Virginia’s Black Confederates

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.”

Archy, is it really so hard to document these so-called black Confederate soldiers that you must rely solely on these second hand ancedotal accounts? Where is the obvious documentary evidence like CSA military records and/or paylists?

Well, of course early field photogs like Matthew Brady and Roger Fenton were mostly found amidst the Yankees, so you'll more likely find individual studio portrature of the soldiers of the Confederacy, popular to go with carnets du viste, rather than unit still photos.

How about a single photograph of a black confederate unit in uniform holding rifles?

Well until I run across one [I can think of a couple of fellers to ask, here's a Daguerrotype of one of their officers with his, uh, pistol.

Thanks.

Don't mention it.

>>>Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected at the port of entry. They are essentially a sales tax and like all sales taxes are paid in the long run by the consumer. <<<

All revenue from the tariff went to the federal government, which redistributed the bulk of it to the industrial north.

>>>This means that if the above statement is true, 5M people, or 16% of the US population, managed to consume 87% of the goods on which tariffs were charged.<<<

Those numbers, even if true, are meaningless. The Morrill tariff primarily benefited northern industries. The South had no industrial base, and thus had only 2 choices: they either imported goods from Europe (and paid the tariff), or purchased those same goods from northern manufacturers at high prices. Either way, they was a wealth transfer from the South to the northern states.

>>>Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected at the port of entry. They are essentially a sales tax and like all sales taxes are paid in the long run by the consumer. <<<

All revenue from the tariff went to the federal government, which redistributed the bulk of it to the industrial north.

>>>This means that if the above statement is true, 5M people, or 16% of the US population, managed to consume 87% of the goods on which tariffs were charged.<<<

Those numbers, even if true, are meaningless. The Morrill tariff primarily benefited northern industries. The South had no industrial base, and thus had only 2 choices: they either imported goods from Europe (at higher prices because of the tariff), or purchased those same goods from northern manufacturers at high, tariff-subsidized prices. Either way, they was a wealth transfer from the South to the northern states.

All revenue from the tariff went to the federal government, which redistributed the bulk of it to the industrial north.

This is an assertion, not a statement of fact. Please provide something resembling evidence that it is the case, or at least that such distribution was disproportionate to the populations involved or the taxes collected. Keep in mind that about 3/4 of the population lived in the north, depending on where you draw the line.

I would also like to point out that the north was not an "industrial" section. At least 75% of northerners still lived and worked in rural areas rather than cities. It was primarily rural, especially in the West. It was more industrial than the South, but who was preventing southerners from starting factories?

The Morrill tariff primarily benefited northern industries.

Since this tariff went into effect only after the South seceded, and passed Congress only because of the absence of southern senators, I find it difficult to see why this is relevant.

The South had no industrial base, and thus had only 2 choices: they either imported goods from Europe (at higher prices because of the tariff), or purchased those same goods from northern manufacturers at high, tariff-subsidized prices.

Every northern consumer of these goods was in exactly the same position. There was a transfer of wealth not from section to section, but (net) from the agricultural to the industrial sector. Nobody forced the South to remain primarily agricultural and not develop industry.

>>>Sorry pal, but your numbers stink to high heaven...The 35th US Congress (1858 to 1860) ended with 237 members, of whom 116 were Democrats...etc., etc,, etc,<<<

Thanks, Pal, for this irrevelant information. The 36th Congress (1859 to 1861) had 238 members, of which only 83 were Democrats (and even less were Southern Democrats). Source: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html

Now, I quote from: http://www.askaword.com/?q=Morrill+Tariff&d=ls&d=gg&libs=

“The Morrill Tariff was a major issue of contention in the 36th Congress’ election for Speaker of the House. The act passed the United States House of Representatives by a strictly sectional vote during the first session of the 36th Congress on May 10, 1860. Virtually all of the northern representatives supported it and southern representatives opposed it. In that vote, only 15 northern congressmen, mostly Democrats, voted against the Morrill Tariff. Similarly, only one secessionist southern state congressman voted in favor of the tariff, along with 6 southern border state congressmen. In total, 87% of the northern congressmen supported the bill and 87.5% of southern congressmen opposed it. (McGuire and Van Cott, p. 435)”

>>>Furthermore, President “Dough-Faced” Buchanan was also a Democrat and highly sympathetic to the Southern cause.<<<

Buchanan was from Pennsylvania, a STEEL state which benefited from the tariff. He supported the tariff. (You should know this bit of history about Pennsylvania.)

