Black Confederates

[johan_steele]

Thea thanks for the site... but I think you pointed me at the wrong article. There is no authorship mentioned nor is credit given to the Washington Times. It's possible I missed it... but I don't think so. I just spent the last twenty minutes doing a search of the Times website and couldn't find any articles by Walter Williams that dealt w/ Black men bearing arms for the CSA... any chance you could narrow it down a bit more for me?

The reason I'm so specific about asking for the Walter Williams article is that I respect his writing immensley... I'd like to see his take on the issue.

I don't dispute the numbers of black men serving the CSA as laborers, often quite skilled. Only the numbers carrying arms. As I've said the entrenchments used at Vicksburg, Atlanta, Petersburg etc were created by slave labor. The rails repaired after numerous Yankee raids were all too often accomplished by pure slave labor...

I'm actually reminded of an article I read in college (God only knows where) I won't vouch for it's honesty as I have little recollection of the source. And bear w/ me as I'm only paraphrasing what I remember. "We tore up about 200 yards of track and were getting ready to head back to our lines when we spotted a work party coming to the site of our recent destruction. There were about twenty negroes in the group and they immedietly set to repairing the rail line. When the Sgt asked just what in the hell they were doing a particularly large negro said he was fixing the tracks for the master. When we demanded to know why; he said. "You all gonna be gone tomorrow but the master will still be here. Even if you win you gonna go home and things will just go back to being the way they were." We offered to burn his master out... he just smiled and said all that would accomplish was a change in masters and the current one wasn't so bad... We left the site shaking our heads.

[rbenne]

Shane
THe times is famous for not keeping a good archive. To read the original article go to http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html you may have to search the archives, its from 12/02/98

Jewish World Review (JWR) is a traditional/conservative values site which copies a LOT of columnists.

[thea_447]

Shane, I've had a hard day today and need to rest now but I will keep looking for the precise article since it's important to you and you seem unwilling to take anyone's word for anything.

In the meantime, here's an article for your perusal.
http://216.239.41.104/custom?q=cache:LyMmDGsSnB0J:www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ ReadArticle.asp%3FID%3D3849+Walter+Williams+articl es+on+the+Confederacy&hl=en&ie =UTF-8

[johan_steele]

THank You very much Raymond. THis is the writing style I know as Walter Williams. Good article I might add.


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html

Walter Williams

The Civil War wasn't about slavery

THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ---- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."


Honest Abe
History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.

[johan_steele]

Walter Williams

Black Confederates

http://www.jewishworldreview.com

--
DURING OUR WAR OF 1861, 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."

Dr. Lewis Steiner, a Union Sanitary Commission employee who lived through the Confederate occupation of Frederick, Maryland said, "Most of the Negroes ... were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army." Erwin L. Jordan's book "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" cites eyewitness accounts of the Antietam campaign of "armed blacks in rebel columns bearing rifles, sabers, and knives and carrying knapsacks and haversacks." After the Battle of Seven Pines in June 1862, Union soldiers said that "two black Confederate regiments not only fought but showed no mercy to the Yankee dead or wounded whom they mutilated, murdered and robbed."

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia 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. Erwin L. Jordan cites one case where a captured group of white slave owners and blacks were offered freedom if they would take an oath of allegiance to the United States. One free black indignantly replied, "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh ******." A slave in the group upon learning that his master refused to take the oath said, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave said, "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." One of the slave owners took the oath but his slave, who didn't take the oath, returning to Virginia under a flag of truce, expressed disgust at his master's disloyalty saying, "Massa had no principles."

Horace Greeley, in pointing out some differences between the two warring armies said, "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." General Nathan Bedford Forrest had both slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, General Forrest said of the black men who served under him "(T)hese boys stayed with me ... and better Confederates did not live."

It was not just Southern generals who owned slaves but northern generals owned them as well. General Ulysses Grant's slaves had to await the Thirteenth Amendment for freedom. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, General Grant said, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

These are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served, both as slaves and freemen in the Confederacy during the War Between the States.

The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who're attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression.

They don't deserve the dishonor.

[thea_447]

Black Confederates
http://blackconfederates.tripod.com/

[thea_447]

I still recommend Scott Williams' article "On Black Confederates" at:
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html

[thea_447]

Another source widely acceptable to historians is the Colored Men's Pension Applications of the 1920s and 1930s of the Southern states. Conservative extrapolations backwards based on the numbers of blacks receiving Southern state pensions indicate that some 15,000 to 60,000 Black Southerners served in the Army of the Confederacy, in roles as varied as teamster, nurses, cooks, musicians, hostlers, foragers, and of course servants, and unofficially as soldiers. (This is the same estimate obtained by applying Dr. Steiner's 3000 to the size of Jackson's entire Corps-- and then extrapolating that to the CSA military.)

Blacks have served in the armies of America since the 1600s. Five thousand blacks, mostly slave, fought in the Revolution. The British offered immediate emanicipation to those who crossed sides-- but few did. If black American slaves would willingly fight for George Washington, why would it be any surprise that they fought in the Army of Robert E. Lee? (I owe this thought to Professor Edward Smith, noted black historian, at American University.)

A good introduction to this topic is Richard Rollins's Black Southerners in Gray, 1994, Rank and File Publications. The book is available from Amazon.com for about $11.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Sit down and try to hold onto something. I tend to agree with your above post, somewhat.

Although I tend to think you have a lot of 'windage' with the figure of '15,000 to 60,000' black Southerners serving in the Confederate Army, I have heard and read of a 16,000 in the Confederate Army with thousands of others in support roles such as cooks, working on fortifications, teamsters, etc.

Where I have my complaint is when you start hearing numbers 'up to' and 'over' 90,000 blacks who served in the Confederate Army under arms and in an active fighting role against Federal forces. That is where the facts just don't seem to happen. This is where Shane and I agree that there are just not ENOUGH observations in letters home from Union soldiers or historical data to back up such huge numbers.

By your own posting above, I can reasonably go with the fact, that around 15,000 - 16,000 blacks applied for a pension in the Southern States. I even accept the idea that a lot of those thousands may have been mistakenly put down as a cook, teamster, etc., instead of the title of soldier. That much I have confirmed by my own research.

But the point of the matter is, is not that blacks served in the cause of the Confederacy, even to the point of taking up arms and serving as fighting men in the ranks, as the 37th Texas web site proves with no doubt, but the fact that LARGE numbers did NOT serve as soldiers as some would have us believe.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Neil, Thanks for putting things a bit less... scatterbrained than I think I have. I've just finished reading my third book on the Stonewall Brigade... It's actually a book that follows both the Stonewall Brigade & the Iron Brigade through the War. It's largely a collection of letters and observations. There is not one single mention of Black men bearing arms w/ the Stonewall Brigade. The Iron Brigade men fought the Stonewall brigade repeatedly, several times carrying the field and treating their wounded. Why aren't the 3000 black men mentioned by the rank & file of the Iron Brigade? I would think they would be, especially as many of them were actually quite adament about being against the Emancipation Proclomation and would have certainly noticed such an incident. The number of 3000 w/ Jackson old division seems astronomical to me... because after Antietem the Stonewall Brigade numbered just 385 men. I would think that if there were 3000 black men bearing arms w/ Jacksons Division or even his whole Corps there would be some mention of burial of their dead... especially as the men who did the burying at Antietem & Gettysburg were free black men, many of who would later join the USCT.

I just don't believe that the number of black men were so common as Aphillbilly or Thea would have us believe and several of the sources given are... interesting at best. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to put any faith in a number higher than 13,000 and I'm going to stick w/ my original number of a tenth of that. I have seen no mention of desertions, AWOL's, casualties, mention is dispatches etc by CSA officers. Now they wouildn't mention teamsters, cooks or servants. Yes, teamsters often armed themselves and their is plenty of evidence to support Black Confederate Teamsters and limited numbers of Black armed Confederates.

I don't dispute the photographic evidence of Black Men serving in the ranks... but the problem w/ that photographic evidence is that it is so limited. Yes it proves that Black men bore arms for the CSA, I've never denied it. But on looking hard over the last three days Sherman never mentions his troops facing them in any of his campaigns. Personally, I think he would have mentioned such a thing. Grant doesn't either. Nor does Elish Hunt Rhodes (who was on every major eastern battlefield) In fact I've never read a diary or letter home that does & I've read quite a few. That is why I firmly believe that, yes black men bore arms for the CSA, their numbers were so insignificant as not to be seriously noted by their adversaries... or the rank & file of the CSA.

The 1st La Native Guards is mentioned prominently and a photo is even shown of elements posing for a photo... I've seen the photo before, listed as Union. Look carefully and you'll see a eagle on the breastplate of one of them... a Union item. I believe that photo was taken after they took up arms and served as La's first USCT regiment. THe CSA never mustered them into service and they never saw combat for the CSA... they did for the Union.

In short I KNOW there were black men who bore arms for the CSA, I have no doubt about it. I just don't see the number being huge, or even really significant. I think much credit should be given to the black men who built the defenses of many a city... but they weren't paid to do it and they weren't treated as soldiers by the CSA. Credit should be given to those who did carry arms, and there were those that did, but their numbers were no where on par w/ the USCT and their contribution less significant. Were they more respected... they certainly were by N.B. Forrest but other CSA officers, why aren't they mentioned in dispatches or letters & diaries by those same CSA troops. Does Longstreet mention them, AP Hill or Bobbie Lee?
Frewdrick Douglas says "many" not thousands.

Show me a website or book that doesn't proclaim that the South shall rise again. Maybe I'll not take it w/ such a grain of salt. I posted the two articles on the subject by Walter Williams... neither was on the site given me by Thea... I agree w/ much of what he said.