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone from the 21st century, with all of the online media on the subject available to me.

As for his second point, I would again point to Frederick Douglas' comments about what Lincoln had to work with at the time.

"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Anything else you want to spam me with?

466 posted on 10/21/2021 4:51:04 AM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Will whoever keeps asking if this country can get any more insane please stop?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: ArcadeQuarters

No way in hades. Divided we are weaker.


467 posted on 10/21/2021 4:52:56 AM PDT by Ron H. (Repent for time is short)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
"Correct. You are."
468 posted on 10/21/2021 6:31:10 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

.


469 posted on 10/21/2021 6:45:47 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
The Original 7 seceding states had seceded, duh! The Union could have ratified the amendment if they had intended to, but even Buchanan admitted it was just an attempt to prevent secession.

The entire purpose of the Corwin Amendment was to get the original 7 seceding states back in. It failed. They were not interested in perpetual protection for slavery. What they were interested in was self determination so they could set their own trade and tax policies.

In which way did he orchestrate it?

He put Thomas Corwin up to it. He was the de facto leader of the party. He twisted arms to get Republicans to vote for it.

Buchanan said it.

Obviously Lincoln and the Northern states were willing to offer this up quite freely. They were not concerned with abolishing slavery. Far from it. The problem for them is the original 7 seceding states were not interested in protecting slavery. They too were focused on the money. Going their own way would allow them to keep the huge amounts of money their trade generated rather than sending it North. That's what both sides were fighting over.

That's nonsense. The previous administration had pushed for it. That's like blaming Trump for the pictures of caged children that were taken during the Obama administration.

That's obviously not nonsense. The Northern dominated Congress passed it with the necessary 2/3rds supermajority. Clearly they were willing to support slavery forever.

Right. The abolitionists weren't interested in banning slavery. The escaped slaves who joined the Union Army and Navy weren't interested in abolishing slavery. No one was interested in abolishing slavery. They just accidentally did it.

The abolitionists were sure. They were also a teeny tiny miniscule minority.

I can spam too.

That wasn't spam. That was noting WHY they cited that specifically. It was proof that the other side broke the deal...the other side was at fault. That was the harm they suffered which justified leaving.

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

Yes, Stephens did think that. He was also the Vice President and was powerless. So much so that he sat at home in Georgia while the Davis Administration set policy. Davis of course had the diametrically opposite view. But since we're quoting Stephens, what else did he say?

""If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."

What did Stephens say about the North's motivations?

"“Their philanthropy yields to their interests. Notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor…The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after – though they come from the labor of the slave.”

We've been over that. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain about having to keep the country united when many opposed or didn't care about abolition. If you can't understand it by now, you won't if I explain it again.

You just said they were trying to prevent secession. OK. They were I agree. That said, they were willing to protect slavery forever to do so. Why was it so important to them that those states stay in? Why not just let them go with their slaveholding since Northerners were supposedly so opposed to slavery at the time? That way there would be 7 fewer states that still allowed it. Wouldn't they therefore be less tainted by association with quite as many states that still allowed slavery?.....or was there some other reason they were desperate to stop those states from leaving?

I know. All of those quotes above didn't come from the North, the UK, or South America.

OK? I've said some in the Southern states thought that holding onto slavery was important. The fact remains that everybody else got rid of slavery without a bloodbath. Almost all of them got rid of it via a compensated emancipation scheme. So why should we accept the claim that slavery here could only have been ended by a bloodbath or that it was "necessary"? All the other examples would argue to the contrary.

Fort Sumter wasn't their sovereign territory.

Yes it was.

Confederacy approves Black soldiers (March 13, 1865) The previous link does not make your case.

That's only the Confederate Congress. The fact remains that tens of thousands of Blacks - some slaves and some freedmen - had been serving in the Confederate Army for years. The Confederacy was.....a confederacy. They had no choice but to accept whatever units a state sent them. If a state allowed Blacks to serve in its units then that was it - they were part of those units. Whatever the Confederate Congress had to say about it was irrelevant.

From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."

Did you not see the various English quotes I posted saying exactly that? They noted that there was not anything the North would not offer by way of preserving and protecting slavery in order to get those states back in - because they wanted to keep sucking MONEY out of them. The Southern states for their part, wanted to leave for the exact same reason. Dickens called it "Solely a fiscal quarrel."

And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."

He was spot on.

Of course he was right and wrong. Right in that the CW was about slavery, and wrong in that the North did follow through after winning.

No, he was 100% right. Both sides were fighting over money. The Southern states knew they would be financially much better off if they were independent. The Northern states ran the numbers and came to the same conclusion. That's why they didn't want the Southern states to leave. It was a fiscal quarrel like the vast majority of all wars throughout human history.

470 posted on 10/21/2021 6:54:06 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

.


471 posted on 10/22/2021 8:51:00 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
Once again, on Corwin:
  1. Democrat Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis (& others) first proposed a set of “compromises” in December 1860, before Mississippi declared secession.
    Davis intended proposals to prevent Southern states from declaring secession by protecting their biggest interest: slavery.
    Davis’ proposals rejected by congressional Republicans, so Mississippi seceded.

  2. In February, 1861, Corwin ”compromise” pushed in Congress by Democrat President Buchanan and supported by all remaining Congressional Democrats.

  3. Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans in Congress, but a minority big enough to pass it flipped by New York Republican Senator Seward, then signed by Democrat President Buchanan.

  4. Lincoln's role consisted entirely of saying he did "not object" because he believed it would make no change in the existing Constitution, as he understood it.

  5. Three Northern and two Southern states ratified Corwin, one each later revoked their ratification.
    Only Kentucky & Rhode Island indisputably ratified & did not later revoke.
Bottom line: Corwin was a typical Democrat meaningless gesture which would have produced no changes and went nowhere. Corwin ratification dates:
  1. Kentucky -- April 4, 1861
    Fort Sumter -- April 12, 1861
  2. Ohio -- May 13, 1861 (rescinded March 31, 1864)
  3. Rhode Island -- May 31, 1861
  4. Maryland -- January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014)
  5. Illinois -- June 2, 1863 (disputed validity)
Note again the totals: 2 slave states plus 2 or 3 (was Illinois' valid?) free states ratified.
Two later rescinded leaving only Kentucky & Rhode Island as indisputably ratified.
Now compare those dates to the dates those same states ratified the 13th Amendment:
  1. Kentucky -- rejected February 4, 1865, ratified March 18, 1976 (35th state to ratify)
  2. Ohio -- February 10, 1865 (13th state to ratify)
  3. Rhode Island -- February 2, 1865 (2nd state to ratify)
  4. Maryland -- February 3, 1865 (4th state to ratify)
  5. Illinois -- February 1, 1865 (1st state to ratify)
Confederate surrenders began in April 1865.

Bottom line on Corwin: it was supported unanimously by Democrats in Congress, opposed by a majority of Republicans, signed by Democrat President Buchanan, it may (or may not) have helped keep Kentucky & Maryland in the Union.
In spring of 1861 Lincoln himself was willing to allow slavery as a peace-deal to preserve the Union, but even then many Union leaders understood that Confederacy could only be destroyed if slavery was also destroyed, hence "Contraband of War", 1861 Confiscation Act, Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.

472 posted on 10/22/2021 9:31:09 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

.


473 posted on 10/22/2021 10:06:31 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
The entire purpose of the Corwin Amendment was to get the original 7 seceding states back in. It failed. They were not interested in perpetual protection for slavery. What they were interested in was self determination so they could set their own trade and tax policies.

What about self determination for the slaves?

He put Thomas Corwin up to it.

How?

Obviously Lincoln and the Northern states were willing to offer this up quite freely.

They never offered anything. The previous congress approved largely on party lines, and the previous president who signed it was voted out and is considered one of the worst presidents in history. It was never ratified in any state until the slave holding states seceded and the war had already started. The North offered nothing because there was nothing to offer.

As usual you repeated this several times, so I cut the rest.

The abolitionists were sure. They were also a teeny tiny miniscule minority.

Then why did the declarations of secession cite them as a reason for seceding?

That wasn't spam. That was noting WHY they cited that specifically. It was proof that the other side broke the deal...the other side was at fault. That was the harm they suffered which justified leaving.

Did you not read where the "negro" was called inferior and his best use was as a slave? Comments like these aren't legal justification for anything.

