Virginia’s Black Confederates

CNS News ^ | 11/4/2010 | Walter E. Williams

[markomalley]

One tragedy of war is that its victors write its history and often do so with bias and dishonesty. That’s true about our War of 1861, erroneously called a civil war. Civil wars, by the way, are when two or more parties attempt to take over the central government. Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington, in 1776, wanted to take over London. Both wars were wars of independence.

Kevin Sieff, staff writer for The Washington Post, penned an article “Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers,” (Oct. 20, 2010). The textbook says that blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy. Sieff claims that “Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history.” William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff said, “It is disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship.” Let’s examine that accepted scholarship.

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Va., newspaper proposed “three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg” after 70 blacks offered “to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them” in defense of Virginia. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, “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 ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government.”

Charles H. Wesley, a distinguished black historian who lived from 1891 to 1987, wrote “The Employment of Negroes as Soldiers in the Confederate Army,” in the Journal of Negro History (1919). He says, “Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies (1,600) of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia.”

Wesley cites Horace Greeley’s “American Conflict” (1866) saying, “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.”

Wesley goes on to say, “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.”

One would have to be stupid to think that blacks were fighting in order to preserve slavery. What’s untaught in most history classes is that it is relatively recent that we Americans think of ourselves as citizens of United States. For most of our history, we thought of ourselves as citizens of Virginia, citizens of New York and citizens of whatever state in which we resided.

Wesley says, “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.” Blacks have fought in all of our wars both before and after slavery, in hopes of better treatment afterwards.

Denying the role, and thereby cheapening the memory, of the Confederacy’s slaves and freemen who fought in a failed war of independence is part of the agenda to cover up Abraham Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts to prevent Southern secession. Did states have a right to secede?

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

[FreeAtlanta]

Apparently, I struck a nerve with you guys. You are wrong, but nothing I can do will prove it to you.

Lincoln was no more a God than Obama, and he cost our country a lot of Liberty while saying he was trying to provide liberty for the slaves.

By going along with slavery, our country set ourselves up for less freedom for everyone while giving rightful freedom to a few. The lesson to learn today is that watch out when politicians pick a good cause and say they are going to help (health care, global warming, etc) solve the problem. We need to solve the issues ourselves, or liberty will be lost.

Surely, we all can agree with that.

[central_va]

Who’d ever think this thread would turn into a Lincoln bash fest? /sarc

[FreeAtlanta]

well, I agree with your first 2 words. ;-)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

His thesis was that slavery would have fallen of its own weight as soon as the Industrial Revolution got a good foothold in the South. He wrote a whole book on it, with facts and figures.

Which is 20/20 hindsight. Find any southern (or northern, for that matter) political leader saying as much in 1860. Instead what you find are people like Alexander Stephens saying that slavery in the cornerstone of the south, or the Mississippi Declaration of Causes saying,

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

[manc]

nothing surprises me when it comes to this kind of thread.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Well it was inevitable once you showed up.

[central_va]

Well it was inevitable once you showed up.

I got to the hill first....

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Yeah, and you’re clearly so proud of your “Illinois Butcher” line that you had to take the oppotunity to roll that bit of wit out again. I understand how it is.

[central_va]

Yeah, and you’re clearly so proud of your “Illinois Butcher” line that you had to take the oppotunity[sic] to roll that bit of wit out again. I understand how it is.

Funny, I have been studying Civil War history for decades now. I started out like everyone else thinking that Lincoln was a near God like emancipator. I've since learned otherwise. I had to read original sources, to gain perspective and objectivity, ultimately de-brainwash myself. I highly recommend it.

[BroJoeK]

zeugma: "I'd appreciate any quotes you might have of his (with attribution) that says seccession would have to be mutually agreed.
From my readings, that's not what be or almost any other founder would have agreed to.
From my readings, had that been the expectation, there would never have been a "united States"."

Thanks for asking. These and similar quotes have been posted in the past:

We begin with the Articles of Confederation, which do specifically use the term "perpetual Union".
In the Constitution, "perpetual Union" is replaced by the phrase "a more perfect Union."
So, in what way is "a more perfect Union" not also "perpetual"?

New York, Rhode Island and Virginia attempted to ratify the Constitution conditionally -- according to their ratification statements.
But James Madison would have none of that, writing to his friend, Alexander Hamilton about New York's conditions he said:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.

Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.
The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States"

Virginia did include a ratification statement, but note carefully what it said:

"the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

Madison himself made the same point in 1830:

"the compact being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.

The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

And yet, there were no "usurpations" or "abuses" in 1860 -- indeed just the opposite.

In their secession documents, the Deep South did not complain about Federal "usurpations", but rather about the failure of the Federal government to enforce Fugitive Slave laws in non-slave states.

So the Deep South's secession was not by "mutual consent," nor due to "usurpations" or "abuses."
Rather secession was "at pleasure" -- meaning unconstitutional and illegal.

