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.
1. I don’t know whose site you linked, but I don’t see anything that says that thee were even brigade level black units. Instead, what he describes is the involvement of a few here and a few there. For example:
“In Lynchburg 70 men enlisted to fight for the defense of Virginia soon after it seceded.
In late April, 60 black Virginians carrying a Confederate flag asked to be enlisted.
In Hampton 300 blacks volunteered to serve in artillery batteries.”
Of course, over all when the entire Confederacy is taken into a account, small groups like these could aggregate into a fair number, which is what the author you linked claims. Nevertheless, he doesn’t claim that there was a freedman’s brigade or division, for example.
As for “integrated units”, I would wager that almost all units were integrated in the sense that blacks were present performing various tasks. The issue is whether not whether they were there, but whether they did any fighting. Gates is conceding that many fought. If you include individuals of mixed race, the number could be several tens of thousands, which isn’t much considering the size of the armies, but it would be interesting nonetheless.
2. I agree with you regarding my comment regarding “people like Gates”. I should have simply said the typical liberal. You can find many of them calling him a heretic for saying the many blacks actually fought for the Confederacy. In any event, I should have left Gates out of it.
3. “A long-standing structural or institutional factor can’t be the cause of a specific war at a specific time.”
If we accepted this, then slavery couldn’t have been a cause either because it was both a long term institution and a structural factor in the economy of the US, not just the South. Disputes over these sorts of things do lead to conflict. And, of course, every conflict occurs at a specific place(s) and time(s). For example, while I agree that “borders” by themselves don’t cause wars, disputes about borders certainly do.
3. “Most people recognize that all good wasn’t on one side and all evil wasn’t on the other.”
Now it’s my turn to echo you. The Manichean view of the War is not uncommon, and “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.” ;-)