Abolishing slavery in a victorious Confederacy: not so easy

Even if everything you say is true, which I do not by any means grant,

Tch.

I said that state conventions were very rare, and they were. I said they were only called at times of perceived crisis, and that's so. I said they'd never once been used to produce a Constitutional amendment, although the US Constitution allows it; this is in fact the case.

Come on. There's plenty of room to argue in the interpretation. You don't have to slang the facts.


a process that can be initiated by a mere three states, rather than by TWO votes of TWO THIRDS of the States in Congress

Following this logic, it's easier for three guys to run a marathon than for ten guys to walk around the block. Because, you know, ten is a bigger number.

Okay, who here can guess which scene from "Spinal Tap: The Movie" I'm flashing on right now?


Doug M.
 
Myth of Black Confederate Soldiers


Source: Houston Chronicle
Published: 8/26/99 Author: Truman R. Clark


History gives Lie to Myth of Black Confederate Soldiers

By TRUMAN R. CLARK

A racist fabrication has sprung up in the last decade: that the Confederacy had "thousands" of African-American slaves "fighting" in its armies during the Civil War.

Unfortunately, even some African-American men today have gotten conned into putting on Confederate uniforms to play "re-enactors" in an army that fought to ensure that their ancestors would remain slaves.

There are two underlying points of this claim: first, to say that slavery wasn't so bad, because after all, the slaves themselves fought to preserve the slave South; and second, that the Confederacy wasn't really fighting for slavery. Both these notions may make some of our contemporaries feel good, but neither is historically accurate.

When one speaks of "soldiers" and "fighting" in a war, one is not talking about slaves who were taken from their masters and forced to work on military roads and other military construction projects; nor is one talking about slaves who were taken along by their masters to continue the duties of a personal valet that they performed back on the plantation. Of course, there were thousands of African-Americans forced into these situations, but they were hardly "soldiers fighting."

Another logical point against this wacky modern idea of a racially integrated Confederate army has to do with the prisoner of war issue during the Civil War. Through 1862, there was an effective exchange system of POWs between the two sides. This entirely broke down in 1863, however, because the Confederacy refused to see black Union soldiers as soldiers -- they would not be exchanged, but instead were made slaves (or, as in the 1864 Fort Pillow incident, simply murdered after their surrender).

At that, the United States refused to exchange any Southern POWs and the prisoner of war camps on both sides grew immensely in numbers and misery the rest of the war.

If the Confederacy had black soldiers in its armies, why didn't it see black men as soldiers?

By the way, all the Confederate soldiers captured by Union troops were white men. If there were "thousands" of black soldiers in the Confederate armies, why were none of them among the approximately 215,000 soldiers captured by the U.S. forces?

If there were thousands of African-American men fighting in the Confederate armies, they apparently cleverly did so without Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, the members of the Confederate congress or any of the white soldiers of the Confederacy knowing about it.

(I can just imagine some former Confederate soldier, told in 1892 that hundreds of the men in his army unit during the Civil War were black, snapping his fingers and saying, "I knew there was something different about those guys!")

The South was running short of soldiers as the war dragged on, however, and some people began to suggest that it would be better to use slaves to fight than to lose. As late as three weeks before the Civil War came to an end, the members of the Confederate congress (and Lee and Davis) were hotly debating the question of whether to start using slaves in the Southern armies.

If, as some folks in the 1990s claim, there were already "thousands" of black troops in the Confederate armies, why were the leaders of the Confederacy still debating about whether or not they should start bringing them in?

The very accurate point made then by opponents of this legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization."

And what was that "essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization"? Let's listen to the people of the times.

The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said on March 21, 1861, that the Confederacy was "founded ... its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."

What was the "very doctrine" which the South had entered into war to destroy?

Let's go to the historical documents, the words of the people in those times. When Texas seceded from the Union in March 1861, its secession declaration was entirely about one subject: slavery.

It said that Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" -- were "the debasing
doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color ... a doctrine at war with nature ... and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law."

But, by March 13, 1865, the Confederacy had its back against the wall, and by the less than overwhelming margin of 40 to 37 in the House, and nine to eight in the Senate, the Confederate congress approved a bill to allow Jefferson Davis to require a quota of black soldiers from each state.

Presumably (although the bill did not say so) slaves who fought would, if they survived the war, be freed. Southerners who opposed using blacks in the army noted that this idea had its problems: First, it was obvious that the Yankee armies would soon free them anyway; and second, if slavery was so wonderful and happy for black people, why would one be willing to risk death to win his freedom?

The war was virtually over by then, and when black Union soldiers rode into Richmond on April 3, they found two companies of black men beginning to train as potential soldiers.

(When those black men had marched down the street in Confederate uniforms, local whites had pelted them with mud.)

