“Maybe those who say that the CSA had Black units mean battalions or companies or platoons or artillery batteries, but the ambiguity is what keeps the Black Confederate story or myth alive.”
When I first noticed articles on this subject the only claim was that blacks served as soldiers, including in combat. Nothing that I have seen goes beyond that. The response from the left was there were none at all. It appears to me now that the evidence is pretty clear that there was a significant number of blacks (including mixed race individuals) who served in the CSA. But while it may be that a few 10s of thousands served scattered throughout the CSA, I have seen no evidence that there were black regiments, brigades, divisions, or corps (the divisions or corps claim, if anyone were to make it, could be dismissed out of hand). So, it seems to me that it is no myth that blacks served in the CSA in significant numbers. If they served as units, however, it was most likely at the level of gun crews or squads.
“There was much support for expansion beyond the boundaries of the US...”
There was support for this - although I don’t think I would call it “much” - which is why I limited my comment to the US. The history of the filibusterers such as William Walker is quite interesting. I don’t think that you will find anyone from the period suggesting that black slaves would be useful in Colorado, for example, as miners, etc.
Although this is going far afield, I don’t agree that if in, say, 1774, the colonial leadership had gotten satisfactory action from Britain on their petitions and remonstrances that the War would have occurred. Even as it stood, only a minority supported the War. In particular, if the issues that led to the Fairfax Resolves had been handled properly by Britain, Washington, Mason, and others would probably not have become “radicalized” (from the British POV).
As for the Corwin Amendment, I believe it is clear that the reason it wasn’t accepted by the South was because there were other overriding issues. Those who want to place slavery at the center of the controversy ignore the fact that slavery was far more secure in the Union than outside. Why? Because of the Fugitive Slave Laws that seccession rendered ineffective for retrieving escaped slaves. In fact, had the South succeeded in seceding it is reasonably certain that slavery would have disappeared before long in the states bordering the North because slaves, as property, would have become too insecure to merit the initial capital investment (a true case of it being “cheaper to rent than to own”)
The scoffing, I think, had more to do with the notion that Blacks who found themselves working for the Confederacy signed on freely out of a pro-confederate spirit. Now if the conversation has shifted to drivers, diggers, haulers, cooks, personal servants, rather than to volunteers at arms and official Black units you'll naturally see the response adapt to new claims. 0
Those who want to place slavery at the center of the controversy ignore the fact that slavery was far more secure in the Union than outside. Why? Because of the Fugitive Slave Laws that seccession rendered ineffective for retrieving escaped slaves.
Some clever people came up with that interpretation over the last 20 or 30 years. I'm not saying that nobody in 1860 might have thought that way. There were clever people then too. But that notion was very far from what most people, gripped by the passions of the day, would have said or thought. It's like one of those political paradoxes today that charm ironists but don't influence partisans in the least.