Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
As to the War of 1812, check out the Battle of New Orleans. Blacks fought on both sides at that battle. Blacks also fought during the Revolution. One of the first to die in the so called Boston Massacre was Crispus Attucks, a black man. BTW, I've no sympathy for those killed as they were rowdies who were pelting the soldiers. Cause a riot, expect to git shot. On the British side during the Revolution, there was Lord Dunmore's Ethiopians who wore a sash that read, Liberty to Slaves. There were numerous blacks who served on the side of the patriots. Some were slaves who were enlisted as substitutes for their masters. There's also Pompey who was adopted by the Shawnee and attacked the settlers at Boonesboro (by the same token, there was at least one black who fought on the side of the settlers during that same siege). A black man was known to serve in Roger's Rangers if you want to go back to the French & Indian War. Now, going back further, you'll find evidence of the blacks serving with the French against the Spainards in earlier wars in the New World. The martial history of blacks in this nation goes back longer than most folks know. Let's not forget York who accompanied Lewis & Clark on their hike across the continent.
Now, as to the blacks who served the Confederacy, there were some who certainly fought and most all of them were not enlisted. Until the final weeks of the war, Confederate law did not allow for accepting blacks as soldiers. However, manservants did fight and there's no shortage of documentation. Might I suggest one of those books I listed in an earlier post?
"To obscure the reality of black Confederates can also be viewed as an agenda to protect the reputation of the North.
The aim of the Northerner to to focus singularly on the subject of slavery (exclusively that which existed in the South) in order to ignore all other issues...which are far less flattering to it's image...
...anything that threatens the image must be opposed at all costs."
I was going to leave this particular post completely alone, because there is the first line of your post, which I view could be correct, if that was the purpose of myself and my fellow boardmembers when we debate this particular issue with you and other fellow boardmembers. I will not speak for professional historians or authors of books who also speak on this subject, but I shall attempt to do so for myself.
As far as I can tell, those who have participated on this thread, the Black Confederate Soldier thread, etc., have not denied the existence of blacks, free and slave, fighting in the Confederate ranks during the Civil War. We have no problem with the idea that any fighting man, black or white, that his memory should be honored and the history of his service should be told.
My particular problem has to do with the historical evidence of such service being placed in the proper historical context and that such service not be dishonored to fulfill a modern-day political agenda. Whether that political agenda be Politically Correct PC nonsense or Revisionist in nature.
I have asked myself, why do others bring up the fact that there were slaves and freemen fighting in the ranks with the South? And why am I almost automatically suspect in the presentation of this fact by this and others who support a Southern view of the war? As one of those folks now denoted as the 'Northerner...to focus singularly on the subject of slavery,' I will attempt a reply.
You try too hard.
In my view, the very attempt to portray that large numbers of black slaves and black freemen, fought as soldiers for the South, is a back hand attempt to absolve the very notion that slavery was central to the Civil War.
In attempting to put forth this theory of mass black participation in the war, it comes across as a frantic plea, 'See? Slavery couldn't have been a big deal if slaves were willing to fight for the South!' And if we can put slavery behind us as a primary cause of Southern secession, we can concentrate on those 'real' reasons for the war. By concentrating on this one approach, in my eyes, it simply reinforces the concept that slavery did have a lot to do with the war, in effect, making it an almost self-defeating concept.
Battalion, I notice your post 111 seems to be from a quote from another source. Is this the case? If it is, I would like to comment on some of its word usage.
"The aim of the Northerner..."
This simply reminds me of someone stuck hard in the past, one who must apply an easy label to someone to quickly describe the enemy instead of addressing the historical record. It is easier to shoot the messenger than to debate the issues with clever little quotes and phrases.
I submit to you, how many ordinary Americans who happen to live in the North are concerned with their reputation concerning the Civil War? Except for our fellow fanatical boardmembers who have a deep and abiding love of this period in history? You are trying to create an agenda that is not there with the majority of your nations fellow citizens. I wish to God we could get the majority of our children, our fellow citizens, both of the Northern and Southern sections of this country, to focus singularly on the causes of the Civil War, ANY of the causes, to discuss, debate and LEARN from them.
My final thought on this area of black slaves and freemen serving in the Confederate forces is this. When would the institution of slavery be discussed by yourself and others who view it as a singular issue that is used to ignore all other issues? Is the issue of men being compelled to serve vice volunteering so much less of an issue that it can be ignored?
