Replies

...but you keep on spinning your Yankee myth...

The explain the following please:

SECTION 1. Whereas, The efficiency of the army is at times greatly diminished by the withdrawal from the ranks of soldiers to perform labor and duties which can as well be done by free negroes and slaves--

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That all free male negroes, between the ages of eighteen and fifty years, shall be held liable to perform any labor or discharge any duties with the army, or in connection with the military defences of the country, such as working upon fortifications, producing and preparing materials of war, building and repairing roads and bridges, and doing other work usually done by engineer troops and pontoniers, acting as cooks, teamsters, stewards and waiters in military hospitals, or other like labor, or similar duties which may be required or prescribed by the Secretary of War or the or the general commanding the Trans-Mississippi department, from time to time. And said free negroes, whilst thus engaged, shall receive rations and clothing, under such regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe, and shall receive pay at the rate of eighteen dollars per month.

SEC. 2. That the Secretary of War and the general commanding the Trans-Mississippi department are each authorized to employ, for duties like those named in the first section of this act, as many male negro slaves, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not to exceed thirty thousand in the States east of the Mississippi river, and ten thousand in the States west of the Mississippi river, as the wants of the service may require. And the said slaves, whilst so employed, shall be furnished rations and clothing as provided in the preceding section, and the owners paid such hire for their services as may be agreed upon; and in the event of the loss of any slaves whilst so employed, by the act of the enemy, or by escape to the enemy, of by wounds or death inflicted by the enemy, or by disease contracted whilst in any service required of said slaves, and by reason of said service, then the owners thereof, respectively, shall be entitled to receive the full value of such slaves, to be ascertained and fixed by agreement at the time said slaves are so hired, under rules to be prescribed by the Secretary of War.

SEC. 3. That whenever the Secretary of War or the general commanding the Trans-Mississippi department shall be unable to procure the services of slaves by hiring them, as above provided, in sufficient numbers, then it shall be lawful for the said Secretary or General to order the impressment, and to impress as many male slaves, within the ages named in the second section of this act, and for the purposes and uses above stated, not at any time to exceed thirty thousand in the States east of the Mississippi river, and ten thousand in the States west of the Mississippi river, as may be necessary: Provided, That slaves so impressed shall, whilst in the government employment, receive the same clothing and rations allowed to slaves hired from their owners, and in the event of their loss or death in the manner or from the causes above stated, their value shall be estimated and fixed as provided by the law regulating impressments, and paid as in the case of slaves hired from their owners, and the value of the hire of said slaves shall be fixed in like manner.

This was passed by the confederate congress in February 1864. If blacks had been serving in the confederate army prior to this then why was this legislation necessary? And if they had been serving as combat troops prior to this then why did this legislation limit them to service roles only?

simple.

because the legislation allplied only to the PACSA!

it did NOT apply to the local,state & partisan rangers EVER.

FRee dixie,sw

This was passed by the confederate congress in February 1864. If blacks had been serving in the confederate army prior to this then why was this legislation necessary? And if they had been serving as combat troops prior to this then why did this legislation limit them to service roles only?

You have misunderstood what the legislation is. It is a labor impressment act, only addressing the issue of labor. Prior to this legislation the Confederate government had to contract the use of slaves directly from their owners, as it was not legal to impress someone's slaves into government service for the uses described. The owners could retrieve their slaves practically at any time, which they often did when they were needed again to do work at the owner's property. This meant the government did not have a constant or reliable supply of labor, and was continuously trying to contract labor to not only meet the original quotas, but make up for the ones that had been recalled by their owners as well. The need for adequate labor resources to build defenses and fortifications, etc., was a critical issue, and this act gave the government the authority to directly impress slaves in order to meet their labor requirements instead of contracting out slaves as had been done before. It is only a labor act dealing with labor issues.

Look at it this way. The Confederate Congress apparently already knew it was happening so they figured they better pass a law just to make it perfectly legal. Kind of like abe starting the war, waiting three months, and then the union Congress declaring war because they had better make it legal.

The only difference is that nothing in the Confederate Constitution banned blacks fighting for the South, whereas the US Constitution did ban Presidents from starting wars without asking Congress

"This was passed by the confederate congress in February 1864. If blacks had been serving in the confederate army prior to this then why was this legislation necessary? And if they had been serving as combat troops prior to this then why did this legislation limit them to service roles only?"

Confederate Army is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Tsk-tsk ... your grammar is atrocious. I figured that your being an ex-Naval Officer you would have had the wherewithall to research farther than cherry-picking only that which supports you argument. So for your further edification I will give this -

'Blacks Who Fought For the South'
'Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln's "liberty-dispensing troops" marching south in the War Between the States. But there's more to the story; let's look at it.

Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."

Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, "These boys stayed with me.. - and better Confederates did not live."

Articles in "Black Southerners in Gray," edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.

Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam - the war's bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: "to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better ... they hoped to be rewarded."

Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn't free his slaves earlier, saying, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

Lincoln waged war to "preserve the Union". The 1783 peace agreement with England (Treaty of Paris] left 13 sovereign nations. They came together in 1787, as principals, to create a federal government, as their agent, giving it specific delegated authority -specified in our Constitution. Principals always retain the right to fire their agent. The South acted on that right when it seceded. Its firing on Fort Sumter, federal property, gave Lincoln the pretext needed for the war.

The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over states' rights specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.

Sons of Confederate Veterans is a group dedicated to giving a truer account of the War Between the States. I'd like to see it erect on Richmond's Monument Avenue a statue of one of the thousands of black Confederate soldiers.' - Walter Williams (African-American professor of economics at George Mason University).

So now I suppose you're going to tell me he's a liar?!