The Black Confederate

[gary]

Originally Posted by Battalion

See "IV"

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...F&pagenum=1161

OK, granted that in March 1865 legislation was passed authorizing the use of slaves as soldiers. Purportedly the two companies of blacks seen drilling in Richmond and joined the retreating columns where they fought one engagement against the pursuing Union cavalry.

However, for the most part, it was a matter of the master permitting or ordering his slave to serve. Said slave was never mustered in as a soldier nor could he be as it was proscribed by legislation. Some very light skin slaves did enlist but when found out, were discharged from their units. It's all a matter of distinguishing between "soldier" and an auxillary. If a "soldier" was one who had taken an oath and served in a military command that was authorized or accepted by some government body, whether it was state or national, in this case Confederate, then an armed slave in uniform who fought was not a soldier per se but a de facto soldier. Turning to auxillary, if we apply today's tasks performed by soldiers, then that same armed slave in uniform is a soldier. So, by determining which standard we apply today we determine the answer.

My own belief is that there were numerous blacks who served but as laborers or body servants. Every now and then a master may tell him to pick up a gun and bag a Yankee, but those incidents were not the norm. Remember, if the master consented to a slave shooting a gun, no one else had any say since the master may dispose of his "chattel" as he pleases.

[ole]

See March 23, 1865.

[ole]

See also in "IV" -- as far as he may.

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Dear Wild_Rose,

1. Many of the accounts after the Civil War are revisionist history trying desperately to change historical fact.

Or historical propaganda depending on your point of view.

Originally Posted by unionblue

2. Mostly the reason most people not believing in a large number of black Confederate soldiers is a lack of historical evidence that there were large numbers.

I've never argued the numbers. I don't think there is sufficient record to make an accurate guess.

Originally Posted by unionblue

3. It is not that it may contradict a prejudice. But it is a worry that it might just distort history by being blown out of proportion.

That should be everyone's concern. That is why I'm not claiming any specific numbers of black Confederates.

Originally Posted by unionblue

4. It complicates 'our simple sterotype of blacks vs whites as separate groups?' You mean something like in my above posts where Southern newspapers and Confederate soldiers said, 'ni ggers won't fight?'

No, that isn't what I had in mind when I first read this article. I thought how in spite of the class difference of blacks and whites in the antebellum South that so many of them came together in a common effort for a common cause. A lot of people, North and South, said derogatory things about blacks, but that didn't reflect the sentiments of all.

Originally Posted by unionblue

5.While I have no problem with the idea that local units sometimes played by their own rules and that armed Southern blacks fired on and killed Union soldiers, these incidents come across as clearly the exception, not the rule.

I agree with that but, I'd point out that even if there were 90,000 Confederate blacks, that would still come across as an exception, not a rule.

Originally Posted by unionblue

6. The 'simple portrayal of the North as Good' is not one that is accepted by any serious student of history nor by any member of this board who can read.

I realize that, however, the author of this article probably wasn't aware of this board when he/she wrote that. It was meant for the average person that often does have that mentality.

Originally Posted by unionblue

7. I propose to you the push for an enlarged role for Black Confederates is an attempt to minimize the war was about slavery. It is part 'Lost Cause' part embarrasement about being on the wrong side of history and it is about protecting our ancestors by putting them in a more favorable light. All we have to do is sacrifice historical fact to do it.

Neil, I've never felt that I was on the wrong side of history whether it was 9 or 90,000 blacks that fought for the South. Those Southern people who were left with a "lost cause" after the war did not interpret that lost cause to be "lost slavery', neither do I. I would stress that I'm not embarassed by my ancestors and whether or not you or anyone else understands what they were all about, I do understand. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself, but I'd be quite surprised if most Southerners with Confederate roots didn't feel the same way.

Originally Posted by unionblue

Now you are off track when you state Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his actual control because you cut off the effect it had. Wherever the Union lines were, wherever the Union army went, the Emancipation Proclamation freed hundreds of thousands of slaves. It gets pretty old when the same old dance is done ignoring the results of its full effect.

