Posted on 01/16/2003 10:05:26 PM PST by stainlessbanner
Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War?
About 10 years ago, this was the question Winston Jones of West Chester asked himself.
What he discovered was that, yes, free blacks did support the Confederacy and in November, he independently published a novel "For God, Country and the Confederacy" through First Books, based on those findings.
The novel follows the St. Claire family, a free black family who owns a farm and owns slaves to help work the land in New Orleans, and begins the day Fort Sumter was attacked and ends, one year later, the day New Orleans falls to the Union.
The book is available online from Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble and Jones has signings planned locally throughout the months of February and March. The book is also available at Barnes and Noble at Main Street at Exton.
The first signing is on Sunday, Feb. 9 at 3 p.m. at Art Partners Studio in Coatesville. Another signing is planned for Saturday, March 8 at noon at the Dane Tilghman Gallery also in Coatesville.
Jones, a playwright who works at HDX in Exton as an engineer, spent five and 1/2 years researching the novel, which he first began as a play. Most of the time, he said, he spent checking and re-checking notes to insure that he was being historically accurate.
"When I was in school, I was taught that blacks in the Confederate South were either slaves or were trying to escape to the North. They were uneducated and had no rights," he said.
He said the information found in history books didn't give the full picture, because what he learned was that free blacks did live in the South. "They could read, they were educated, they had businesses and had an economic foothold in the Confederacy," he said.
When the Civil War started, he said about 40 percent of the Confederate South was black and between 50 to 7 percent or a quarter of a million of those blacks were free. "In many cases, they had five to 10 generations of freedom," said Jones. He said some also had slaves.
"We need to get this information out, so black kids growing up don't feel like they're victims and so white kids don't think all whites are oppressors," he said. "Blacks were more than just slaves, but we were never taught that. We were not given enough information so we could make our own decisions."
He said he is an one-person campaign to get the history books correct. "The kids are the leaders of tomorrow," said Jones. "If we continue to raise our children by telling them that one race is the victim and the other is the oppressor, then there are going to continue to be problems between the races understanding one another."
He said all most people know about the Confederate South is from three movies, "Birth of a Nation," "Gone with the Wind," and "Roots." And all three deal with blacks being victims, he said. "As a nation, that brings with it a lot of guilt," he added.
He said as a result of his research, he learned that blacks were not always victims and that he and his wife, Jodi, are raising their son, Elliot, 11, to think differently about blacks in the South. "Not every black was a slave," he said. "Some were free, educated, owned businesses and were part of the economy in the South."
However, he stressed that he was not saying that slavery was good. "It is a scar on America's past, but not every black was a slave in the Confederate South."
Asked why he chose to put this information in the form of a novel, he said, "Because all the research is out there, but it's dull and clinical."
He said that he does include a bibliography in the book for those that want to study the issue further.
So why independently publish the book? He said he tried when President Bush was first elected to sell the book to prospective publishers, but at the time the issue was too hot with controversy over Confederate flags being flown at state capitals. He said he sent 75 query letters and received all of them back within a few weeks with a negative response.
That is part of the reason why he chose to publish the book himself. However, he said the book is not about race, but about how the Civil War impacted a free black family of the Confederate South, specifically, in this case, the fictional St. Claire family of New Orleans.
In addition to the signings already mentioned, Jones has the following book signings scheduled:
n Wednesday, Feb. 12 at 7:30 p.m. at Barnes & Noble at Main Street at Exton
n Saturday, Feb. 16 at 2 p.m. at the Chester County Conference and Visitor's Bureau in Kennett Square
n Thursday, Feb. 27 at Hudson United Bank in West Chester.
There also may be two others later in March at the Chester County Book Store in Downingtown and West Chester, dates to be determined.
So you think Frederick Douglass lied about it, huh? And all those yankees writing about it during the war, and after the war, all just liars. A wonderful position from which to defend your fantasy.
But the Confederacy turned down the offer.