>>>Point is: as of 1860 nothing could pass Congress which the South was determined to oppose.<<<

Nonsense. The Republicans took control of the House in the 36th Congress (1859-1861). The Morrill Tariff passed the House, even though it was opposed by nearly all Southern Democrats.

PhilipFreneau: "Thanks, Pal, for this irrevelant information. The 36th Congress (1859 to 1861) had 238 members, of which only 83 were Democrats..."

You are correct:
It was the 36th Congress which began in 1859 with 234 members, of whom 113 were Republicans, 82 Democrats and 39 in four other parties.
Southern representatives included 33 from the Deep South, 33 from the Upper South and 24 from Border States = 90 total.

The Morrill Tariff Act passed the House on May 10, 1860 by a vote of 105 to 64 with 55 abstentions and 10 absenses.

Voting against Morrill included two Republicans and 14 northern Democrats.
So the bill could easily have been defeated, if all 90 Southern Representatives plus those 16 northerners had voted against, and/or the 14 northern Democrats who voted for Morrill switched sides.

However over half the 90 Southern representatives voted for the Morrill Tariff, or abstained, or played hookey.
That's why Morill passed the House.

Regardless of the House, the Morrill Tariff could not possibly have passed the Senate over the South's objections, and it did not pass until after the South seceded.
Nor did President "Dough-Faced" Buchanan sign Morrill until after the South declared itself seceded.

Furthermore, the Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with the South's secession, because it wasn't law when the South seceded, and could never have become law over the South's objections.

On top of all that, the Morrill tariffs were not particularly high for the time.
Morrill raised tariffs from about 17% to 26% -- still less than over 50% before 1830.
And Morrill's purposes included Federal revenues plus protections for US manufacturers -- who could just as easily have been Southern as Northern.
So there was no necessary discrimination against the South in these tariffs.

The Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any Southern Declaration of Causes of Secession.

The cause of secession -- the only cause of any consequence -- was the South's purpose to protect and expand slavery.

All the rest is just Neo-Confederate Lost Causer nonsense, pal.

>>>However over half the 90 Southern representatives voted for the Morrill Tariff, or abstained, or played hookey. That’s why Morill passed the House . . . The Morrill Tariff was not mentioned in any Southern Declaration of Causes of Secession.<<<

Read very carefully:

“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. “ — from the Georgia Declaration of Causes, Jan 29, 1861

“It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.” - Mississippi Causes of Secession, Jan 9, 1861

“On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost.” - South Carolina Secession Causes, Dec 24, 1860.

>>>”All the rest is just Neo-Confederate Lost Causer nonsense, pal.”<<<

What on earth is a “Neo-Confederate”, pal? Sounds like liberal Yankee talk, to me (e.g., like “Neo-Conservative”). Either you believe the South was justified in secession, or you don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence. Sure, Lincoln name-dropped the Declaration on occasion, but he was no more sincere than William Jefferson Clinton when Clinton declared the Democrat party to be the “Party of Jefferson”.

Note: Thomas Jefferson was darn-near an anti-Federalist, in that he had little trust in the federal government. He was the founder of the first Republican Party (an anti-big-government party). He and James Madison founded the National Gazette, an anti-big-government newspaper. Philip Freneau was hired as the Editor. Freneau’s greatest work, and one of the greatest political articles of all time, in my opinion, is the 1792 editorial satire titled, “Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one”. Read at: http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRENEAUbanking.html

"Read very carefully:"

I did.
Neither the word "Morrill" nor the word "tarriff" appears in any of the secession documents that I've seen, or that you quoted.

And all of the other Southern complaints, without exception, are minor issues, easily resolved by Congress's most powerful single voting block -- the South -- through negotiations with other Representatives.

Furthermore, the South had an absolute LOCK on the Senate -- nothing could pass the Senate over the South's objections.

There was simply no reason besides slavery for secession -- and the proof of that is: the South never seceded, or seriously threatened it, until the South feared slavery's future would be restricted, or even eliminated by the just-elected Republican president.