None got into the war, and Lee surrendered on April 9.

Yes, thousands of African-American men did fight in the Civil War -- about 179,000. About 37,000 of them died in uniform. But they were all in the Army (or Navy) of the United States of America.

The Confederate veterans who were still alive in the generations after the war all knew that and said so.

Finally, these modern non historians say that slavery couldn't have been a main cause of the Civil War (never mind the words of Alexander Stephens and the various declarations of secession), because most of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves.

As modern historians such as Pulitzer Prize-winner James M. McPherson point out, the truth was that most white people in the South knew that the great bulwark of the white-supremacy system they cherished was slavery, whether or not they personally owned slaves.

"Freedom is not possible without slavery," was a typical endorsement of this underlying truth about the slave South. Without slavery, white nonslaveholders would be no better than black men.

The slave South rested upon a master-race ideology, as many generations of white Southerners stated it and lived it, from the 1600s until 1865.

There is an uncomfortable parallel in our century with the master-race ideology of Nazi Germany.

First, millions of the men who bravely fought and died for the Third Reich were not Nazis, but they weren't exactly fighting for the human rights of Jews or gypsies. And second, yes, as was pointed out in the movie Schindler's List, many thousands of Jews did slave labor in military production factories in Nazi Germany -- but that certainly didn't make them "thousands of Jewish soldiers fighting for Germany."

We can believe in the "black soldiers fighting" in the Confederate armies just as soon as historians discover the "thousands" of Jews in the SS and Gestapo.

Clark is a professor of history at Tomball College.
 

Faeelin

Banned
T They organized black voters into so-called "Union Leagues" which excluded Southern whites from participating. Indeed, many of these Union Leagues became so anti-white that they became virtually a pro-Republican version of the Ku Klux Klan, targeting white voters instead of black voters.

Bwahahahaha.

Bwahahaha.

"Yes, we will fight a war rather than submit to a federal government which wants to halt the spread of slavery. But if it was up to us alone, we'd treat them just fine."

I know I shouldn't be rude, but this is so much like the way reconstruction was taught before the Civil Rights movement down south that it makes one wonder.
 
I'm not confusing anything. National independence was only an aim in order to protect the institution of slavery. They ARE one and the same. You're just splitting hairs. Even if the CSA abandoned the preservation of slavery years later, that doesn't change the fact that that was THE reason for seceding in the first place.

I will certainly grant you that the desire to preserve slavery was the most important of the reasons why the South seceded. It was not, by any means, the only one. Even the infamous "Cornerstone Speech" of Alex Stephens talks about several other issues before it mentions slavery at all. Your argument that "National independence was only an aim in order to protect slavery" doesn't make any logical sense when one considers the fact that they abandoned slavery as a war aim before the end of the war. Why continue to pursue national independence if that is the case?

And it was the South that fired upon a Federal fort to begin the war...

That's true, as far as it goes. Of course, Federal troops had been firing on Southerners since January 1861, but we don't ever hear about that. And if Fort Sumter had not been fired on, think you that Abe Lincoln would not have engineered (as there is a lot of reason to think he did at Sumter) another "incident" to have an excuse to invade the Confederacy? Lincoln stated in his First Inauguaral Address that he intended to pursue a war against the Confederacy if the Confederacy refused to allow collection of U.S. import duties in Confederate harbors. Seems pretty clear that even if Sumter wasn't fired upon, Lincoln intended to start a war.

...and I'm not sure why the Federal Government should have tolerated a demonstrably militant rebellion in the first place - most governments don't just sit around and watch their countries dissolve.

First of all, the secession of the South did not "dissolve the country." The United States would have continued to exist, without the South. If the Northern States were concerned about further dissolution, they could have amended the Constitution to prevent further secessions.

Second, the right of secession was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and even Lincoln himself, back in 1848, had gone on record as declaring that the right of secession existed. Allowing the peaceful secession of the South in 1861...or for that matter, New England in 1815, had they decided to follow that course...would have been an affirmation of the very basis of American government: government by consent of the governed. Most countries, as you say, wouldn't sit still for this. But most countries weren't founded on the principle of secession, either. The United States was.
 
Tch.

I said that state conventions were very rare, and they were. I said they were only called at times of perceived crisis, and that's so. I said they'd never once been used to produce a Constitutional amendment, although the US Constitution allows it; this is in fact the case.

Come on. There's plenty of room to argue in the interpretation. You don't have to slang the facts.

Following this logic, it's easier for three guys to run a marathon than for ten guys to walk around the block. Because, you know, ten is a bigger number.

Okay, who here can guess which scene from "Spinal Tap: The Movie" I'm flashing on right now?