They were not accepted into "national" Confederate service, but remained a Confederate State Militia, complete with their "colored" officers. Many white Militia units were not taken into "national" Confederate service and remained under the control of their respective states as well.
When the United States took New Orleans, the_Native Guards offered themselves to the United States for the rest of the war, killing many Confederates.
Actually, what happened was that after New Orleans fell, many of the original members offered their services to the Union who formed new regiments and reinforced them with runaway slaves. They got rid of the black and mixed officers that had been allowed before by Confederate Louisiana, and put white officers over them. They were then promptly used as cannon fodder at Port Hudson where they were slaughtered en masse as a result of the callous way in which they were repeatedly thrown against impregnable positions that the Union commanders would not send white troops against. Afterwards the Union used them as labor to dig ditches and build fortifications for "regular" white troops, and let them act as guards over POWs and civilians. They did fight in a couple more small battles later on, and to my knowledge were not used in such a disgraceful manner as had been done previously by their Union commanders at Port Hudson. Some of the letters written by members of the unit following Port Hudson are worth reading. If you want to know real history, that is.
The Creole in command, instead of following the Confederate troops out of the city when they evacuated it, allowed his command to be cut off, and then volunteered to Union Gen. Butler to serve in the Union.
I must admit I've never heard that fascinating tidbit before. Where, pray tell, did you obtain it?
Nonsense, I'm suggesting that you are putting words into Dr. Steiner's mouth. He mentions several thousand mixed in with the army but his description of them riding mules, wagons, ambulances and caissons or with the command staffs resemble more servants and laborers than combat soldiers. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that maybe they were part of the planning staff for the generals in question? And it still doesn't explain his comment on "the horror rebels express at the suggestion of Black soldiers being employed in the National Defense." Why did the idea of facing black Union combat soldiers inspire horror if blacks were serving in the ranks with them?
Slaves were often allowed the use of arms.
The heck they were. In Tennessee the state Constitution noted that only "free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense." In North Carolina the state Supreme Court ruled in State v. Newsom that free blacks could not own weapons or carry them without a permit. Since they weren't allowed by law to vote then they weren't citizens and weren't entitled to the same protections a white person was. Likewise, in Georgia the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to carry concealable weapons only pertained to white people. In fact every single southern state had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and severely restricted the owenrship of guns by free blacks. And, according to you, they just tossed those aside in their rush to admit blacks into the ranks as combat soldiers.
Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Your description of Northern society is quite apt, and the Northern Army did not integrate it's Army.
We're not talking about Northern society, we're talking about the Southern one. There is no doubt at all that conditions for free blacks up North were abysmal. But at that it was no worse, and in many cases was much better, than conditions down south. Since the idea of integrated units was not sanctioned by the North, the idea that the south would do different is ridiculous.
Blacks on the Confederate army payroll were paid the same as whites by law.
What law was that?
Have you ever read the Northern Black codes? Pot and Kettle again. The Southern ones were more strict, as an over-reaction to the crimes committed during reconstruction.
Again, you show that you don't know what you're talking about. The Black Codes were passed by southern legislatures in 1865 while reconstrution didn't start until 1867. Why would they pass restrictions which returned blacks into a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible, including those who had been free prior to the war and those, according to you, fought for the south? And why would those who fought for the south participate in what you would call crimes during reconstruction? Where was the loyalty you spoke of then?
Most Southern whites had interacted with blacks all their lives, unlike Northern whites, which probably explains that.
But not as equals. If they interacted with blacks then it was with them as slaves and the white, regardless of economic position, a free man and the barrier was insurmountable.
ROFLMAO!!! I will certainly be careful of believing any history from you. The "3rd Brigade of Heth's Division" was ARCHER'S BRIGADE. Now you maintain that Archer's Brigade did not participate in the charge of Pickett, Pettigrew, and Trimble. There is no end to your revisionism. I suggest you throw out whatever book of crap told you Archer's Brigade did not participate in that attack. The 14th Tennessee left their colors planted on the rock wall at that part of the line. Check your history. Archer's Brigade, and the 14th Tennessee Infantry with it, did most certainly participate in "Pickett's" Charge.
Archer was captured on the first day. Command of his brigade went to Fry it was involved in the charge. I stand corrected.
Total BS. There were less than 250,000 free blacks in the entire nation in 1860, and only 70,000 in all of the states of the Confederacy combined. Nearly half of those were in Virginia.
Here's the data.
---------------------------------------------------------
| 1860 State Level Census Data -- Sorted by State/County Name "M" represents data not available |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Find Proportions Select enumerator(s) Select a denominator |
Add New Variables |
||||
| Resort Data AscendingDescending |
Graph a Variable At the county level, labels may overlap for more than 50 counties |
||||
|
|||||
Source: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Study 00003: Historical Demographic, Economic, and Social Data: U.S., 1790-1970. Anne Arbor: ICPSR. More information is available from ICPSR.
If you find errors or inconsistencies in any data, please send email indicating which state and county you found suspect and for which year.
Source: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860
He specifically states the majority were armed. And yet you say that is impossible. But yet you say you don't call him a liar. As to their positions within the columns, how about the others he mentions in the last half of the sentence, those that were "promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde." Yes, some were no doubt support personnel, I have already stated that. Some were very obviously soldiers, as well. That would certainly seem to fit with documented history and common sense. That 'neo-unionist' revisionists are so desperate to not only change but erase history is unfortunate. While it is true that most black Confederates were loyal support personnel, many thousands fought as soldiers. It is a fact of history testified to by people on both sides during the war. They, just like most Southern whites, were loyal to their home, their family and the world they knew. They fought to protect it from an invading foe. Blacks fought for the Confederacy just as they fought for the Colonies in the Revolution. The valor and sacrifice of those black Americans will no doubt be next on the list to be expunged. After all, they "obviously" would have fought for the British and gained their freedom according to the maniacal thinking of revisionists.
And it still doesn't explain his comment on "the horror rebels express at the suggestion of Black soldiers being employed in the National Defense."
If perfectly explains it. The first half of that sentence was: "The fact was patent, and rather interesting, when considered in conection with...". He is very obviously pointing out that he considered the Confederate's objection to the North using black troops to be paradoxical, since the Confederates were already using them in their army. I have already explained the Confederate's objection to the North's use of them.
...In fact every single southern state had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and severely restricted the owenrship of guns by free blacks. And, according to you, they just tossed those aside in their rush to admit blacks into the ranks as combat soldiers.
Well, there you go again, saying Frederick Douglass must be a liar. And you must be calling Chief Inspector Steiner a liar again, because he specifically mentions that the majority of the thousands and thousands and thousands of black Confederates he saw were armed. That aside, slaves could use their master's weapons whenever he told them to or had given permission, it was not illegal. Free blacks had restrictions on ownership, not total prohibitions. Many Northern states had similar restrictions, the ones that allowed blacks to live there, that is. Before the war, it was not uncommon for "house slaves" to be taught to hunt, and they were often "given" weapons by their white families for that purpose. Hunting and procuring food was one of their duties in many families. Many were excellent shots. Union soldiers wrote about black Confederate sharpshooters and Northern newspapers did as well. Just as both also wrote about black Confederate soldiers and POWs in general. ARMED black Confederate soldiers and POWs.
Since the idea of integrated units was not sanctioned by the North, the idea that the south would do different is ridiculous.
LOL - You can call Frederick Douglass a liar, but I don't:
"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...Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other." - Frederick Douglass in 1861.
Same for Horace Greeley:
"For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have 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." - Horace Greeley.
Again, you show that you don't know what you're talking about. The Black Codes were passed by southern legislatures in 1865 while reconstrution didn't start until 1867.
LOL - Again you have demonstrated a weak understanding of history. Not that it matters, but I had primarily referred to the more severe parts of the various codes that were put in place after reconstruction. The codes you refer to were abolished long prior to the ones I referenced and were only in place for a short time. Either you have no knowledge of history, or your one or two little books you rely on didn't paint big enough of a picture for you.
Why would they pass restrictions which returned blacks into a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible, including those who had been free prior to the war and those, according to you, fought for the south?
To maintain control over their large population of ex-slaves, obviously. Just as the majority of Northerners thought that ex-slaves were incapable of caring for themselves and would revert to criminal behavior if suddenly freed and turned out on their own, most Southerners thought the same thing. The North had black codes to control the few blacks up North, and the South adopted black codes to control the many many millions they had. Everybody had codes.
And why would those who fought for the south participate in what you would call crimes during reconstruction? Where was the loyalty you spoke of then?
They didn't participate. They were not the ones manipulated and used by the scum that crawled out of Northern gutters and were given power by Washington. Those blacks were terrorized and mistreated just as whites were. They were immensely well thought of by the white community, and their funerals were often attended by many hundreds of whites, ex-Confederate soldiers and their families.
But not as equals. If they interacted with blacks then it was with them as slaves and the white, regardless of economic position, a free man and the barrier was insurmountable.
I made it a point that they did see the blacks as inferior to them, just as the Northerners did. My point was that the Southerner's constant interaction with blacks resulted in a familiarity that allowed them to fight together. Blacks were almost always present whenever they had done anything, whether it was hunting or going to the store. The Northerners had no history of constant interaction with blacks, and were not willing to fight alongside them.
So you think Frederick Douglass lied about it, huh?
I think Frederick Douglass was extremely interested in gettng blacks to fight -for- the Union.
There is no credible proof that more than a handful of blacks fought for the CSA.
Consider:
FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SECOND CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION
EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS
Mr. Wickham, of Virginia, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill. He was opposed to its going to a select committee. If it went to any committee it should go, in the regular channel, to the Committee on Military Affairs. He wished, however, this question of arming and making soldiers of negroes to be now disposed of, finally and forever. He wished it to be decided whether negroes are to be placed upon an equality by the side of our brave soldiers. They would be compelled to. They would have to camp and bivouac together.
Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle.-(Voice-That's so.)
The question being ordered upon the rejection of the bill, it was lost-ayes 21, noes 53. As this vote was regarded as a kind of test of the sense of the House upon the policy of putting negroes into the army, we append the ayes and noes-the question being the rejection of this bill authorizing the employment of negroes as soldiers:
Ayes-Messrs. Baldwin, Branch, Cruikshank, De Jarnette, Fuller, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, McMullin, Miles, Miller, Ramsey, Sexton, Smith, of Alabama, Smith, of North Carolina, Wickham, Witherspoon, Mr. Speaker.
Noes-Messrs. Akin, Anderson, Barksdale, Batson, Bell, Blandford, Boyce, Bradley, H. W. Bruce, Carroll, Chambers, Chilton, Clark, Clopton, Cluskey, Conrad, Conrow, Darden, Dickinson, Dupre, Ewing, Farrow, Foster, Funsten, Gaither, Goode, Gray, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Holliday, Johnston, Keeble, Lyon, Pugh, Read, Rogers, Russell, Simpson, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Snead, Swan, Triplett, Villere, Welsh.
If any number of black soldiers had been serving in the ranks of the CSA armies, how did it escape the notice of Congress?
It also escaped the notice of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and others:
Page 246, Confederate Veteran, June 1915. Official publication of the United Confederate Veteran, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Confederated Southern Memorial Association.
Gen. Howell Cobb, an unbeliever in this expedient, wrote from Macon, Ga., January 8, 1865: "I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one. :
Samuel Clayton, Esq., of Cuthbert, Ga., wrote on January 10, 1865: "All of our male population between sixteen and sixty is in the army. We cannot get men from any other source; they must come from our slaves... The government takes all of our men and exposes them to death. Why can't they take our property? He who values his property more than independence is a poor, sordid wretch."
