I don’t “look around the internet” for lunatic assertions, and I don’t know of any significant historian or historical group that claims that there were brigade, division, or corps level black units. But you seem to ignore that even Gates is admitting that “many” black slaves “fought” alongside their masters -note that the words are “many” and “fought.” In fact, given the numbers of men involved in the war and the timespan Gates’ use of “many” could well be a concession that there were several thousand, although, if there were, I am sure that they were scattered among hundreds or thousands of units.
You mention people “backing down” on their claims on this subject. When I first noticed people claiming that some blacks fought on the Confederate side they were met with categorical denials and derision from people like Gates. The point I was making is that Gates is doing a “climb down” from that position and tries to save face by attacking a claim about Confederate units I don’t believe that even the League of the South has made.
It is simply no longer possible to maintain the comic book view of the sides on the conflict found in many textbooks. Both the relationships between the races in the South and the North and the forces that lead to disunion were complex.
“It’s crystal clear that without slavery we wouldn’t have gotten that war at that time with those sides.”
This is pointless. We could as well say that “without the tariff disputes”, or “without the internal improvement disputes”, or “without the disputes over the meaning of federalism”, or “without the Northern invasion of the South”, or “without the disputes over territorial expansion”, etc. you wouldn’t have gotten that war at that time with those sides.
In the beginning, Lincoln and his supporters were willing to throw the slaves to the dogs with the Corwin Amendment, which, had slavery been the main or only issue for the South, would have eliminated any fear any Southerner had about the federal abolition of slavery. Later, Lincoln decided to use a largely meaningless Emancipation Proclamation to frame the war in terms of slavery to keep the French and British from recognizing the Confederacy. By now, I think most people who read in this subject at all know that while Lincoln didn’t like slavery, he also didn’t like blacks. This was also the overwhelming majority view in the North before and after the war.
The “Jaffaite” narrative of Lincoln and the War as a noble fight to free the slaves and vindicate the Declaration is as ahistorical and the Pollard narrative of the stainless “Lost Cause.” For Gates and other race pimps there is a clear political and social pay-off to controlling the War narrative. That some people on FR insist on manichean interpretations, however, strikes me as odd.
You don't have to look very far to find people who do make those claims. Some of them are right here on Free Republic. There are others elsewhere on the Internet.
Of course, no "significant historians" do make that claim, but when the "Black Confederates" controversy started there were those who said or implied or led others to believe that the Confederacy had many African-American or integrated units. Try this for example:
Black Southerners found their way into Confederate armies in three ways. They served as body servants, taking up arms or in other ways demonstrating their support for the war. There were many individuals who enlisted in regular units on their own. finally there were several all-black or predominately-black units in Confederate armies or local defense forces. All three catagories of black Confederates appeared at Gettsyburg.
Of course those phantom units are absurd, but to say that nobody believes in them because "significant historians" don't would be like saying that nobody believes that 911 was an inside job because no "significant historian" does.
To find fault with a writer for addressing and criticizing fringe concerns only encourages the spread wacky fringe opinions. If you never thought or said that Southern Blacks rushed to join Black or integrated units, good for you, but don't pretend that there aren't people who have held and spread such opinions.
When I first noticed people claiming that some blacks fought on the Confederate side they were met with categorical denials and derision from people like Gates.
Hmmm ... people like Gates. That's what Internet politics involves -- putting words in other people's mouths. It's not going to stop any time soon, but you have what Gates actually writes here, and you choose to focus on what he might have said earlier or what "people like him" said. You accuse him of creating a "straw man" and here you are, still propping up your own straw man.
In fact, Gates has "backed down" but in the opposite direction. He endorsed a limited "Black Confederates" hypothesis, and when it was criticized he backed away from his original assertions. Did you even read the article? You may be right about his character, but speculating about what "people like Gates" wrote or thought, rather than finding out what he actually said, doesn't say much for your point of view on this, either.
When somebody says that there were thousands of Black Confederate troops, armed and in uniform and implies that they volunteered for military service, one person might simply issue a blanket denial that any African Americans ever fired a shot from the Confederate side. Another skeptic might be more judicious and say that there were drivers and porters and menservants and laborers in the Confederate lines who might at one point have picked up a gun. The second person would be closer to the truth, but they'd both be more correct than the person who made the original absurd claim.
I'm not going to fault somebody who responded to an absurd claim with a complete denial and then looked more carefully into the matter to come up with a more measured and balanced view. As it is, though, we have Gates's statement on the record, so there's no need to put words into his mouth, or to attack him for what he didn't say or find excuses for what he didn't do.
We could as well say that “without the tariff disputes”, or “without the internal improvement disputes”, or “without the disputes over the meaning of federalism”, or “without the Northern invasion of the South”, or “without the disputes over territorial expansion”, etc. you wouldn’t have gotten that war at that time with those sides.
A long-standing structural or institutional factor can't be the cause of a specific war at a specific time. Saying that the Constitution and state's rights caused the Civil War is like saying that France and Germany sharing a common border caused the wars of 1870, 1914, and 1939. Sure, the fact that France and Germany were neighbors helped make war possible, but why did wars start in those years and not in others? You have to look for some factor that isn't constant or long-lasting, something other than "disputes about federalism."
Tariffs and internal improvements also couldn't have been a very important factor in sparking secession and war. I'd say that so long as Southerners stayed in Congress and especially in the Senate, they wouldn't have had higher tariffs or more internal improvements than they could live with. That's just my opinion, but there's more.
If tariffs or internal improvements had been the issue of the hour, no way would the Democratic Party have split into two rival Northern and Southern parties, assuring a Republican victory. Southern Democrats would have stood with Northern Democrats against such policies. And if tariffs or internal improvements had been the essential issues to Southerners they wouldn't have further split their vote between the two Democrats and the ex-Whigs Bell and Everett. If tariffs or internal improvements had been more important than slavery, you can bet Southerns and Democrats would have stood together against them.
That some people on FR insist on manichean interpretations, however, strikes me as odd.
Manichean = a fancy way of saying "not my own"?
Most people recognize that all good wasn't on one side and all evil wasn't on the other. But partisans have a way of undercutting the moral arguments of the other side, so as to leave their own in a better position. The fact that people recognize that the war wasn't a crusade of pure good against pure evil doesn't mean they'll agree with the specific opinions you hold, and the fact that they disagree with you doesn't mean they take the war for such a crusade.