Every other "reason for secession" was added on afterwards.
They don't amount to a hill of beans, and they are not the real reason.

Slavery was the real reason.

PhilipFreneau: "What on earth is a “Neo-Confederate”, pal?
Sounds like liberal Yankee talk, to me (e.g., like “Neo-Conservative”)."

Neo-Confederate Lost Causer -- does that not refer to you?
Or which part of it do you object to -- "Neo-Confederate" or "Lost Causer"?

Seems to me that anyone such as yourself who takes the trouble to post pro-Confederate arguments would not necessarily object to being correctly labeled a "Neo-Confederate" or "Lost Causer" -- or am I missing something here?

As for "Neo-Conservative" -- where have I heard that term used before?
And exactly what does it mean? Is it always a slur, or only sometimes?

PhilipFreneau: "Either you believe the South was justified in secession, or you don’t believe in the Declaration of Independence."

Ha! Nice try, pal -- that sentence pretty well defines the word "non-sequitur," meaning: it does not follow.

But if you wish to draw some connections between the American Revolution and Civil War, I'd say it's this:

When our Founding Fathers declared their Independence, they expected and received a long, bloody war from Great Britain.
Fortunately, our Founders were able to form alliances and received vital military aid from nations like France, Holland, Spain, additional generals from Poland and Germany, and critical financial support from international Jews.

When the South seceded from the United States, its leaders also expected war, and were not content to wait for war to come to them.
Instead they provoked it, with many incidents -- only the most serious of which was the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861.

Unfortunately for the South, their cause was not just in any way, shape or form, so they made no alliances and received no aid.

Even the world's most jaded regimes in the 1860s did not want to be on the side of slavery.

So the South lost their "war for independence" -- and rightly so.

>>>Neither the word “Morrill” nor the word “tarriff” appears in any of the secession documents that I’ve seen, or that you quoted.<<<

I asked you to read carefully. The entire paragraph from Georgia was related to tariffs.

>>>Furthermore, the South had an absolute LOCK on the Senate — nothing could pass the Senate over the South’s objections.<<<

That’s odd considering the fact that South Carolina (the first state to secede) declared in their Secession Causes that the Republicans would take control of government in March, 1861. So maybe your “facts” are wrong (again). The following link shows that in the 37th Congress the Republicans and Unionists combined for a total of 34 votes. There were only 33 states at the time (Kansas was added a month later in Jan 1861).

Link:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Note that Mississippi also stated the Republicans had taken control of the government.

>>>Neo-Confederate Lost Causer — does that not refer to you?<<<

I have no clue what a New-Confederate means, and obviously you do not either.

>>>Seems to me that anyone such as yourself who takes the trouble to post pro-Confederate arguments would not necessarily object to being correctly labeled a “Neo-Confederate” or “Lost Causer” — or am I missing something here?<<<

Of course you are. You assume I am posting pro-Confederate arguments, without the slightest clue that I might also be posting anti-Lincoln, anti-Republican, anti-big-government arguments. Lincoln was a pure tyrant, as were many of his co-conspirators in the Republican Party.

>>>When our Founding Fathers declared their Independence, they expected and received a long, bloody war from Great Britain.<<<

True. For that reason they wrote a Constitution with limited federal powers, and one that did not forbid secession by the states. The Constitution would have never been ratified if there was no right to secession.

The acts prohibited for the states are listed in Article 1, Section 10, FYI.

>>>When the South seceded from the United States, its leaders also expected war, and were not content to wait for war to come to them. Instead they provoked it, with many incidents — only the most serious of which was the firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861.<<<

There you go again. The South only wanted to be left alone. The tyrant Lincoln provoked the attack on the Fort Sumter.

>>>Unfortunately for the South, their cause was not just in any way, shape or form, so they made no alliances and received no aid.<<<

Actually, the 7 Indian nations and Britain were allies of the Confederates (I believe Britain favored the South because of that stinking tariff).

>>>Even the world’s most jaded regimes in the 1860s did not want to be on the side of slavery.<<<

Your blessed Lincoln, a white supremacist, didn’t give a crap about slavery until 1863 when he needed a good “cause” for propaganda purposes. His beloved Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free a single slave.

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.