I didn't ignore it. I answered it with 14, which is what Frederick Douglas was building up to. Here it is again.
"I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. 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."
The statements of Abraham Lincoln eviscerated any rational claim that he was an abolitionist.
When taken in context, they tell a story of a man who was up agaianst an era of slavery and his own demons, and overcame all of it to abolish slavery.
I have heard you have abolitionists here. We have a few in Illinois, and we shot one the other day.
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
When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. (snip)
Did you actually read this. or did you just see "emancipation" and "I forbade it" and assume he said what you wanted to hear? They were talking about recruiting blacks to serve in the Union military, which President Lincoln was hestitant to allow for fear of inducing the border states to secede and join the confederacy. Everyone knows that. The "emancipation" spoken of here has nothing to do with freeing slaves.
Once the EP was passed, the military was opened. More on all of this here.
Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil War
The pictures themselves are worth a look.
And before you bring up the discrimination it reports, I have already conceded not all in the North were the good guys.
Lincoln to Gen. John Schofield, June 22, 1863:
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.
Lincoln wrote to Orville Browning, September 22, 1861:
Here Lincoln is saying what I have conceded in many ocasions, that not everyone in the Union was on board for abolishing slavery and he had to work with that. Frederick Douglas also acknowledged that in the snippet I posted above. I'll post the last line again.
"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."
Near the very end of Lincoln's last public address on April 11, 1865 he stated,
I don't see what you're trying to prove here.
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.
In The Lincoln Legend, 1935, pg. 203-04, Basler stated, "Although Lincoln was convinced throughout his early life that slavery was morally wrong, he did not feel any of the zeal for its abolition which was inspiring young men in New England. All attempts to make Lincoln an early Abolitionist are futile."
You could have saved yourself a lot of effort by citing my posts. President Lincoln opposed slavery, but didn't think he had the legal ability to end it until the CW. He said that himself. After the CW with nothing to stop him and the abolitionists, slavery was abolished.
You are reminded about Frederick Douglass' Oration at paragraph 9, from which I quoted in my #429, and which you choose to ignore:I didn't ignore it. I answered it with 14, which is what Frederick Douglas was building up to. Here it is again.
Actually you did not rebut Douglass with Douglass. But as you believe Douglass, let us try some more Douglass, from when Lincoln was still alive, and before he was sainted.
Douglass' Monthly, Vol. 4, Number 4, September 1861, page 514
CAST OFF THE MILL STONE.We are determined that our readers shall have line upon line and precept upon precept. Ours is only one humble voice; but such as it is, we give it freely to our country, and to the cause of humanity. That honesty is the best policy, we all profess to believe, though our practice may often contradict the proverb. The present policy of our Government is evidently to put down the slaveholding rebellion, and at the same time protect and preserve slavery. This policy hangs like a millstone about the neck of our people. It carries disorder to the very sources of our national activities. Weakness, faint heartedness and inefficiency is the natural result The mental and moral machinery of mankind cannot long withstand such disorder without serious damage. This policy offends reason, wounds the sensibilities, and shocks the moral sentiments of men. It forces upon us in consequent conclusions and painful contradictions, while the plain path of duty is obscured and thronged with multiplying difficulties. Let us look this slavery-preserving policy squarely in the face, and search it thoroughly.
Can the friends of that policy tell ns why this should not be an abolition war? Is not abolition plainly forced upon the nation as a necessity of national existence? Are not the rebels determined to make the war on tbeir part a war for the utter destruction of liber-ty and the complete mastery of slavery over every other right and interest in the land?— And is not an abolition war on our part the natural and logical answer to be made to the rebels ! We all know it is. But it is said that for the Government to adopt the abolition policy, would involve the loss of the support of the Union men of the Border Slave States.
It appears that it was not an abolition war then.
[Lincoln] I have heard you have abolitionists here. We have a few in Illinois, and we shot one the other day.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
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.
