Posted on 11/04/2010 3:13:46 AM PDT by 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.”
I found three sources on the topic with a 5 min search in scholarly databases.
Wilson Quarterly; Summer98, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p127, 1/2p
Human Events; 02/11/2000, Vol. 56 Issue 5, p18, 1/2p
Journal of American History; Jun96, Vol. 83 Issue 1, p219-219, 4/5p
Previous FR threads on the topic:
An opposing view: Descendant of black Confederate soldier speaks at museum
Black Confederate veteran to get proper memorial at Blandford
Black Confederate soldiers overlooked during Black History Month
Black Confederate-flag supporter irks some on march to Texas
Black Confederates
Black man supports Confederate flag in march
Black Man Was a Rock Hill Leader Before Integration (Belonged to KKK? a redshirt? in 1870s SC
Black service, on both sides, in the Civil War
Blacks join Confederate Army heritage group
Blacks, Jews Fight on Side of the South
Former Slave's Family Sees Him Honored At Last (Chris Columbus in Florida)
Confederate group, blacks to clean up cemetery [NC] - more comments
Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War? Novel on blacks in Confederate South
DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVEOWNERS
Minorities During the War Between the States: Collected Resources
Natchez(Ms)conference explores Free Blacks in the Antebellum South (Imagine That)
Ohatchee marker to have names of black and white Confederate vets
Quotations on Black Confederates
UDC marks another black Confederate grave (pt1)
UDC marks another black Confederate grave (pt2)
Not to mention a surprising wealth of “dead-tree” references to blacks participating in the Civil War on both sides, with some dating back to Reconstruction (many of which now out of print).
Why? Was the demand among the 75% of the population in the loyal states going to dry up? Was the south suddenly going to import and consume far more than it had before?
The people of the North were about to experience a major downfall.
Then it was self-defense.
It’s such a curious defense of position because it
1. Fails miserably to prove a case for “tyranny”, “abuse”, or even “taxation without representation” - all the minimum thresholds for legitimate rebellion.
2. It doesn’t matter. Imagine for just a moment the circumstances in 1860 where the population of the south were suddenly gone. Would that drag the remaining United States population into ruin? No. The remaining states were sufficiently self-sustaining that they would grieve for their cousins and keep on going.
The inverse could not be said for the south - at least in terms of 1860 societal orientation. The south being essentially an agrarian community relied on the north for much of their necessities. If the population of the north disappeared one morning in 1860 the south would be screwed.
Of course the scenario only fits when you look at the lay of the land in 1860. The tables have now turned and it is the south that is more self-sufficient than the original northern states.
[Bubba]: Why? Was the demand among the 75% of the population in the loyal states going to dry up?
Something sure dried up. Here's data on the change in the value of imports at the Port of New York (by far the largest port for imports) from 1860 to 1861 on a monthly basis. The source of the data that went into my calculation was the 1865 Appleton's. The war probably had an effect on imports, but surely the great boost in tariff rates of the Morrill Tariff did too. The Morrill Tariff went into effect May 1, 1861.
Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861
Jan ........ 23.5
Feb ...... -15.6
Mar ...... -22.8
Apr ...... -12.3
May ..... -11.5
Jun ....... -34.0
Jul ........ -40.0
Aug ..... -65.7
Sep ...... -55.1
Oct ...... -49.2
Nov ..... -37.5
Dec ..... -54.8
From the New York Herald of March 2, 1861:
The effect of these two tariffs [Morrill Tariff and the Confederate Tariff], then, upon our trade with the best, and most reliable part of the country will most disastrously be felt in all the Northern cities. We learn that even now some of the largest houses in the Southern trade in this city, who have not already failed, are preparing to wind up their affairs and abandon business entirely. The result of this as regards the value of property, rents, and real estate, can be readily seen. Within two months from this time it will probably be depreciated from twenty to forty percent.
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."
You do not enter in war because of policy, but because of threat.
