Black Confederates

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

If you are seriously interested, I would suggest you pay attention to the following:

1) Under both the US Constitution and the Confederate Constitution, any treaty signed by the government and approved by the Congress becomes part of that nation's laws.

2) The Confederacy signed treaties with several Indian nations.

3) Those treaties include provisions for Indian forces to be raised to serve in the Confederate Army as part of the military protection pact and alliance.

That's how it works under the law.

Originally Posted by Battalion

...and that's why the Army

Originally Posted by Battalion

Regulations were not laws. Otherwise there would be a conflict.

Nope.

What you would be talking about would be a discrepancy between two different laws approved by the Congress. Such a conflict would properly be resolved in a court of law by judges -- but then the Confederacy never did establish the Supreme Court mentioned in their Constitution, which some might regard as a violation of at least the spirit of the law.

Tim

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by trice

Nope.

What you would be talking about would be a discrepancy between two different laws approved by the Congress. Such a conflict would properly be resolved in a court of law by judges -- but then the Confederacy never did establish the Supreme Court mentioned in their Constitution, which some might regard as a violation of at least the spirit of the law.

Tim

Doesn't the Confederate Congress need to amend it's "whites only law?"
-No, because the "whites only law" was for white conscripts (draftees). There was no law that specifically barred Indians or Blacks from service (as volunteers).

Or...doesn't the Confederate Army need to change it's whites only regulation ("law") to allow Indians to serve?
-No, because Army Regulations were not laws and could be waived any time the War Department cared to.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Doesn't the Confederate Congress need to amend it's "whites only law?"
-No, because the "whites only law" was for white conscripts (draftees). There was no law that specifically barred Indians or Blacks from service.

Or...doesn't the Confederate Army need to change it's whites only regulation ("law") to allow Indians to serve?
-No, because Army Regulations were not laws and could be waived any time the War Department cared to.

Governments pass laws and make agreements that contradict one another all the time. That's why they invented the court system to straighten things out.

Tim

[J_Man0507]

I think that what is being missed here is the idea of social norms. Anybody who has had any classes in, or has knowledge of anthropology, knows about these. Social norms are the unwritten laws that guide and define a culture, that are normally taboo to break. And that is what the suppression of the black race was in the South: a social and cultural norm.

For over 200 years, Southrons had been raised with the idea ingrained in their heads that the black is inferior to the white and is to serve his (the white man's) needs. They were held in bondage, forced to work for no pay at all. Yes, some masters were benevolent and allowed them to earn their freedom, but the black was still inferior to the white.

So tell me: why would the South, raised with this attitude of black inferiority, need to write such a law to say that blacks are not to serve in the military? Wasn't it known and ingrained in their mindset that the black was inferior? And the memories of the Nat Turner and Denmark Vessey uprisings were still keen in their minds. One can almost hear what some of the men and women of that time said: "First they try to rise up, throw off their chains and kill their masters, and now we want to give them guns and let them fight for us?!?!" Why allow an inferior race to pick up a gun and fight a white man's war?

It was an unwritten law, one of culture, that makes it highly unlikely that black men would be allowed to serve in vast numbers. It was only an act of desperation, when all hope had been lost, that blacks were called upon to serve the Confederacy in a military capacity, and that was a month before the end of the war. Social norms oftentimes hold a greater sway than the written laws of a country.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

When did I say servants were soldiers?... you really do amuse me Battalion. Thank you for the constant evidence of your integrity.

Where? When? Do you forget so easily? You have repeatedly used the loosest possible terms to id Black CS soldiers and denigrate the service of the USCT at every opportunity. In fact you dedicated a whole thread to the premise. I leave it to better men than I to catch you in your distortions as they do so far more politely than I can. I grow weary of dealing w/ the same people w/ different names on various boards. The names change, the ideas and tactics don't.
*

But even so...many did the service of soldiers.
Why do you want to discredit their service? I don't. Any man willing to serve deserves my respect; and yours. Though I know in your case that is extremely conditional. I don't want to see a particular batch of historical distortionists assert that thousands upon thousands of black men served the CS therfore they supported the CS and everything that came w/ it.


Using the derogatory term 'Uncle Tom' is definitely an attempt to discredit. I've never used it. Never will.

*

Please show us the Confederate Law that forbade the service of blacks. You have been shown all sorts of primary sources but as they don't fit your agenda they are not acceptable to you and you consistantly ignore them.