At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, there were practically no slaves freed in the Confederate states and there were NO slaves freed in the states not considered to be in rebellion. This is what tells us that actual emancipation wasn't Lincoln's goal in issuing the proclamation. He had a number of reasons, however. One thing he hoped to gain was a slave uprising against the white women and elderly of the South and to cause thousands of Confederate desertions. Of course, we know that didn't happen, but as they say..."it's the thought that counts".

Originally Posted by unionblue

You are correct that the Underground RR did not stop at the Mason/Dixon line. Illinois and Ohio had Black Laws that you describe. But I wonder when the war began, just how rigidly thes laws were enforced. And surely, you will not deny that those laws were changed during and after the war.

I don't know how rigidly those laws were enforced. I do know that in the years after the war there were serious race riots, not only in the South, but also in the North.

"The summer of 1919, called “The Red Summer” by James Weldon Johnson, ushered in the greatest period of interracial violence the nation had ever witnessed. During that summer there were twenty-six race riots in such cities as Chicago, Illinois; Washington, D.C.; Elaine, Arkansas; Charleston, South Carolina; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Longview, Texas; and Omaha, Nebraska. More than one hundred Blacks were killed in these riots, and thousands were wounded and left homeless.
The seven most serious race riots were those which occurred in Wilmington, N. C. (1898), Atlanta, Ga. (1906), Springfield, Ill. (1908), East St. Louis) Ill. (1917), Chicago, Ill. (1919), Tulsa, Okla. (1921) and Detroit, Mich. (1943).
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum...9.02.04.x.html

Since a vast majority of blacks lived in the South, it's surprising that of the seven most serious race riots, four of them were in Northern cities.

Originally Posted by unionblue

There were five slave states in the Union. How many were left after the war and could you please tell me what former slave states abolished slavery during the war?

I don't understand your question. As far as I know the thirteenth amendment is what ended slavery.

Originally Posted by unionblue

But why does no one from a Southern viewpoint ever recognize Lincoln did what no Southern leader of the time could do, which was change his views upon gaining experience with the 'negro question?'

I think it's because we don't believe it. Lincoln, while being anti-slavery, was lukewarm about it. It became convenient and politically advantageous for him to abolish slavery.

Originally Posted by unionblue

Lincoln did say that if there was an amendment passed that forever protected slavery where it was forever, he would abide by it. Did it pass?

Yes, it did. It was in the process of being ratified by the states when the war broke out. The Southern states weren't interested in the amendment to make slavery perpetual. That's odd behavior for someone going to war to perpetuate slavery.

Originally Posted by unionblue

And time and time again, the North/Federal government had offered compensated emancipation to slaveholders in the South. They refused.

But, the compensation was only offered after the war started. The South was fighting for her independence and here was Lincoln offering money to free slaves. Do you believe the South should have seriously called time out to the war, accepted Lincoln's proposal to compensate slave owners, emancipate the slaves, and then resume the war for independence? I can't imagine it.

Originally Posted by unionblue

9. Again, if proof, real historical proof, can be offered that large numbers of black slaves fought for the South, I will consider the 'Victimhood' theory.

Again, I'm not prepared to say how many. I don't think anyone knows.

Originally Posted by unionblue

10. Why did blacks fight? For love of their masters? By being forced to man guns? By being recruited at the last moment in a desperate cause? Compared to the hundreds of thousands that ran away to the Union lines and the over 180,000 that fought for the Union, just what reason would a black man, free or slave, fight for the privilege to remain a slave? Boggles the mind, doesn't it?v

I believe blacks fought for the Confederacy for many reasons, but I doubt the privilege of remaining a slave was one of them. If you can't accept that all slaves didn't live miserable existances then you will never be able to accept that some would fight for their homes.

Originally Posted by unionblue

11. Why did anyone fight for the North? 'No one really knows why men go to war to fight?' "We don't want to ask that question?' '1 out of 5 of them fought' because they were immigrants?' Not because of love of country. Not because they wished to uphold the law. Not because they thought the actions at Ft. Sumter and the taking of federal property wrong. No, that would be too simple, too easy an answer and it would afford those dead who fought for the Union too much in the way of honor and bravery and respect. The North must be the evil conquer or the version most desired simply will not apply. Yes, it is indeed a difficult question to answer. If you are deaf, dumb and blind and haven't picked up a history book lately.

