Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War? Novel on blacks in Confederate South

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.

Again I tell you that Douglass in 1861 ardently sought to enlist blacks to fight -against- the slave power and he was willing to stretch the truth mighty thin to bring that about.

ROFLMAO - As you pointed out, Frederick Douglass said:

"We would tell him that General Jackson in a slave state fought side by side with Negroes at New Orleans, and like a true man, despising meanness, he bore testimony to their bravery at the close of the war." - Frederick Douglass

That statement is absolutely TRUE. Jackson in a slave state DID fight side by side with negroes at New Orleans, and he DID praise their bravery:

"I was not ignorant that you possessed qualities most formidable to an invading enemy. The President of the United States shall hear how praise worthy was your conduct in the hour of danger." - Andrew Jackson to his black troops

Jackson did keep his promises of $124 and 160 acres of land to both White and Black soldiers. Every single word Douglass said in the quote you gave was TRUE. Once again, you can only fall back on your own desperate desire and attempts to confuse the issues in order to maintain your position. You must also think it a lie that loyal blacks participated in the American Revolution, when they "obviously" could have run off and joined the British to gain their freedom.

He never surrendered the garrison, even the garrison's surgeon (among others) attested to that fact.

There is evidence that blacks were still being executed the next day, and along the line of march later.

If Fort Pillow did not have numbers of black POW's executed by the rebels, it would be the exception, not the rule. Black POW's were almost always executed to some degree although some were not.

Let's move on:

"Upon the capture of Plymouth by the rebel forces all the negroes found in blue uniform, or with any outward signs of a Union soldier upon him, was killed. I saw some taken into the woods and hung. Others I saw stripped of all their clothing and then stood upon the bank of the river with their faces riverward and there they were shot. Still others were killed by having their brains beaten out by the butt end of the muskets in the hands of the rebels. All were not killed the day of the capture. Those that were not were placed in a room with their officers, they (the officers) having previously been dragged through the town with ropes around their necks, where they were kept confined until the following morning, when the remainder of the black soldiers were killed."

"The regiments most conspicuous in these murderous transactions were the Eighth North Carolina and, I think, the Sixth North Carolina."

"SAMUEL (his x mark) JOHNSON. Witnessed by John L. Davenport, lieutenant and acting aide-de-camp. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 11th day of July, 1864. John Cassels, Captain and Provost- Marshal."

[Source: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Vol. VII, pp. 459-460.]

Let's discuss the action at Plymouth for a while.

Walt

You are right about creole society. I am creole but not from Lousiana,from another country entirely but it's the same issue. A creole lady I know is fighting for creole history that is being taken over by black politicians down south (ex. Henriette Delille,etc.) Also you know that the South has the most famous creole of all. Marie Laveau. She wielded tremendous power.

A friend of hers was a black man by the name of Mister John who owned 15 white slave women, and impregnanted every last one of them and called his own children mud bastards. Amazingly he had respect for Laveau who was almost white herself.

Lots of revisionist history out there! I look forward to learning myself.

Every single word Douglass said in the quote you gave was TRUE.

So far as it went.

It's pretty well known that Jackson betrayed the trust of the blacks who fought with him at New Orleans. It's a big blight on his memory, actually. I'm not surprised that you didn't know of it, as you don't seem to have either a broad or deep font of knowledge about the war or its causes, or American history in general.

Walt

I read this:

"Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln...."

And I think of this:

"At home and abroad judgments came oftener that America had at last a President who was All-American. He embodied his country in that he had no precedents to guide his footsteps; he was not one more individual of a continuing tradition, with the dominant lines of the mold already cast for him by Chief Magistrates who had gone before. Webster, Calhoun, and Clay conformed to a classicism of the school of the English gentleman, as did perhaps all the Presidents between Washington and Lincoln, save only Andrew Jackson.

The inventive Yankee, the Western frontiersman and pioneer, the Kentuckian of laughter and dreams, had found blend in one man who was the national head. In the "dreamy vastness" noted by the London Spectator, in the pith of the folk words "The thoughts of the man are too big for his mouth," was the feel of something vague that ran deep in American hearts, that hovered close to a vision for which men would fight, struggle, and die, a grand though blurred chance that Lincoln might be leading them toward something greater than they could have believed might come true.

