Would the South Have Armed Slaves?

I have not looked into Shattered Nation , i'll check that one out (my original plan was basically the same thing you described: The AoT winning a decisive victory at Atlanta, bringing the end of the Lincoln adminastration and all that, and having the focus of the story being Patrick Cleburne campaigning to end slavery; I dropped this for the C.S.C.T. angle, felt i had more i could do with that)
As for Turtledove, that series was what INSPIRE me to start this project in the first place. Loved his little cameo at the start of American Front, but I felt like, given his disposition on arming slaves, he'd be an outspoken supporter of manumission. Not that he was an ardent abolitionist in real life, but, given he was willing to openly suggest recruiting slaves and freeing them to save his country, he'd probably develop in that direction (though of course, I can only guess).




It WOULD make the debate on the causes of the war even MORE furious. Definitely give more credence to the Lost Cause movement.
I see that another CWTer is familar with Turtledove's work and I already know that @CanadianCanuck himself a Civil War Althist brought that up and I discussed a live-action television (streaming service) adaptation of the series that has 4-5 seasons with a number of source material changes for historical realism such as the politics and nations of Europe and North America (The Battle of Camp Hill results in the Union Army of the Potomac facing heavy casualties and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia capturing the Pennsylvania state capital of Harrisburg and a peace treaty signed in Philadelphia, some nations collapse such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire by this world's Great Depression due to issues revolving around the various rebellious ethnicties, Italy gets involved in the First and Second Great Wars as an Entente/Alliance country and also become a Futurist/Fascist dictatorship led by Benito Mussolini, Integralism is this world's Fascism with Russia as a Nazi-esque dictatorship led by the All-Russian National Patriot Party based off a real-life obscure party, Britain led by the British Union of Integralists/Silvershirts based off a real British fascist party, France under a coalition of reactionary political parties and movements led by Action Francaise and Charles Maurras, Japan seeing its empire dissipate due to being on the losing side of the First Great War and falling under a statist government under Hideo Tojo just like OTL, Gordon McSweeney survives and is a major character becoming President of the United States for the Socialist Party which replaced the now-defunct Republican Party as the rival to the Democrat Party, and the National Freedom Restorationist Confederate Party/Freedom Party a Nazi Party/Ku Klux Klan hybrid, America and Germany splitting from their alliance post-Second Great War over the latter's genocide of Congolese and the Lebensraum colonial policies in Mittelafrika etc.).

Southern Victory is the only Civil War alternate history that could be realistically adapted since it has a somewhat noticible fanbase and one small company named The Andrew Wyly Film Company did plan to adapt the series as a television minseries in 2013 but never came to fruition but I hope it will hit the small screen and the right creators/crew will make it a success but of course given the toxic political climate that would arise from the announcement of such a series I'm a little cautiously optimistic.
 
@Luke Freet, Patrick Cleburne's reputation is going to change he''ll be remembered as a great man and emancipator for the Confederacy among his supporters (white and a few black C.S.C.T. officers and blacks North and South) next to his tactical brilliance as "The Stonewall of the West".

And in regards to a specific issue revolving around Confederate symbols/statues they might as well have a slightly better reputation for the 21st century given that there thousands of black troops fighting under them happened in TTL and perhaps most white and black Americans (Northern or Southern) would view the Confederacy as having its merits and flaws rather than one side viewing favorably and the other not. And when you mentioned the Lost Cause mythology as having a little more credence perhaps the myth of the "happy slave" here would actually have some truth to it with their being actual black Confederate soldiers in active combat.
 