Many immigrants did come to fight for the Union and many Northern soldiers didn't give a fig if the Southern states left the Union, nor did they care overly much about slavery. They fought because of loyalty to their Union. I believe that is the sum of it.

Originally Posted by unionblue

12. It is not that we want to believe the war was about slavery. It's just that the paper trail is too big and too long. Try as we might, to disguise, hide and ignore this underlying cause of the war, it comes back to confront us again and again. Mainly because of the South's own words and actions to protect the institution at all costs. To maintain it for profit, for social control and white superemecy. We just cannot bring ourselves to call dead men liars, especially since they considered their honor above all else. To refute their words, their document, papers, diaries, laws, customs and above all, their actions in bringing about the war to protect and defend a cherished insitution, flies in the face of recorded, documented history.

While I believe threat to the rights of the states were the cause of the war, and slavery was one of those rights, I believe that if anyone thinks the war was about slavery they must believe the Union was attempting to destroy thier own constitution which provided the right to slavery.

Originally Posted by unionblue

While there is evidence that some blacks fought for the South, it is recorded and documented history it was never an official, recognized effort on the part of the Confederate government, even though their were local exceptions at the state level. No serious attempt was made to make slaves a part of the armed forces of the Confederacy until it was far too late. And even then, the law would have returned any slaves back over to the tender mercies of their former masters.

I don't argue with that.

Regards,
Rose

[unionblue]

Battalion,

Reference your post# 38.

Lee's order did not reflect the law enacted by the Confederate congress when it passed the Negro Soldier Bill. No matter what Lee would have liked to have done in regards to freeing slaves who served, he served at the pleasure of his government. Do you seriously doubt the man would disobey his leaders?

Do yourself a favor and read the actual bill that was passed by the Confederate congress and find in it anywhere that states slaves would be freed upon their discharge from the army after service. IT IS NOT THERE.

From the book, Confederate Emancipation, by Bruce Levine.

Fears abouth slaves affinities and intentions had long reinforced opposition to arming (and especially freeing) them. But by the war's final spring, even some of that plan's long-time champions doubted it could find much favor in the slave quarters. Congress's refusal to promise freedom to slave volunteers, they concluded, had doomed the whole undertaking. Gen. Thomas C. Hindman, who had first urged this policy at the end of 1863, scoffed in 1865 at those who seriously expected "that any considerable number of slaves will volunteer, in good faith, to fight for our freedom without the stimulus of thereby winning their own freedom also."

Charles Button, another of the plan's (using slaves as soldiers) earliest advocates, was no more optimistic. "Candor compels us," his Lynchburg Virginian confessed in mid-March of 1865, "to say that we do not hope [for] much" from the new law because of "the fatal omission" of the promise of freedom from it. Button shared Hindman's contempt for expectations "that slaves, generally, would fight for the freedom of others with fetters on their wrists." The South had always claimed that it understood blacks better than did Yankees. But Button thought that familiar boast patently deflated now. So "if the Yankees laugh such a policy to scorn," the journalist sighed, "they will show a truer appreciation of human nature, and of the motives that govern men, than our legislators have shown in framing this bill."

...Col. William C. Oates agreed with Hindman and Button. By refusing to promise freedom to black volunteers, he recognized, Congress had effectively "nullified" the law. Oates doubted that any slave who might yet be enticed by so empty an offer could prove very useful in action. After all, he reflected wryly, "a negro who did not have sense enough, under that law, to have deserted to the enemy at the first opportunity would have been too much of an idiot to have made a good soldier."

...Gov. Joseph E. Brown told the Georgia legislature, the South could not expect black soldiers "to perform deeds of heroic valor" on its behalf "when they are fighting to continue the enslavement of their wives and children." Extend such an offer, predicted an editor in Brown's state, and the slaves, "would soon perceive the incentives are unequal, for Yankee ingenuity would teach them very clearly the difference between a partial and a universal action on the subject of freedom." And then "who can doubt which side they will take?"