And when the South began shooting at Union forces, that made it an "insurrection" and "rebellion" -- which the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to defeat.

[Non-Sequitur]

Apparently, I struck a nerve with you guys

Southron bullsh*t has that effect on us. What you don't realize is that we've all seen the same old myths repeated time and again. So you haven't struck a nerve so much as triggered our "not this crap again" response mechanism.

You are wrong, but nothing I can do will prove it to you. Posting something factual might go a long way towards doing that. So far you've not come close.

Lincoln was no more a God than Obama, and he cost our country a lot of Liberty while saying he was trying to provide liberty for the slaves.

Thanks. You've given me the inspiration for a new tagline

[Non-Sequitur]

Apparently, I struck a nerve with you guys

Southron bullsh*t has that effect on us. What you don't realize is that we've all seen the same old myths repeated time and again. So you haven't struck a nerve so much as triggered our "not this crap again" response mechanism.

You are wrong, but nothing I can do will prove it to you. Posting something factual might go a long way towards doing that. So far you've not come close.

Lincoln was no more a God than Obama, and he cost our country a lot of Liberty while saying he was trying to provide liberty for the slaves.

Thanks. You've given me the inspiration for a new tagline

[Non-Sequitur]

His thesis was that slavery would have fallen of its own weight as soon as the Industrial Revolution got a good foothold in the South. He wrote a whole book on it, with facts and figures.

What Genovese doesn't identify is what would have replaced the slave labor if slavery fell?

The book was "The Political Economy of Slavery," BTW.

[rustbucket]

Actual spending continued at a fairly even pace during the years preceding the war although public revenue declined below the spending because of a recession.

A bigger problem was the debt being amassed by the government. Here are some figures from an old post by PeaRidge:

1857 $28,701,000
1858 $44,913,000
1859 $58,498,000
1860 $64,844,000

From an old post of mine:

Congress added to the debt problem, or wanted to, in 1860-1861. From the remarks of a Representative Phelps speaking to the House on February 6, 1861 (Source: Congressional Globe; paragraph breaks mine):

Then the existing debt of the United States is nearly seventy million dollars. The $10,000,000 Treasury notes recently issued were negotiated, a portion at twelve percent, and a portion at between ten and eleven. Your ten percent Treasury notes were sold in the market of New York below par; and if you authorize new loans that are not absolutely necessary, you cannot negotiate them except at ruinous rates.

I have made a comparison of actual debt created and proposed to be created by this Congress. The balance of the loan authorized under the act of 22nd June, 1860 is $13,978,000. If the amendment of the Senate be concurred in, that loan cannot be negotiated. I am in favor of that amendment.

The tariff bill, which will probably become law [rb: it did], authorizes the loan of $21,000,000. The Pacific railroad bill as it passed the House authorized an indebtedness of $96,000,000, and the Senate has put on an additional $25,000,000. In other words, the proposed indebtedness of the country is $167,000,000 [actually the figures above add to $165,978,000]; making with the present public debt and the loan already authorized, an aggregate of $250,351,649. With such indebtedness, how can you expect to raise a loan on favorable terms?

I gather a Pacific railroad bill didn't finally pass until 1862. I don't know whether the other new loans above came to pass. To make the figures balance, "the loan already authorized" that Phelps referred to must have been for $15,000,000.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

It appears to me that you’ve merely changed one set of misguided beliefs for another, even more misguided set. Some people are like that, unable to find that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. You’re apparently one of them. If Lincoln isn’t a God, then he must be Satan. The option that he was a man, an elected official in a politically and militarily volatile atmosphere simply can’t be in your world. It’s okay. You can’t help yourself.

[algernonpj]

Read Eugene Genovese. He's a socialist (if not a commie) but a respected historian just the same. His thesis was that slavery would have fallen of its own weight as soon as the Industrial Revolution got a good foothold in the South. He wrote a whole book on it, with facts and figures.

Is this it: The Political Economy of Slavery

I went a'searching because I vaguely remember reading something similar once.

[Sherman Logan]

if the North had not burdened the south with ... obscene spending they would not have wanted to get out of the union.

Please provide some sort of argumentfor your claim that federal spending in 1860 was "obscene." The total federal budget, much of it spent in the South or for southern purposes, totaled $60M. Please explain how a budget of this size in a country of 30M people (roughly $2/person) is "obscene."

[rockrr]

Apparently, I struck a nerve with you guys.

Dishonesty usually does.

Surely, we all can agree with that.

Not the way you frame it.

[rockrr]

So you started with a false premise and turned it into anti-American hatred. Bravo for you!

[central_va]

So you started with a false premise and turned it into anti-American hatred. an appreciation for the Jeffersonian Republic that our founders created, the same one Lincoln be-shat upon and afterward wiped his arse with the Constitution. Bravo for you!

There, fixed it.