Posted on 02/10/2003 8:22:03 AM PST by H8DEMS
BTTT!
Boy are you ever wrong, they were highly esteemed by Southern whites after the war. It was the northern carpetbaggers and their armies of occupation that mistreated them. The union "klan", the union league, murdered more than a few, and terrorized the rest.
Well considering you're ignoring the Louisiana Guard, Confederate pension records, anecdotal evidence of men being shot at by black Confederates, and pictures of white and black men standing together at Confederate reunions, I don't know what more you need. The legislation presented in '64 was at a national level for the Confederacy.
However, unlike the Empire, historical accounts reference many towns and states that raised armies to go fight off invasion forces from the north without joining the Confederate army itself. In many instances they were not either not listed under official Confederate army records until after the war or in some cases not listed at all. I know of at least 2 regiments that didn't officially join a division here in NC for the first three years of the war. But newspaper records reported of their battles with the invaders. By your reckoning, these men never fought those battles because they weren't officially in the Confederate Army. But did they fight and kill yankee invaders before joining? Of course they did. However, account after account from northern invaders, picture after picture from Confederate reunions, letters home by slaves, even some of the Slave Narratives, and monuments throughout the South bear out the fact that these brave men fought for the Confederacy.
But you go on believing a couple of Socialist sympathizers like McPherson and a few racists like Dees. I have historical accounts on my side, pictures, and documentation. What do you have? A few national bills (fashioned by politicians), some park rangers, what you learned in fourth grade history, and cut and pastes of flowery words of a man who showed by his actions he talked out of both sides of his mouth and didn't know the limitations of the Constitution. Gee, I don't know. You may be right!! < /sarcasm>
Let's see what a Union officer had to say about that when he witnessed Jackson's Army passing through Fredericksburg on it's way to Antietam:
"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."
Notice how he points out how "patent, and rather interesting" the fact of black confederate soldiers 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 equal to whites, neither were US colored troops, or blacks up North in general. 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
"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."
As has been pointed out to you before, it wasn't a Union officer who said this, but a private citizen with no connection with the Army -- Dr. Lewis Steiner.
Dr. Steiner also referred to the officers and men of the rebel army as being "dirty and repulsive." He also guages the number of rebels in Lee's army as 64,000. The real number was @ 45,000. Steiner was on a roll; he also called McClellan a great genius and the battle of Antietam a great victory. He was also pushing an agenda. He strongly favored the recruitment of black troops.
I said this yesterday. Howell Cobb was a general in Lee's army on the abortive raid into Maryland. He saw what Steiner saw, and more. Here is what he said in 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."
Although there is no doubt that large numbers of slaves were on Lee's raid into Maryland, there seems no proof that they engaged in any actual fighting, or that they were thought to be combatatants.
Walt
Is that why the southern whites instituted the Black Codes in 1865 that returned all southern blacks to a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible? Was it esteem that caused the Jim Crow laws and the laws preventing black sufferage that lasted until the 1960's? Was it respect for blacks that caused the southern states to pass laws prior to the war that prevented free blacks from moving into states or allowed the state to expel free blacks or sell them into slavery? You southerners have a very odd way of showing your esteem. IMHO, of course.
But, if as you claim, black combat soldiers were common in the confederate army then why didn't this law make the conscripted free blacks at least eligible for the combat arms? Conscripted white soldiers were. Instead it makes it clear that any black, free or slave, taken into the service were to be used for support only. If blacks were common in the ranks of fighting soldiers then why would the confederate government want to limit there use now? Especially in 1864 when infantry was hard to come by? It seems as if they were shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their use.
As the text I posted yesterday clearly indicated, a number of black Union POW's were murdered while in hospital; also many were kept overnight at Plymouth, and then shot. Their white officers were dragged through the street with ropes around their necks.
War is not an excuse for homicide in any case.
Walt
Yes, it's a big help with fact checking.
The one battle where your source suggested that two negro regiments were engaged apparently had no black troops at all. That is typical of the lies spread by the neo-reb movement.