The Charleston Mercury entertained no such doubts. Believing that a slave facing those alternatives would favor the Confederate appeal was simply "desperate in its absurdity." Even the deeply racist Rhett could not take seriously so low an estimate of the black man's intelligence. "He may not be a creature particularly given to logic or to metaphysical reasoning," Rhett wrote, "but he is not altogether a monkey. There are some simple things that he is able to understand." At the other end of the Confederate political spectrum, William W. Holden too dismissed as ludicrous any plan that told a prospective slave recruit that "his wife and children, though he may fight like a Trojan, and even save the life of his master a dozen times in battle, are still to be kept in bondage."

Battalion, please accept the established fact, that even when Gen. Lee expressed his opinion that any slave that served in the Confederate army should be freed, his opinion was not the law of the land. Here is a bit more on the subject of contridiction between the law and Lee's orders.

It was true that he, Lee, and others had by now agreed that arming blacks while keeping them enslaved would be foolhardy if not disastrous. But it was also true that [Jefferson] Davis remained unwilling to impose manumission upon a single master. These contradictory considerations yielded a set of orders carrying the apparent promise but no guarantee of freedom for black soldiers. They stipulated that "no slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman." In other words, they announced that only those slaves whose masters had already (and voluntarily) freed them would enter the prospective black companies. The legal power to grant or refuse freedom remained, as ever, in the hands of individual slaveowners. Just as important, General Orders No. 14 ignored and contained no mechanism for implementing the new law's fall-back provisions in case of slaveowner stonewalling (refusing to give up slaves for military service).

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Wild_Rose,

I am curious as to your post#44 and some of the replies you have made to mine.

You claim in number 2 & 3 of your posts that you do not know the specifics or the exact numbers of black confederate soldiers. Then why to you post an article that supports a stance that gives the decided impression there was?

As to the idea that blacks and whites in the south came together in a common cause, if you mean being forced into doing the will of the whites wanted, perhaps. The very idea that blacks had very little recourse to vent their views and displeasure at doing the bidding of whites tends to make this conclusion a bit suspect.

As for 90,000 black confederate soldiers being an 'exception' it would be more accurate to term this figure a 'miracle' based on the decided lack of historical documentation.

As for the author not being aware of this board, I am more than a little bit perplexed that distorting history depends on him being aware of us gets him a free pass to distort to the general public of 'average persons.'

As for the idea that Southerners after the war did not embrace a 'Lost Cause' myth, again, there is much that disputes this idea. Especially concerning the loss of slavery as a threat to them. We have only to look at Jim Crow, lynchings, voting restrictions, etc., to dispute this outlook further. In both the North and the South. While I agree you have nothing to be ashamed of when viewing your ancestors or be embarrassed about, I was not specifically referring to you at this present time. I was speaking to those who survived the war and the period leading up until the early 20th century.

As for the view the Emancipation Proclimation did not free any slaves, again, I must point out that even slaves at the time did not buy this argument and celebrated the date it was given as a holiday. The reason being, it did lead to the freedom of hundreds of thousands of slave, although not on the day of issue, one must confess that its results were pretty well documented. As for the idea of slave uprisings and trouble in the rear, it is also recorded that many slaveowners felt compelled to keep a close watch on their 'loyal' slaves for fear of such.

I will not deny that race riots in the North were not as terrible as lynchings in the South. As a matter of fact, lynchings took place in both regions and are nothing for either section to be proud of. Would you care to compare numbers for each section? But you miss my point by moving forward in history. Ohio's black codes were eliminated before the Civil War. During the war, no black slaves were forced back to their masters under the Fugitive Slave Act. Maryland abolished slavery during the war. Other Northern states slave and black codes were abolished.

As for you short, concise statement about Lincoln, I see you will not permit yourself any other view of the man or do any serious study of his views. We will agree to disagree.