Secession threatened the viability of the Northern people, and that is why Lincoln began the war by sending warships to Ft. Sumter and Pennsacola.
Here is what few historians reveal to the public.
At the end of the decade of 1850, the exports from the United States were raw materials, foodstuffs, and manufactures that were surplus goods over and above the needs of the people.
Because of Federal laws that discouraged other methods of export, goods found their way to the shipping centers of the Northeast and were sent to the foreign countries that paid the most for the goods.
Upon analysis of Census and Customs data of the 1850s, it is clear that the export trade of the country, with regard to the origin of the exports, was three quarters of the whole of Southern origin.
Much of raw materials used in manufacturing was of Southern origin.
Specifically, in 1860, the total value of exports as measured at US Customs houses before shipment was $316 million. Items of Southern origin such as cotton, tobacco, rice, naval stores, sugar, molasses, hemp, wheat and other products, along with the value of the cotton used in Northern export manufactures comprised 72% of the export issue.
The manufactures of the North were a small proportion of US trade. Those companies had been operated under the protective system, avowedly because they could not compete with the English manufacturers in the US market, and therefore certainly could not in a European market.
The greatest increase in Northern manufacturing had taken place in cotton based goods, which had raw materials supplied in greater amounts due to increases in Southern production in the 1850s. The South afforded raw material for Northern manufacturing.
New England, where the unsatisfactory topography did not produce either the metals or other raw materials for durable goods, or the fields to produce grain for food, was especially vulnerable to change.
Improved transportation and the resulting competition from Western farmers caused farmers in the Northeast to reduce their production of grain and shift to dairy farming and truck gardening, both of which provided them with products to sell to city dwellers that would not face competition from Western farmers.
If secession occurred and faced without a market for their manufactures, the people had no source of raw materials for their employment, or payment for their food.
According to census figures, in the 1850s, the South produced twice the amount of food per person than the New England states.
In fact, New England grew less than the amounts needed to sustain their population, but the large manufacturing interest of that section enabled it to import food from the South and West in exchange for merchandise. New England was a net importer of its food, largely from the South.
Northern cities and states bought corn, flour, sugar, rice, tobacco, lumber, hides, beef, pork, lard, molasses, naval stores, hemp, vegetables, oysters, and fruits from the South.
The value of Southern goods shipped North in 1860 was $460 million.
The Northern states had their raw materials and food brought to them, and sent back goods manufactured under the cover of protective tariffs.
In 1860, the South imported $346 million dollars worth of products. Of this list of goods, $240 million came from the Northern manufacturers and suppliers, and overseas imported goods sold to the South was $106 million.
The entire country imported $336 million dollars in goods for that same year.
Grasping the significance and the magnitude of difference between the new Confederate tariff and the recently passed Morrill tariff, and the likelihood that the South would now transfer this demand to European goods and trade directly with Europe, Northern businessmen, politicians, and newspapermen knew that the demand for goods from the South was immense and would have a far reaching impact on their economy.
Practically every New England citizen would be affected by the loss of Southern goods traveling through the North.
Any artisan engaged in building in the shipping trade would be hurt. Any transporter engaged in carrying, any agent who sold manufactured goods, any merchant who sold to consumers in the South, any shipper, ship builder, lumberman, or laborer would be hurt.
Any brokers, exchange dealers, bankers, insurers, ware housemen, or suppliers of goods to these people would be subject to massive losses.
The profits to Northern coffers that were about to be lost were:
Bounties to fisheries, per annum………………………………$1,500,000. Customs, per annum, disbursed at the North…………………$40,000,000. Profits of northern manufacturers…………………………….$30,000,000. Profits of importers…………………………………………...$16,000,000. Profits of shipping, imports, exports………………………….$40,000,000. Profits of Travelers……………………………………………$60,000,000. Profits of agents, brokers, commissions……………………….$10,000,000 Profits from capital drawn from the South…………………….$30,000,000. Total Annual Revenue Lost………………………………… $226,500,000.