Yes, Stephens did think that. He was also the Vice President and was powerless. So much so that he sat at home in Georgia while the Davis Administration set policy. Davis of course had the diametrically opposite view.

From Jefferson Davis, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

But since we're quoting Stephens, what else did he say?

""If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity."

Was he expecting vindication about what he said about the "negro"?

What did Stephens say about the North's motivations?

Why do I need to care what someone who called "the negro" an "inferior race" "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" has to say about anything?

Yes it was.

We'll need to agree to disagree on this point. Both had their legal claims to Fort Sumter, and neither of us are going to convince each other or anyone else.

That's only the Confederate Congress. The fact remains that tens of thousands of Blacks - some slaves and some freedmen - had been serving in the Confederate Army for years. The Confederacy was.....a confederacy. They had no choice but to accept whatever units a state sent them. If a state allowed Blacks to serve in its units then that was it - they were part of those units. Whatever the Confederate Congress had to say about it was irrelevant.

OK, what were the numbers who weren't forced as slaves to serve or were slave owners themselves?

Did you not see the various English quotes I posted saying exactly that? They noted that there was not anything the North would not offer by way of preserving and protecting slavery in order to get those states back in - because they wanted to keep sucking MONEY out of them. The Southern states for their part, wanted to leave for the exact same reason. Dickens called it "Solely a fiscal quarrel."

Here are the quotes again.

From "Racism in the work of Charles Dickens", "Ackroyd also notes that Dickens did not believe that the North in the American Civil War was genuinely interested in the abolition of slavery, and he almost publicly supported the South for that reason."

And from "Charles Dickens, America, & The Civil War" "Dickens implicitly supported the South, suggesting that the Northern calls for abolition merely masked a desire for some type of economic gain."

He was wrong, as the North did abolish slavery.

474 posted on 10/22/2021 3:00:21 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Will whoever keeps asking if this country can get any more insane please stop?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
on Alexander Stephens: "Why do I need to care what someone who called "the negro" an "inferior race" "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" has to say about anything?"

Alabama put out no "Reasons for Secession" document, but their Ordinance of Secession did include:

Four of the first seven secession states did produce "Reasons for Secession" plus Robert Rhett and Alexander Stephens wrote their own well known reasons.
Every such document included slavery and for some it was the only major issue.
These percentage numbers come from here:

"Reasons for Secession" Documents before Fort Sumter

Reasons for SecessionS. CarolinaMississippiGeorgiaTexasRbt. RhettA. StephensAVERAGE OF 6
Historical context41%20%23%21%20%20%24%
Slavery20%73%56%54%35%50%48%
States' Rights37%3%4%15%15%10%14%
Lincoln's election2%4%4%4%5%0%3%
Economic issues**0015%0%25%20%10%
Military protection0006%0%0%1%

** Economic issues include tariffs, "fishing smacks" and other alleged favoritism to Northerners in Federal spending.

475 posted on 10/23/2021 6:23:17 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
What about self determination for the slaves?

Nobody was concerned about that at the time....nor the self determination of Indians, nor of women, etc

How?

By getting him to write it. Corwin was a political ally. There have been numerous books written about it.

They never offered anything. The previous congress approved largely on party lines, and the previous president who signed it was voted out and is considered one of the worst presidents in history. It was never ratified in any state until the slave holding states seceded and the war had already started. The North offered nothing because there was nothing to offer.

They offered it. Lincoln did so in his first inaugural address. I've posted it here before. Lincoln orchestrated its passage and was a big advocate of it. It became a dead letter when the original 7 seceding states turned it down. The North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. Facts. Deal with it.

Then why did the declarations of secession cite them as a reason for seceding?

Because they were examples of the Northern states violating the constitution. How many times do you need to read that?

Did you not read where the "negro" was called inferior and his best use was as a slave? Comments like these aren't legal justification for anything.

Sure I read that. Those sentiments were common....the abolitionists were a tiny minority. The Northern states had incredibly discriminatory Black Codes on the books at the time.

From Jefferson Davis, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861

“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess

“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/

Beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues." Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524).

Was he expecting vindication about what he said about the "negro"?

Even Stephens had other motivations - Southerners wanted self determination for economic reasons and they were against the centralization of power and were for states rights. They were for these things philosophically - not as a cover for protecting slavery. They were for this before slavery was even an issue nationally and they're still in favor of decentralization and states' rights now long after slavery is no longer an issue.

Why do I need to care what someone who called "the negro" an "inferior race" "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition" has to say about anything?

Odd. You care about what Lincoln has to say and yet he said the same things about Negroes (ie Blacks) being subordinate and inferior and Whites being superior. This was the overwhelming view at the time. What we would consider to be massive egregious racism was the norm the world over in the mid 19th century.

OK, what were the numbers who weren't forced as slaves to serve or were slave owners themselves?

We know from union accounts, confederate accounts and pensions paid to veterans by Southern states in later years that there were thousands at least.

Here you post the same spam that has already been refuted.

He was wrong, as the North did abolish slavery.

He was right. The North did not go to war to put down slavery. In fact it was willing to protect slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment. No. The Federal Government under Lincoln went to war for money and empire - no other reason.

476 posted on 10/23/2021 6:01:04 PM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
YES, he needed but did not necessarily want a 13th Amendment.

Well that's definitive.

Really? If Lincoln had succeeded, and he had restored all the late states in rebellion to the Union as though they had never left, with full representation in Congress, when do you think the 13th (or 14th, 15th) Amendment would have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States?

That was an interesting question. Are you saying the former slave holding states would have refused to vote for abolishing slavery?

If I had written something like that, you may have quoted me doing so. Instead of addressing the question, you hide, duck, and weave by a diversion.

I already quoted Lincoln on the applicable law. I'll do it again, and then quote Randall so you may enjoy an educational experience.

Lincoln wrote to Orville Browning, September 22, 1861:

What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States. If a commanding General finds a necessity to seize the farm of a private owner, for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the right to do so, and to so hold it, as long as the necessity lasts; and this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever; and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And the same is true of slaves. If the General needs them, he can seize them, and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix their permanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in the point in question, is simply dictatorship.'' It assumes that the general may do anything he pleases—confiscate the lands and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure I have no doubt would be more popular with some thoughtless people, than that which has been done! But I cannot assume this reckless position; nor allow others to assume it on my responsibility. You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the contrary it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S.—any government of Constitution and laws,—wherein a General, or a President, may make permanent rules of property by proclamation?

CW 4:531-32

As you insist on playing stupid, I must endeavor to enlighten you on the law.

James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, 1951, at 382-385: (footnotes omitted)

Its legal effect is a different matter. Slavery existed on the basis of law; and if it were to be permanently abolished, this would have to be done by some process of law. Just what would have been the status of slavery if there had been no anti-slavery amendment, is a diffi­cult question. While insisting that the freedom declared in his proclamation was irrevocable, Lincoln had doubts as to the manner in which the courts would treat his edict. He thought that it was a war measure and would be inoperative at the close of the war, but he was not sure. His attitude toward the Thirteenth Amend­ment showed how conscious he was of legal deficiencies in the proclamation, and these doubts were reflected in Congress where proposals to incorporate the proclama­tion into Federal law were presented by supporters of the administration.

One of the ablest lawyers of that day [Richard H. Dana] put the matter thus: “That an army may free the slaves of an enemy is a settled right of law. . . . But if any man fears or hopes that the proclamation did as a matter of law by its own force, alter the legal status of one slave in America ... he builds his fears or hopes on the sand.

It is a military act and not a decree of a legislator. It has no legal effect by its own force on the status of the slave. ... If you sustain the war you must expect to see the war work out emancipation.” And Secretary Welles of the Navy wrote in 1863: “What is to be the ultimate effect of the Proclamation, and what will be the exact status of the slaves . . . were the States now to resume their position, I am not prepared to say. The courts would adjudicate the questions; there would be legislative action in Congress and in the States also.” He added, however, that no slave who had left a “rebel” master and come within the Union lines, or who had served under the flag, could ever again be forced into involuntary servitude.

Hare, a reliable authority on constitutional law, is somewhat more positive as to the permanent effect of the proclamation. It was, he said, a mere command which could effect no change till executed by the hand of war; “but if carried into execution it might, like other acts jure belli, work a change that would survive on the return of peace.” Admitting the right of emancipa­tion as coming within the jus belli, one could say that the liberated slave would be as secure in his altered status as contraband property, if seized, would be in its new ownership. This would apply only to those slaves actually liberated by the incidents of war.

Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter.


477 posted on 10/23/2021 6:28:46 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
Having seen the full context, I stand corrected. You are right on this, but that isn't the whole story. Lincoln wanted to avoid alienating the border states. From "David Hunter":

"President Abraham Lincoln quickly rescinded this order,[6] because he was concerned about its political effects in the border states, which he was trying to keep neutral. Their leaders advocated instead a gradual emancipation with compensation for slave holders.[7] Despite Lincoln's concerns that immediate emancipation in the South might drive some slave-holding Unionists to support the Confederacy, the national mood was quickly moving against slavery, especially within the Army.[8]"

You failed to provide a link or source for your quote. I'll do it for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hunter

As expected, you get your mythology from Wikipedia, your bible of history.

There is still only one meaning for emancipation. Hunter declared the slaves within his jurisdiction to be free. Lincoln reversed that and the slaves declared free by Hunter remained slaves, by order of Abraham Lincoln the great abolitionist and emancipator, in the war to end slavery. And Hunter was relieved of his command.

And the splendor of Frederick Douglass writing of the "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," is precious as

Your quote of me seemed to just stop abruptly. I restored the original emphasis and I shall restore some more of the context that you apparently choked on.

as, to quote TwelveOfTwenty #425, "I believe Frederick Douglass."

Douglass' Monthly, Vol. 4, Number 4, September 1861, page 516

FIGHTING REBELS WITH ONLY ONE HAND

What upon earth is the matter with the American Government and people? Do they really covet the world’s ridicule as well m their own social and political ruin? What are they thinking about, or don’t they con­descend to think at all? So, indeed, it would seem from their blindness in dealing with the tremendous issue now upon them. Was there ever any thing like it before? They are sorely pressed on every hand by a vast army of slaveholding rebels, flushed with success, and infuriated by the darkest inspirations of a deadly hate, bound to rule or ruin. Washington, the seat of Government, after ten thousand assurances to the contrary, is now positively in danger of falling before the rebel army. Maryland, a little while ago consider­ed safe for the Union, is now admitted to be studded with the materials for insurrection, and which may flame forth at any moment. Every resource of the nation, whether of men or money, whether of wisdom or strength, could be well employed to avert the impend­ing ruin. Yet most evidently the demands of the hour are not comprehended by the Cabinet or the crowd. Our Presidents, Gov­ernors, Generals and Secretaries are calling, with almost frantic vehemence, for men.

Men! men! send us men! they scream, or the cause of the Union is gone, the life of a great nation is ruthlessly sacrificed, and the hopes of a great nation go out in darkness; and yet these very officers, representing the people and Government, steadily and persist­ently refuse to receive the very class of men which have a deeper interest in the defeat and humiliation of the rebels, than all others.—Men are wanted in Missouri—wanted in Western Virginia, to hold and defend what has been already gained; they are wanted in Texas, and all along the sea coast, and tho’ the Government has at its command a class in the country deeply interested in suppress­ing the insurrection, it sternly refuses to sum­mon from among that vast multitude a single man, and degrades and insults the whole class by refusing to allow any of their number to defend with their strong arms and brave hearts the national cause. What a spectacle of blind, unreasoning prejudice and pusilla­nimity is this! The national edifice is on fire. Every man who can carry a bucket of water, or remove a brick, is wanted; but those who have the care of the building, having a pro­found respect for the feeling of the national burglars who set the building on fire, are de­termined that the flames shall only be extin­guished by Indoo-Caucasian hands, and to have the building burnt rather than save it by means of any other. Such is the pride, the stupid prejudice and folly that rules the hour.

Why does the Government reject the ne­gro? Is he not a man? Can he not wield a sword, fire a gun, march and countermarch, and obey orders like any other? Is there the least reason to believe that a regiment of well-drilled negroes would deport themselves less soldier-like on the battle field than the raw troops gathered up generally from the towns and cities of the State of New York? We do believe that such soldiers, if allowed now to take up arms in defence of the Government, and made to feel that they are hereafter to be recognized as persons having rights would set the highest example of order and general god behavior to their fellow soldiers, and in every way add to the national power.

If persons so humble as we could be allowed to speak to the President of the United States, we should ask him if this dark and terrible hour of the nation’s extremity is a time for consulting a mere vulgar and unnat­ural prejudice? We should ask him if na­tional preservation and necessity were not bet­ter guides in this emergency than either the tastes of the rebels, or the pride and preju­dices of the vulgar? We would tell him that General Jackson in a slave State fought side by side with negroes at New Orleans, and like a true man, despising meanness, he bore testimony to their bravery at the close of the war. We would tell him that colored men in Rhode Island and Connecticut performed their full share in the war of the Revolution, and that men of the same color, such as the noble Shields Green, Nathaniel Turner and Denmark Vesey stand ready to peril every thing at their command of the Govern­ment. We would tell him that this is no time to fight with one hand, when both are needed; that this is no time to fight only with your white hand, and allow your black hand to remain tied.

Whatever may be the folly and absurdity of the North, the South at least is true and wise. The Southern papers no longer indulge in the vulgar expression, ‘free n-----s.’ That class of bipeds are now called 'colored residents.' The Charleston papers say:

‘The colored residents of this city can chal­lenge comparison with their class, in any city or town, in loyalty or devotion to the canse of the South. Many of them individually, and without ostentation, have been contributing liberally, and on Wednesday evening, the 7th inst., a very large meeting was held by them, and a Committee appointed to provide for more efficient aid. The proceedings of the meeting will appear in results hereafter to be reported'.

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.

I never said there were no confederacy loyalists among the black troops serving in the confederacy, only that it wasn't all of them.

Well, it's unanimous. I said nothing about all of anybody. I cited and quoted Frederick Douglass talking about many black men, real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops. And it is clear that you were not talking about all black men. There it is. Nobody was talking about ALL black men. Douglass did not specify how many such men there were, but it is certain that it was not too few for him to mention.

478 posted on 10/23/2021 6:58:52 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
https://cwmemory.com/2006/06/08/blacks-in-gray-or-enough-is-enough/

Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""

Just because someone can publish their beliefs in a book doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept their conclusions. It wasn't 300,000. It wasn't even near the 100,000+ slaves that escaped to join the Union Army.

Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin. Let us examine what you dragged up and brought in here. You are free to attempt to pass off this radical partisan as a serious scholar, whose words carry significant weight.

In a tweet of 22 Oct 2021 (today), Levin proclaimed, "I got through about 15 minutes of "4 Hours at the Capitol" before I had to turn it off. There is something downright obscene about giving a platform like this to insurrectionists."

It takes a special kid of stupid or partisanship to believe that the events of January 6th were an "insurrection" to overthrow the government of the United States. I am waiting for him to weigh in on the domestic terrorists of the PTA.

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.

insurrection. (15c) A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usu. a government.

“A popular tumult is a disorderly gathering of people who refuse to listen to the voice of their superiors, whether they be disaffected towards their superiors themselves or merely towards certain private individuals. These violent movements occur when the people believe themselves harassed, and they are more often caused by tax-collectors than by any other class of public officers. If the anger of the people is directed particularly against the magistrates or other officers invested with the public authority, and if it is carried so far as to result in positive disobedience or acts of violence, the movement is called a sedition. And when the evil extends and wins over the majority of the citizens in a town or province, and gains such strength that the sov­ereign is no longer obeyed, it is usual to distinguish such an uprising more particularly by the name of an insurrection.” Charles G. Fenwick, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law 336 (1916).

“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” 77 C. J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 29, at 579 (1994).

Kevin M. Levin, is regularly published in the failing far-left magazine, The Atlantic. Shocker, I know.

https://www.theatlantic.com/author/kevin-m-levin/

A few examples.

Historians Need to Give Steven Spielberg a Break

Hollywood will never make a movie that satisfies professional scholars. But as a work of art, Lincoln offers plenty to admire.

Kevin M. Levin November 26, 2012

- - - - - - - - - -

America's Simple-Minded Obsession With the Confederate Flag

Journalists love to recycle old clichés about the rebel banner. But its days as an official symbol of Southern pride are rapidly coming to an end.

Kevin M. Levin August 16, 2012

- - - - - - - - - -

The Case Against Vandalizing Confederate Monuments

A history teacher argues that statues of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee deserve to be left alone

Kevin M. Levin December 21, 2011

See how a progressive progresses from 2011 to 2017.