Lincoln's speech at Worcester was given September 12, 1848; reported about in the Boston Advertiser, September 14, 1848. Lincoln also gave speeches at Lowell on September 16, 1848; the Boston Whig Club on September 15, 1848; and at Taunton at or about September 21, 1848, and a few other locations.
567. Edward L. Pierce to WHH[ca. October 15, 1889] Lincolns visit to Mass in 1848 is made too little of in the biographies of him. His first speech — made at the Whig convention at Worcester, was quite fully reported in the Boston Advertiser, with a sketch of his person and manner. He spoke also at Dedham (day time) Cambridge, Chelsea & Dorchester. — also twice in Boston — once at Faneuil Hall with Seward. A single passage — that he had thought out some things at home and wished to compare notes & — makes me think that he was conscious of his powers and wanted to try them on a different theatre — that is, before more cultivated audiences He was greatly liked. It was a style new to our people — and there was a general call for him as a speaker. His speech at Dorchester was in our own village — and I have talked with several who heard him.
At Worcester he gave offence by saying "I have heard you have abolitionists here. We have a few in Illinois, and we shot one the other day." The Free Soil papers criticised the passage and he did not repeat it. He had a humorous passage in his Worcester speech with reference to the Free Soilers as having one doctrine only, their platform reminding him of a tailor who advertised a pair of trousers as large enough for any man and small enough for any boy.
I have wondered how Mr Lincoln happened to come in ’48. Mr Winthrop to whom I spoke on the subject does not remember, but thinks Mr Charles Hudson MC may have asked him. Mr Lincoln in Congress did not make much impression on Mr Winthrop.
I sent you the other day a paper of mine on the Convention of ’602
I have written currente calamo and in haste — simply to indicate points.
Yours truly
Edward L PierceLC: HW4744
In William Henry Herndon, Herndon's Informants, Letters, Interviews and Statements about Abraham Lincoln, at pg. 680.
It would seem that Lincoln's visit to Massachusetts was in a measure arranged by the National Committee, because he happened to be traveling back to Illinois and could conveniently pass through Worcester where the state Whigs were to convene on September 13. Mr. Schooler was present at the convention and made the first motion in the business session, nominating Mr. Wightman of Boston as Secretary. Worcester was the headquarters for the Free Soil party which was proselyting a great many Whigs.Abraham Lincoln did not speak at the convention proper and his name does not appear in the proceedings. He did speak for one hour and a half at a mass meeting the night before and a few fragments of what he said on this occasion are all that has been preserved of the dozen or more speeches which he made in Massachusetts on this itinerary. While Lincoln probably used about 10,000 words in his Worcester address, less than 2,000 words have been recorded and these were gathered by a reporter for the Boston Advertiser who commented upon Lincoln's speech in that paper the following day. It is not known that Abraham Lincoln wrote out any of his Massachusetts speeches, but it is said that the Worcester speech was the best one of them all, and the others were largely a repetition of the Worcester speech. This would suggest that the Boston speech, which was the climax of his itinerary, was patterned very largely after his address at Worcester.
Bulletin of the Lincoln National Life Foundation, #666, January 12, 1942, Fort Wayne Indiana, Dr. Louis A. Warren, Editor.
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 at 201 (citations omitted):
In the beginning, then, as in the middle and end of the antislavery crusade, Lincoln was more of a hindrance than a help. If there is any doubt on that score, one need only examine his nonrole in a defining event of the period, the martyrdom of Owen Lovejoy's brother, abolitionist editor Elijah Parish Lovejoy. When, in Alton, Illinois, on November 7, 1837, a White mob murdered Lovejoy and threw his press into the Mississippi River, Lincoln was characteristically silent. Worse, when, some three months later, he made a big speech to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield about "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions," he didn't mention Lovejoy by name or deal with the Alton lynching, except to say, in passing, seven vague words about the impropriety of shooting editors and throwing printing presses into the river.How explain Lincoln's silence at this turning point of morals and worlds? The answer is plain, and troubling. The "better sort" of people were either in the mob or associated with the mob, and Lincoln, to borrow a phrase Oates used in another connection, "was not about to ruin his career" by speaking out for an "extremist" whose methods and goals he deplored. A second and probably more pressing reason for his silence was that at least three of his friends and associates—Alton businessman John Hogan, Alton's state senator Cyrus Edwards, who was widely touted as the next governor, and Illinois Attorney General Usher F. Linder—were directly or indirectly implicated in the Lovejoy murder. Linder, in fact, egged the mob on and tried to imprison the men who helped Lovejoy.
