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

Skip to comments.

New book looks at startling Confederate policy during Civil War
Current ^ | 20 February 2006 | Scott Rappaport

Posted on 02/21/2006 7:59:04 AM PST by stainlessbanner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-267 next last
To: Arm_Bears

"There were "uncomfortable" moments when veterans of these regiments showed up at commemorative events in the years after the war."

Any Black man who fought for the South should be looked upon with the same respect as any White man who did. They did what they thought they had to, and I can respect that.


21 posted on 02/21/2006 8:13:58 AM PST by SC33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TBP
"I thought this policy was fairly well known."

Known to us who live in the South but, hey, who listens to us?

Some of the "handful":

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that "biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids". Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."

http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html

22 posted on 02/21/2006 8:14:17 AM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

General Cleburne bump...


23 posted on 02/21/2006 8:14:30 AM PST by Jonah Hex ("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Actually, you need to read the book. He notes that the attempt to arm slaves (done purely for military necessity) was a half-hearted affair which only began in early 1865! The pro-slavery Confederate leaders hated the idea so much that they waited until it was too late. Even then, this "emancipation" was incredibly hedged. For example, slaves had to be first voluntarily manumitted by their masters to be soldiers.

Even then, only a few troops were even in training by the end of the war and, none, apparently saw action. Very few slaves volunteered for this service in part because they were well aware that by 1865 the war was a losing cause. Read the book!

24 posted on 02/21/2006 8:15:07 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

There was no such "policy" merely debate.


25 posted on 02/21/2006 8:15:36 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PETEPARSLEY
go fly a kite !!!!!

Whatever, n00b.

26 posted on 02/21/2006 8:15:53 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: brainstem223
This was not a civil war, but a war between two separate nations.

That's what the losing side considered. The winning side considered it a civil war and the winners write the history.

27 posted on 02/21/2006 8:16:15 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

"Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South.""

Exactly. I don't think people in other parts of the country realize how much interaction between Blacks and Whites there actually is down here. Having spent a great deal of time in the Northeast and the Deep South, I can honestly say that there is far more interaction down here. In pont of fact, I have known many Blacks who are as proud of the South as any White man.


28 posted on 02/21/2006 8:16:52 AM PST by SC33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

War aims change as the prospects for winning or losing change.

The Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery. There wouldn't have been a war if there were no slaves.

By 1864 it was clear to Confederate leaders that they were going to lose the war. Losing meant they would face charges of treason and insurrection--potentially hanging offenses. It is not surprising that these leaders would grasp at any option for evading that fate.

It is also not surprising that few slaves would sign on. By 1864 most slaves could see that the Confederacy was losing. Why would they enlist in a losing cause for a government that had previously enslaved them.

Even losing the war, the South did its best to subjugate Blacks as soon as the reins of power passed back into white supremacist hands after the end of the Reconstruction period.

I don't think this book "proves" the war wasn't over slavery.


29 posted on 02/21/2006 8:17:26 AM PST by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PETEPARSLEY
go fly a kite !!!!!

Hello to you too.

30 posted on 02/21/2006 8:17:37 AM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears; SC33

If you ever get chance, meet a man named Nelson Winbush. His grandaddy, Louis Napoleon Nelson, fought for the Confederacy. Louis happened to be black. He was buried with full military honors with the color guard and he has the stories and pictures to prove it.


31 posted on 02/21/2006 8:17:56 AM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten; 75thOVI; Adrastus; A message; AZamericonnie; beebuster2000; Belasarius; ...
To all: please ping me to threads that are relevant to the MilHist list (and/or) please add the keyword "MilHist" to the appropriate thread. Thanks in advance.

Please FREEPMAIL indcons if you want on or off the "Military History (MilHist)" ping list.

32 posted on 02/21/2006 8:18:27 AM PST by indcons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens

"Even losing the war, the South did its best to subjugate Blacks as soon as the reins of power passed back into white supremacist hands after the end of the Reconstruction period."

Blacks did not exactly have it easy in the North either, however. Let us not forget that fact.


33 posted on 02/21/2006 8:18:43 AM PST by SC33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Bump for later reading/reply (is it time for the Periodic Thread already? :) )


34 posted on 02/21/2006 8:18:53 AM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Relatively few people are aware that during the Civil War, Confederate leaders put forth a proposal to arm slaves to fight against the Union in exchange for their freedom.

Maybe up North. I can't remember not knowing.

35 posted on 02/21/2006 8:18:58 AM PST by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"After all, how could the war be about slavery if the Confederates were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to win the war?

Levine found that Confederate leaders had been receiving--and rejecting--letters from various Southerners suggesting that they arm the slaves since the very beginning of the war.

But as Levine points out, "the opposition of slave owners was ferocious--even though they were facing defeat and the end of slavery, they would not face those realities. They would not give up their slaves, even to save the Confederate cause itself."

The writer answers his own question.

But then, a quick re-read of the Articles of Confederation would generally answer the question. The thing that drove secession was not slavery per se, but as the Articles made clear, the issue of spreading slavery to new western states.

Lincoln was willing to compromise on slavery where it already existed. He was not willing to allow it to spread any further. The slavers knew that meant the slow-motion strangulation of their system as they became steadily outvoted in congress over the next few decades. So they were unwilling to concede that point either.

That, and the fact that they thought they could win.

So, no, even facing defeat, they were not willing to free their slaves.

36 posted on 02/21/2006 8:19:16 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC33
I have known many Blacks who are as proud of the South as any White man.

Bump

37 posted on 02/21/2006 8:19:25 AM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

> But as Levine points out, "the opposition of slave owners was ferocious--even though they were facing defeat and the end of slavery, they would not face those realities. They would not give up their slaves, even to save the Confederate cause itself."


It doesn't sound like it was a very well supported policy in the South. How can this be proof of anything it it was never carried out (except for a few random individuals)?


38 posted on 02/21/2006 8:19:43 AM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

65,00 CSA black soldiers. C'mon. Of course, a lot of slaves were used for the dirty work and a handful of personal servants occassionally took potshots at Yankees but the CSA did not allow black soldiers until the end of the war (whe it was too late). The only exception were some free blacks in the Louisiana home guard, but these were used for purely defensive purposes and in a very limited way.


39 posted on 02/21/2006 8:20:15 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Which proves again that the war was never about slavery. But that won't stop the Lincoln idolators from repeating the statement.

If the war had nothing to do with slavery, then how come they wouldn't arm the slaves to save the Cause?

40 posted on 02/21/2006 8:20:22 AM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-267 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