Why I Changed My Mind About Confederate Monuments

Empty pedestals can offer the same lessons about racism and war that the statues do.

Kevin M. Levin August 19, 2017

And by 2020 we had progressed to vandalizing or removing monuments to the Founding Fathers, the Framers, and the Freedmen's Monument to Abraham Lincoln in Washington, D.C. and the replica in Boston.

Why should historians give Spielberg's Lincoln a break? It prominently features congressional clashes over the 13th Amendment as the Amendment wound its way through Congress to approval at the end of 1865. Not a word of the featured exchanges ever took place. It is all fiction. With verbatim transcripits of the actual debates, the film could have closely followed real history, but it didn't. The song that was sung to Lincoln. It was a version that did not exist at the time portrayed in the movie. Spielberg produces great technical film making. Historical accuracy, not so much.

Not to mention Kevin M. Levin's great book, making murderers out of soldiers.

https://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Battle-Crater-Directions-Southern/dp/0813169720

Remembering The Battle of the Crater: War as Murder (New Directions In Southern History) Paperback – June 16, 2017

The battle of the Crater is known as one of the Civil War's bloodiest struggles-a Union loss with combined casualties of 5,000, many of whom were members of the United States Colored Troops (USCT) under Union Brigadier General Edward Ferrero. The battle was a violent clash of forces as Confederate soldiers fought for the first time against African American soldiers. After the Union lost the battle, these black soldiers were captured and subject both to extensive abuse and the threat of being returned to slavery in the South. Yet, despite their heroism and sacrifice, these men are often overlooked in public memory of the war.

It is idiocy to argue that the Confederate soldiers were committing murder. They were the uniformed armed forces an officially recognized belligerent power engaged in a lawful war. The Union forces set off explosives in a tunnel thay had dug, and created the crater. Then, with limited ability to see what they were rushing into, the Union troops were advanced into the crater (a large, bowl shaped cavity in the ground) by their leader, a true military genius. The underground explosion sent the dirt from the newly formed cavity up and out. And the Union troops piled into one another with nowhere to go. When the dust cleared, the Confederates were above, shooting down at them. It was a slaughter.

Levin seems to think that if the Union leaders attack idiotically, the Confederates should not shoot them. And if they do shoot, that's murder. A rabidly partisan writer, who presents a one-sided view based on his prejedices, is not an historian.

Forces engaged: Union 8,500 — Confederate 6,100
Estimated casualties: Union 3,798 — Confederate 1,491

An Amazon review (the writer notes: Grant considered the assault "the saddest affair I have witnessed in the war.")

silver dollar

1.0 out of 5 stars The Crater - a work of fiction

Reviewed in the United States on May 7, 2013

About the author: "Kevin Levin is a historian and educator currently living in Boston. From 2000 to 2011 he taught American history at the St. Anne's - Belfield School in Charlottesville, Virginia. His published work in the area of Civil War history and historical memory can be found in popular magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals. He is currently researching the history of the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry."

This is a review of Kevin Levin's book, "The Crater," and Levin's blog that supports the book. This review is my opinion only. Feel free to check out Levin's blog, which gives an eye opening nuance into Levin's thinking and agenda. A window into the author's life and musings outside his book is helpful in understanding the author's intent and agenda in writing a book, and thus reflects directly upon the accuracy of the book. Thus this review includes a review of Levin's blog that supports his book. Levin's book should be considered a poorly written fictional account of the Battle of the Crater.

The Battle of the Crater was a battle of the American Civil War, part of the Siege of Petersburg. It took place on July 30, 1864, between the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, commanded by General Robert E. Lee and the Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Major General George G. Meade (under the direct supervision of the general-in-chief, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant).

After weeks of preparation, on July 30 the Federals exploded a mine in Major Gen. Ambrose E. Burnsides' IX Corps sector, blowing a gap in the Confederate defenses of Petersburg, Virginia. From this propitious beginning, everything deteriorated rapidly for the Union attackers. Unit after unit charged into and around the crater, where soldiers milled in confusion. Grant considered the assault "the saddest affair I have witnessed in the war."

The Confederates quickly recovered and launched several counterattacks led by Brig. Gen. William Mahone. The breach was sealed off, and the Federals were repulsed with severe casualties. Brig. Gen. Edward Ferrero's division of black soldiers was badly mauled. This may have been Grant's best chance to end the Siege of Petersburg. Instead, the soldiers settled in for another eight months of trench warfare. Burnside was relieved of command for the last time for his role in the debacle, and he was never again returned to command.

I will be accused of not reading the book by Levin's supporters, but please read on. I don't trust Levin to know truth in any form. The author harbors extremely biased opinions against those he does not understand especially southern people. In one rant on his blog Levin refers to one southerner as "bat s*** crazy." Is this the kind of language that should come from an educator, scholar or author? I think not.

The historical facts in the book, backed up by Levin's assumptions, are nothing but opinions and assumptions and half truths. On occasion Levin spins the story to lull the reader into believing the research is impeccable, and that Levin understands and writes the only true account of history. Only fools, and the naive will be taken in by such garbage.

Like many authors whose sole purpose seems to be making money writing books, and profiting from spinning a Civil War story, Levin has a blog peddling his book. Check out his blog in support of the book for eye openers. Most posts that disagree with his opinion will not be allowed on his fully moderated blog. Levin carefully moderates each and every post, and his agenda shows through with the posts that he allows on the blog.

Occasionally Levin will allow a post that disagrees with his agenda. In response to such posts Levin will misuse words, take statements out of context, and slam the commentator in a way to make the commentator look ignorant and "dumber" than a fifth grader, and then close the comments to further commentary. I suggest Levin used his blog in this way to gather material for the book.

I don't understand how a well respected Civil War author such as David Blight was fooled by Levin. Posted on almost every page of Levin's blog is Blight's short comment about Levin's book. In part Blight states, ". . . showing us a piece of the real war that does now (sic) get into the books." The word "now" is probably misspelled and really means "does NOT get into the books." Friends there's a reason Levin's garbage does NOT get into the books. It's pure fiction.

30 people found this helpful

Kevin M. Levin tweet

I must have blocked close to 300 people over the weekend. It turns out that people who admire Nathan Bedford Forrest don't like Jews. Who would have thought?
7:45 AM · Sep 19, 2021·Twitter Web App

I doubt that Levin speaks for ALL Jews, or that ALL people who admire Nathan Bedford Forrest dislike Jews; but I reckon that people who admire a Jefferson pedestal with a Jefferson statue on it do not like this particular radical partisan either.

479 posted on 10/23/2021 7:00:43 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

You forgot to quote anything or identify the famous author who is your source of authority. Here I come to save the day!

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/black-confederates-truth-and-legend

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

The Civil War was a fiery prism at the center of American society. Every life entered the prism at its own angle and was refracted in its own way.

By Sam Smith

All together now. Who the heck is Sam Smith?

Sam Smith

A native of Nashville, Tenn., and a graduate of the University of North Carolina, Sam Smith worked with the Civil War Trust’s K-12 educational programs. An award-winning board game designer, Smith has also written or co-written more than 50 articles on Civil War subjects, and is a frequent lecturer at the National Museum for American Jewish Military History.

As you quoted nothing from your appeal to authority, I shall quote from what he had to say.

The lives of Southern black people changed immeasurably during the war years. In the midst of a see-saw struggle that promised freedom as well as desolation, these men, women, and children made difficult and highly personal decisions in extraordinary circumstances.

Many Southern slaves took advantage of the fog of war to escape towards freedom. Before the Emancipation Proclamation was officially adopted, these escapes usually meant congregating around the Union armies that were operating in Southern territory. Vast columns of escaped slaves followed almost every major Union army at one point or another. These people, sometimes called “contrabands,” as in “confiscated enemy property,” frequently served as scouts and spies for the Union soldiers.

When the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863, Union forces had regained control of large swaths of the South. Although many now claim that the Proclamation was effectively useless because it established policy for a foreign nation, the practical reality is that the Union, by force of arms, had every necessary power to establish policy in its occupied territories, just as Confederate armies exercised their power to capture and enslave free black people during their brief occupations of Northern territories.

After the Proclamation, the refugees in the contraband camps, along with free black people throughout the North, began to enlist in the Union Army in even greater proportion than Northern white men. After some time in legal limbo, many Southern black men took up arms against their former masters and distinguished themselves on campaign and on the battlefield. By the time the war was over, black soldiers made up 10% of the Union Army and had suffered more than 10,000 combat casualties.

Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers. There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war and no documentation whatsoever exists for any black man being paid or pensioned as a Confederate soldier, although some did receive pensions for their work as laborers. Nevertheless, the black servants and the Confederate soldiers formed bonds in the shared crucible of conflict, and many servants later attended regimental reunions with their wartime comrades.

This is not to say that no black man ever fired a gun for the Confederacy. To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it.

In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common. The non-existence of black combat units is further indicated by the records of debates in the Confederate Congress over the issue of black enlistment. The idea was repeatedly rejected until, on March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, although with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves.

Active fighting ended less than three weeks after the law was passed, and there is no evidence that any black units were accepted into the Confederate Army as a result of the law. Whatever black combat service might have occurred during the war, it was not sanctioned by the Confederate government. Even beyond the Official Records, there is no known letter, diary entry, or any other primary source in which a Confederate mentions serving with black soldiers.

In the years shortly after the war, hundreds of prominent Southerners wrote and spoke about “the Lost Cause,” a vision of the war in which the South was fighting to secure state rights and in which slavery was a secondary concern. None of these Southerners ever mentioned black soldiers fighting for the South, although it would have been a good time to present such evidence if there was any truth behind it. The notion of widespread black combat service has only arisen within the past 25 years or so, long past the life-span of real veterans from either side, who would have immediately denied its legitimacy.

The modern myth of black Confederate soldiers is akin to a conspiracy theory—shoddy analysis has been presented, repeated, amplified, and twisted to such an extent that utterly baseless claims of as many as 80,000 black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy (which would roughly equal the size of Lee’s army at Gettysburg) have even made their way into classroom textbooks. It is right to study, discover, and share facts about the complex lives of 19th century black Americans. It is wrong to exaggerate, obfuscate, and ignore those facts in order to suit 21st century opinions.

Unfortunately for your wingnuts, the black men who fought refuse to be disappeared from history. Black historians are notably pesky in recognizing that Blacks fought and died on both sides. A particular cohort of Yankees, who speak as if they fought in the war, most strongly deny history in favor of their own prejudice.

https://asalh.org/document/journal-of-african-american-history/

Founded in 1916 as The Journal of Negro History by Dr. Carter G. Woodson, The Journal of African American History (JAAH) is the leading scholarly publication in the field of African American history. Published by the University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH), JAAH publishes original scholarly articles and book reviews on all aspects of the African American experience. JAAH embraces ASALH’s mission of promoting, researching, preserving, interpreting, and disseminating “information about Black life, history, and culture to the global community.” Numerous articles published in JAAH have been widely cited and circulated, won awards, and/or broadly reprinted. While each issue covers various dimensions of the African American historical experience, JAAH also publishes special issues, symposia, and roundtable forums on cutting edge themes and topics within the field.

That would be scholarly articles, not the sort of manure you shovel up as "authority" while hiding the authors.

The Journal of Negro History (Volume 4, 1919) THE EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS IN THE CONFEDERATE ARMY, Charles S Wesley

The Journal of Negro History (Volume 4-3, 1919)

edited by Carter Godwin Woodson

Bona fides from the internet historian bible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_G._Woodson

(December 19, 1875 – April 3, 1950)[1] was an American historian, author, journalist, and the founder of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. He was one of the first scholars to study the history of the African diaspora, including African-American history. A founder of The Journal of Negro History in 1916, Woodson has been called the "father of black history".[2] In February 1926 he launched the celebration of "Negro History Week", the precursor of Black History Month.[3]

Born in Virginia, the son of former slaves, Woodson had to put off schooling while he worked in the coal mines of West Virginia. He graduated from Berea College, and became a teacher and school administrator. He gained graduate degrees at the University of Chicago and in 1912 was the second African American, after W. E. B. Du Bois, to obtain a PhD degree from Harvard University. Woodson remains the only person whose parents were enslaved in the US to obtain a PhD.[4] Most of Woodson's academic career was spent at Howard University, a historically black university in Washington, D.C., where he eventually served as the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

. . .

Honors and tributes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Wesley

Charles H. Wesley

Wesley became an ordained minister of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME). He also had an academic career as a professor of history and wrote a total of more than 15 books on African-American history and political science. He served as the Dean of the Liberal Arts and the Graduate School at Howard University.

He won a Guggenheim Fellowship that enabled him to travel in 1931 to London, England, where on March 31 he was present with Harold Moody at the founding of the League of Coloured Peoples that was inspired in part by the NAACP, of which Wesley was a member.[3][4][5]

In 1942 Wesley was called as President of Wilberforce University (an AME-affiliated university) in Wilberforce, Ohio, serving until 1947. That year, he founded Central State University across the street from Wilberforce. He served as its president until 1965, when he returned to Washington, D.C.[6]

That year, Wesley became the Director of Research and Publications for the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History. He was Executive Director from 1965 to 1972, later becoming Executive Director Emeritus'. In 1976, he became Director of the Afro-American Historical and Cultural Museum in Philadelphia, now known as the African American Museum in Philadelphia. He was also a life member of the American Historical Association.[6]

THE EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS IN THE CONFEDERATE ARMY

The problem of arming the slaves was of far greater concern to the South, than to the North. It was fraught with momentous consequences to both sections, but pregnant with an influence, subtle yet powerful, which would affect directly the ultimate future of the Confederate Government. The very existence of the Confederacy depended upon the ability of the South to control the slave population. At the outbreak of the Civil War great fear as to servile insurrection was aroused in the South and more restrictive measures were enacted.[1]

Most of the Negro population was living in the area under rebellion, and in many cases the slaves outnumbered the whites. To arm these slaves would mean the lighting of a torch which, in the burning, might spread a flame throughout the slave kingdom. If the Negro in the midst of oppression had been in possession of the facts regarding the war, whether the slaves would have remained consciously faithful would have been a perplexing question.[2]

The South had been aware of its imminent danger and with its traditional methods strove to prevent the arming of the Negroes. With the memories of Negro insurrections ever fresh in the public mind, quite a change of front would be required to bring the South to view with favor such a radical measure. The South, however, was not alone in its unwillingness to employ Negroes as soldiers. For the first two years of the war, the North represented by President Lincoln and Congress refused to consider the same proposal. In the face of stubborn opposition loyal Negroes had been admitted into the Engineer and Quartermaster Departments of the Union armies, but their employment as soldiers under arms was discountenanced during the first years of the war.

In the North this discrimination caused much discontent among the Negroes but those living in the States in rebellion did not understand the issues in the war, and of necessity could not understand until the Union forces had invaded the hostile sections and spread the information which had gradually developed the point of view that the war was for the extermination of the institution of slavery. It may be recalled that during the opening days of the war, slaves captured by the Union forces were returned to their disloyal masters. Here there is sufficient evidence in the concrete that slavery was not the avowed cause of the conflict.[3] If there was this uncertain notion of the cause of the war among northern sympathizers, how much more befogged must have been the minds of the southern slaves in the hands of men who imagined that they were fighting for the same principles involved in our earlier struggle with Great Britain! To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear[4].

The loyalty of the slave while the master was away with the fighting forces of the Confederacy has been the making of many orators of an earlier day, echoes of which we often hear in the present[5]. The Negroes were not only loyal in remaining at home and doing their duty but also in offering themselves for actual service in the Confederate army. Believing their land invaded by hostile foes, they were more than willing under the guidance of misguided southerners to offer themselves for the service of actual warfare. So that during the early days of the war, Negroes who volunteered were received into the fighting forces by the rebelling States, and particularly during those years in which the North was academically debating the advisability of arming the Negro.[6]

In the first year of the war large numbers were received into the service of the Confederate laboring units. In January, a dispatch from Mr. Riordan at Charleston to Hon. Percy Walker at Mobile stated that large numbers of Negroes from the plantations of Alabama were at work on the redoubts. These were described as very substantially made, strengthened by sand-bags and sheet-iron.[7] Negroes were employed in building fortifications, as teamsters and helpers in army service throughout the South.[8] In 1862, the Florida Legislature conferred authority upon the Governor to impress slaves for military purposes, if so authorized by the Confederate Government. The owners of the slaves were to be compensated for this labor, and in turn they were to furnish one good suit of clothes for each of the slaves impressed. The wages were not to exceed twenty-five dollars a month.[9] The Confederate Congress provided by law in February, 1864, for the impressment of 20,000 slaves for menial service in the Confederate army.[10] President Davis was so satisfied with their labor that he suggested, in his annual message, November, 1864, that this number should be increased to 40,000[11] with the promise of emancipation at the end of their service.