Walt
Thanks for shutting "Walt the Liberal" down cold. "
<><
Thanks for shutting "Walt the Liberal" down cold. "
Bill posted this. It is factually incorrect:
"The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported to the Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette that on 5 March 1863: "During the fight the [artillery] battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*]."
Bill apparently was not aware of this.
People can judge who shut down whom.
There is no credible evidence of more than a handful of black rebel soldiers.
Can you name a single one?
Walt
Southern states didn't recind their laws until the mid-20th century and the referendum you spoke of was to remove the language for original provisions that had been removed by amendment decades earlier.
But you were talking about black confederate soldiers, billbears. What does the actions of Northern states have to do with the fact that the black soldiers that you claim fought so valiantly for the south were returned to semi-slavery by the Black Codes, and then denied their basic rights for generations by Jim Crow and anti-sufferage laws? The same southern states that tried to ban the entire idea of a free black person within their borders prior to the war are supposed to be the same states that you claim welcomed them as soldiers during the war, and then crapped all over them again immediately following the war and for a hundred years after. If you owe so much to their courage and their patriotism, and their fidelity then I must say that y'all had a very odd way of showing it.
This bears repeating. It as much as anything shuts down the idea of black rebel soldiers.
The neo-rebs will now blame the north.
Walt
Let's see. Bill cited several archival references page and verse, while all you do is cut/paste volumnous dribble from so called experts, who in many cases are slanted in their views anyway. I vote for substance over volume.
Face it you've lost.
The post-war southern state government enacted them all, since every southern state had Black Codes in place over a year before Reconstruction began. Radical Reconstruction was, in part, a result of those codes.
Be that as it may, it speaks volumes that the "underground railroad" ended in Canada - the Northern states certainly didn't want blacks there. The northern states had numerous Black laws of their own long before the war, and didn't want blacks in the western lands.
Not all states wanted blacks to be sure. But in the decade prior to the war, at a time when slavery didn't exist in most Northern states, the free black population in states like Illinois and Ohio and New York increased while the free black population in states like Mississippi and Arkansas decreased. And the Black laws you speak of up North were more than matched by more restrictive laws down south. Like the fact that it took an act of the legislature to allow manumission for any reason in Mississippi, or that the Virginia constitution required a slave who was freed to leave the state within 12 months or be sold back to slavery, or the Alabama law that was seriously debated which would have deported all free blacks to Africa and billed the county they were caught in for the passage.
If the ensuing black codes were at fault, the puppet governments installed by yankee reconstructionists could have ended the black codes after the war - as the former confederates could not vote or hold office.
The Black Codes were the fault of the formere confederates, since they were passed prior to the restrictions on voting and holding office. And once those former confederates resumed their power after Reconstruction they put in the Jim Crow laws, so don't pretend that they were opposed to the idea. If anything they were the authors and enthusiastic supporters.
Let's see. Bill cited several archival references page and verse, while all you do is cut/paste volumnous dribble from so called experts, who in many cases are slanted in their views anyway. I vote for substance over volume.
Face it you've lost.
Then what do you attribute the shameful abuse of black rebel veterans to? Why were they totally disenfranchised? Why was slavery in all but name reestablished in the southern states?
Bill posted something that appears factually incorrect. If you were more than just a bold lurker, you'd try and show otherwise.
Walt
Walt
The north didn't want blacks at all - they were just as restrictive, the north was not an oasis. Illinois praticed de facto slavery (indentured servitude), and many norhern states had law prohibiting the entry of blacks. The Republican party of Lincoln ran on a platform that incuded white supremacy and separtism. But again, if things were so great, why didn't millions of blacks move north or west?
And once those former confederates resumed their power after Reconstruction they put in the Jim Crow laws, so don't pretend that they were opposed to the idea. If anything they were the authors and enthusiastic supporters.
Nonsense. Read the 14th. Ex-confederates couldn't hold office.
None of that mitigates thde way blacks were treated in the south.
And nothing in the record after the war will support the idea that there were black soldiers -in- the war fighting for the rebels.
Walt
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.