As for the insane behavior of Southern states still leaving the Union even when an amendment had passed Congress protecting it, I will state that the South was not convinced that this amendment would stand, even if passed, as it could later be amended or overturned by a more populous North in the future. The only way to assure the survival of slavery was to leave the union. Madness yes, but again, the men of the time claimed it as their reason.

You are wrong about compensation being offered at the start of the war. It was offered by Henry Clay in the 1830's, but again denied. As for the Southern leadership giving up slavery in exchange for compensation, I agree with you, it wasn't going to happen, as they were so desperate to keep it, no amount would have made a difference, so ingrained was this institution in the Southern heart and mind.

While you may believe blacks fought for the Confederacy, you must realize by now, it was never in the numbers that mattered, as the majority voted with their feet or with their enlistments by the thousands to fight with the North. While I may agree with you that there were extremes in how slaves were treated by one master and then another, we must realize that this was not some sort of health care plan they liked so much that they hoped to remain slaves. No matter what form it took, no matter how lightly applied in some instances, this was forced labor for no compenstation, no pay, no say, no right to complain.

As for the idea that most Northern soldiers did care a fig about the Southern states leaving, the enlistment numbers after Ft. Sumter must be very confusing. As for the idea that did not care about slavery, I am willing to agree with you on that point at the start of the war, even mid-way through the war. But in the end, most Union soldiers recognized the fact that the war was about slavery and the South starting the war over this institution. No matter what their feelings concerning the negro, they knew the war was caused by it. But to belittle their idea or their motivation in support of the war, is a barely concealed insult to their memory which the author of the article barely conceals. Love of Union and the preservation of same should not be belittled.

As to the idea of States Rights being the cause of the war, I will agree, the States Rights to keep slavery, to expand slavery, to impose slavery in those territories and states that do not want it. The North did not begrudge slavery where it already existed and it was the South that tried to tear up the Constitution by conducting an illegal rebellion.

And you are right, I am quite stubborn when it comes to this part of reasoning about the late war.

My humble thanks for discussing the matter further with me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Buffalo-Guard]

Black Confederates Why haven't we heard more about them? National
Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, "I don't want to call it a
conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the
Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around
1910" Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a "cover-up" which
started back in 1865. He writes, "During my research, I came across
instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can
plainly see where 'soldier' is crossed out and 'body servant'
inserted, or 'teamster' on pension applications." Another black
historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought.
He explains that "…some, if not most, Black southerners would support
their country" and that by doing so they were "demonstrating it's
possible to hate the system of slavery and love one's country." This
is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during
the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even
though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.
Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates
of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple
criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that
"biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and
State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form
of Union raids…".

Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at
Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black
Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures
to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States
Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops,
came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful,
it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time)
consisting of black soldiers,even larger than that of the North. This
would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different
appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals
conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate
veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have
been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA
veterans came home after the war.


The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black
militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull
Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black
"regiments", one free and one slave, participated in the battle on
behalf of the South. "Many colored people were killed in the action",
recorded John Parker, a former slave.

Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary
Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of
Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in
this number [Confederate troops]. 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.....and were manifestly an integral
portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

Recently the National Park Service, with a recent discovery,
recognized that blacks were asked to help defend the city of
Petersburg, Virginia and were offered their freedom if they did so.
Regardless of their official classification, black Americans
performed support functions that in today's army many would be
classified as official military service. The successes of white
Confederate troops in battle, could only have been achieved with the
support these loyal black Southerners.

In March 1865, Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary Of State,
promised freedom for blacks who served from the State of Virginia.
Authority for this was finally received from the State of Virginia
and on April 1st 1865, $100 bounties were offered to black soldiers.
Benjamin exclaimed, "Let us say to every Negro who wants to go into
the ranks, go and fight, and you are free…Fight for your masters and
you shall have your freedom." Confederate Officers were ordered to
treat them humanely and protect them from "injustice and oppression".