Before the outbreak of the war and the beginning of actual hostilities, the local authorities throughout the South had permitted the enrollment for military service of organizations formed of free Negroes, although no action had been taken or suggested by the Confederate Government. It is said that some of these troops remained in the service of the Confederacy during the period of the war, but that they did not take part in any important engagements.[12] There may be noted typical instances of the presence of Negroes in the State Militia. In Louisiana, the Adjutant-General's Office of the Louisiana Militia issued an order stating that "the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief relying implicitly upon the loyalty of the free colored population of the city and State, for the protection of their homes, their property and for southern rights, from the pollution of a ruthless invader, and believing that the military organization which existed prior to February 15, 1862, and elicited praise and respect for the patriotic motives which prompted it, should exist for and during the war, calls upon them to maintain their organization and hold themselves prepared for such orders as may be transmitted to them."[13]

These "Native Guards" joined the Confederate forces but they did not leave the city with these troops, when they retreated before General Butler, commanding the invading Union army. When General Butler learned of this organization after his arrival in New Orleans, he sent for several of the most prominent colored men of the city and asked why they had accepted service "under the Confederate Government which was set up for the purpose of holding their brethren and kindred in eternal slavery." The reply was that they dared not to refuse; that they had hoped, by serving the Confederates, to advance nearer to equality with the whites; and concluded by stating that they had longed to throw the weight of their class with the Union forces and with the cause in which their own dearest hopes were identified[14].

An observer in Charleston at the outbreak of the war noted the preparation for war, and called particular attention to "the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees[15]." In the same city, one of the daily papers stated that on January 2, 150 free colored men had gratuitously offered their services to hasten the work of throwing up redoubts along the coast[16]. At Nashville, Tennessee, April, 1861, a company of free Negroes offered their services to the Confederate Government and at Memphis a recruiting office was opened[17]. The Legislature of Tennessee authorized Governor Harris, on June 28, 1861, to receive into the State military service all male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty. These soldiers would receive eight dollars a month with clothing and rations. The sheriff of each county was required to report the names of these persons and in case the number of persons tendering their services was not sufficient to meet the needs of the county, the sheriff was empowered to impress as many persons as were needed[18]. In the same State, a procession of several hundred colored men marching through the streets attracted attention. They marched under the command of Confederate officers and carried shovels, axes, and blankets. The observer adds, "they were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs."[19] A paper in Lynchburg, Virginia, commenting on the enlistment of 70 free Negroes to fight for the defense of the State, concluded with "three cheers for the patriotic Negroes of Lynchburg."[20]

Two weeks after the firing on Fort Sumter, several companies of volunteers of color passed through Augusta on their way to Virginia to engage in actual war. Sixteen well-drilled companies of volunteers and one Negro company from Nashville composed this group.[21] In November of the same year, a military review was held in New Orleans. Twenty-eight thousand troops passed before Governor Moore, General Lowell and General Ruggles. The line of march covered over seven miles in length. It is said that one regiment comprised 1,400 free colored men.[22] The Baltimore Traveler commenting on arming Negroes at Richmond, said: "Contrabands who have recently come within the Federal lines at Williamsport, report that all the able-bodied men in that vicinity are being taken to Richmond, formed into regiments, and armed for the defense of that city."[23]

During February, 1862, the Confederate Legislature of Virginia was considering a bill to enroll all free Negroes in the State for service with the Confederate forces.[24] The Legislatures of other States seriously considered the measure. Military and civil leaders, the Confederate Congress and its perplexed War Department debated among themselves the relative value of employing the Negroes as soldiers. Slowly the ranks of those at home were made to grow thin by the calls to the front. In April, 1862, President Davis was authorized to call out and place in service all white men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five; in September the ages were raised to include the years of thirty-five and forty-five; and finally in February, 1864, all male whites between the years of seventeen and fifty were made liable to military service. The Negroes were liable for impressment in the work of building fortifications, producing war materials, and the like.[25]

The demand became so urgent for men that quite a controversy arose over the advisability of employing the Negroes as soldiers. Some said that the Negro belonged to an inferior race and, therefore, could not be a good soldier; that the Negro could do menial work in the army, but that fighting was the white man's task. Those who supported the idea in its incipiency always urged the necessity of employing Negroes in the army. A native Georgian supported the employment of these troops in a letter to the Secretary of War, recommending freedom after the war was over to those who fought, compensation to the owners and the retention of the institution of slavery by continuing as slaves "boys and women, and exempted or detailed men." The statement concludes with "our country requires a quick and stringent remedy. Don't stop for reforms."[26]

In November, 1864, Jefferson Davis in his message to the Confederate Congress recognized that the time might come when slaves would be needed in the Confederate army: "The subject," said he, "is to be viewed by us, therefore, solely in the light of policy and our social economy. When so regarded, I must dissent from those who advise a general levy and arming of slaves for the duty of soldiers. Until our white population shall prove insufficient for the armies we require and can afford to keep the field, to employ as a soldier the Negro, who has merely been trained to labor, and as a laborer under the white man, accustomed from his youth to the use of firearms, would scarcely be deemed wise or advantageous by any; and this is the question before us. But should the alternative ever be presented of subjugation or of the employment of the slave as a soldier, there seems no reason to doubt what should be our decision."[27] In the same month, J. A. Seddon, Secretary of War, refused permission to Major E. B. Briggs of Columbus, Georgia, to raise a regiment of Negro troops, stating that it was not probable that any such policy would be adopted by Congress.[28]

In response to an inquiry from Seddon, the Secretary of War, as to the advisability of arming slaves, General Howell Cobb presented the point of view of one group of the Confederates, when he opposed the measure to arm the Negroes. "I think," said he "that the proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began ... you cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to Negro soldiers, your white soldiers will be lost to you, and one secret of the favor with which the proposition is received in portions of the army is the hope when Negroes go into the army, they (the whites) will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with Negro troops. You can't keep white and black troops together and you can't trust Negroes by themselves.... Use all the Negroes you can get for all purposes for which you need them but don't arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong."[29] General Beauregard, Commander of the Department of Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, wrote to a friend in July, 1863, that the arming of the slaves would lead to the atrocious consequences which have ever resulted from the employment of "a merciless servile race as soldiers."[30] General Patton Anderson declared that the idea of arming the slaves was a "monstrous proposition revolting to southern sentiment, southern pride and southern honor."[31]

The opposite point of view was expressed by the group of southerners led by General Pat Cleburne who in a petition presented to General Joseph E. Johnson by several Confederate Officers wrote: "Will the slaves fight?--the experience of this war has been so far, that half-trained Negroes have fought as bravely as many half-trained Yankees."[32] J. P. Benjamin, Secretary of State, urged that the slave would be certainly made to fight against them, if southerners failed to arm them for southern defense. He advocated also the emancipation of those who would fight; if they should fight for southern freedom. According to Benjamin, they were entitled to their own. In keeping with the necessity of increasing the army, the editor of a popular newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina, was besought to commence a discussion on this point in his paper so that "the people might learn the lesson which experience was sternly teaching."[33]

In a letter to President Davis, another argued that since the Negro had been used from the outset of the war to defend the South by raising provisions for the army, that the sword and musket be put in his hands, and concluding the correspondent added: "I would not make a soldier of the Negro if it could be helped, but we are reduced to this last resort."[34] Sam Clayton of Georgia wrote: "The recruits should come from our Negroes, nowhere else. We should away with pride of opinion, away with false pride, and promptly take hold of all the means God has placed within our reach to help us through this struggle--a war for the right of self-government. Some people say that Negroes will not fight. I say they will fight. They fought at Ocean Pond (Olustee, Fla.), Honey Hill and other places. The enemy fights us with Negroes, and they will do very well to fight the Yankees."[35]

The pressure to fill the depleted ranks of the Confederate forces became greater as the war continued. It was noted above that Congress and the State legislatures had called into service all able-bodied whites between the ages of seventeen and fifty years; later the ages were extended both ways to sixteen and sixty years. Grant remarked that the Confederates had robbed "the cradle and the grave" in order to fill the armies[36]. Jefferson Davis began to see the futility of a hypothetical discussion as to the advisability or values in the use of Negroes as soldiers and in a letter to John Forsythe, February, 1865, stated "that all arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or in those of the enemy."[37]

