The Black Confederate

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Our only point has been that Blacks weren't all in the slavery system and some (not many) actually fought for the South, not supporting slavery, just trying to survive and help their neighbors and their families survive that terrible mess. There was more to life than slavery. Still is.

Larry, well said as usual and frankly the closest to the fact of the matter as I have seen on this thread in so short a statement. Thanks

[ole]

I think I got it. A black is not a confederate unless in uniform. Right?
Ole

[ami]

ok everybody, wrangle your emotions and keep your opinions civilized.

I am far too tired to have to "take things into my own hands"

Everybody stay in focus.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Unionblue,

You have summed up my posts very well. Thank you.

[Battalion]

Recruitment of Black Confederate Troops

"There will be assigned or appointed for each State, an officer who will be charged with the collection, enrollment and disposition of all the recruits that may be obtained under the first section of this act. One or more general depots will be established in each State, and announced in orders, and a suitable number of officers will be detailed for duty in the staff departments of the depots. There will be assigned at each general depot a quartermaster, commissary and surgeon, and the headquarters of the Superintendent will be at the principal depot in the State. The proper officers to aid the Superintendent in enlisting, mustering and organizing the recruits will be assigned by orders from this office, or by the General-in- Chief....

...No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his owner's consent and with the approbation of his master, by a written instrument, conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freed man, and which shall be filed with the Superintendent. The enlistments will be made for the war, and the effect of the enlistment will be to place the slave in the military service conformably to this act. The recruits will be organized at the camps in squads and companies, and will be subject to the order of the General-in-Chief, under the second section of this act.
....
To facilitate the raising of volunteer companies, officers recruiting therefore are authorized to muster their men into service as enrolled. As soon as enrolled and mustered, the men will be sent, with descriptive lists, to the depots of rendezvous, at which they will be instructed until assigned for service in the field. When the organization of any company remains incomplete at the expiration of the time specified for its organization, the companies or detachments already mustered into service will be assigned to other organizations, at the discretion of the General-in-Chief.

It is not the intention of the President to grant any authority for raising regiments or brigades. The only organizations to be perfected at the depots or camps of instructions are those of companies, and, in exceptional cases, when the slaves are of one estate, of battalions consisting of four companies; and the only authorities to be issued will be for the raising of companies or the afore said special battalions of four companies. All larger organizations will be left for future action, as experience may determine.

The Daily Dispatch (Richmond), 25 March 1865

[trice]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Recruitment of Black Confederate Troops
...
The Daily Dispatch (Richmond), 25 March 1865

I think everyone has already agreed that, when faced with desperate conditions in the Winter of 1864-65, the Confederacy finally agreed to allow the recruiting of blacks as armed troops. This was after Lincoln was re-elected, after Sheridan ravaged the Shenandoah, after Mobile Bay, after Sherman's March through Georgia and after Sherman had come north through South Carolina into North Carolina. It was after desertion in the Confederate Army reached crisis proportions and after Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee came out in favor of it. Even then, you have shown us that one-third of the House in the Confederate Congress tried to prevent the arming of blacks as soldiers.

We all have that under control. We understand it. Now, please tell us why you are quoting this excerpt from something we already know and have endlessly discussed. What is it you are trying to establish with this post?

Regards,
Tim

[unionblue]

Battalion,

The date says it all. 25 March 1865. One month before Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Too little, too late and mainly because, as discussed in previous posts, the overwhelming majority of whites in the South simply could not abide the arming and training of blacks, free or slave, even when their cause was far over the brink of defeat.

Ole, nice to see you have the ability to cut to any chase in a thread.

Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

But perhaps more significantly, slaves represented power, money and prestige to Southerners. What you are looking at here is that slave-owning families are typically families with property and influence. Politically, it is very hard to ignore: while about 25% of the NC families seem to have owned slaves, *ALL* of the members of the state legislature did. If you look at county-by-county votes on secession in places like TN, KY, VA, and NC you will find that the greater the percentage of slves in the county the more likely the county is to vote for secession or secession candidates. The counties with the fewest slaves usually are opposed to secession.

Originally Posted by Battalion

Wow...amazing how the secession votes don't always follow the apparent amount of slave-owner interest-
..............................................Sece ssion Convention...Popular Vote
State.........% Families w/Slaves......% For...% Against......For-Against
MISSISSIPPI...........49.....................85... ......15
SOUTH CAROLINA....46....................100..........0
GEORGIA................37.....................56.. .......44*.........42,744 - 41,717
ALABAMA...............35.....................54... ......46**
FLORIDA................34.....................90.. .......10
LOUISIANA.............29.....................87... ......13
TEXAS...................28....................95.. .........5...........46,153 - 14,747

* "Test" vote (166-130). Final vote- 208-89.
**Number of Rep's popularly elected to be for or against. Final vote- 61-39.
Why are the secession votes in Georgia and Alabama...close...

...and in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas (with fewer slaves)...it's no contest

If you look at what I actually said you will note you went off on your own, formed a conclusion based on something other than what I said, and now demand that I explain the contradictions in your own thought.

I have no desire to be offensive here, but what sort of background in statistics do you have? I wouldn't count myself as a statistican, but one of my degrees is in Political Science where we had to wade through just how deceptive statistics can be, particularly for elections, when applied in the way you are using them here.

I mentioned county-by-county breakdowns in a few specific states because I have, in the past, actually seen breakdowns on them and how they specifically related to voting in 1860-61 on this issue in states like VA and TN. You tear off on your own and ask me to explain states I was not referring to, but which I would guess you haven't even tried a similar breakdown for. Is that about the size of it?

An analysis of voting patterns on secession at that level would be fascinating, but it would probably take many man-years of effort, even with computers. Just finding the complete numbers would be a challenge (for example, there are several counties in Virginia where the vote count on secession is unknown, so analysis there is incomplete).

Even after that, you have to start bringing in the non-statistical factors to explain the statistics. For example, when Virginia voted they were already at war. Virginia troops had "invaded" Maryland at one point, Virginia had seized Harpers Ferry and the Norfolk Navy Yard, a few small actions had been fought on Virginia soil. Several thousand Confederate soldiers were already in Virginia, and the state leaders were already in full cooperation with the Confederacy, which was moving the Confederate capital to Richmond. Armed troops are standing by at the polling places (with enough upset in some places that the troops had to be ordered back to their camps/barracks). This is not your ordinary peaceful election, and some of the one-sidedness is undoubtedly due to coercion of oner form or another.

Much the same can be said in TN. When the 2nd election was held, there was a war on all around them and they were clearly going to be in the path of it. There have always been charges that election was fixed, and reason to believe it. The pro-secession governor had called up the state troops -- but since the troops voted 100% for secession in a deeply divided state, it is hard to believe he was calling them up randomly. It appears he may have selected only known secessionist units for callup before the election and/or that those who were called up were pressured.

Then the troops were stationed at the polling places for the election -- and popular pressure was exerted on voters to hand in their ballot unfolded so everyone could see how they voted for secession. So there you go to vote: armed troops are watching, your neighbors are standing by, and all the secssionists are effectively showing their vote to the public eye. This makes a mockery of the concept of the "secret ballot" and exposes anyone who uses it to the implied or inferred threat of reprisal. It didn't have a great effect in East TN (where the militia would have been pro-Union/anti-secession anyway if called up) or West TN (pro-secession anyway) but it does seem to have had a great effect in Middle TN which changed its votes greatly between the 1st and 2nd elections.

You would have to look closely at voting patterns in the states you mention to see what was going on, but here are a few things to keep in mind as you begin your work:

FL has a higher percentage of slaveholders in the population than Al, but a smaller average family size. FL, being very small in population, was traditionally tied to SC in all they did politically.

SC was the last state in the Union in 1860 with a property restriction on voting, as well as being the only state that did not allow a popular vote for President. Since property ownership usually related strongly with slaveownership, the 100% vote for secession or against Lincoln isn't very surprising. But 1860 is the last given year of that property requirement, so you'll need to find out when the change went into effect: before or after the secession-related votes.

Texas, BTW, had a large population of Mexicans who had become US citizens according to the treaty ending the Mexican War, but they had no voting rights. Only white males count for votes in that day, so remember to adjust your figures in Texas to account for the people who can't vote. That might make the decision in Texas clearer, just as the fate of those who didn't want secession might clear it up for you.

Let us know when you have the breakdown.

Regards,
Tim

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by trice

Much the same can be said in TN. When the 2nd election was held, there was a war on all around them and they were clearly going to be in the path of it. There have always been charges that election was fixed, and reason to believe it. The pro-secession governor had called up the state troops -- but since the troops voted 100% for secession in a deeply divided state, it is hard to believe he was calling them up randomly. It appears he may have selected only known secessionist units for callup before the election and/or that those who were called up were pressured.

Then the troops were stationed at the polling places for the election -- and popular pressure was exerted on voters to hand in their ballot unfolded so everyone could see how they voted for secession. So there you go to vote: armed troops are watching, your neighbors are standing by, and all the secssionists are effectively showing their vote to the public eye. This makes a mockery of the concept of the "secret ballot" and exposes anyone who uses it to the implied or inferred threat of reprisal. It didn't have a great effect in East TN (where the militia would have been pro-Union/anti-secession anyway if called up) or West TN (pro-secession anyway) but it does seem to have had a great effect in Middle TN which changed its votes greatly between the 1st and 2nd elections.

That is interesting. Do you have any information about what might happen to a Unionist in West TN had he refused to diclose his ballot or it was shown to be against secession?

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Recruitment of Black Confederate Troops

"It is not the intention of the President to grant any authority for raising regiments or brigades. The only organizations to be perfected at the depots or camps of instructions are those of companies, and, in exceptional cases, when the slaves are of one estate, of battalions consisting of four companies; and the only authorities to be issued will be for the raising of companies or the afore said special battalions of four companies. All larger organizations will be left for future action, as experience may determine."

The Daily Dispatch (Richmond), 25 March 1865

RICHMOND, VA., March 28, 1865.
Captain GEORGE P. RING,
Sixth Louisiana Regiment, Montgomery, Ala.:

SIR: You are hereby authorized to raise a company of negro troops in the State of Alabama, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 13, 1865, as promulgated in General Orders, No. 14, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, current series. The authority will expire sixty days from this date, if the company be not raised within that time.
By command of the Secretary of War:

JOHN W. RIELY,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

*

RICHMOND, VA., March 30, 1865.
Captain EDWARD BOSTICK,
Company E, Twenty-sixth South Carolina Volunteers:

SIR: You are hereby authorized to raise a battalion of four companies of negro troops in the State of South Carolina, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 13, 1865, as promulgated in General Orders, No 14, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, current series. You are allowed sixty days to raise the battalion and will be detached from your command for that purpose by your commanding general.
By command of the Secretary of War:

JOHN W. RIELY,
Assistant Adjutant-General.