General Lee, who clearly saw the inevitable unless his forces were strengthened, wrote on January 11, 1865: "I should prefer to rely on our white population; but in view of the preparation of our enemy it is our duty to provide for a continuous war, which, I fear, we cannot accomplish with our present resources. It is the avowed intention of the enemy to convert the ablebodied negro into soldiers and emancipate all. His progress will thus add to his numbers and at the same time destroy slavery in a most pernicious manner to the welfare of our people. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it ends in subverting slavery, it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, that we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our soldiers' social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ tl1em without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guarantee of military efficiency. We can give them an interest by allowing immediate freedom to all who enlist and freedom at the end of the war to their families. We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. In conclusion, I can only say that whatever is to be done must be attended to at once."
President Davis on February 21, 1865 expressed himself as follows: "It is now becoming daily more evident to all reflecting persons that we are reduced to choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or against us and that all the arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or those of the enemy."
Would Lee and Davis have had those points of view had there been any number of blacks in ranks?
There is no -credible- evidence of blacks in active rebel service.
"It's pure fantasy,' contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: 'It's b.s., wishful thinking.' Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. 'Of course, if I documented 12, someone would start adding zeros,' he says.
"These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls 'pseudohistory.' Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops -- as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.
"Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or cast-off uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense, many historians say.
"They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. 'It's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors,' says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. 'If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.'
"David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy plantation darkies.' Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a "mammy" monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to 'legitimize the Confederacy.'"
-- Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1997
AND:
"There seems to be no evidence that the Negro soldiers authorized by the Confederate Government (March 13, 1865) ever went into battle. This gives rise to the question as to whether or not any Negroes ever fought in the Confederate ranks. It is possible that some of the free Negro companies organized in Louisiana and Tennessee in the early part of the war took part in local engagements; but evidence seems to the contrary. (Authors note: If they did, their action was not authorized by the Confederate Government.) A company of "Creoles," some of whom had Negro blood, may have been accepted in the Confederate service at Mobile. Secretary Seddon conditioned his authorization of the acceptance of the company on the ability of those "Creoles" to be naturally and properly distinguished from Negroes. If persons with Negro Blood served in Confederate ranks as full-fledged soldiers, the per cent of Negro blood was sufficiently low for them to pass as whites."
(Authors note: Henry Clay Warmoth said that many Louisiana mulattoes were in Confederate service but they were "not registered as Negroes." War Politics and Reconstruction, p. 56) p. 160-61, SOUTHERN NEGROES, Wiley
There is -no- credible evidence that even a small number blacks served as soldiers in the rebel armies.
Walt
Dr. Steiner called the officers and men of the Army of Northern Virginia "filthy and repulsive".
He also thought McClellan a great genius. I'd be careful quoting him.
Like Frederick Douglass, Dr. Steiner was a strong proponent of arming the blacks for --federal-- service, and his comments must be seen in that light.
Walt
You have some truly amazing thought processes. With what would you fill such a parking lot? Boom Box cars?? Or perhaps loud Hot Rods with Flow Master noise systems like the ones that just woke me up at 0300 local time??
Am I not correct that Forrest was a founder of the KKK? I remember my father bumping heads with those cowards during my long ago childhood in Indiana.
Happily most of us here do not celebrate the Klan or have any illusions about it. It is an evil conglomeration of ignorant cowards who band together to prey on the weak and helpless. Being from Indiana I am quite familiar with it.
Invoking praise for the KKK even if you are joking is not a good thing for this forum.
No sir, you are not. Another well known myth spread by forces of the north. Forrest disassociated himself with the Klan because of their racist stance in '69. If you would like to know General Forrest's true feelings, I would suggest you read his speech to the Jubilee of Pole Bearers in '75.
This is just another in the long line of travesties done in the name of yankee revisionism
Nearly all of what you posted has to do with the creation of completely segregated colored regiments by the Confederacy, a different matter altogether. The black Confederates in question, the ones mentioned by Frederick Douglas in 1861, and Horace Greeley a couple years later, were the blacks that were already with the white regiments. A completely different matter, but you knew that, and are only trying to confuse the issue. No one is trying to say they all sat around as equals and drank out of the same cup. That would have been just as unlikely in the North as well. I'm not surprised you think Frederick Douglass was a liar. I know you hate him because he exposed Lincoln's bigotry and dislike of blacks, but whether you like it or not, he told the truth about black Confederates. They were there, whether revisionist "historians" like it or not. The northern soldiers said so, the northern newspapers said so. They were there and knew. I wonder if revisionist historians have excuses and vaccuous proclamations prepared to rule their words false. After all, they were only actual participants there at the time, what did they know. Have you torn out all the pages in your books with Frederick Douglass on them yet? Or Horace Greeley? Or will do like revisionist "historians" and just continue to pick and choose to read only the words that fit your beliefs. The convenient words, as it were. Most black Confederates were support personnel, that is true, but many fought and killed Union troops. The union troops said so. They fought and killed union troops just like they fought and killed British troops in the American Revolution. If they had joined the British in that war, they could have secured their freedom. They chose instead to be loyal to the Colonies, to their homes, and the people they knew. Just like black Confederates did.
I know you would, because his report contradicts your modern revisionist version of "history". Let's see what that Union officer had to say about what he witnessed as Jackson's Army passed through Fredericksburg:
"Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms , not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. The fact was patent, and rather interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the national defense."
Yeah, I see why you don't want him quoted on the subject. Notice how he points out that most were armed, and they were "an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Notice also how he points out how "patent, and rather interesting" that fact was considering the Confederate's strong objection to the North using black troops (Southern runaway slaves). Why was it "patent, and rather interesting"? Because that objection seemed illogical to him since the Southern Confederate Army was very obviously using black troops itself. Most were no doubt slaves, but they were still black Confederates, just as the "free men of color" were. They were part of the Army, with uniforms and arms. True, they were not treated as equals, but blacks up North weren't either. In the places up north that would allow blacks, that is. Black Confederates were a reality, and participated in America's history. Just ask Frederick Douglass:
"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...Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other." - Frederick Douglass in 1861.
Even Horace Greeley, yet another staunch Union man, mentioned the fact that black Confederates were in the Southern Confederate Army:
"For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have 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." - Horace Greeley
Yeah, I see why you don't want him quoted on the subject. Notice how he points out that most were armed, and they were "an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
Who are never seen again, make no impact on the battle of Antietam fought within a week, and who no one else says a word about.
There is no credible evidence of more than a handful of black rebel soldiers.
Walt
The rebels used many slaves as laborers, teamsters, even musicians. There is no credible proof that more than a handful served as soldiers. I have quotes too:
"Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle."
Gen. Howell Cobb, an unbeliever in this expedient, wrote from Macon, Ga., January 8, 1865: "I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one."
A quick synopsis from a website:
"The Confederate Army used many Negro servants and laborers, but did not employ Negro combat troops. A regiment was organized in New Orleans but not accepted into service. In 1863, a proposal to arm slaves was briefly considered. In January 1864, a movement by Pat Cleburne to use slaves as soldiers, giving them freedom for good service, was suppressed by Davis when he learned of it. In November 1864, Davis considered the limited use of negro troops, and R.E. Lee agreed that the idea had merit. In March 1865, the Confederate congress passed a law authorizing that up to 300,000 slaves be called for military service, but there was no mention of their being freed in connection with this duty. The next month a few companies were organized, but the surrender came before any of them were used."
http://www.genealogyforum.rootsweb.com/gfaol/resource/Military/CWNegroTroops.htm
That is the extent of it. Douglass was wrong, or he was exaggerating.
Walt
Greeley it was who said something like: "A republic pinned together with bayonets has no attraction to me."
Within a few months, he was leading the "On to Richmond" charge. He was seldom right on anything, and he is clearly misinformed here. Black troops -never- paraded with white troops, on either side.
How about this letter:
"Headquarters Department Trans-Mississippi,Shreveport, La, June 13, 1863
Maj. Gen. R. Taylor Commanding District of Louisiana:
GENERAL:
In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hebert, ofthe 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862. Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the state, no exception can be taken.I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. S. Anderson"
Why would the rebels take homicidal exception in the federals doing something they were themselves doing?"