A strong recommendation for the use of Negroes as soldiers was sent to Senator Andrew Hunter at Richmond by General Robert E. Lee, in January, 1865. "I think, therefore," said he, "we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they may be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in a marked degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity. There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our Negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service."[38] This was an influential word, coming as it did from the Commander-in-Chief of the Confederate forces. The Confederate Congress did not act immediately upon this suggestion, but even if this had been done, the measure would have been enacted too late to be of any avail.[39]

The Confederate Senate refused on February 7, 1865, to pass a resolution calling on the committee on military affairs to report a bill to enroll Negro soldiers. Later in the same month the Senate indefinitely postponed the measure.[40] As the House and Senate met in secret session much of the debate can not be found. General Lee wrote Representative Barksdale of Mississippi another letter in which the employment of Negro soldiers was declared not only expedient but necessary. He reiterated his opinion that they would make good soldiers as had been shown in their employment in the Union armies.[41] With recommendations from General Lee and Governor Smith of Virginia, and with the approval of President Davis an act was passed by the Congress, March 13, 1865, enrolling slaves in the Confederate army.[42] Each State was to furnish a quota of the total 300,000.[43] The Preamble of the act reads as follows:

"An Act to increase the Military Force of the Confederate States: The Congress of the Confederate States of America so enact, that, in order to provide additional forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States, secure their independence and preserve their institution, the President be, and he is hereby authorized to ask for and accept from the owners of slaves, the services of such number of able-bodied Negro men as he may deem expedient, for and during the war, to perform military service in whatever capacity he may direct...." The language used in other sections of the act seems to imply also that volunteering made one a freedman.[44]

After the passage of the measure by the Confederate Congress, General Lee cooperated in every way with the War Department in facilitating the recruiting of Negro troops.[45] Recruiting officers were appointed in each State. Lieutenant John L. Cowardin, Adjutant, 19th Batallion, Virginia Artillery was ordered to proceed on April 1, 1865, to recruiting Negro troops according to the act. On March 30, 1865, Captain Edward Bostick was ordered to raise four companies in South Carolina. Others were ordered to raise companies in Alabama, Florida, and Virginia.[46] Lee and Johnson, however, surrendered before this plan could be carried out. If the Confederate Congress could have accepted the recommendation in the fall of 1864, the war might have been prolonged a few months, to say the least, by the use of the Negro troops. It was the opinion of President Davis, on learning of the passage of the act, that not so much was accomplished as would have been, if the act had been passed earlier so that during the winter the slaves could have been drilled and made ready for the spring campaign of 1865.

Under the guidance of the local authorities, thousands of Negroes were enlisted in the State Militias and in the Confederate Army. They served with satisfaction, but there is no evidence that they took part in any important battles. The Confederate Government at first could not bring itself to acknowledge the right or the ability of the man who had been a slave to serve with the white man as a soldier. Necessity forced the acceptance of the Negro as a soldier. In spite of the long years of controversy with its arguments of racial inferiority,[47] out of the muddle of fact and fancy came the deliberate decision to employ Negro troops. This act, in itself, as a historical fact, refuted the former theories of southern statesmen. The Negro was thus a factor in both the Union and Confederate armies in the War of the Rebellion. These facts lead to the conclusion that the Negro is an American not only because he lives in America, but because his life is closely connected with every important movement in American history.

CHARLES H. WESLEY.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Davis, The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 220.

[2] For summary of such, legislation to prevent this, see J.C. Kurd, The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States, Vol. II. In Florida, 1827, a law was enacted to prevent trading with Negroes. In 1828, death was declared the penalty for inciting insurrection among the slaves and in 1840 there was passed an act prohibiting the use of firearms by Negroes. In Virginia as early as 1748 there was enacted a measure declaring that even the free Negroes and Indians enlisted in the militia should appear without arms; but in 1806 the law was modified to provide that free Negroes should not carry arms without first obtaining a license from the county or corporation court. One who was caught with firearms in spite of this act was to forfeit t he weapon to the informer and receive thirty-nine lashes at the whipping-post. Hening, Statutes-at-Large, Vol. V, p. 17; Vol. XVI, p. 274.

[3] General W. S. Harney, commanding in Missouri, responded to the claims of slaveholders for the return of runaway slaves with the words: "Already, since the commencement of these unhappy disturbances, slaves have escaped from their owners and have sought refuge in the camps of the United States troops from the Northern States, and commanded by a Northern General. They were carefully sent back to their owners." General D. C. Buell, commanding in Tennessee, in reply to the same demands stated: "Several applications have been made to me by persons whose servants have been found in our camps; and in every instance that I know of, the master has removed his servant and taken him away." William Wells Brown, The Negro in the Rebellion, pp. 57-58.

[4] Secretary Seddon, War Department, wrote: "They [the Negroes] have, besides, the homes they value, the families they love, and the masters they respect and depend on to defend and protect against the savagery and devastation of the enemy."--Official Rebellion Records, Series IV, Vol. Ill, pp. 761-762.

[5] Governor Walker of Florida, himself a former slaveholder, said before the State legislature in 1865 that "the world had never seen such a body of slaves, for not only in peace but in war they had been faithful to us. During much of the time of the late unhappy difficulties, Florida had a greater number of men in her army than constituted her entire voting population. This, of course, stripped many districts of their arms-bearing inhabitants and left our females and infant children almost exclusively to the protection of our slaves. They proved true to their trust. Not one instance of insult, outrage, or indignity has ever come to my knowledge. They remained at home and made provisions for the army." John Wallace, Carpet-Bag Rule in Florida, p. 23.

[6] "For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."--Greely, The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 524.

"It was a notorious fact that the enemy were using Negroes to build fortifications, drive teams and raise food for the army. Black hands piled up the sand-bags and raised the batteries which drove Anderson out of Sumter. At Montgomery, the Capital of the Confederacy, Negroes were being drilled and armed for military duty."--W. W. Brown, The Negro in the Rebellion, p. 59.

[7] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 521.

[8] Jones, A Rebel War Clerk's Diary, Vol. I, p. 237; Schwab, The Confederate States of America, p. 194.

[9] Laws of Florida, 12th Session, 1862_, Chap. 1378.

[10] Confederate War Department, Bureau of Conscription, Circular No. 36, December 12, 1864. Off. Reds. Reb., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 933.

[11] Off. Reds. Reb., Series IV, Vol. Ill, p. 780. Journals of Congress, IV, 260.

[12] Washington, The Story of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 321.

[13] Order No. 426. Adjutant-General's Office, Headquarters Louisiana Militia, March 24, 1862. Cf. Brown, The Negro in the Rebellion, pp. 84-85.

[14] Parton, History of the Administration of the Gulf, 1862-1864; General Butler in New Orleans, p. 517.

[15] Greely, The American Conflict, p. 521.

[16] The Charleston Mercury, January 3, 1861.

[17] The announcement of the recruiting read: "Attention, volunteers: Resolved by the Committee of Safety that C. Deloach, D. R. Cook and William B. Greenlaw be authorized to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic free men of color, of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense. All who have not enrolled their names will call at the office of W. B. Greenlaw & Co." F. W. Forsythe, Secretary. F. Titus, President. Williams, History of the Negro, Vol. II, p. 277.

[18] Greely, The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 521.

[19] Memphis Avalanche, September 3, 1861.

[20] Greely, The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 522.

[21] Ibid., p. 277.

[22] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 522.

[23] The Baltimore Traveler, February 4, 1862.

[24] Greely, The American Conflict, Vol. II, p. 522.

[25] Schwab, The Confederate States of America, p. 193. Moore, Rebellion Records, Vol. VII, p. 210. Jones, Diary, Vol. I, p. 381.

[26] An indorsement from the Secretary of War reads: "If all white men capable of bearing arms are put in the field, it would be as large a draft as a community could continuously sustain, and whites are better soldiers than Negroes. For war, when existence is staked, the best material should be used."--Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 693-694.

[27] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 799.

[28] Ibid., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 846. J. A. Seddon to Maj. E. B. Briggs, Nov. 24, 1864.

[29] Ibid., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 1009.

[30] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series I, Vol. XXVIII, Pt. 2, p. 13.

[31] Ibid., Series I, Vol. LII, Pt. 2, p. 598.