From the census data and the business-press community, it was apparent that the North knew it was approaching permanent injury. Its economy depended on manufacturing and shipping. But it neither raised its own food nor its own raw materials, nor did it furnish freights for its own shipping.
For almost 100 years, the agricultural South had essentially been the feudal states to the North. The Federal government had been used to force the South to use Northern shipping and be subject to tariffs on returned goods.
Just as Great Britain and France had their colonies for production, so did the Union have the South.
But now, and especially with the new dredging project completed at Charleston Harbor, the Southern states were about to take all their trade directly to Europe.
All of this brought about the governors of many Northern states calling on Lincoln to invade and embargo the South, which of course, is what he did.
Taussig's "Tariff History" tells a different story. According to his numbers, the tariff revenues for FY 1862 (which would have started two months after the Morrill Tariff went into effect), were only slightly off those of FY 1860 (1860: $52.7 million, 1862: $46.5 million) and by FY 1863, they exceeded those antebellum. Even more telling, tariffs weren't reduced at the war's end, and yet in last half of the 1860s, tariff revenues shot up to triple or quadruple their pre-war levels. This at a time when, to hear your side tell things, the south was too beaten and impoverished to buy much of anything, imported or domestic.
Government statistics dispute that. In the year prior to the rebellion over 90% of all cotton exports left from Southern ports. How was that possible if there was a Yankee conspiracy to monopolize all trade through Northern ports?
Source for that please? Because that contradicts the figures Huertas documented in his story and which I posted in reply 155.
The entire country imported $336 million dollars in goods for that same year.
So do you care to explain how the south, importing less than a third of the goods brought from overseas, paid the bulk of the tariff?
Where is the obvious documentary evidence like CSA military records and/or paylists?
How about a single photograph of a black confederate unit in uniform holding rifles?
Thanks.
Like some others here, you forget about inflation and what it tells about Taussig's figures. Here are some figures on net imports in 1860 dollars from an old post of mine to you as Heyworth in 2005 [Link, if you want to check it].
Tariff rates are from Table 1 of Taussig's The Tariff History of the United States, 1910 edition: Taussig.Yearly customs income is from Table 3 of Taussig. Same link as above. Actually, income from collected import duties was a bit lower than Customs income, but I'll use the higher figures.
Inflation rate was from Inflation Rates. I've seen higher rates than these posted for the period, but I'll be conservative and use these.
After applying the tariff rates to the revenue to determine the value of the imports, I then adjusted the number by the inflation figure. I find that the value of imports to the North relative to the total 1860 import value was:
1860: 1.00
1861: 0.82
1862: 0.50
1863: 0.52
1864: 0.54
1865: 0.38
You're not alone. My memory isn't as good as it used to be either. Here is some more information from my old spreadsheet:
Yr ............Tariff inc.........Inflation ........ Tariff Inc in 1860 $ ...... Tariff rate, %
1860 ......... 52.7 ............ 100 .................. 52.7 ................... 19.67
1861 .......... 39 .............. 101 .................. 38.6 ................... 18.84
1862 ......... 46.5 ............ 113 .................. 41.2 ................... 36.19
1863 ......... 63.7 ............ 139 .................. 45.8 ................... 32.62
1864 ......... 96.5 ............ 176 .................. 54.8 ................... 36.69
1865 ......... 80.6 ............ 175 .................. 46.1 ................... 47.56
Sigh. You know better. When I say there are three or four or whatever number of scholars who say “x,” I certainly don’t mean that there are ONLY that number. I’m not here to do historiography, merely to make a few suggestions. But feel free to post all the lists you want.
Your statement is misleading and the data incorrect.
Yes, if you answer one question. Do you think that importers/resellers added the tariff cost to the cost of the goods being resold?
You might want to check your author’s source. He would have had three, and they all differ in measurement dates.
Why is it misleading and how is it incorrect? The source given for it is a congressional document.
You set up the zinger, so what are you waiting for?
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.