There is no credible evidence of more than a handful of black rebel soldiers.
Walt
Douglass ardently wanted to see black Union soldiers. There were -no- blacks in the ranks of the rebel armies. Even Dr. Steiner's text doesn't say that there were.
I think Douglass a very great man, and I use his quotes often.
Frederick Douglass on Lincoln:
"Recognizing me, even before I reached him, he exclaimed, so that all around could hear him, "Here comes my friend Douglass." Taking me by the hand, he said, "I am glad to see you. I saw you in the crowd to-day, listening to my inaugural address; how did you like it?" I said, "Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion, when there are thousands waiting to shake hands with you." "No, no," he said, "you must stop a little, Douglass; there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it?" I replied, "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort."
"I am glad you liked it!" he said; and I passed on, feeling that any man, however distinguished, might well regard himself honored by such expressions, from such a man."
More Douglass:
"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."
Walt
I know you would, because his report contradicts your modern revisionist version of "history".
Well, Dr. Steiner thought McClellan a great genius, and the battle of Antietam a great Union victory. That is in the same phamplet that contains the segmemt about the 3,000 negroes.
But let's quote some more of that phamplet:
"About. 5 o'clock, A.M., it was ascertained thatJackson's force— the advance guard of the Southern army—was encamped on Moffat's farm, near Buckeystown, and that this force would enter Frederick after daylight; for what purpose no one knew. Having possession of this amount of information, I retired about two o'clock, being willing to wait: the sequel, whatever it might be.
...The crowded condition of the stores enabled some of the chivalry to take what. they wanted, (confiscate is the technical expression,) without going through the formality of even handing over confederate rags in exchange. But guards were placed at the stores wherever requested, and only a few men allowed to enter at a time. Even this arrangement proved inadequate, and the stores were soon necessarily closed.
The most intense hatred seems to have been encouraged and fostered in the men's hearts towards Union people, or Yankees as they style them; and this word Yankee is employed with any and every manner of emphasis possible to indicate contempt and bitterness. The men have been made to believe that "to kill a Yankee" is to do a duty imperatively imposed on them.
The following incident will illustrate this: A gentleman was called aside, while talking with some ladies, by an officer who wished information as to shoes. He said he was in want of shoes for his men, that he had United States money if the dealers were so foolish as to prefer it, or he would procure them gold; but if they wouldn't sell, he was satisfied to wait until they reached Baltimore, where he had no doubt but that shoes in quantity could be procured.
No reply was made. Changing the subject, he inquired how the men were behaving. The answer was very well; there was no complaint, although some few had been seen intoxicated on the street. "Who gave them the liquor," said the officer. "Townsmen who sympathize with you and desire to show their love for you." "The only way to do that," said the officer, "is to kill a Yankee: kill a Yankee, sir, if you want to please a Southerner." This was uttered with all imaginable expression of vindictiveness and venom.
Our houses were besieged by hungry soldiers and officers. They ate everything offered them with a greediness that fully sustained the truth of their statement, that their entire subsistence lately had been green corn, uncooked and eaten directly from the stalk. Union families freely gave such food as they had.
...But few of our secession citizens aided them. They seemed ashamed of their Southern brethren. The Union people stood out for their principles, and took care to remind them that they were getting their food from those they had come to destroy.
A gentleman relates the following : "In the evening, after having had one of their officers to tea—one whom I had known in former days—two officers came to the door and begged that something might be given them for which they wished to pay. On giving them the last biscuits in the house, one of them offered pay. The reply was, 'No sir; whenever you meet a Federal soldier wanting food, recollect that a Union man in Frederick gave you the last morsel of food in his house when you were famishing.' The officer's face flushed up, and he replied, 'You are right, sir, I am very, very much obliged to you.' The coals of fire had been heaped on his head."