[32] Davis, Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, p. 226.

[33] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 959-960.

[34] Ibid., p. 227.

[35] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 1010-1011.

[36] Rhodes, History of the United States since the Compromise of 1850, Vol. IV, p. 525.

[37] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. VIII, p. 1110.

[38] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. VIII, p. 1013.

[39] Williams, Negro Troops in the War of the Rebellion, Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, pp. 572-573.

In the American Historical Review, January, 1913, N.W. Stephenson has an article upon "The Question of Arming the Slaves." The article is concerned particularly with the debate in the Confederate Congress upon this perplexing question and with the psychology of the statements made by President Davis, Secretary Benjamin, General Lee and by various Congressmen. The author has searched the Journals of the Confederate Congress, newspaper files and personal recollections and gives conclusions which show that "the subject was discussed during the last winter of the Confederate regime," and by inference the dissertation shows that the fear of the consequences of arming the slaves was alike in the minds of all southern people. The treatise is a study in historical psychology; and, as in similar works by men of the type of the author, the point of view of the South and of the Confederacy is presented and the Negro and his actual employment as a soldier is neglected. The author contends that a few southern leaders attempted to force the arming of the blacks upon an unwilling southern public. He neglects the evidence contained in the action of local authorities in arming the Negroes who were free and their attitude concerning those who were slaves. He neglects also the sentiment of southern leaders who favored the measure. The Journals of the Confederate Congress, therefore, will be more valuable to those desiring information concerning the debates on this question.

[40] Journal of Congress of Confederate States, Vol. IV, p. 528 and Vol. VII, p. 595; Jones, Diary, Vol. II, p. 431.

[41] Richmond Dispatch, February 24, 1865; Jones Diary, Vol. II, p. 432.

[42] Journal of Congress of Confederate States, Vol. VII, p. 748.

[43] Richmond Examiner, December 9, 1864--Gov. Smith's Message. Jones, Diary, Vol. II, p. 43; pp. 432-433. Schwab, The Confederate States of America, p. 194.

[44] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, p. 1161.

Ibid., Series III, Vol. V, pp. 711-712; Davis, Confederate Government, Vol. II, p. 660.

[45] Rhodes, History of U. S., Vol. V, 1864-1865, p. 81.

[46] Off. Reds. Rebell., Series IV, Vol. III, pp. 1193-1194 and Appendix.

[47] Cf. Southern Correspondence throughout the Rebellion Records.

Oh noes! Most of them did menial work! But wait, there's more from the Union side. Black Union soldiers were put to work in practically the same way.

https://www.americanheritage.com/we-will-not-do-duty-any-longer-seven-dollars-month

“We Will Not Do Duty Any Longer for Seven Dollars per Month”

Otto Friedrich
American Heritage
February 1988, Vol. 39, Issue 1

Once Congress had authorized the recruiting of black soldiers, Secretary of War Stanton established a Bureau for Colored Troops in May 1863 and asked the War Department’s solicitor, William Whiting, of Boston, to look into the vexing question of what the black recruits should be paid. Despite Stanton’s promise of equal treatment, Whiting replied that the only applicable law was the Militia Act of 1862, in which Congress had specifically stated that “persons of African descent” were to be paid ten dollars per month (minus three dollars for clothing), or three dollars less than white soldiers received. “There seems to be inequality and injustice in this distinction,” Stanton said in his annual report for 1863, “and an amendment authorizing the same pay and bounty as white troops receive, is recommended.” Lincoln was not convinced. Since blacks “had larger motives for being soldiers than white men … they ought to be willing to enter the service upon any condition,” the President said to Frederick Douglass, the black leader. The decision to grant them lower pay, Lincoln added, “seemed a necessary condition to smooth the way to their employment at all as soldiers.” For the time being, Stanton wrote to the governor of Ohio, all blacks who had relied on his promises of equal pay “must trust to State contributions and the justice of Congress at the next session.”

Colonel Higginson was furious. The refusal to grant equal pay, he declared, “has impaired discipline, has relaxed loyalty, and has begun to implant a feeling of sullen distrust in the very regiments whose early career solved the problem of the nation, created a new army, and made a peaceful emancipation possible.” Col. Robert Gould Shaw, who commanded the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, the first black unit recruited in the North, was even more furious. Though the Massachusetts legislature appropriated funds to provide equal pay for Shaw’s regiment, which was already stationed on the Sea Islands and ready to go into action, the regiment refused to accept any pay at all unless it was given equal pay by the federal government. These soldiers should either be “mustered out of the service or receive the full pay which was promised them,” Shaw wrote to the Massachusetts governor, John Andrew. “Are we soldiers or are we laborers?” wrote one of Shaw’s black soldiers, James Henry Gooding, in a letter to President Lincoln. Then, in the flowery rhetoric of his time, Gooding answered his own question: “Mr. President … the patient, trusting descendants of Afric’s clime have dyed the ground with blood in defense of the Union and democracy.”

Unpaid, the 54th Massachusetts marched into combat, leading a hopeless charge against Fort Wagner, in Charleston Harbor. After a long but ineffective cannonading, Shaw’s outnumbered troops had to charge uphill and across a deep ditch into a storm of Confederate gunfire. Colonel Shaw, who was twenty-five, led them all the way, reached the fort’s parapet, and climbed it. “He stood there for a moment with uplifted sword, shouting, ‘Forward, 54th!’ ” as William James said many years later in dedicating Saint-Gaudens’s great monument on Boston Common, “and then fell headlong, with a bullet through his heart.” More than half of Shaw’s unpaid black troops died in that heroic charge before the remnants were finally beaten back. And after all the dead were dumped into a common trench, the Confederate commander was said to have remarked of Shaw, “We have buried him with his n-----s.”

It was a fact that black casualties in the Union army were far higher than white casualties. Of the approximately 180,000 black troops eventually recruited, about 37,000 died. That death rate amounted to slightly more than 20 percent, as compared with a death rate of 15.2 percent among white troops and only 8.6 percent in the regular army. The disparity occurred not because blacks were regularly used as cannon fodder but because most Civil War casualties, white and black alike, resulted from sickness. Among blacks, the remarkable statistics are that 2,870 died in combat, more than 4,000 died of unknown causes, and 29,756 are known to have died of illness. In fact, the regiment with the second-highest number of deaths in the entire Union army was the 65th U.S. Colored Infantry, which lost 755 men without ever going into combat at all.

There were a number of reasons for this. High among them were inferior food, inferior clothing, inferior medical care, inferior everything. All wars breed corruption, after all, and the Civil War, fought in the early days of freewheeling capitalism, certainly bred its share. As Thomas Beer wrote in Hanna, “Bayonets of polished pewter, tents of porous shoddy, coffee made of pulse and sorghum, carbines that exploded on the drill ground … and many other versions of the wooden nutmeg were offered to the Army between 1861 and 1864.

“Often nothing could be done. The actual vendor vanished in a cloud of agents and guileless middlemen… .” And who could be more vulnerable to this sort of swindle than the fledgling black regiments? One of their commanders, Brig. Gen. Daniel Ullman, complained to a senator about “arms almost entirely unserviceable and … equipment … of the poorest kind.”

And woe to anyone who fell ill. Since black troops were supposed to be led by white officers, only eight black doctors were taken into the Army, and six of these served in Washington hospitals. White doctors generally refused to serve in black regiments, and so, according to one general’s report, “In very many cases Hospital Stewards of low order of qualification were appointed to the office of Assistant Surgeon and Surgeon.” There were “well-grounded objections…,” the general went on, “against the inhumanity of subjecting the colored soldiers to medical treatment and surgical operations from such men.”

One reason that blacks were so prone to sickness, though, was overwork. The black troops were used mainly to dig trenches and fortifications, to cut trees and haul supplies, to provide, for seven dollars per month, what they once provided for nothing: slave labor. “My men were … put into trenches and batteries, or detailed to mount guns, haul cannon and mortars, and were kept constantly and exclusively on fatigue duty of the severest kind… ,” said Col. James Montgomery of the 2d South Carolina Volunteers. “I frequently had to take men who had been on duty from 4 o’clock in the morning until sundown to make up the detail called for, for the night, and men who had been in the trenches in the night were compelled to go on duty again at least part of the day.” Or as another officer wrote, “Where white and black troops come together in the same command, the latter have to do all the work.”


480 posted on 10/23/2021 7:07:56 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 821-829 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