Also around Lincoln gathered some of the hope that a democracy can choose a man, set him up high with power and honor, and the very act does something to the man himself, raises up new gifts, modulations, controls, outlooks, wisdoms, inside the man, so that he is something else again than he was before they sifted him out and anointed him to take an oath and solemnly sign himself for the hard and terrible, eye-filling and center-staged, role of Head of the Nation.

To be alive for the work he must carry in his breast Cape Cod, the Shenandoah, the Mississippi, the Gulf, the Rocky Mountains, the Sacramento, the Great Plains, the Great Lakes, their dialects and shibboleths. He must be instinct with the regions of corn, textile mills, cotton, tobacco, gold, coal, zinc, iron."

--Abraham Lincoln, The War Years, Vol. II, pp.331-333, by Carl Sandburg

Walt

It does make you wonder why these morons would belittle Abraham Lincoln, that is for sure.

When a Mythology is fundamentally indefensible, the only way to defend it is to slander the opposition.

The neo-rebs aren't the only ones to do this. Look at the mindless morons defending Saddam or Kim Il. Look at the un-reconstructed Stalinists and Trotskites like Ramsey Clark. They must discount or completely ignore every atrocity committed by their side and exaggerate every sin of the other. They must deny history and demonize the opposition to perpetuate their myths.

Me to WP: I have no trouble believing you despise the US Government, after all, you called the Constitution "a pact with the devil".

WP's response: "I was quoting William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist, who said that in a speech on July 4, 1829. You don't know the history."

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You liar. Here's exactly what you said:

"...Reagan's operatives raised money and used it to fund a secret army. As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money. The executive branch can't get the grass cut at the White House unless Congress approriates the funds. Bush I lied about his knowledge of all this, and that is on the record too." - Whiskey Papa in post #432 of "Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln".

Yet again you resort to lies and a pathetic attempt to mislead in order to defend yourself. YOU used that phrase as a direct expression of your belief and position, just as I had stated.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You liar. Here's exactly what you said:
"...Reagan's operatives raised money and used it to fund a secret army. As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money. The executive branch can't get the grass cut at the White House unless Congress approriates the funds. Bush I lied about his knowledge of all this, and that is on the record too." - Whiskey Papa in post #432 of "Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln".

Yet again you resort to lies and a pathetic attempt to mislead in order to defend yourself. YOU used that phrase as a direct expression of your belief and position, just as I had stated.

I was referring to what Garrison had said. Sorry if it was too subtle for you. But it provides you with some grist for personal attacks, so that has some value to you.

I like the Constitution just fine. I am still under oath to protect it against all enemies foreign and domestic -- which as far as I am concerned, includes a number of people who post on FR.

Walt

I was referring to what Garrison had said. Sorry if it was too subtle for you. But it provides you with some grist for personal attacks, so that has some value to you.

ROFLMAO!!! - You were calling the Constitution a "pact with the devil" to express your opinion of it. If anyone doubts it, here is the link to your actual post again: Walt calls Constitution "Pact with the Devil" in post 432. Here's what you said:

"...Reagan's operatives raised money and used it to fund a secret army. As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money. The executive branch can't get the grass cut at the White House unless Congress approriates the funds. Bush I lied about his knowledge of all this, and that is on the record too." - Whiskey Papa in post #432 of "Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln".

You were very cleary using that phrase to express you own personal opinion of the Constitution.

I ran across something that I would like your opinion on. Here is a link to a piece of legislation called "An Act to increase the efficiency of the Army by the employment of Free Negroes and Slaves in certain capacities." It was passed in February 1864 and specifies the use of free blacks and slaves in supporting roles. My question is that if, as you claim, free blacks were commonly used as combat soldiers in the confederate army then why would this legislation authorizing the use of free blacks be necessary, and why didn't it specify their use in the combat arms?

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.