During the early 1900's, many members of the United Confederate
Veterans (UCV) advocated awarding former slaves rural acreage and a
home. There was hope that justice could be given those slaves that
were once promised "forty acres and a mule" but never received any.
In the 1913 Confederate Veteran magazine published by the UCV, it was
printed that this plan "If not Democratic, it is [the] Confederate"
thing to do. There was much gratitude toward former slaves, which
"thousands were loyal, to the last degree", now living with total
poverty of the big cities. Unfortunately, their proposal fell on deaf
ears on Capitol Hill.

During the 5oth Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg in 1913,
arrangements were made for a joint reunion of Union and Confederate
veterans. The commission in charge of the event made sure they had
enough accommodations for the black Union veterans, but were
completely surprised when unexpected black Confederates arrived. The
white Confederates immediately welcomed their old comrades, gave them
one of their tents, and "saw to their every need". Nearly every
Confederate reunion including those blacks that served with them,
wearing the gray.

The first military monument in the US Capitol that honors an
African-American soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington
National cemetery. The monument was designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a
Jewish Confederate. Who wanted to correctly portray the "racial
makeup" in the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is
depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown
is one "white soldiergiving his child to a black woman for
protection".- source: Edward Smith, African American professor at the
American University, Washington DC.

Books:
Charles Kelly Barrow, et.al. Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology
About Black Southerners (1995). Currently the best book on the
subject.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War
Virginia (1995). Well researched and very good source of information
on Black Confederates, but has a strong Union bias.
Richard Rollins. Black Southerners in Gray (1994). Also an excellent source.
Dr. Edward Smith and Nelson Winbush, "Black Southern Heritage". An
excellent educational video. Mr. Winbush is a descendent of a Black
Confederate and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).
This fact sheet is provided by Scott Williams. It is not an all
inclusive list of Black Confederates, only a small sampling of
accounts. For general historical information on Black Confederates,
contact Dr. Edward Smith, American University, 4400 Massachusetts
Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20016; Dean of American Studies. Dr. Smith
is a black professor dedicated to clarifying the historical role of
African Americans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998, by Scott Williams, All Rights Reserved. Permission
granted to reproduce this fact sheet for educational purposes only.
Must include this statement on all copies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Battalion,

Reference your post# 38.

Lee's order did not reflect the law enacted by the Confederate congress when it passed the Negro Soldier Bill. No matter what Lee would have liked to have done in regards to freeing slaves who served, he served at the pleasure of his government. Do you seriously doubt the man would disobey his leaders?

Do yourself a favor and read the actual bill that was passed by the Confederate congress and find in it anywhere that states slaves would be freed upon their discharge from the army after service. IT IS NOT THERE.
...

How do the orders of Lee/War Dept. conflict with the Act?-

"...Sec.2. That the General-In-Chief be authorized to organize the said slaves...under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe...

...Sec.5. That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by the consent of the owners and of the States in which they reside..."

The Confederate Congress did not grant freedom because they (generally) believed they did not have the authority to do so...that it was a prerogative of the state or individual.

Lee simply made it a requirement.

[Battalion]

The organization of Black Confederate troops may have been proceeding at a greater rate than previously thought...and not limited to the Richmond area-

1 April 1865 (Federal report)
"Two camps of instruction for colored troops have been established at Tallahassee and Andersonville. In these camps are supposed to be 2,500."
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...IF&pagenum=180

Columbus, Ga., 3 April 1865
"Many negroes offered daily to volunteer. Could raise a brigade in a short time."
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-b...F&pagenum=1193

[ole]

Section !V of the act specified that slaves recruited would serve as freedmen -- that the slave's and owner's consent are required and subject to permission; i.e., state law regarding the freeing of that slave.

That stipulation appears to mean that a slave was given freedom in exhange for service before the fact. To argue that the slave was not promised freedom for service is strictly correct, but splitting hairs.

Being subject to the consent of the slave, the owner, and state law, the argument is reduced to the position that some (most, a few, not all) slaves were offered the option. The act recruited slaves who must be freed before service. Therefore, slaves did not serve officially.

That slaves did serve unofficially in an undetermined capicity or number is evident. That "thousands" were recruited two weeks before Lee's capitulation renders the entire question moot.
Ole