Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Black Confederate
RedState.org ^ | 21 May 05 | Tom Darby

Posted on 05/21/2005 1:31:37 PM PDT by CurlyBill

The Black Confederate

By: Tom Darby · Section: Diaries

Contrary to popular historical education and Southern revisionists, there is much evidence that African-American's served their country not only in the Union army but also in the Confederate army and navy. This evidence is found in the diaries, journals, newspaper articles and documents written by soldiers, officers and politicians.

Many institutions have set about to dismantle these findings by declaring them as `revisionist,' however the proof that these written accounts exist at all shows that slaves were present in the service of their state and country.

It was the commanders in the field who saw the greatest potential in the use of the African-American slave long before the politicians would admit their value. On January 2nd, 1864 Major General Patrick Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee, circulated a petition among several officers calling for the enrolling and arming of slaves into the Southern Army.

The petition read in part, "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter---give up the Negro slaves rather than become a slave himself." It was signed by three other generals, four colonels, three majors, one captain, and two lieutenants.

Politicians were horrified by the idea. Confederate Major General and political advisor to Jefferson Davis, Howell Cobb pointed out, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Davis had Cleburne's petition suppressed, yet the idea would not go away.

In February 1865, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Confederate President Jefferson Davis requesting authorization to fill his ranks with slaves, saying that they were already physically fit, and mentally conditioned to be well disciplined. In March, the Confederated Congress passed a bill that when to Davis' desk.

While it was awaiting his signature General Lee wrote the President again, "I do not know whether the law authorizing the use of Negro troops has received your sanction, but I respectfully recommend the measures be taken to carry it into effect as soon as practible." It was signed on March 13th and by the first of April, Colonel Otey, 11th Virginia Infantry, was assigned to duty in Lynchburg, VA, to recruit, muster and organize black units for the Confederate army.

Although this unit saw no action according to official accounts other records indicate they were drilling and standing by to defend the city. There are also historical documents indicating that thousands of slaves served in the Southern army as noncombatants in roles like cooks, teamsters and musicians.

And when called upon they would fight along side `freemen' who served in such outstanding state-militias like the 1st Louisiana Native Guard; Company A and F, 14th Mississippi Confederate Calvary; Company D, 35th Texas Calvary; or the 1,150 black sailors who served in the Confederate navy.

Finally, the first military monument in the US Capitol which honors African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument, erected in 1914. It depicts a black Confederate soldier marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is a white soldier giving his child to a black woman for safety.

We may never understand everything about those five remarkable years, but we cannot ever stop trying. And it is time to realize that the historical record has been obscured to the truth on the part of the African-American's role in the Southern Army as a soldier and sailor and to bring these facts to light as both a matter of pride and education.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; US: Alabama; US: Florida; US: Georgia; US: Louisiana; US: Maryland; US: Mississippi; US: North Carolina; US: South Carolina; US: Tennessee; US: Texas; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: blackconfederate; blackconfederates; civilwar; confederacy; confederate; dixie; goodblacks; historyrevisionism; notthishitagain; statesrights; thesouth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: rdb3; Mark in the Old South

"How could that be? Did the slave have citizenship? No, of course not. Therefore, it can't by definition be his country."

Could you tell the soldiers in the U.S. Army who aren't U.S. citizens that? I'm sure they will appreciate the knowledge that the U.S. isn't and never will be their country.

As there are foreigners in the U.S. Army today, there were during the Civil War blacks fighting for the South because they anticipated being granted their freedom--not because they had it, because they wanted it. There were blacks fighting for America during the American Revolution given the same incentive.


81 posted on 05/22/2005 5:56:56 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

"I was thinking of why some Scots and Irish would immigrate over here became slave masters and if they were oppressed in their own lands why would they come over here and engage in oppression. You would think they'd be motivated to treat people in ways they were not treated back home."

Child abusers are very often people who were abused themselves.


82 posted on 05/22/2005 6:05:24 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

Re: "I just wonder why people bring up the fact that there were blacks that owned slaves in the South as if that changes anything."

Because it is interesting, counterintuitive, ironic. It is just the sort of thing that makes history a passion for some people. I hated history in High School because all life was rung out of it. This is life it has twists and turns that are unexpected. Hollywood makes millions selling stories to people who want entertainment. Fictions writers make millions selling fake stories to people. Here is real life for free and it belongs to all. Why would we want to know about it.