Linder and other people in the mob or on the fringes of the mob, and the vast number of silent people in Springfield, could do a lot to help a young legislator, and it is a reasonable surmise, Simon said, that Lincoln remained silent in part to advance his career. Whatever the reason, Simon—a former United States senator whose racial standards were higher than Lincoln's—said "the silence of Lincoln on the Lovejoy incident is not Lincoln's most shining hour".
When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come.Did you actually read this. or did you just see "emancipation" and "I forbade it" and assume he said what you wanted to hear? They were talking about recruiting blacks to serve in the Union military, which President Lincoln was hestitant to allow for fear of inducing the border states to secede and join the confederacy. Everyone knows that. The "emancipation" spoken of here has nothing to do with freeing slaves.
You are deranged. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9mont_Emancipation
Lincoln's reaction and Frémont's removalPresident Lincoln learned of Frémont's proclamation by reading it in the newspaper.[23] Disturbed by Frémont's actions, Lincoln felt that emancipation was "not within the range of military law or necessity" and that such powers rested only with the elected federal government.[26] Lincoln also recognized the monumental political problem that such an edict posed to his efforts to keep the border states in the Union. He was particularly worried about reports he heard of the furor in Kentucky over the edict, writing, "I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game."[27] According to Lincoln in a letter to a supporter of Frémont, a unit of Kentucky militia fighting for the Union, upon hearing of Frémont's proclamation, threw down their weapons and disbanded.[27] Lincoln determined the proclamation could not be allowed to remain in force. However, to override the edict or to directly order Frémont to strike out or modify the paragraph had its own political dangers—such an act would outrage abolitionists throughout the North. Sensitive to the political pitfalls on all sides, Lincoln wrote to Frémont, "Allow me to therefore ask, that you will, as of your own motion, modify that paragraph..."[24]
Frémont wrote a reply to Lincoln's request on September 8, 1861 and sent it to Washington in the hands of his wife, Jessie Benton Frémont, who met with the President in the White House on September 10. In the letter, Frémont stated that he knew the situation in Missouri better than the President and that he would not rescind the proclamation unless directly ordered. Angered, Lincoln wrote Frémont the next day, directly ordering him to modify the emancipation clause to conform with existing federal law—that only slaves themselves acting in armed rebellion could be confiscated and freed.[4]
Lincoln could not allow Frémont's insubordination to go unpunished. However, his dilemma again lay in politics. Removal of Frémont over the emancipation issue would infuriate radicals in Congress. Lincoln determined that if Frémont were to be removed, it would have to be for matters unrelated to the proclamation. He therefore sent Postmaster General Montgomery Blair and Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs to Missouri to evaluate Frémont's management of his department.[5] On his return, Blair reported that a tremendous state of disorganization existed in Missouri and Frémont "seemed stupified...and is doing absolutely nothing."[6] When Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas made his own inspection and reported to Lincoln that Frémont was, "wholly incompetent," Lincoln decided to leak Thomas's report to the press.[28] Amidst the resulting public outrage against Frémont, Lincoln sent an order on October 22, 1861, removing him from command of the Department of the West.[6]
- - - - - - - - - -
Private and confidential. Major General Fremont: Washington D.C. Sept. 2, 1861.My dear Sir: Two points your proclamation of August 30th give me some anxiety. First, should you shoot a man, according to the proclamation, the Confederates would very certainly shoot our best man in their hands in retaliation; and so, man for man, indefinitely. It is therefore my order that you allow no man to be shot, under the proclamation, without first having my approbation or consent.
Secondly, I think there is great danger that the closing paragraph, in relation to the confiscation of property, and the liberating slaves of traiterous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us—perhaps ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky. Allow me therefore to ask, that you will as of your own motion, modify that paragraph so as to conform to the first and fourth sections of the act of Congress, entitled, "An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes,'' approved August, 6th, 1861, and a copy of which act I herewith send you. This letter is written in a spirit of caution and not of censure.
I send it by a special messenger, in order that it may certainly and speedily reach you. Yours very truly A. LINCOLN
[Endorsement]
Copy of letter sent to Gen. Fremont, by special messenger leaving Washington Sep. 3. 1861.
CW 4:506
Washington, D.C.
Major General John C. Fremont. Sep. 11. 1861.Sir: Yours of the 8th. in answer to mine of 2nd. Inst. is just received. Assuming that you, upon the ground, could better judge of the necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing your proclamation of August 30th. I perceived no general objection to it. The particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves, appeared to me to be objectionable, in it's non-conformity to the Act of Congress passed the 6th. of last August upon the same subjects; and hence I wrote you expressing my wish that that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer, just received, expresses the preference on your part, that I should make an open order for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construed, as to conform to, and not to transcend, the provisions on the same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled "An Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes''
Approved, August 6. 1861; and that said act be published at length with this order.
Your Obt. Servt
A. LINCOLN.
CW 4:517-18
- - - - - - - - - -
And then there was Gen. David Hunter's proclamation of emancipation affecting all slaves in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina.
May 19, 1862By the President of The United States of America.
A Proclamation.
Whereas there appears in the public prints, what purports to be a proclamation, of Major General Hunter, in the words and figures following, towit:
Headquarters Department of the South,Hilton Head, S.C., May 9, 1862.
General Orders No. 11.—The three States of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, comprising the military department of the south, having deliberately declared themselves no longer under the protection of the United States of America, and having taken up arms against the said United States, it becomes a military necessity to declare them under martial law. This was accordingly done on the 25th day of April, 1862. Slavery and martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these three States—Georgia, Florida and South Carolina—theretofore held as slaves, are therefore declared forever free.
DAVID HUNTER,
(Official) Major General Commanding.
ED. W. SMITH, Acting Assistant Adjutant General.
And whereas the same is producing some excitement, and misunderstanding: therefore
I, Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States, proclaim and declare, that the government of the United States, had no knowledge, information, or belief, of an intention on the part of General Hunter to issue such a proclamation; nor has it yet, any authentic information that the document is genuine. And further, that neither General Hunter, nor any other commander, or person, has been authorized by the Government of the United States, to make proclamations declaring the slaves of any State free; and that the supposed proclamation, now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void, so far as respects such declaration.
I further make known that whether it be competent for me, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the Slaves of any state or states, free, and whether at any time, in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable to the maintainance of the government, to exercise such supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility, I reserve to myself, and which I can not feel justified in leaving to the decision of commanders in the field. These are totally different questions from those of police regulations in armies and camps.
On the sixth day of March last, by a special message, I recommended to Congress the adoption of a joint resolution to be substantially as follows:
Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system.The resolution, in the language above quoted, was adopted by large majorities in both branches of Congress, and now stands an authentic, definite, and solemn proposal of the nation to the States and people most immediately interested in the subject matter. To the people of those states I now earnestly appeal. I do not argue. I beseech you to make the arguments for yourselves. You can not if you would, be blind to the signs of the times. I beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partizan politics. This proposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no reproaches upon any. It acts not the pharisee. The change it contemplates would come gently as the dews of heaven, not rending or wrecking anything. Will you not embrace it? So much good has not been done, by one effort, in all past time, as, in the providence of God, it is now your high previlege to do. May the vast future not have to lament that you have neglected it.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
[L.S.]
Done at the City of Washington this nineteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
We can now confirm that Hunter's declaration was authentic, and that Lincoln squashed it.
Hunter's General Order 11 is found in the Official Records, Series I, Vol. 14, at pg. 311.
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.
Fighting for Freedom, Black Union Soldiers of the Civil WarThe 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 HANDWhat 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.
