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.
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?