Again, in my own opinion, this ability to try and completely ignore the issue of slavery and to push to the forefront that a small number of black slaves and freemen served in the ranks, does a disservice to those who did serve with the Confederacy and diminishes their bravery and courage.
Again, is it the purpose to show that slavery was not so bad? Or is it the intent to show the courage of the black man who fought for what he believed? The first will always be contested, whether the contester be a Northerner or Westerner, etc. The second I have no problem with if it is not attached to a political agenda, PC or otherwise.
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
Confederate law did not allow for accepting blacks as soldiers.
I have often heard this repeated here and other places, can you please show me where this comes from? I do not believe I have ever seen a signle piece of documentation or heard from a serious historian this "fact"
No slaves maybe, but no blacks? dont believe it till i see it
Have you read through the Black Confederate thread? There is a lot of information posted there that might give you some information. You'll find it on the General Discussion Forum.
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
The argument that Confederate law did not allow for the enlistment of black men as soldiers is specious. There are too many records of black combat soldiers for this argument to hold up. These soldiers are not found in pension records where the applicant says they served 'with Johnston's Army" but are service records which show enlistment, rank, dates when pay was drawn, etc. Richard Rollins, "Black Southerners in Gray" and Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., "Black Coknfederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" both dealt with this issue in a scholarly fashion more than ten years ago. The video, "Black Confederates", written and directed by an African American film maker, also deals with this issue from a variety of points of view.
UnionBlue has raised some interesting ideas but he has not dealt with the issue consistently. "How many ordinary citizens in the north think their reputation rests on what happened in the Civil War?" About the same percentage as in the South, that is, not too many. Very few people in the South are well versed in the causes of the war or its issues. The perception that Southerners care about the war is a prejudicial stereotype.
If we are to address the causes of the war clearly and honestly we must deal with the domestic terrorism advocated by Radical Abolitionists and their supporters. The United States is the only developed nation to end slavery via a civil war. All other western nations ended slavery peacefully, generally with compensated emancipation. This was not discussed by Radical Abolitionists. What is their share of blame for insisting on a violent end to slavery? After all, the law, the Constitution, social custom, and organized religion all supported slavery.
I feel that the charge is correct that many people from the North who wish to discuss the Civil War want to look at slavery as the sole cause because that avoids confronting the flaws in the North prior to, during, and after the conflict.
Please specifically identify the act or law, enacted by the Confederate government, that permited black slaves to enlist into the Confederate army.
We must deal with 'domestic terrorism' by Radical abolishionists? I submit that the issue was dealt with long before you and I have considered it.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!
...Slave insurrections are no more common now then they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southhampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it...Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will alike be disappointed...
Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union speech, February 27, 1860.
It took a war to end slavery in this country, even though compensation for slaveholders was offered, time and again, because those who valued slavery more spurned compensation. The simple fact of the matter was slavery could not be given up, either because of the greed behind it, or because of the social control it maintained.
This too, must be looked at objectively and not shoved off the pages of history. It would be more than any 'specious' contention I could be a part of.
Sincerely,
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
"That the act approved on the sixteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, known as 'An act further to provide for the public defense,' be, and the same is hereby, so enlarged and extended as to embrace all free white male citizens of the Confederate States of America between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not to be discharged upon attaining the age of forty-five if enrolled and mustered into service before."http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~ammem_zzkW::
Observe that conscription did not apply to men of African lineage. Slaves weren't authorized to be soldiers until very late in the war.
Gary:
The act does not show that blacks were barred from enlisting. It may well be that there was no Confederate law against enlisting blacks, but then, there was no law against murder, or theft, or amalgamation either -- they were state considerations. And some things simply needn't be expressed to be understood.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ole: the law authorized the conscription of free white males. There's an inference that you couldn't send your black slave in as your substitute. This is a departure from the Revolutionary War practice where a master could enlist his slave or his apprentice in his place. If you go through the muster rolls, blacks were allowed to serve as musicians, teamsters, bodyservants, cooks and there's no shortage of evidence that they did. I'll have to look some more but there's suppose to be some legislation out there that stated that a black musician got paid the same as did their white counterpart. This is better than the North which tried to say that their black soldiers were only laborers and tried to pay them $2 less a month than their white counterparts.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