Outrages were committed on the National flag whenever one fell into the hands of the soldiers. These simply strengthened the Union feeling, and made the men and women of Frederick more attached than ever to the National cause for which their fathers had fought and died. Stauncher, stouter, stronger did Unionists in Frederick grow with each passing hour. We were conquered, not enslaved—humiliated greatly with the thought that rebel feet were pressing on our soil, but not disposed to bow the knee to Baal.
The experience of one week with the Rebel Army satisfies me that the men are in a high state of discipline and have learned implicit obedience. When separated from their officers they do not show the same self-reliance that our men possess,—do not seem able to discuss with intelligent ease the political subjects which claim every man's attention at this time. All of them show a lack of energy and spirit, a want of thrift and cleanliness, which are altogether paradoxical to our men. A constant fear of their officers is associated with their prompt obedience of orders. Many, while they expressed their contempt for "the Yankees," would lament the war and express a desire to throw down their arms and return to their homes, if they could only do this without molestation. Jackson's name was always mentioned with a species of veneration, and his orders were obeyed with a slavish obedience unsurpassed by that of Russian serfs.
The men generally looked sturdy when in ranks, yet a cachectic expression of countenance prevailed, which could not be accounted for entirely by the unwashed faces that were, from necessity or choice, the rule. Those who have fallen into our hands show worn-out constitutions, disordered digestions and a total lack of vital stamina. They do not bear pain with any fortitude, and their constitutions seem to have very little power of resistance to disease. The rate of mortality in the rebel sick and wounded is double or treble that found in the Hospitals containing our men.
In point of professional ability, their medical officers vary very much. Some few are men of superior talent, but many are without either professional knowledge or social culture. Constant association with hardship and suffering may have made them callous to the appeals of their patients, but this excuse will hardly justify the neglect which some of them show towards the sick. As to medical supplies they rely largely upon captures, upon confiscating whatever they meet with on their marches, and upon paying for medicines with the worthless rags they call Confederate notes.
With such uncertain sources for their supplies, the imperfections of their medical and surgical treatment cannot, be severely censured.
Sunday, September 14th.
—Major-General Banks' corps d'armee, commanded by Brigadier-General A. S. Williams passed through town this morning on its way to the front. The men were in the best possible spirits, all eager for the fray. They are fighting now for and among people who appreciate their labors, and who welcome them as brothers. Brigadier-General Gordon said that "the reception of the troops by the citizens of this place was equal to a victory in its effects upon the men of his command." The veteran troops were all in vigorous health, and the new levies made up of strong, athletic men, whose intelligent faces beamed with strong desire to press rapidly upon the retreating foe. We had never greater reason to be proud of our army. During the afternoon of the day, the memorable engagement at the South Mountain Pass took place, in which our new levies vied with the veterans in pressing the Confederates up the side of the mountain, and then over into the valley beyond. Our military commanders will bear testimony, in proper form, to the heroic courage shown by our army in this well-fought action. The rebels had tried to make a stand at several points on the road prior to this engagement, but were gallantly driven forwards by our troops.
On Wednesday the great battle of Antietam was fought, with such a display of strategy and power on the part of our General, and of heroism and daring from our men, that the enemy was glad to resign all hopes of entering Pennsylvania, and to withdraw his forces across the Potomac. A great victory had been gained; the enemy had been driven from loyal soil, and McClellan had shown himself worthy of the love, (amounting almost to adoration,) which his troops expressed on all sides."
We can give Dr. Steiner about as much credibility on black rebel soldiers as we can on his opinion of McClellan's military skills.
Walt
LOL - So, once again, your only defense is to call Dr. Steiner a liar. He was there, watched the troops pass for hours, but he lied about what he saw, according to your belief. What about the other union officers and solidiers and newspapers that wrote of blacks with the Confederate Army. Maybe they were all part of the same "conspiracy" within the Union ranks to tell such "lies". Maybe Frederick Douglass was the 'Grand Poobah' of that conspiracy and they had a secret handshake and everything. Maybe they all told their "lies" just to antagonize you, Walt. Maybe their ghosts are watching you squirm now, pointing at you and slapping each other's backs as they guffaw and snicker.
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.