So, working out more officers who will be open to leading black troops
Running under the assumption that many young officers would be more open to the idea of leading black troops.
Also Considering foreign born naturalized citizens like Cleburne and von Zinken who had an outsiders perspective.
Here's my listing so far:
- LTG Richard Ewell
- MG John Gordon
- BG G. T. Anderson
- BG J. C. C. Sanders
- BG Daniel Ruggles (Abolitionist; in scenario would most likely would be placed in charge of recruiting efforts)
- MG Patrick Cleburne
- BG John Kelly (Cavalry; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. Leon von Zinken (20th Louisiana)
- Ltc. John C. Pemberton (assuming he would recruit a regiment to regain his reputation after his failure to defend Vicksburg)
- Col. J. Cooper Nisbet (66th Ga)
- Col. George F. Baucum (8th-19th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. John E. Murray (5th-13th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. John W. Colquitt (1st-15th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. A. B. Hardcastle (32nd-45th Ms; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Ltc. Elisha Warfield (2nd-24th Akone of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Peter Snyder (6th-7th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Frederick A. Ashford (16th Al; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Richard J. Person (5th Confederate; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. G. S. Deakins (35th-48th Tn;one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal))
- Capt. J. H. Collett (7th Texas; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Thomas P. Turner (General Ewell's staff; historically took part in recruitment 1865 of black troops)
- Capt. Thomas F. McCardell (64th Ga; Historically recommend a colonelcy to command a negro regiment; war ended before it formed)
- Capt. William Thomas Jones (35th NC; mulatto; one of a few black soldiers in the entire confederate army, and an officer no less, historically ending his service as a 1st Lt. before being captured at the Battle of the Crater)
- Major Adolph Proskauer (12th Al; highest ranking Jewish officer in Confederate officer; born in Silesia)
- Capt. Max van den Corput (Cherokee Artillery; born in Belgium; battery guns famously lost to Benjamin Harrison's men at Reseca)
- Ltc. John C. Moore (Resigned Brigadier after Chattanooga)
- Col. William Otey (11th Va; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. George P. Ring (6th Louisiana; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. Edward Bostwick (26th SC; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. Chambliss + Capt. Grimes (Named as commanders of the 2 black companies that marched down the streets of Richmond in parade, the only 2 successfully formed companies before the end of the war; mentioned in Richmond paper; origin unspecified)
- Maj. Phillip Frazer (27th Va; aged 19)
- Col. George Bibb Crittenden (Disgraced general)
 
So, working out more officers who will be open to leading black troops
Running under the assumption that many young officers would be more open to the idea of leading black troops.
Also Considering foreign born naturalized citizens like Cleburne and von Zinken who had an outsiders perspective.
Here's my listing so far:
- LTG Richard Ewell
- MG John Gordon
- BG G. T. Anderson
- BG J. C. C. Sanders
- BG Daniel Ruggles (Abolitionist; in scenario would most likely would be placed in charge of recruiting efforts)
- MG Patrick Cleburne
- BG John Kelly (Cavalry; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. Leon von Zinken (20th Louisiana)
- Ltc. John C. Pemberton (assuming he would recruit a regiment to regain his reputation after his failure to defend Vicksburg)
- Col. J. Cooper Nisbet (66th Ga)
- Col. George F. Baucum (8th-19th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. John E. Murray (5th-13th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. John W. Colquitt (1st-15th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. A. B. Hardcastle (32nd-45th Ms; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Ltc. Elisha Warfield (2nd-24th Akone of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Peter Snyder (6th-7th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Frederick A. Ashford (16th Al; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Richard J. Person (5th Confederate; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. G. S. Deakins (35th-48th Tn;one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal))
- Capt. J. H. Collett (7th Texas; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Thomas P. Turner (General Ewell's staff; historically took part in recruitment 1865 of black troops)
- Capt. Thomas F. McCardell (64th Ga; Historically recommend a colonelcy to command a negro regiment; war ended before it formed)
- Capt. William Thomas Jones (35th NC; mulatto; one of a few black soldiers in the entire confederate army, and an officer no less, historically ending his service as a 1st Lt. before being captured at the Battle of the Crater)
- Major Adolph Proskauer (12th Al; highest ranking Jewish officer in Confederate officer; born in Silesia)
- Capt. Max van den Corput (Cherokee Artillery; born in Belgium; battery guns famously lost to Benjamin Harrison's men at Reseca)
- Ltc. John C. Moore (Resigned Brigadier after Chattanooga)
- Col. William Otey (11th Va; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. George P. Ring (6th Louisiana; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. Edward Bostwick (26th SC; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. Chambliss + Capt. Grimes (Named as commanders of the 2 black companies that marched down the streets of Richmond in parade, the only 2 successfully formed companies before the end of the war; mentioned in Richmond paper; origin unspecified)
- Maj. Phillip Frazer (27th Va; aged 19)
- Col. George Bibb Crittenden (Disgraced general)
an assumption - nothing more
 
Last edited:
So, working out more officers who will be open to leading black troops
Running under the assumption that many young officers would be more open to the idea of leading black troops.
Also Considering foreign born naturalized citizens like Cleburne and von Zinken who had an outsiders perspective.
Here's my listing so far:
- LTG Richard Ewell
- MG John Gordon
- BG G. T. Anderson
- BG J. C. C. Sanders
- BG Daniel Ruggles (Abolitionist; in scenario would most likely would be placed in charge of recruiting efforts)
- MG Patrick Cleburne
- BG John Kelly (Cavalry; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. Leon von Zinken (20th Louisiana)
- Ltc. John C. Pemberton (assuming he would recruit a regiment to regain his reputation after his failure to defend Vicksburg)
- Col. J. Cooper Nisbet (66th Ga)
- Col. George F. Baucum (8th-19th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. John E. Murray (5th-13th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. John W. Colquitt (1st-15th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Col. A. B. Hardcastle (32nd-45th Ms; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Ltc. Elisha Warfield (2nd-24th Akone of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Peter Snyder (6th-7th Ak; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Frederick A. Ashford (16th Al; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Richard J. Person (5th Confederate; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. G. S. Deakins (35th-48th Tn;one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal))
- Capt. J. H. Collett (7th Texas; one of the signature of Cleburne's Proposal)
- Maj. Thomas P. Turner (General Ewell's staff; historically took part in recruitment 1865 of black troops)
- Capt. Thomas F. McCardell (64th Ga; Historically recommend a colonelcy to command a negro regiment; war ended before it formed)
- Capt. William Thomas Jones (35th NC; mulatto; one of a few black soldiers in the entire confederate army, and an officer no less, historically ending his service as a 1st Lt. before being captured at the Battle of the Crater)
- Major Adolph Proskauer (12th Al; highest ranking Jewish officer in Confederate officer; born in Silesia)
- Capt. Max van den Corput (Cherokee Artillery; born in Belgium; battery guns famously lost to Benjamin Harrison's men at Reseca)
- Ltc. John C. Moore (Resigned Brigadier after Chattanooga)
- Col. William Otey (11th Va; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. George P. Ring (6th Louisiana; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. Edward Bostwick (26th SC; Historically assigned by Confederate government to recruit company of Black soldiers)
- Capt. Chambliss + Capt. Grimes (Named as commanders of the 2 black companies that marched down the streets of Richmond in parade, the only 2 successfully formed companies before the end of the war; mentioned in Richmond paper; origin unspecified)
- Maj. Phillip Frazer (27th Va; aged 19)
- Col. George Bibb Crittenden (Disgraced general)
Have you seen this list? It's from Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in CW Virginia by Ervin L Jordan.

bcofficers3.jpg

bcofficers2.jpg
bcofficers1.jpg

bcofficers.jpg
 
Last edited:
My question: was there even a chance the Confederacy would have armed slaves when there was still even a glimmer of hope to not lose the war? My own tentative answer is that there was never really a chance. Most Southerners would never accept it, and many soldiers would likely have mutinied or deserted. Davis' many political enemies, such as Robert Toombs, Joseph E. Brown, Alexander H. Stephens and Zebulon B. Vance would be at the head of the outrage. Davis may even have found his actions grounds for impeachment proceedings.

Despite this, one idea I had was this:
- Point of divergence: William H. T. Walker is killed at Chickamauga.
- Cleburne approaches Johnston privately with his proposal. Johnston suggests sending it to the president, but recommends sending through Robert E. Lee.
- Lee brings it to Davis, and he and Judah Benjamin bring him round to the idea. Lee publicly approves Cleburne's proposal, somewhat calming the outrage. Yet here I still can't see Lee's support making a difference.

But what say you?

I was working on a story based on Clebure's proposal getting enacted by the Confederate Congress. Was enthusiastic about the concept, until i read into Craig Symonds' book on Patrick Cleburne Stonewall of the West and read the chapter on his proposal, and how futile the possibility of its enactment was.

It's not hard to contrive a "what if" scenario, but it does take some construction. I don't know if something centered around the Cleburne proposal would work out as reasonable speculative history, but there are other things one could do.

Historians tell us that nothing is inevitable. People respond to events and other people, and the nature, scope, and timing of events make a difference. Historians use the term Contingency to conceptualize the idea that history unfolds "in response" to events.