Doug M.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said earlier, the South seems to have been able to successfully convene conventions in 1861, and that would have set a precedent for the Confederacy. So the problems you cite with conventions in the antebellum U.S. might not apply. I personally don't think they would, but you are free to disagree.
 
I don't see any evidence in this thread that contradicts it. Lots of things disappear when nobody has a use for them anymore. Slaves would have become a serious liability later in the 19th c and so the institution would have disappeared. I don't see Southerners impoverishing themselves just out of spite.

Doubt as in OTL Southerners were willing to fight and die to preserve slavery. It isn't anything they would give up quickly or easily.
 
Slavery was already starting to be viewed as a millstone around their necks by a number of Southerners as The Civil War approached. It cost a lot of money to buy a slave, and even those born on your plantation, slaves had to be fed, clothed, and housed. By the turn of the 20th Century slavery would have ceased to be economically feasible.

The early 20th Century also brought in mechanized farming big time, and machines can do the field work of growing cotton far more efficiently and for much less cost than slaves can.

The Confederacy was also very much aware of how the rest of the world viewed it in terms of slavery. The countries of Europe were opposed to slavery overall, and most if not all of them had outlawed slavery in their empires. Add to that the views of The USA and Canada on slavery. While still willing to buy The South's cotton, there would have been some stigma attached to The CSA because of its position on slavery. Sort of "we will buy your cotton (because we need it) but we oppose the inhumane way you grow it."

By the way, The Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought over the political issue of State's Rights. How far can the power of the state go within its own borders? Where does state authority end and federal authority begin? What powers and rights do the states have, what powers and rights does the federal government have? At what point can the federal government step in telling a state it has gone too far, what is the regulatory power of the federal government over the states?

Slavery was a very emotional and a moral issue that brought the issue of State's Rights to a head.

"State's rights" always meant "freedom to oppress Blacks" for Southerners both in the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement.
 
"State's rights" always meant "freedom to oppress Blacks" for Southerners both in the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement.

Ah, no it didn't. State's rights meant that the state government and the central government were equal. It did prove to be a hinderance to the South's capacity to wage war.
 
"State's rights" always meant "freedom to oppress Blacks" for Southerners both in the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement.

States' Rights ((Wikipedia)):

"States' rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal governmenrt. A commonly cited source for states' rights is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights. The states' rights concept is usually used to defend a state law that the federal government seeks to override, or to oppose a perceived violation by the federal government of the bounds of federal authority."

((from http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm)) "Secession was based on the idea of state rights (or "states rights," a variant that came into use after the Civil War). This exalted the powers of the individual states as opposed to those of the Federal government. It generally rested on the theory of state sovereignty-- that in the United States the ultimate source of political authority lay in the separate states. Associated with the principle of state rights was a sense of state loyalty that could prevail over a feeling of national patriotism. Before the war, the principle found expression in different ways at different times, in the North as well as in the South."
 
States' Rights ((Wikipedia)):

"States' rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal governmenrt. A commonly cited source for states' rights is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights. The states' rights concept is usually used to defend a state law that the federal government seeks to override, or to oppose a perceived violation by the federal government of the bounds of federal authority."

((from http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm)) "Secession was based on the idea of state rights (or "states rights," a variant that came into use after the Civil War). This exalted the powers of the individual states as opposed to those of the Federal government. It generally rested on the theory of state sovereignty-- that in the United States the ultimate source of political authority lay in the separate states. Associated with the principle of state rights was a sense of state loyalty that could prevail over a feeling of national patriotism. Before the war, the principle found expression in different ways at different times, in the North as well as in the South."

What I meant by that is that by far the biggest reason the South was for states rights was making sure that Blacks were kept down. That is historically true for the South. Just prior to the Civil War the US government was both very small and very weak. It was the election of a free soil candidate that caused the secession of the South.
 
What I meant by that is that by far the biggest reason the South was for states rights was making sure that Blacks were kept down. That is historically true for the South. Just prior to the Civil War the US government was both very small and very weak. It was the election of a free soil candidate that caused the secession of the South.

Do you realise the before the ACW the south had the largest number of free-blacks living in American inside its borders because many of the northern states wouldn't allow free-black to move to those states. Also a number of blacks were slave holders themselves.

In 1860 there were at least six free-blacks in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another free-black slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free-blacks owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free-black in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free-blacks were slave owners.

I shall not deny that Slavery was an important factor in both the secession of the Southern states and their stance on states rights however it was far from a 'black and white' situation. Blacks were not completely held down in the old south as a number of them were rich and important members of the communities they were in. The vast majority of blacks in the south were slaves but it was not the case that they were all slaves and not the case that all free-blacks in the south were down-trodden.