83 posted on 05/22/2005 6:36:44 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

true


84 posted on 05/22/2005 7:23:49 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

You have a point. History is fascinating and best pursued on one's own time. I had a very good history education in school but nothing like reading on your own.


85 posted on 05/22/2005 7:36:36 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Alia
"Conventional wisdom" about what went on in the Old South runs right alongside the lines of the Feminists' rhubarb

Another piece of conventional wisdom about the old South that people don't realize is that ol' Dixie was not united at all behind the rebellion. A lot of independent-thinking Southerners, especially in the highland areas, had no use for the Confederacy. The numbers of white Southerners who were fervent supports of Lincoln and the cause of the old Union was many times more than the number of black Southerners who fought for the CSA.

86 posted on 05/22/2005 9:15:29 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
"the article makes reference after reference to use of slaves, not Freemen or black slave holders.

Re read the article, look under militia, cavalry, Navy, and 'outstanding'.

87 posted on 05/22/2005 9:31:59 AM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Re: "I had a very good history education in school but nothing like reading on your own."

I could not agree more. I developed a real interest in the role of Blacks in the South after living in Petersburg Virgina. I found Black Hx month in school sooooo boring and so useless but the stuff that never makes it in the Public school system has so much more to it. Virginia has better history classes than most but I had never heard of Joseph Jenkins Roberts. A Free Man of Color who became the first Black man to be Governor of a U.S. territory and then went on to be the First President of an Independent Nation in Africa. (Liberia) Which until recently was the only successful democracy on that Continent (post European Imperialism).

Some of the human interest stories out of Petersburg will keep you fascinated for several lifetimes. You can not understand Southern history without examining the role both races played in shaping events. Slave owing Blacks and slaves fighting for the South can tell you more about why the South fought than all the reading about the lives of rich men. When people want to shut that down they close off understanding Why.
88 posted on 05/22/2005 9:49:27 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
NO ONE in this thread, or on FR that I'm aware of, has even hinted that slavery was not an evil institution. Rather, that we can't measure a system that existed since we bagan walking on two legs from today's perspective. Oh, maybe we can, since it still exists throughout the world.

Since 'we are all immigrants' is a popular saw these days, take a look into your family tree and let me know how many 'servants' 'indentured servants' or simply 'laborers show up in the record. Bet we've all got some.

Finally, maybe Mark in the old south can help out here, I've heard of slaves being armed for both hunting and property defense, I've been told of slaves hiring out to work in the community and sharing the wage with their 'msters' (hate htat word) and I know that many slaves HAD to be better educated than most around them because they administered the plantation's business.

89 posted on 05/22/2005 9:52:47 AM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: norton

I never did make that accusation about anyone on this thread. I do notice that in many threads about black people and slavery and that many freepers are quick to point out that blacks owned slaves as if that make slavery okay OR absolves the white establishment of the time of any guilt.


90 posted on 05/22/2005 9:55:43 AM PDT by cyborg (Serving fresh, hot Anti-opus since 18 April 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
"..if the offer had been made mid war, there may have been a different outcome."

Can't agree, once the die was cast the North could not end the war by anything other than victory or defeat.

Whatever the South's motives, the North was fighting to regain or retain the geography and to institutionalize it's dominance over the resources of the South.

91 posted on 05/22/2005 9:58:04 AM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
"It didn't have to free all the slaves. That could come later just as it did. Fight the war, win the war and free the slaves. Mission accomplished."

It also didn't create the slave rebellion that was it's sole purpose.

92 posted on 05/22/2005 10:01:56 AM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That was in reference to slaves not Black citizens. The use of the term citizen can be misleading since there is a historical classical meaning and then there is the common usage. Since use of the term can be misunderstood as to how the writer intended it is might be better to use the tern countryman. In that use of the word a slave is a member of a country though his status in low an his rights limited but the same would apply to women (who are not citizens in a classical use of the term) as are children, even those born to a position of privilege. In fact there are host of people who do not have the classical status of "citizen" but are part of a country and may even be a major influence in the culture of a society. Sparta was overwhelmingly slave and dealing with the was the single greatest cause of that country's character. Citizen no but you can not pretend they were not there. Of course Sparta is an extreme but even Athens had a slave majority. Classically citizens were very limited in who they describe. I suspect using the common use of the term or picking another word would be better than having a debate grind to a useless halt over semantics.
93 posted on 05/22/2005 10:04:41 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

Not absolution but sharing of a history, which is something we all should pay more attention to.