You have been asked for your number of Black Soldiers in the ranks of the CS Army. IIRC you once gave a number of 5000. Have you revised that number upward? If so why?

Louisiana Native Guard; after they were disbanded... after never having been paid, armed or equipped and never having fired a shot in anger where did they serve? Please supply units they served w/. I know you can't but I'm willing to give you a chance again to prove they were welcomed w/ open arms into the service of the CS.

But please don't cut and paste only what will imply such. Give us a link so we can see the whole bit not just an out of context snippet contradicted by the rest of the document.

[Will Posey]

[quote=67th Tigers;84934]Apparently it was quite normal for slaves to work in their own right.

quote]

My great-great-great grandfather owned a slave who hired himself out regularly to other families in the community. My ggggrandfather freed Bob before the War, but Bob stayed on and continued to support himself by working around the community. He died in 1879 and is buried with my family in the church cemetery.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Even if this were true...isn't it O-K by your standards?
After all, many times you have quoted authors who do the very same thing as you describe.

I tend to try and post a source with a website with the entire article or some such, but yes, I have taken quotes out of books to supporty my point of view, but I also list the book, the author, sometimes the chapter and page number. Any who wishes, can check the book out of a library and feel free to call me a liar or that I have taken a quote out-of-context.

You are getting like johan steele.

Hardly. Johan is who he is. I'm Unionblue. And the above was totally uncalled for.

When did I say servants were soldiers?...

Did you? Did I?

But even so...many did the service of soldiers.
Why do you want to discredit their service?

Sorry Battalion, but it's hard to give any such serious consideration to this as I have never wanted to discredit any man's service, whether he be black or white, free or slave, yet you seem to want to discredit the serivce of troops who served with the USCT or was it your intention to say something else with the thread? Your main objective, and if I am wrong I'm sure you'll let me know, is to knock slavery out of the catagory as a primary reason for the Civil War, by any means necessary, as Malcom X once said. You're welcome to try, but the fact remains, I simply don't agree with your main premise.

Please show us the Confederate Law that forbade the service of blacks.

Done and done. You just refuse to accept it.

What state law prevented the Louisiana Native Guard from serving? Creole Guard of Mobile?

Old news, beaten to death, repeated over and over again on other threads and forums. Your rejection of such has been noted.

Depends on how many exceptions are found.

Not enough to prove your contention to my satisfaction. I won't answer for Johan Steele.

Unionblue

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

You have been asked for your number of Black Soldiers in the ranks of the CS Army. IIRC you once gave a number of 5000. Have you revised that number upward? If so why?

I can give you the numbers commonly quoted. Between 50,000 and 120,000.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

I can give you the numbers commonly quoted. Between 50,000 and 120,000.

Commonly quoted means nothing; especially when photo evidence, period letters, military documentation & records fail to bear out even a tenth of such a number. The most respected and well researched historians have given numbers of 13-15000 max in CS military service bearing arms or working in any kind of military capacity.

Battalion has given a number of 5000 in the past IIRC which to me is quite reasonable, Unionblue has given a number of 13,000 based upon his and others research. My own has turned up a number of 1300 w/ a +/- 10%. Others far more qualified than I have come up w/ numbers even smaller. Several years ago a gent out Virginia way did a study of all existing LOC photos of CS soldiers in the field, concentrating on casualties and other photo evidence of POWs. Do you know how many Black CS soldiers he found? Not very many, in fact enough that an extrapalation of percentages would find a number between mine and Battalions 5000 and if one takes into account the Trans Mississippi and western troops further east you MIGHT come up w/ a number in Unionblues 13,000 range. IMO the reality is that fewer black men served the CS in any kind of combat capacity than women who masqueraded as men in order to serve.

The problem is the 50-100,000 black CS soldiers number falls apart under any kind of scrutiny. What Regiments did they serve with, who captured them and where are their parole & exchange records? Where are the monuments erected by thankful southerners to the 120,000 black men who served in CS armies? All things that cannot be answered as it is impossible to prove something exists that simply wasn't there.

The CS Govt in no way encouraged Black CS soldiers. If black CS soldiers were so prevelant why didn't Cleburne just order up a bushel of them instead of writing the letter that pretty much ended any hope of advancement for him?

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Where are the monuments erected by thankful southerners to the 120,000 black men who served in CS armies?

Such as the Black Confederate Rifleman at Arlington?