{Contingency is key to historical thinking and helping students understand that while in hindsight, the past seems to unroll in logical storylines, this was not necessarily the case for those who lived through it. If suffragettes hadn't taken to the streets in the 1910s or focused on changing state laws, would they have won the vote in 1920? If the Treaty of Versailles contained different stipulations, would Germany have taken the path it did and would WWII have happened? Historical events are dependent (or contingent) on multiple causes that shape when, how, and why an event happened the way it did.}

Looking at the history: The Confederacy supported slave enlistment at the start if 1865, when it was clear the CSA was losing, and in fact, close to defeat. It seems that slave enlistment was contingent on the CSA being close to defeat, and desperate enough to use slaves as soldiers.

But what if desperate times occurred sooner than that? We know that in real life Confederate forces in Virginia enjoyed success against Union forces early in the war. Suppose that Confederates were suffering bad losses instead? Suppose those losses were so terrible that R E Lee ~ who championed black enlistment in 1865 ~ supported black enlistment in 1862? He might have been able to convince his home state of VA to create black militia units to give armed support to Confederates (and state officials did finally support using slaves as soldiers in early 1865).

Thusly, Lee might have started by using free blacks as soldiers - Virginia had 58,000 free blacks, the most of any Confederate state (44% of all blacks in the Confederacy resided in VA). Let's suppose that those black soldiers were decisive in a battle or 2 or 3 or more. That could then lead Lee to use even enslaved men as soldiers.

NC is right next door to VA, and it had the second most free blacks of any Confederate state. It could have followed the example of VA, and then used free blacks as soldiers, and then used enslaved people.

And following the precedent of those two states, maybe more states enlist slaves. (There were very few free blacks in the CSA outside of VA, NC, and LA.) Maybe.

That's just an example of how you could contrive a reasonable scenario for the employment of black soldiers.

- Alan
 
It's not hard to contrive a "what if" scenario, but it does take some construction. I don't know if something centered around the Cleburne proposal would work out as reasonable speculative history, but there are other things one could do.

Historians tell us that nothing is inevitable. People respond to events and other people, and the nature, scope, and timing of events make a difference. Historians use the term Contingency to conceptualize the idea that history unfolds "in response" to events.

{Contingency is key to historical thinking and helping students understand that while in hindsight, the past seems to unroll in logical storylines, this was not necessarily the case for those who lived through it. If suffragettes hadn't taken to the streets in the 1910s or focused on changing state laws, would they have won the vote in 1920? If the Treaty of Versailles contained different stipulations, would Germany have taken the path it did and would WWII have happened? Historical events are dependent (or contingent) on multiple causes that shape when, how, and why an event happened the way it did.}

Looking at the history: The Confederacy supported slave enlistment at the start if 1865, when it was clear the CSA was losing, and in fact, close to defeat. It seems that slave enlistment was contingent on the CSA being close to defeat, and desperate enough to use slaves as soldiers.

But what if desperate times occurred sooner than that? We know that in real life Confederate forces in Virginia enjoyed success against Union forces early in the war. Suppose that Confederates were suffering bad losses instead? Suppose those losses were so terrible that R E Lee ~ who championed black enlistment in 1865 ~ supported black enlistment in 1862? He might have been able to convince his home state of VA to create black militia units to give armed support to Confederates (and state officials did finally support using slaves as soldiers in early 1865).

Thusly, Lee might have started by using free blacks as soldiers - Virginia had 58,000 free blacks, the most of any Confederate state (44% of all blacks in the Confederacy resided in VA). Let's suppose that those black soldiers were decisive in a battle or 2 or 3 or more. That could then lead Lee to use even enslaved men as soldiers.

NC is right next door to VA, and it had the second most free blacks of any Confederate state. It could have followed the example of VA, and then used free blacks as soldiers, and then used enslaved people.

And following the precedent of those two states, maybe more states enlist slaves. (There were very few free blacks in the CSA outside of VA, NC, and LA.) Maybe.

That's just an example of how you could contrive a reasonable scenario for the employment of black soldiers.