Similarly it was not the case that all blacks in the north were treated well in fact, in some communties, the north was just as rasicst as the south if not more so.
 
Do you realise the before the ACW the south had the largest number of free-blacks living in American inside its borders because many of the northern states wouldn't allow free-black to move to those states. Also a number of blacks were slave holders themselves.

In 1860 there were at least six free-blacks in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another free-black slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free-blacks owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free-black in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free-blacks were slave owners.

I shall not deny that Slavery was an important factor in both the secession of the Southern states and their stance on states rights however it was far from a 'black and white' situation. Blacks were not completely held down in the old south as a number of them were rich and important members of the communities they were in. The vast majority of blacks in the south were slaves but it was not the case that they were all slaves and not the case that all free-blacks in the south were down-trodden.

Similarly it was not the case that all blacks in the north were treated well in fact, in some communties, the north was just as rasicst as the south if not more so.

Virtually nothing in this world is all or nothing. I never said ALL Blacks were slaves in the South nor that the North was paradise on Earth for them. What I am saying is that for the vast majority of Blacks the North was preferable to the South. However racist the North was at the time at least there weren't any slaves there.You didn't see large numbers of Blacks trying to go South but you did in the other direction.
 
Virtually nothing in this world is all or nothing. I never said ALL Blacks were slaves in the South nor that the North was paradise on Earth for them. What I am saying is that for the vast majority of Blacks the North was preferable to the South. However racist the North was at the time at least there weren't any slaves there.You didn't see large numbers of Blacks trying to go South but you did in the other direction.

Exactly!!! It never ceases to boggle my mind that people actually still argue otherwise. One wonders what their motives are....
 
Exactly!!! It never ceases to boggle my mind that people actually still argue otherwise. One wonders what their motives are....

I did not nor do I have the intention of arguing that the North wasn't preferable to the South for many slaves/ex-slaves. Nor do I have the intention of arguing about blacks leaving the north to fight for the south, as that would be totally inacurate. Obviously something has gotten lost in translation along the way or you are looking for some sort of agenda in my words that isn't there.
 
Last edited:
Virtually nothing in this world is all or nothing. I never said ALL Blacks were slaves in the South nor that the North was paradise on Earth for them. What I am saying is that for the vast majority of Blacks the North was preferable to the South. However racist the North was at the time at least there weren't any slaves there.You didn't see large numbers of Blacks trying to go South but you did in the other direction.

I'll admit that I was wrong to answer you with that post. The things I said in it have been on my mind to post here since I saw a post from Kidblast earlier in the thread that claimed that the Southern States forbid blacks from living in the South. I'll appologize for any insult I have have caused you or your intellienge on the ACW as I was quite wrong to do so.

Many people I have seen get into this argument make the assumtion that the North was some sort of utopia while the south was hell on earth for Slaves and free-blacks. I assumed that you were one of them and for that I appoligize.

One thing that does plague my mind when researching the Civil War, which you or anyone may be able to help me with, is the fate of the Southern Slaves during Shermans March and Sheridans Burning of the Shenandoah. I find it highly unlikely that either Sherman or Sheridan would have stopped their destruction just to save some southern slaves from sharing the fate of the Confederates. How many slaves died during Shermans march I wonder? How many suffered or lost their lives when Sheridan burnt the Valley? Why is it that the fate of those slaves is rarely mentioned?

If you know I would apreiciate it greatly if you could tell me.
 
I'll admit that I was wrong to answer you with that post. The things I said in it have been on my mind to post here since I saw a post from Kidblast earlier in the thread that claimed that the Southern States forbid blacks from living in the South. I'll appologize for any insult I have have caused you or your intellienge on the ACW as I was quite wrong to do so.

Many people I have seen get into this argument make the assumtion that the North was some sort of utopia while the south was hell on earth for Slaves and free-blacks. I assumed that you were one of them and for that I appoligize.

One thing that does plague my mind when researching the Civil War, which you or anyone may be able to help me with, is the fate of the Southern Slaves during Shermans March and Sheridans Burning of the Shenandoah. I find it highly unlikely that either Sherman or Sheridan would have stopped their destruction just to save some southern slaves from sharing the fate of the Confederates. How many slaves died during Shermans march I wonder? How many suffered or lost their lives when Sheridan burnt the Valley? Why is it that the fate of those slaves is rarely mentioned?

If you know I would apreiciate it greatly if you could tell me.


"War is all hell!" was what Sherman said about it. I don't know the number of slaves that died during Sherman's march. Quite a few I imagine but that was true of white people down south as well.
 
Up until the 1970's comparatively speaking this was correct.

What do you mean? That it is correct in the sense that people believed that the north was a utopia and the south was hell for black or that it is correct in the sense that reality was actually the way the statment implies it to be?
 
Top