94 posted on 05/22/2005 10:08:37 AM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: norton

I do not see how these two statements are in disagreement:

My statement: "..if the offer had been made mid war, there may have been a different outcome."

Your response: "Can't agree, once the die was cast the North could not end the war by anything other than victory or defeat."

My statement indicates the (by no means certain) victory for the South and so does yours or did you slip in the words "or defeat" to confuse me? :-)


95 posted on 05/22/2005 10:19:26 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
maybe I misread your statement, looks to me like you indicated that had the South offered to end slavery in '62 the war would have ended...
My belief is that nothing would end the war except for capitulation by one side or the other.
Also, at 'mid-war' the South was looking pretty good on the battle field and yielding anything would not be on the table.
96 posted on 05/22/2005 10:37:56 AM PDT by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: norton
No I do not think that would have ended the war. I believe subjection of the South was the goal long before the war started. I do not think the South would have required capitulation of the North even if that was possible but I do believe the North could have been worn down. My "what if" not only would have provided the South with many more fighting men. Still but not as much as some think, remember they were having enough trouble feeding the ones they had. And someone would still need to work the fields or all would starve.

The real value would have been the result in European Capitals. The biggest obstacle to international recognition would have been removed, popular support was already with the South and obtaining loans and supplies would have been easier. One more event like the Trent affair and England would have moved on the South's behalf. But none of that happened because slave owners did not want it and as a result they lost everything.
97 posted on 05/22/2005 10:59:46 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
That was in reference to slaves not Black citizens.

On the contrary, I suggest that you read the Scott v Sandford decision yourself. Taney ruled that blacks, free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States and had no rights as such.

98 posted on 05/22/2005 11:00:05 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Sorry free men of color voted, took people to court, owned property. These were the events of the day and recognized by the state governments. Even slaves took their masters to court and won their freedom. Dred Scott is a good example. He won his case in the Slave-holding state. It was only in the SCOTUS that he lost, but nothing new there SCOTUS says it is okay to kill babies. SCOTUS has been wrong before and continue to be wrong even now. The current notion of the all powerful court is a very modern notion and just as destructive today as it was then. I could not care less what the case said it wasn't being followed by the state and local courts.

The list of bad SCOTUS rulings would be too long to list. Dred Scott, Plussey, Roe etc etc etc. When the court reforms it's wicked ways it will have greater respect.
99 posted on 05/22/2005 11:08:20 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
Good point. I have also learned that not all "northerners" sided with Lincoln's approach to this matter, either.

What I perceive, through many years' arguments on this subject? Northerners appear to emit the impression that should they in anyway engage in learning of "non-stereotypical" stories about the Old South and the Civil War -- that in some way, they'd be submitting to supporting "slavery". Stories about particular of the abolitionists most certainly put me in mind of modern day "Anarchy/Ruckus" activists' antics.

Over the years, just out of curiosity, I had wondered -- given how every one MUST put somewhere in any opinion on "slavery" or "The Civil War" their hearty dislike and disapproval of slavery -- as a "safety disclaimer -- against the near Salem hysteria of predictable outcry -- how such an argument would run.

But then, I view the feminist theory that married women with children "are as slaves"; and that any traditional homemaker is only an "indoctrinated indentured servant of the oppressor patriarchy"; and, I understand why the need for such a "disclaimer" still MUST be said in these modern times. Just for one single example.

I look at every single group allied and associated with the Democrat party, and their rhetoric is always along the lines of "freeing the slaves". Feminist, Gay, anti-capitalists, globalists, poor, homeless, minority, socialists, even the educrats "freeing the children from the evilness of their parents". And, I understand why the history of the Civil War and of the Old South must be kept alive. And the richness of the stories be told on and on. It's because, if the word "slavery" continues to be so disgustingly abused, slavery will return. And the old South does not wish that.

The liberals continue to abuse the word "slavery" and continue to abuse truth and history in order they might use a very painful time for all in America's history to extract a political and economic advantage to themselves for the newer-aged so-called abolitionists masquerading in these times. When history is altered, revised, shut-down and censored, freedom for all becomes a battle.

100 posted on 05/22/2005 11:46:20 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson