Posted on 02/10/2003 8:22:03 AM PST by H8DEMS
(CNSNews.com) - As part of Black History Month, the public library system in Norfolk, Va., is honoring African-Americans who fought and died on behalf of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Robert Harrison, director of the Horace Downing Branch library in Norfolk, said blacks are rarely portrayed as supporting the Confederacy because politically correct historians prefer to connect the South and the Confederate flag with the evils of slavery. But history tells another side of the story, he said.
Harrison said the Horace Downing Library will spend one day, Feb. 25, re-creating Civil War encampments and re-enacting the roles that blacks played on both sides of the battlefield. (On Feb. 13, the Barron F. Black Homework Center, part of the Norfolk Public Library system, will present a similar re-enactment.) The celebrations will include rifle and cannon salutes to black "fallen heroes."
"We're going to try to bring together a balanced view of what happened to the black soldier, North and South," said Harrison, a black man with Confederate ancestry who intends to wear his own Confederate uniform during the event.
Harrison said Confederate re-enactors will explore the various factors and conditions that motivated thousands of blacks, including freemen and slaves, many of whom fought alongside their masters to preserve the Southern way of life. He said the controversial Confederate battle flag will fly as part of the re-enactments.
"All historical flags, historically accurate to the individual units presented, will fly. More than likely, one or two versions of the national flags will fly as well," Harrison told CNSNews.com. "This is strictly an historical event and nothing political. We're not here to have a flag rally; we're here to have a history rally, if anything."
Harrison said the reenactments are intended to show people of all races that black history is not always what Americans have been taught to believe.
"Politically correct history has definitely found a stable footing in the way history is presented in this country," Harrison said. "Historical truth is in the eyes of the beholder, and there's always more to history than what we think we know."
For example, Harrison said he has discovered "tons of passages and memoirs" that document Southern blacks' loyalty to the Confederacy prior to and after its demise. Yet almost 138 years later, he said, it's becoming increasingly difficult to convince modern blacks that their ancestors fought to preserve the South of their own free will.
"Sometimes, people are so accustomed to having things one way, that no matter how much proof or documentation you're going to present to them, they will automatically dismiss it," Harrison said. "People have told me flat-out, 'I don't care what you have to say. I don't care if it's real or not. I believe what I believe and that's all I want to know.'"
Harrison said the stigma that attaches to the Confederate flag and issues of Southern heritage have prevented Americans, both black and white, from taking pride in their Confederate ancestry.
"It is a part of American history," Harrison said. "It's a proud history and I, myself, as well as a large host of people of all ethnicities and colors, such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other folks, speak about and praise this history every day of our lives."
Harrison said the local library system is not trying to influence patrons' views on the controversial nature of this subject. Instead, the library system will offer information, including the reenactment, that lets people draw their own conclusions.
"We're going to try to bring together a balanced view of what happened to the black soldier, North and South," Harrison said. "The information is more than there if people want to see it."
'Distorted view'
"It strikes me as an extremely false portrayal of history," said Mark Potok, spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It aids and abets a completely distorted and really racist view of what occurred during the Civil War."
According to Potok, there were "extremely few" blacks that fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War. He claimed only a "handful" of blacks served the South and were relegated to non-combat roles, such as cooking.
"I'm not saying there weren't a handful of blacks who willingly fought for the Confederacy," Potok said. "It is established fact - and not by me, but by real academics of the Civil War - that blacks who fought in the Civil War were almost entirely pressed into service in one way or the other."
Potok accused the "neo-Confederate movement" of promoting the "myth" that blacks willfully fought and died to preserve the Confederacy.
"The fact is that this is a myth that has been pushed very hard by groups like the League of the South and others concerned with kind of re-writing the history of the Civil War," Potok said. "Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to spotlight the many blacks who fled the South during the Civil War and fought with the Union."
Potok said the Norfolk Public Library system's decision to celebrate black Confederate history "shows an appalling lack of judgment on their part."
Taboo subject
"Re-enactments are very popular with the public," said Brag Bowling, Virginia commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "All we ask for is historical accuracy."
According to Bowling, more than 90,000 blacks served the Confederate army in "one form or another," including combat.
"Depending on its slant, of course, I've seen them say that these people were forced to work for the Confederacy," Bowling said. "If you take a look at a lot of the United Confederate Veterans reunion photos, there are just boatloads of black people in the pictures...they weren't forced to come to the reunion."
Bowling said the "most overlooked" group of people in America is blacks who fought for and supported Confederacy. However, he said many blacks with ties to the South are pressured into denying their Confederate roots by other blacks who are too ashamed to admit the reality.
"Within black communities," Bowling said, "the people who want to honor their ancestors are shrilly beaten down by the politically correct forces in the community."
Bowling blames the embarrassment faced by those Southern blacks on historians and text book authors for creating an abundance of "politically correct revisionist history."
"Nowadays, you're not allowed to talk about certain subjects, and this is one of them," Bowling said. "I think black people, especially, need to know the fact that there were lots of blacks that served in the Confederate service, and it might be some of their ancestors that they don't even know about."
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
The Wlat Brigade is really going to get its panties in a twist over this.
"It's pure fantasy,' contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars.
Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: 'It's b.s., wishful thinking.'
Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. 'Of course, if I documented 12, someone would start adding zeros,' he says.
"These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls 'pseudohistory.' Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops -- as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.
"Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or cast-off uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense, many historians say.
"They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. 'It's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors,' says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. 'If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.'
"David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy plantation darkies.' Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a "mammy" monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to 'legitimize the Confederacy.'"
-- Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1997
AND:
"There seems to be no evidence that the Negro soldiers authorized by the Confederate Government (March 13, 1865) ever went into battle. This gives rise to the question as to whether or not any Negroes ever fought in the Confederate ranks. It is possible that some of the free Negro companies organized in Louisiana and Tennessee in the early part of the war took part in local engagements; but evidence seems to the contrary. (Authors note: If they did, their action was not authorized by the Confederate Government.) A company of "Creoles," some of whom had Negro blood, may have been accepted in the Confederate service at Mobile. Secretary Seddon conditioned his authorization of the acceptance of the company on the ability of those "Creoles" to be naturally and properly distinguished from Negroes. If persons with Negro Blood served in Confederate ranks as full-fledged soldiers, the per cent of Negro blood was sufficiently low for them to pass as whites."
(Authors note: Henry Clay Warmoth said that many Louisiana mulattoes were in Confederate service but they were "not registered as Negroes."
War Politics and Reconstruction, p. 56) p. 160-61, SOUTHERN NEGROES, Wiley
There is -no- credible evidence that even a small number of blacks served as soldiers in the rebel armies.
You kill me every time you do this. ;-)
free dixie,sw
at least 100,000 black men (and NOT a few women!) served the TRUE CAUSE of dixie LIBERTY.
the military forces of the southland were about 1/4 "persons of colour", red, brown, asian & black.
that is the TRUTH that the shysters of the SPLC, naaLcp & the LYING DIMocRATS don't want you to know.
FRee dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
It's not revision to quote the people of the day.
FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SECOND CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION
EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS
Mr. Wickham, of Virginia, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill. He was opposed to its going to a select committee. If it went to any committee it should go, in the regular channel, to the Committee on Military Affairs. He wished, however, this question of arming and making soldiers of negroes to be now disposed of, finally and forever. He wished it to be decided whether negroes are to be placed upon an equality by the side of our brave soldiers. They would be compelled to. They would have to camp and bivouac together.
Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle.-(Voice-That's so.)
The question being ordered upon the rejection of the bill, it was lost-ayes 21, noes 53. As this vote was regarded as a kind of test of the sense of the House upon the policy of putting negroes into the army, we append the ayes and noes-the question being the rejection of this bill authorizing the employment of negroes as soldiers:
Ayes-Messrs. Baldwin, Branch, Cruikshank, De Jarnette, Fuller, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, McMullin, Miles, Miller, Ramsey, Sexton, Smith, of Alabama, Smith, of North Carolina, Wickham, Witherspoon, Mr. Speaker.
Noes-Messrs. Akin, Anderson, Barksdale, Batson, Bell, Blandford, Boyce, Bradley, H. W. Bruce, Carroll, Chambers, Chilton, Clark, Clopton, Cluskey, Conrad, Conrow, Darden, Dickinson, Dupre, Ewing, Farrow, Foster, Funsten, Gaither, Goode, Gray, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Holliday, Johnston, Keeble, Lyon, Pugh, Read, Rogers, Russell, Simpson, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Snead, Swan, Triplett, Villere, Welsh.
If any number of black soldiers had been serving in the ranks of the CSA armies, how did it escape the notice of Congress?
It also escaped the notice of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and others:
Page 246, Confederate Veteran, June 1915. Official publication of the United Confederate Veteran, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Confederated Southern Memorial Association. Gen. Howell Cobb, an unbeliever in this expedient, wrote from Macon, Ga., January 8, 1865:
"I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one.
Samuel Clayton, Esq., of Cuthbert, Ga., wrote on January 10, 1865: "All of our male population between sixteen and sixty is in the army. We cannot get men from any other source; they must come from our slaves... The government takes all of our men and exposes them to death. Why can't they take our property? He who values his property more than independence is a poor, sordid wretch."
General Lee, who clearly saw the inevitable unless his forces were strengthened, wrote on January 11, 1865:
"I should prefer to rely on our white population; but in view of the preparation of our enemy it is our duty to provide for a continuous war, which, I fear, we cannot accomplish with our present resources. It is the avowed intention of the enemy to convert the ablebodied negro into soldiers and emancipate all. His progress will thus add to his numbers and at the same time destroy slavery in a most pernicious manner to the welfare of our people. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it ends in subverting slavery, it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, that we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our soldiers' social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ tl1em without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guarantee of military efficiency. We can give them an interest by allowing immediate freedom to all who enlist and freedom at the end of the war to their families. We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. In conclusion, I can only say that whatever is to be done must be attended to at once."
President Davis on February 21, 1865 expressed himself as follows: "It is now becoming daily more evident to all reflecting persons that we are reduced to choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or against us and that all the arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or those of the enemy."
Would Lee and Davis have had those points of view had there been any number of blacks in ranks?
The Richmond Examiner:
"We have been accustomed to think in this Southern country that the best friends of the Negroes were their own masters. . . But now the President of the Confederate States opens quite another view of the matter. According to his message it is a rich reward for faithful services to turn a Negro wild. Slavery, then, in the eyes of Mr. Davis, keeps the Negro out of something which he has the capacity to enjoy. . . If the case be so, then slavery is originally, radically, incurably wrong and sinful, and the sum of barbarism."
Genovese, "Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World The Slaves Made", 1974p. 129
There is no -credible- evidence of blacks in active rebel service.
Walt
BWHAHAHAHAHA!! You might want to pay attention to that Walt. Jimmy McPherson and Asa Gordon are not God. Facts are facts. The lies and myth of lincoln are crumbling around you
Moron! It is people like this racebaiting jackass that keep blacks oppressed and racism alive.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to highlight how free blacks were treated in the north and the fact that slaveholding states who fought for the union did not free their slaves immediately when the war was over. A real stranger to facts aren't you jerk directed at author of quote, of course. ...or is it just that you are selective with your facts?
Teehee...
Does he know Walt?!?
Anyone who pushes this black CSA soldier thing is not interested in a fair reading of the history.
Neo-Confederates have a consuming interest in distorting the real history.
There is no -credible- evidence of more than a handful of black CSA soldiers.
Had there been the number claimed by the SCV and the League of the South, they were certainly shamefully treated after the war.
"After Lincoln's assassination in April of 1865, President Andrew Johnson alienated Congress with his Reconstruction policy. He supported white supremacy in the South and favored pro-Union Southern political leaders who had aided the Confederacy once war had been declared.
Southerners, with Johnson's support, attempted to restore slavery in substance if not in name. In 1866, Congress and President Johnson battled for control of Reconstruction. The Congress won. Northern voters gave a smashing victory -- more than two-thirds of the seats in Congress -- to the Radical Republicans in the 1866 congressional election, enabling Congress to control Reconstruction and override any vetoes that Johnson might impose. Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 that divided the Confederate states (except for Tennessee, which had been re-admitted to the Union) into five military districts. Each state was required to accept the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which granted freedom and political rights of blacks.
Each Southern state had to incorporate these requirements into their constitutions, and blacks were empowered with the vote. Yet Congress failed to secure land for blacks, thus allowing whites to economically control blacks. The Freedmen's Bureau was authorized to administer the new laws and help blacks attain their economic, civil, educational, and political rights. The newly created state governments were generally Republican in character and were governed by political coalitions of blacks, Northerners who had migrated to the South (called "carpetbaggers" by Southern Democrats), and Southerners who allied with the blacks and carpetbaggers (referred to as "scalawags" by their opponents). This uneasy coalition of black and white Republicans passed significant civil rights legislation in many states. Courts were reorganized, judicial procedures improved, and public school systems established.
Segregation existed but it was flexible. But as blacks slowly progressed, white Southerners resented their achievements and their empowerment, even though they were in a political minority in every state but South Carolina.
Most whites rallied around the Democratic Party as the party of white supremacy. Between 1868 and 1871, terrorist organizations, especially the Ku Klux Klan, murdered blacks and whites who tried to exercise their right to vote or receive an education. The Klan, working with Democrats in several states, used fraud and violence to help whites regain control of their state governments. By the early 1870s, most Southern states had been "redeemed" -- as many white Southerners called it -- from Republican rule. By the time the last federal troops had been withdrawn in 1877, Reconstruction was all but over and the Democratic Party controlled the destiny of the South."
-- Richard Wormser
The fact that the whites in the south were able to reinstitute slavery in all but name is a big fly in the buttermilk over this "black confederate" crap.
It didn't happen.
Walt
other than that, scalawag, there's no evidence at all!
FRee the southland,sw
It's is certainly true that groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans dislike being called racists, and today tend to stress, perhaps over-stress, their African-American members and the story of black Confederates in order to inoculate themselves against charges of racism. So what's wrong with that? Seems to me to be a good sign, a sign of genuine progress. Walt, for all his laudable concern with historical accuracy (which I share), seems sometimes to be primarily motivated by a desire to prove the Confederacy to be the moral equivalent of the Nazis and so discredit Southern heritage groups such as the SCV. That's as much history as a weapon as anything "neo-Confederates" might be guilty of (if indeed they are).
That is the fact of the matter.
If, as you say, these documents were at the national archives or wherever, then the treatment of the black veterans after the war by their former comrades was beyond shameful.
But then, the whole rebel experience -- and its defense today is beyond shameful.
Walt
"Headquarters Department
Trans-Mississippi,Shreveport, La, June 13, 1863
Maj. Gen. R. Taylor Commanding District of Louisiana:
GENERAL:
In answer to the communication of Brigadier-General Hebert, ofthe 6th instant, asking what disposition should be made of negro slaves taken in arms, I am directed by Lieutenant-General Smith to say no quarter should be shown them. If taken prisoners, however, they should be turned over to the executive authorities of the States in which they may be captured, in obedience to the proclamation of the President of the Confederate States, sections 3 and 4, published to the Army in General Orders, No. 111, Adjutant and Inspector General's Office, series of 1862. Should negroes thus taken be executed by the military authorities capturing them it would certainly provoke retaliation. By turning them over to the civil authorities to be tried by the laws of the state, no exception can be taken.I am, general, very respectfully,
your obedient servant,
S. S. Anderson"
Why did rebel soldiers become homicidally enraged whenever they faced black Union troops if there were large number of black rebel troops?
Walt
for quite a long time the CSA veterans were MIS-treated by their own states governments, as those governments were the "reconstruction governments". after reconstruction ended, the southern states treated all the veterans well until their deaths.
the TRUTH is that the UCV treated everyone alike, regardless of race, color OR religion. that was certainly NOT true of the GAR by the way, as most GAR units refused black veterans membership in their chapters, no matter how valiant their service.
FRee dixie,sw
There is no mention of black rebel troops in this engagement:
http://www.noelm.com/williamson/civwarTS.html
Excerpt:
"[Union Commander] Coburn placed his losses at 48 killed, 247 wounded and 1,151 captured or missing. The Federal command surrendered consisted of the Thirty-third and Eighty-fifth Indiana, Nineteenth Michigan, and the Twenty-second Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry.
The Confederate loss was heavy, being near four hundred men. Colonel Samuel G. Earle of the Third Arkansas Cavalry and Captain Alfred Dysart of the Fourth Tennessee had been killed and buried near where they fell. Captain William Watson of General Armstrong's Staff was lost. The Rev. Mr Crouch, a brigade chaplain also was slain while inspiring the men to the discharge of their duty. Lieutenant John Johnson of the Ninth Tennessee was killed bearing the colors of his regiment. Major Trezevant, being wounded by a rifle ball through his abdomen was carried to the residence of Mrs. Blood at Spring Hill. He died there two days later. No large-scale pursuit of the remaining retreating Federal force was made, and the Confederate troops were ordered back to their cantonments at Spring Hill.
Note: This description of the Battle of Thompson's Station is by Sue Barton Oden and is from her book: "Hold Us Not Boastful - The Story of Thompson's Station and Its People" and is used here by special permission.
There is no -credible- evidence of more than a handful of black rebel troops. There is certainly no record of -organized- regiments of black soldiers.
If this Union regiment reported that they were attacked by two negro regiments, they were in error.
Walt
I don't know that they did, but if so, perhaps it could be explained by Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is as repugnant to a lot of people as most any other human failing.
Oh, they did alright.
"Sir:
"I have the honor to report that I was with the command of Brevet Major- General Burbridge in the attack on Saltville, Va., October 2, 1864, and that I was left with the wounded and was captured October 3, and paroled by Major-General Breckinridge."
"I would state that on Monday morning, October 3, there came to our field hospital several armed men, as I believe soldiers in the Confederate service, and took 5 men, privates, wounded (negroes), and shot them."
"I would further state that on Friday evening, October 7, at Emory and Henry College Hospital, Washington County, Va., to which place our wounded had been removed, several armed men entered the said hospital about 10 p.m. and went up into the rooms occupied by the Federal wounded prisoners, and shot 2 of them (negroes) dead in their beds."
"I would further state that on Saturday, October 8, at Emory and Henry College Hospital, several armed men wearing the Confederate uniform, and, as I believe, soldiers in the Confederate service, entered the same hospital about 4 p.m., overpowered the guard that had been placed there by the surgeon in charge, and went up into the rooms occupied by the Federal wounded prisoners, and shot Lieut. E. C. Smith, Thirteenth Regiment Kentucky Cavalry, dead in his bed, where he lay severely wounded. They at the same time called out for the other Federal officers confined there, particularly Colonel Hanson, Thirty- Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteers, and Captain Degenfeld, Twelfth Ohio Cavalry, swearing that they intended to kill all of them; and I believe that they were only prevented doing so by the exertions of Surgeon Murfree, the surgeon in charge, the steward, Mr. Acres, and the other attendants of the hospital. I would also further state that Surgeon Murfree, the other surgeons, and the hospital attendants did all in their power, even at the risk of their lives, to prevent the perpetration of these outrages; and that they assisted in removing Colonel Hanson and Captain Degenfeld, as well as myself, to a place of safety."
"I would further state that we left about 70 of our wounded prisoners in the said hospital, and that I have been informed that these outrages have been perpetuated on them since we left there."
"Respectfully, your obedient servant, WM. H. GARDNER, Surgeon, Thirtieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry"
[Source: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. XXXIX, Part I, pp. 554-555.]
"Upon the capture of Plymouth by the rebel forces all the negroes found in blue uniform, or with any outward signs of a Union soldier upon him, was killed. I saw some taken into the woods and hung. Others I saw stripped of all their clothing and then stood upon the bank of the river with their faces riverward and there they were shot. Still others were killed by having their brains beaten out by the butt end of the muskets in the hands of the rebels. All were not killed the day of the capture. Those that were not were placed in a room with their officers, they (the officers) having previously been dragged through the town with ropes around their necks, where they were kept confined until the following morning, when the remainder of the black soldiers were killed."
"The regiments most conspicuous in these murderous transactions were the Eighth North Carolina and, I think, the Sixth North Carolina."
"SAMUEL (his x mark) JOHNSON. Witnessed by John L. Davenport, lieutenant and acting aide-de-camp. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 11th day of July, 1864. John Cassels, Captain and Provost- Marshal."
[Source: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series II, Vol. VII, pp. 459-460.]
Black POW's were murdered at Fort Pillow, TN in April, 1864, at Saltville, VA in October, 1864 and at the battle of the Crater in July 1864, and on numberous other occasions.
It hardly seems fair for the rebels to take umbrage at the use of black troops -- if they were doing it themselves.
But they weren't.
Walt
I've heard the same crap over and over and over.
All I had to do to get the real story of these black "regiments" was search on "85th Indiana Infantry Civil War".
You could have done the same thing.
But you didn't stop and think.
There were no black troops in the engagement on the date your source claims there were.
Walt
The rebel congress refused to consider using black troops and voted down a bill to that effect in February, 1865. A bill authorizing such was agreed to March 13, 1865.
Robert E. Lee sent a message about -these- units on April 2, 1865 -- the same day the evacuation of Richmond was ordered.
Walt
If he posts to me I will respond to him.
It's dead easy to show that there were no more than a handful of black rebel troops.
Walt
Not just rose-colored family legend, either. I have all the plantation accounts and correspondence from the war and immediately post-war years. He never broke up families, and he divided profits with all his slaves who had a trade and practiced it. Bas was a blacksmith and routinely took 10-to-25 percent for all smithing work that he did (the percentage seems to vary over the course of the family records that I have). I don't think Bas was motivated by fear or compulsion, because after the war he and his wife remained associated with our family and had their own house on the place. His wife, Ellen, survived him by many years and my grandmother knew her well, she was prominently featured in the newspaper writeups of gg grandfather and grandmother's 50th wedding anniversary.
I know of at least one other black UCV member, up in Rome GA, who was quite a local celebrity for years after the war. I'm sure there were blacks associated with the Confederate Army who were there for the wrong reasons (and there were I am sure some whites in the same boat - community compulsion, fear of "what the neighbors might say", etc.) But the image of the Confederacy as some sort of unrelievedly evil Nazi precursor, filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth, is JUST as wrong and inaccurate as the "Old Folks At Home" stereotype of the contented slaves playing the banjo and dancing around the cabin door. There were evil people who mistreated those that place and circumstance had given them power over . . . in the North AND in the South. They are everywhere, in every time and place, just as there were kind and humane people in the South as there are everywhere. Nobody has a monopoly on good or evil.
Very good points AAM.
No, you're not!! They didn't exist!! Or didn't you read Walt's cut and paste? I swear it's like listening to the talking points of the SPLC. Asa Gordon is God and Jimmy McPherson is his backup. Factual evidence is presented and we're attacked with cut and paste.
It doesn't matter if you're holding the letter in your hand, or the clothing worn by a brave Confederate soldier, unless it came from Morris Dees' lackeys, it's not official. I swear, I want to know what color the sky is in their world sometimes
I think that was the reason in most cases. Many slaves would have seen the Union army as an outside invader, killing their families and destroying their homes. In fact, that was the same reasoning exhibited by most white Southerners. They were more loyal to their homes and families than they were to the Confederacy itself.
That wouldn't explain the thousands of blacks who followed Sherman's army and it wouldn't explain this:
"On the steaming night of June 6, 1863, four rebel regiments surprised black guards. The black novices, soldiers for only sixteen days, fumbled with their guns, fell back, stood firm, and flashed their bayonets. The blacks' white captain called the ensuing bayonet brawl "a horrible fight, the worst I was ever engaged in—not even excepting Shiloh."
In one ironic tableau, a Union black and a Confederate white lay slain, arms locked like brothers, each with the other's bayonet planted in his belly. At last, a Union ship reinforced the unyielding blacks, and the rebels retreated.
Black soldiers, declared an astounded Confederate battle report, resisted us "with considerable obstinacy, while the white or true Yankee portion ran like whipped curs."
One Confederate master suffered the best proof of black obstinacy. His slave captured him "and brought him into camp with great gusto." A Wisconsin cavalry officer described the lesson many Northerners learned from Fort Wagner and Millikens Bend (and from the battle for Port Hudson, Louisiana, where black troops futilely charged and their bodies were left to rot under the blazing sun), "I never believed in niggers before, but by Jasus, they are hell for fighting."
--"The South vs. the South" p. 127 by William Freehling
Walt
This didn't come from Morris Dees:
"Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle."
This didn't come from Morris Dees:
"I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one."
There is no credible evidence of more than a handful of black rebel soldiers.
Walt
But Walt to believe what you're saying we would have to deny Frederick Douglass now wouldn't we? And what would Asa say if you start bad mouthing Frederick Douglass?
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.