- Alan
Hard to set a lower point in the Confederacy's fortunes in 1862.
In February Ft. Henry and Donelson fall, and with them most of Middle Tennessee.
New Orleans and Island Nr. 10 are captured opening up the Mississippi to Federal incursions.
The bloody loss at Shiloh, where more Americans combat casualties in those 2 days alone than in all the previous wars combine. In addition the loss of General A. S. Johnston
Strategic defeats at Pea Ridge and Glorietta Pass
A federal army defeating the main Confederate force outside Richmond at Seven Pines.

The best option for the suggestion to be made is if Joe Johnston wasnt wounded at Seven Pines and did what Davis feared he would and abandons Richmond. Only then, or maybe after Antietam though that's still a stretch, would a proposal to arm slave nationwide make sense. And that is hard to believe.

Honestly, the more plausible scenario is that the government is less restrictive on allowing freemen and creoles to form units to fight for them, and even allows to an extent the recruitment of slaves by independent sources rather than blanket refusing and obstructing any and all non-white units from service. It'd support the claims that they actually were fighting for states right's, though that is a debate in and of itself.
 
Hard to set a lower point in the Confederacy's fortunes in 1862.
In February Ft. Henry and Donelson fall, and with them most of Middle Tennessee.
New Orleans and Island Nr. 10 are captured opening up the Mississippi to Federal incursions.
The bloody loss at Shiloh, where more Americans combat casualties in those 2 days alone than in all the previous wars combine. In addition the loss of General A. S. Johnston
Strategic defeats at Pea Ridge and Glorietta Pass
A federal army defeating the main Confederate force outside Richmond at Seven Pines.

The best option for the suggestion to be made is if Joe Johnston wasnt wounded at Seven Pines and did what Davis feared he would and abandons Richmond. Only then, or maybe after Antietam though that's still a stretch, would a proposal to arm slave nationwide make sense. And that is hard to believe.

Honestly, the more plausible scenario is that the government is less restrictive on allowing freemen and creoles to form units to fight for them, and even allows to an extent the recruitment of slaves by independent sources rather than blanket refusing and obstructing any and all non-white units from service. It'd support the claims that they actually were fighting for states right's, though that is a debate in and of itself.

The CSA's fortunes might have been low in 1862, but I don't think they perceived imminent defeat. Indeed, the war lasted until the spring of 1865.

Most historians, when asked, seem to say that the mid-summer losses at Gettysburg and Vicksburg constituted the low point at which the Confederacy could not recover. But I don't think Confederates perceived imminent defeat. Indeed, the war lasted until the spring of 1865.

As I look at the language Lee used in his letter that advocated the use of slaves in early 1865, he sounded as if defeat was imminent. That's the key: not just that Confederates were losing battles, but the feeling that defeat - the collapse of the Confederacy - was imminent.

This is from Lee's letter:

Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia​
January 11, 1865​
Hon. Andrew Hunter​
Richmond, Va.:​
Dear Sir:​
I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.​
Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.
Should the war continue under the existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races.​
I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which must be produced upon our social institutions. My opinion is that we should employ them without delay; I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.​
Lee says "I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." He continues, "Should the war continue under the existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population... I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which must be produced upon our social institutions. My opinion is that we should employ them without delay." Lee is making it clear: "current conditions" indicate a "great calamity" is coming to the Confederate nation; "existing circumstances" indicate the enemy is on the cusp of "Us(ing) (our) slaves against us."

In Lee's mind, at this moment, Confederates only had two choices; as he put it, "we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which must be produced upon our social institutions." I don't think Lee had previously put the conditions of the war in such stark terms.

- Alan
 
It's not hard to contrive a "what if" scenario, but it does take some construction. I don't know if something centered around the Cleburne proposal would work out as reasonable speculative history, but there are other things one could do.

Historians tell us that nothing is inevitable. People respond to events and other people, and the nature, scope, and timing of events make a difference. Historians use the term Contingency to conceptualize the idea that history unfolds "in response" to events.

{Contingency is key to historical thinking and helping students understand that while in hindsight, the past seems to unroll in logical storylines, this was not necessarily the case for those who lived through it. If suffragettes hadn't taken to the streets in the 1910s or focused on changing state laws, would they have won the vote in 1920? If the Treaty of Versailles contained different stipulations, would Germany have taken the path it did and would WWII have happened? Historical events are dependent (or contingent) on multiple causes that shape when, how, and why an event happened the way it did.}

Looking at the history: The Confederacy supported slave enlistment at the start if 1865, when it was clear the CSA was losing, and in fact, close to defeat. It seems that slave enlistment was contingent on the CSA being close to defeat, and desperate enough to use slaves as soldiers.

But what if desperate times occurred sooner than that? We know that in real life Confederate forces in Virginia enjoyed success against Union forces early in the war. Suppose that Confederates were suffering bad losses instead? Suppose those losses were so terrible that R E Lee ~ who championed black enlistment in 1865 ~ supported black enlistment in 1862? He might have been able to convince his home state of VA to create black militia units to give armed support to Confederates (and state officials did finally support using slaves as soldiers in early 1865).

Thusly, Lee might have started by using free blacks as soldiers - Virginia had 58,000 free blacks, the most of any Confederate state (44% of all blacks in the Confederacy resided in VA). Let's suppose that those black soldiers were decisive in a battle or 2 or 3 or more. That could then lead Lee to use even enslaved men as soldiers.

NC is right next door to VA, and it had the second most free blacks of any Confederate state. It could have followed the example of VA, and then used free blacks as soldiers, and then used enslaved people.

And following the precedent of those two states, maybe more states enlist slaves. (There were very few free blacks in the CSA outside of VA, NC, and LA.) Maybe.

That's just an example of how you could contrive a reasonable scenario for the employment of black soldiers.

- Alan
Alongside the concept of "For a want of a nail", Contigency is a very important aspect of alterante history as it focuses on historical events having alternate outcomes good or bad.
 
John Brown Gordon was a general who served under R E Lee, in the Army of Northern Virginia if I have it right. After the war he wrote Reminiscences of the Civil War. This is from the book, which speaks about the conditions under which enslaved people might be enlisted:

The condition of our army was daily becoming more desperate. Starvation, literal starvation, was doing its deadly work. So depleted and poisoned was the blood of many of Lee's men from insufficient and unsound food that a slight wound which would probably not have been reported at the beginning of the war would often cause blood-poison, gangrene, and death.​
Yet the spirits of these brave men seemed to rise as their condition grew more desperate. The grim humor of the camp was waging incessant warfare against despondency. They would not permit one another to be disheartened at any trial, or to complain at the burden or the chafing of any yoke which duty imposed. It was a harrowing but not uncommon sight to see those hungry men gather the wasted corn from under the feet of half-fed horses, and wash and parch and eat it to satisfy in some measure their craving for food.
It was during this doleful period that the suggestion to give freedom to Southern slaves and arm them for Southern defence became the pressing, vital problem at Richmond. It had been seriously considered for a long period by the civil authorities, and the opinions of certain officers in the field were at this time formally solicited.​
General Lee strongly favored it, and so did many members of Congress; but the bill as finally passed was absurdly deficient in the most important provisions. It did not make plain the fact that the slave's enlistment would at once secure his freedom.​
Public sentiment was widely divided as to the policy of such a step. In its favor was the stern fact, universally recognized, that it was no longer possible to fill our ranks except by converting slaves into soldiers; while the great Government at Washington could enlist men not only from the populous States of the Union, but from the teeming populations of foreign countries.​

- Alan
 
Last edited:
View attachment 215045

Brigadier-General George T. Anderson


Anderson’s Brigade (7th, 8th, 9th, 11th and 59th Georgia Regiments)


“At a meeting of Anderson’s brigade, Fields’ division, held at
their entrenched camp, near Richmond, Feb. 10th, 1865, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted:

......" Resolved, That we call upon Congress to take necessary steps for
immediately placing 200,000 **** in the ranks of the Confederate army.
We care not for the color of the arm that strikes the invader of our homes.
Resolved, That our depleted commands should be consolidated, and
in no event should the companies be less than the minimum now prescribed by
law, viz: 64 rank and file......”
Columbus (Ga.) Times, March 3, 1865.
I've heard a lot regarding Tige Anderson's Brigade on this issue. I remember on an old site listing a bunch of field reports from the Siege of Petersburg, a soldier made note on one of these officials' reports to not fret, that they'll have negro soldiers in the ranks.
Would love to find that, along with a copy of that entry you mentioned here, as I am working on an assignment for my college regarding this whole issue now. Gotta put my interests to good use!
 
Back
Top