Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Dear Tim,
I flipped through "Black Emancipation" again. Cobb in his "good black soldiers, therefore slavery wrong" thinking was not alone. A Mobile politician wrote when the idea of that blacks would make effective soldiers meant:
"we stand convicted before of world of deliberately promulgating a tissue of monstrous falsehoods."
The falsehoods being the inferiority of blacks, which made slavery tolerable. Well, we might say now, yes you were promulgating monstrous falsehoods, and most white Americans were plenty ready to believe them, and do some promulgating themselves.
According to Levine, most Confederate concepts of the use of former slaves as combat soldiers tried to limit both their role, and the impact on slavery, although Lee had the perception to grasp and accept that widespread use of blacks in the CS army meant the end of slavery.
"(the)best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity(of black soldiers)...was a plan of gradual and GENERAL emancipaton."
Lee was criticized by some of being less than committed to slavery, which was true enough. But the fate of the black soldiers in a victorious Confederacy was to be quite constrained. Official slavery would be crippled, but a strict black code would confine blacks to certain occupations and areas.
William Oates, better known as leading his Alabamians vs. Chamberlain's Mainers at Little Round Top, mused after the war that if the CSA had freed blacks to serve as soldiers, it might have won: but the "free" blacks would be so regulated the South would avoid any real disruption of its "labor system."
So black Confederates: the horse never really got out of the gate, and the race was fixed anyway.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 06-06-2006 at 08:10 PM.
Dear Tim,
I flipped through "Black Emancipation" again. Cobb in his "good black soldiers, therefore slavery wrong" thinking was not alone. A Mobile politician wrote when the idea of that blacks would make effective soldiers meant:
"we stand convicted before of world of deliberately promulgating a tissue of monstrous falsehoods."
The falsehoods being the inferiority of blacks, which made slavery tolerable. Well, we might say now, yes you were promulgating monstrous falsehoods, and most white Americans were plenty ready to believe them, and do some promulgating themselves.
Certainly true, IMHO. But it would have been difficult for these people to admit to the equality of blacks and still maintain their belief that they were acting morally in keeping them enslaved. Once a man like Cobb crosses that line, his entire vision of his society collapses.
But if we look at Cobb's letter, we can see he was quite good at believing what he wanted to believe. In the 2nd half of 1861 -- after Bull Run when it began to look as if this war would go on for a long time -- the Confederacy upped their troop limit to 400,000 men and tried recruiting volunteers for 3 years or the war instead of 12 months. All kinds of inducements were offered. Yet volunteering was short and reenlistments very low. By April of 1862 they had to resort to conscription. Cobb was a member of the Confederate Congress in those days. Yet here in the last desperate weeks of the Confederacy, with desertion becoming rampant, Cobb claims that hordes of volunteers will come forth if only the government will switch back to a volunteer system and make an appeal.
According to Levine, most Confederate concepts of the use of former slaves as combat soldiers tried to limit both their role, and the impact on slavery, although Lee had the perception to grasp and accept that widespread use of blacks in the CS army meant the end of slavery.
"(the)best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity(of black soldiers)...was a plan of gradual and GENERAL emancipaton."
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
Lee was criticized by some of being less than committed to slavery, which was true enough. But the fate of the black soldiers in a victorious Confederacy was to be quite constrained. Official slavery would be crippled, but a strict black code would confine blacks to certain occupations and areas.
William Oates, better known as leading his Alabamians vs. Chamberlain's Mainers at Little Round Top, mused after the war that if the CSA had freed blacks to serve as soldiers, it might have won: but the "free" blacks would be so regulated the South would avoid any real disruption of its "labor system."
Well, there's freedom and then there's "freedom". That's why there was a Civil Rights movement when I was a kid, and it certainly wasn't only Southerners who had a difficulty with the concept that equal meant equal. I would have to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
So black Confederates: the horse never really got out of the gate, and the race was fixed anyway.
I think I'd agree with that. It would, however, have been a first step in the evolution of the Confederacy's system and might have taken them down the same road that eventually came about.
Dear Tim,
I am familiar with Cobb quote, "our whole system is wrong..." in Bruce Levine's book, "Confederate Emancipation," there are a couple of quotes which states explicitly that effective black soldiers destroys the ideological underpinning of slavery.
Of course, black men had been valued soldiers from the Revolution on. At least one minuteman on Lexington Green was black, and thousands served in the ranks of both Washington's and British ranks. There were thousands of black seamen in the Navy's history, which didn't practice segregation until the 20th century. And of course the tens of thousands in the USCT, followed by the famous "buffalo soldiers" during the Indian wars and the Spanish American War. And that's not counting the 20th century.
I must say that most white Americans were able to continue to justify their belief in black inferiority despite any amount of evidence to the contrary. Racism, being an irrational prejudice, doesn't seem to be amendable to empirical evidence. At least not in the short run.
In Levine's book, calls for the Confederacy to enlist tens of thousands of slaves into the army went hand in hand with plans to perpetuate the inferior status of blacks.
I saw recently that at one point free blacks in Rhode Island had lost the right to vote for a few years (1820 or so?). But they were given the right back when black militia helped keep the peace in Providence during a riot/local insurrection (the Dorr Rebellion) .
The actual site may be a few miles east of Paineville
...
Thanks. Ed Bearss is one of the guides on that section of the tour, and he generally knows everything or can find it out. I've already put in a suggestion that it would be neat if the spot could be pointed out. I am pretty sure they'll have it nailed down by the time I show up. <g>
...were any of them involved in the fighting at the Chalmette line...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
I'd say it's likely that a few of them were, as state militia, but I'm not going to look it up.
Ole
According to this account they were NOT involved in the fighting at Chalmette-
"....Moved by the noble sentiment which prompts every man to defend his native country against invasion, urged by the desire to protect their families whom they believed to be in danger....the men of color of this city had, to cooperate in its defence, organized a regiment under the name of the "Native Guards," and I am persuaded, in spite of the opinion of "a Union citizen" in a journal of this city, that they would have fought courageously against the Federals. For proof of what I advance, I can assure you that on the 25th of April, when the troops who ought to have defended New-Orleans had already made a long distance between themselves and the approaching Federal fleet, the regiment of Native Guards still occupied the post assigned to it on Esplanade-street, and only awaited the order of its brave and worthy Colonel to accomplish the task imposed on it....
An Ex-Native Guard"
New York Times of 5 November 1862 (reprinted from New Orleans L'Union)
Guys, lets face it. While some blacks unofficially did pick up a musket, it was more an exception than a rule. I myself have found several incidents of black sharpshooters who fought for the Confederacy. However, isolated incidents are only that but do not make for a strong case of a national pattern.
Recall that the thought that a black man was capable of fighting was abhorent to many Southern whites (even though there are plenty of historical precedents in the War of 1812, the American Revolution and even the French & Indian War). Read the journals or diaries or letters of southern whites who were outraged to learn that they were fighting blacks. Finally, the Confederate Congress did not enable legislation until very late in 1865 authorizing the raising of black as soldiers. Old Pat Cleburne's letter asking that blacks be permitted to fight was probably the reason why he was never promoted beyond Maj-Gen. President Jeff Davis was shocked by Cleburne's letter and promptly killed the issue.
Could not have summed up the issue any better than you did above.
But I admit, I have found all the references by Buffalo-Guard, Battalion, OldRebel and others on those instances of blacks mentioned in Confederate service interesting and educational.
My only objection, like yours, is the degree of that participation. as I have no objection to deny the historical fact, as shown, that on ocasion, it did happen.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana