Cherokee Mounted Rifles in surviving CSA

Hmmm, the Cherokee Mounted Rifles & other pro-Confederate Indian outfits from the 5 Civilised Nations played a significant role in skirmishes in the Indian Territory & the Western theatre, such as Pea Ridge in 1862- under their Gen Stand Watie (who was also the last CS commanding officer to lay down downs after Appomattox). Now with a surviving CSA, how would such Confederate Indian outfits have survived ? Could they have been incorporated into the new centralised CS Army, similarly to the US Army's OTL Indian Scouts ?
 
Indian Scouts were generally highly regarded by most of their own people, eg, the Apache, Pawnee. The Pawnee and White Mountain rezzes today have celebrations and other means of honoring them.

Watie and his troops were not regarded well at all. They spent most of the ACW destroying fellow Cherokee homes and farms in raids. The Ross govt denounced them as traitors and like white Southerners in everything but (sometimes) skin tone.

Scouts also held onto their traditions. It was often a central demand they made to the US Army. They dressed traditionally (sometimes w/modifications), practiced traditional beliefs and medicine (ceremonies before going into battle), spoke their own languages extremely well.

Some of the CMR members, esp the leaders, were full of self loathing for their own Cherokee background. After the ACW, IOTL some even denied being Cherokee and tried to become as "white" as they could culturally.

So I would see the CMR disbanding, becoming part of a regular Confed army, and descendants of its members regard their Cherokee past as something shameful to hide.
 
all probability is that the indians would probably be simply ignored, and the white southerners would look down thier noses at them whenever they were forced to interact with one-another. but the upside is that they might focus on keeping the black man downinstead of everyone who isnt white.
 
Indian Scouts were generally highly regarded by most of their own people, eg, the Apache, Pawnee. The Pawnee and White Mountain rezzes today have celebrations and other means of honoring them.

Watie and his troops were not regarded well at all. They spent most of the ACW destroying fellow Cherokee homes and farms in raids. The Ross govt denounced them as traitors and like white Southerners in everything but (sometimes) skin tone.

Kind of ironic, given that Watie had more Cherokee blood in his veins than Ross did.

Ross's men also spent the Civil War raiding and destroying fellow Cherokee homes and farms belonging to those who supported the South. For the Cherokee, at least, the Civil War really WAS a civil war. It was merely a continuation of conflicts between factions led by Ross and Watie which went all the way back to the days before the Trail of Tears.

It should be noted that the "Ross Government" you refer to was a minority faction within the Cherokee after 1862, when Stand Watie was elected Principal Chief by the majority. Because he backed the winning horse, so to speak, Ross ended up being recognized again as Principal Chief by the Federal Government after the war. And the fact that these turncoats led by Ross (who had originally signed on with the Confederacy, but then changed sides following Pea Ridge) ran for protection to the White Man's Government which had sent them on the Trail of Tears in the first place probably didn't endear them to the majority of Cherokees.

If anyone was "not looked upon favorably," it was Ross. Although I am sure the minority who sided with Ross felt the same about Watie.

Some of the CMR members, esp the leaders, were full of self loathing for their own Cherokee background. After the ACW, IOTL some even denied being Cherokee and tried to become as "white" as they could culturally.

One could interpret their actions that way. Of course, it could also be interpreted more accurately another way...men on the losing side of a bitter civil war, having lost everything and under active repression by both the tribal and federal governments, trying to blend in with the surrounding white society and thus escape said repression.

So I would see the CMR disbanding, becoming part of a regular Confed army, and descendants of its members regard their Cherokee past as something shameful to hide.

Possible. But given a Confederate victory and no postwar repression, it is as likely that the regiment will remain in being, most likely as a unit of the militia. It probably would be demobilized, like all volunteer units, and not incorporated into the Confederate regular army in the postwar period, however.
 
1. Kind of ironic, given that Watie had more Cherokee blood in his veins than Ross did.

2. ...It was merely a continuation of conflicts between factions led by Ross and Watie which went all the way back to the days before the Trail of Tears.

3. It should be noted that the "Ross Government" you refer to was a minority faction within the Cherokee after 1862, when Stand Watie was elected Principal Chief by the majority.

4. Because he backed the winning horse, so to speak, Ross ended up being recognized again as Principal Chief by the Federal Government after the war.

5.....Ross (who had originally signed on with the Confederacy, but then changed sides following Pea Ridge

6....ran for protection to the White Man's Government

7...which had sent them on the Trail of Tears in the first place.

6....men on the losing side of a bitter civil war, having lost everything and under active repression by both the tribal and federal governments, trying to blend in with the surrounding white society and thus escape said repression.

We've seen this pattern with you before. You take any criticism of the oh- so-holy Confederacy as a personal attack upon Southerners. Never mind that almost as many Southerners were pro Union. Never mind that a traitor is a traitor is a traitor. (And Watie was one more traitor, just this time to Cherokees.)

So you deliberatley distort, or in this case present outright lies as the truth repeatedly.

1. Blood quantum doesn't mean squat to most Indians, and esp not to Cherokee, who accept as Cherokee anyone with any descent at all as long as they've kept in touch with their community and their culture. What counts is cultural knowledge and loyalty. Ross is regarded by most Cherokees as a Geo Washington figure, Watie as their Benedict Arnold.

2. Why don't you tell us what that conflict was, pre Trail of Tears, assuming you know?

The Watie faction illegally and immorally sold the Cherokee homeland to the US govt, in direct defiance of Cherokee law and custom.

For this, some of the leaders of the Watie faction were executed for high treason under Cherokee law. Watie narrowly escaped being executed as he richly deserved.

3. That is an outright lie, and you know it, or should. Ross was overwhelmingly elected Pricincipal Chief. Watie's "election" was a fraud.

4. Yet another lie. Ross was continually recognized as Principal Chief, before, during, and after the war, winning re election numerous times.

5. Yet another lie. The Ross govt made a pragmatic choice because there were Confed troops on three sides and no Union troops available to aid them.

And Pea Ridge? What does it tell you when the great mass of Cherokees supposedly on the Confed side swtich sides first chance they get? Mass desertions (though technically you can't desert an insurgent group, only an actual national army) followed mass enlistment on the Union side.

6. There was only one "white man's govt". Or rather an insurgent group seeking to become one, the Confederacy, which had white supremacy enshrined in its founding documents.

The Union, OTH, would shortly make this war a war to end slavery based on race, and had 1/3 of its soldiers from Blacks, plus the support of most Tejanos, most Indians in the North and many in the South, plus Latinos like Admiral Farragut.

Contrast that to the CSA, with less than a hundred Black soldiers, most of them orderlies, hastily assembled in the final month or two of the war.

7. Who did most Cherokees blame for the Trail of Tears? White Southerners, the ones who stole their land and lobbied the feds to back up their theft.

That's true back then and is true to this day. Gen. Winfield Scott is not blamed, but a white Southern slave trader named Andrew Jackson is.

8. "Repression"? Ridiculous, and yet again, either you don't know this or you deliberately lie.

Ross sponsored a resolution welcoming back Watie and his fellow traitors, so long as they carried out no further violence.

It passed easily. Ross felt the unity of the tribe was what was important above all.

This is a truly amazing and magnanimous gesture on the part of Ross and the majority of Cherokee, to forgive traitor and mass murderers, all for the sake of unity.

But that wasn't enougn for Watie and some other self loathing Cherokee. Many of them chose to turn their backs on their people permanently. They hated their own ways, and Watie esp never lost his desire for personal power that had led him to betray his own people for nearly three decades.

Until the 1990s, when their descendants tried to put together a scam, the Southern Cherokee "tribe", in order to get riverboat gambling. The sins of the fathers...
 
Last edited:
We've seen this pattern with you before. You take any criticism of the oh- so-holy Confederacy as a personal attack upon Southerners. Never mind that almost as many Southerners were pro Union. Never mind that a traitor is a traitor is a traitor. (And Watie was one more traitor, just this time to Cherokees.)

So you deliberatley distort, or in this case present outright lies as the truth repeatedly.

Actually, I usually stay out of these discussions. But sometimes the level of pure horse manure gets so high that SOMEBODY has to shovel it all out before we all suffocate in it. :rolleyes:

1. Blood quantum doesn't mean squat to most Indians, and esp not to Cherokee, who accept as Cherokee anyone with any descent at all as long as they've kept in touch with their community and their culture. What counts is cultural knowledge and loyalty. Ross is regarded by most Cherokees as a Geo Washington figure, Watie as their Benedict Arnold.

Odd, I've known quite a few Cherokees in my time, and discussed this very issue with them, and not one of them ever called Stand Watie a Benedict Arnold. In fact, "Stand" and " Watie" were, for many years after the war, among the most common names given to Cherokee children, in his honor. If present-day Cherokees consider Watie a "Benedict Arnold," then they view him differently than their grandsires did.

2. Why don't you tell us what that conflict was, pre Trail of Tears, assuming you know?

The Watie faction illegally and immorally sold the Cherokee homeland to the US govt, in direct defiance of Cherokee law and custom.

I'm well aware of the circumstances of the conflict. And I don't defend Watie's role in the illegal treaty. Although, it should be said that Watie's faction acted for what they thought the good of the Cherokee people. They knew the Cherokees weren't going to be allowed to stay in Georgia. So they tried to cut the best deal they could.

If the majority had not listened to John Ross, the Trail of Tears would never have happened. The Cherokee were given ample warning that they were going to be removed. They had time to prepare for the trip. Instead, they listened to Ross and believed that the federal government was going to do the right thing and allow them to stay on their land. Then the alloted preparation time ran out, and federal troops were sent in to round up the Cherokee and put them on the road whether they were prepared or not. THAT'S why so many Cherokee died on the Trail of Tears. John Ross may have been right to argue that the removal was illegal and even immoral. But he was totally unrealistic and he led his people to a disaster. Stand Watie and his faction tried to prevent all that. It is unfortunate in the extreme that they failed.

For this, some of the leaders of the Watie faction were executed for high treason under Cherokee law. Watie narrowly escaped being executed as he richly deserved.

Actually, some leaders of the Watie faction were murdered by members of the opposing faction. It was a lynching, not an "execution." (I can boldface too). To his credit, John Ross had nothing to do with it, and it was NOT sanctioned by the Cherokee government and had no basis in law.

3. That is an outright lie, and you know it, or should. Ross was overwhelmingly elected Pricincipal Chief. Watie's "election" was a fraud.

Ross was elected Principal Chief PRIOR to the war. He lost support for his stance during the war. And I have yet to see any evidence presented that the 1862 election was a fraud. I've read quite a bit on this subject. Source, please.

4. Yet another lie. Ross was continually recognized as Principal Chief, before, during, and after the war, winning re election numerous times.

Before, yes. During, no, except by the minority who changed sides and supported the Union. After, yes, because former Confederate Cherokees were stripped of their rights, and in order to get them back Stand Watie had to give up his claim on the Chiefdom (part of the Treaty of 1866, IIRC from my readings on the subject).

5. Yet another lie. The Ross govt made a pragmatic choice because there were Confed troops on three sides and no Union troops available to aid them.

I'll let the Ross government speak for itself .

And Pea Ridge? What does it tell you when the great mass of Cherokees supposedly on the Confed side swtich sides first chance they get? Mass desertions (though technically you can't desert an insurgent group, only an actual national army) followed mass enlistment on the Union side.

Except that the "great mass" of the Cherokee did not switch sides. A minority group led by John Ross did.

6. There was only one "white man's govt". Or rather an insurgent group seeking to become one, the Confederacy, which had white supremacy enshrined in its founding documents.

There may have been pro-slavery provisions in the CS Constitution, but not one anti-Indian provision. The Cherokees, by the way, were a slaveholding people.

The Union, OTH, would shortly make this war a war to end slavery based on race, and had 1/3 of its soldiers from Blacks, plus the support of most Tejanos, most Indians in the North and many in the South, plus Latinos like Admiral Farragut.

1/3 of Union soldiers black? Well, approximately 200,000 blacks served in Union blue. Over 2 million men served, all told, in Union armies during the war. That's more like 10 percent. Granted, that's a lot. But your 1/3 figure is just another example of the horse manure you frequently bring to debates like this. You don't do a lot for your credibility when you spout such blatant and bald-faced inaccuracies as truth. Excuse me while I get the shovel again. :rolleyes:

Most Tejanos? You obviously haven't read too much on that subject. Suggest you check out HISPANIC CONFEDERATES by John O'Donnell-Rosales. It's pretty hard to find...its been out of print for a few years. But quite interesting.

Contrast that to the CSA, with less than a hundred Black soldiers, most of them orderlies, hastily assembled in the final month or two of the war.

Plus the 20,000 to 90,000 blacks (figures vary widely) who served in Confederate units in support roles (cooks, teamsters, musicians, and yes, hospital orderlies). By the way, very, very few of the 200,000 who wore Union blue actually were used in combat. Most black units were used as labor battalions during the war. The scene in the movie, GLORY, where the 54th Mass. Infantry was out chopping wood and corduroying roads while the white troops were fighting? THAT was the reality for most black soldiers on BOTH sides during the Civil War.

7. Who did most Cherokees blame for the Trail of Tears? White Southerners, the ones who stole their land and lobbied the feds to back up their theft.

That's true back then and is true to this day. Gen. Winfield Scott is not blamed, but a white Southern slave trader named Andrew Jackson is.

Andrew Jackson, a slave trader? Source, please. Oh wait, you can't give me one, because there ARE NONE. Andrew Jackson was never a slave trader in his life! Better watch out, the arrow of the old credibility meter is dipping into the danger zone. :eek: Time to get out the shovels again!

Jackson certainly is blamed, and well he should be, for the removal of the Cherokees. But the federal government was blamed too...after all, Jackson was President of the United States at the time. Or have you forgotten this?

8. "Repression"? Ridiculous, and yet again, either you don't know this or you deliberately lie.

According to the sources I have read, after the war the Northern Cherokees (i.e. the Ross faction, supported by their Union backers) confiscated the property of the Southern Cherokees and disenfranchised them. It was only with the Treaty of 1866 that the Southern (i.e. former Confederate) Cherokees were given their voting rights back, but at a price...unlike the Northern Cherokee, and unlike any person in any Southern State, the Southern Cherokees were forced to divide their lands and inheritances equally with their former slaves. I'm not saying necessarily this was wrong...but the Southern Cherokee were the ONLY group forced to bear that burden.

So yes, there was repression.
 
Last edited:
The record seems to show that only scores of blacks fought for the Confederacy in any meaningful way. http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/did-blacks-fight-in-combat-for-the-confederacy/ Why would they fight in large numbers? They knew after 1862 they would be freed if the Union won. The only way for there to be large numbers of them would be that they preferred being slaves. Why do I have a feeling that you feel that way yourself?

The records are skewed because 1) Confederate enlistment records rarely list the race of the man enlisting and 2) different people arguing over this issue usually aren't talking about the same things...for example, you use the words "fought for," and the article you cited was talking about soldiers who actually served on the front lines. I never spoke of that. I spoke of blacks serving in support roles.

I would disagree that the contribution to the Confederate war effort made by the blacks serving in it's armed forces in support roles was not "meaningful," as you put it. Their efforts freed up thousands of white soldiers to go and shoot Yankees. And the vast majority of the black troops in the Union army served the same function. They carried out the labor duties which normally would have been assigned to white troops, allowing more of the white troops to shoot Confederates. Yet, oddly, you seldom hear people calling their contribution "unmeaningful."

It is also interesting to note that after the war, beginning in the 1920s, several Confederate States issued pensions to black Confederate soldiers. Tennessee alone issued almost 300 of them, and other States issued similar numbers, indicating that (assuming all the former Confederate States were home to similar numbers of black veterans, whether they issued pensions to them or not, which is a reasonable assumption), there were probably over 3,000 such veterans still living in the mid-1920s. Well over 90% of Confederate veterans were dead and buried by prior to 1920. Unless we assume that black Confederate veterans were uniquely gifted with long life (something that, considering conditions in the postwar and Jim Crow South, seems very unlikely), then there must have been literally several tens of thousands of black Confederate soldiers serving in one capacity or another in the Confederate armed forces during the war. Indeed, if there were as many as 3,000 living in 1920, and 9/10 of all Confederate soldiers were dead by 1920, that would put the total at about 30,000 at a minimum. The number was likely higher, since pensions were not issued to all veterans...in fact, only a minority of them ever received them.

As for why they would serve the Confederacy, your comment about them "preferring to remain slaves" ignores the fact that most of the men who served in these support roles were free blacks.
 
The records are skewed because 1) Confederate enlistment records rarely list the race of the man enlisting and 2) different people arguing over this issue usually aren't talking about the same things...for example, you use the words "fought for," and the article you cited was talking about soldiers who actually served on the front lines. I never spoke of that. I spoke of blacks serving in support roles.

I would disagree that the contribution to the Confederate war effort made by the blacks serving in it's armed forces in support roles was not "meaningful," as you put it. Their efforts freed up thousands of white soldiers to go and shoot Yankees. And the vast majority of the black troops in the Union army served the same function. They carried out the labor duties which normally would have been assigned to white troops, allowing more of the white troops to shoot Confederates. Yet, oddly, you seldom hear people calling their contribution "unmeaningful."

It is also interesting to note that after the war, beginning in the 1920s, several Confederate States issued pensions to black Confederate soldiers. Tennessee alone issued almost 300 of them, and other States issued similar numbers, indicating that (assuming all the former Confederate States were home to similar numbers of black veterans, whether they issued pensions to them or not, which is a reasonable assumption), there were probably over 3,000 such veterans still living in the mid-1920s. Well over 90% of Confederate veterans were dead and buried by prior to 1920. Unless we assume that black Confederate veterans were uniquely gifted with long life (something that, considering conditions in the postwar and Jim Crow South, seems very unlikely), then there must have been literally several tens of thousands of black Confederate soldiers serving in one capacity or another in the Confederate armed forces during the war. Indeed, if there were as many as 3,000 living in 1920, and 9/10 of all Confederate soldiers were dead by 1920, that would put the total at about 30,000 at a minimum. The number was likely higher, since pensions were not issued to all veterans...in fact, only a minority of them ever received them.

As for why they would serve the Confederacy, your comment about them "preferring to remain slaves" ignores the fact that most of the men who served in these support roles were free blacks.

Why would even free blacks fight for the Confederacy? Most of them had relatives who were slaves. Did they like their relatives being slaves? What about their friends? If they had friends they almost certainly were black slaves since relatively few whites would look twice at them not talking about being friends with them. There might have been some exceptions in the hills but hillbilles were rarely Confederate soldiers.
 
Why would even free blacks fight for the Confederacy? Most of them had relatives who were slaves. Did they like their relatives being slaves? What about their friends? If they had friends they almost certainly were black slaves since relatively few whites would look twice at them not talking about being friends with them. There might have been some exceptions in the hills but hillbilles were rarely Confederate soldiers.

Why don't I let a black Confederate veteran speak for himself?

Richard Harris said:
I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days' of fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made that speech.

[SIZE=-1]When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the Gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Black soldiers served out of love of country, and a desire to defend one's country from invasion...the same reasons given by the vast majority of the white Confederate soldiers whose letters were analyzed by James McPherson in his book WHY THEY FOUGHT. Their reasons may be difficult for modern minds to comprehend. But our failure to understand does not make it any less of a fact that they held those reasons dear...dear enough to defend them, in any capacity which was allowed. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Harris, it should be noted, was a former slave who served in the legislature of Mississippi. He was one of no less than six black representatives still serving in the Mississippi Legislature in 1890, all of whom had served in the Confederate armed forces during the war and all of whom voted to erect a memorial to the Confederate war dead. [/SIZE]

Of course, this is all completely off topic, and I apologize to Melvin Loh that his thread got hijacked. :(
 
Last edited:
Why would even free blacks fight for the Confederacy? Most of them had relatives who were slaves. Did they like their relatives being slaves? What about their friends? If they had friends they almost certainly were black slaves since relatively few whites would look twice at them not talking about being friends with them. There might have been some exceptions in the hills but hillbilles were rarely Confederate soldiers.
Just want to add that logic comes secondary to actual historical proof. Because people are sometimes just plain ol' weird or hard to understand.

Anyways, I doubt the Mounted Cherokee Rifles would last beyond the end of the war.
 
Agreed. I doubt a federal military unit like this would survive in this capacity.
I hope, however, one final rant won't prove to disruptive!
It seems that any topic on the US civil war tends to devolve into the confederate haters vs. conferderate zealots vs. People who know slavery is bad but still believe that secession was justified, ad infinitum.

In truth, large amounts of Natives and Negroes supported the CS armed forces; particularly because there was a distinct possibility that tribes in the CSA would be treated as legitimate states after the war. I understand that the CSA lost, that the South will not 'rise again' (hopefully), and I am not a racist. Hell, I was born in Connecticut for God's sake.

But through learning and research, I have found that the CSA had legitimate fears of the over-centralization of the Government, and had reasons to secede other than slavery. Any scholar of the civil war worth his(or her) salt knows that black Americans were treated as poorly in the North as the South, and that the 'cult of Abraham Lincoln' that seems so prevalent today is unfounded.

Lincoln achieved his goal (re-unification) with total abandon. He broke laws, signed draft orders, and disregarded the constitution (as FDR would do on a lesser scale in WWII). Lincoln and his Union, however, never had a goal of emancipation. The proclaimation was a brilliant military maneuver that established a 'morally superior cause' for the US.

In fact, as few people know, the proclaimation didn't even free slaves within the Union!

*rant over*

In short, I'm tired of the gross acceptance of propaganda as fact in Civil War discussion, and of its permeation into every topic that even touches the subject.

And, returning at last to the topic, it is likely that the legislation by the peacetime Confederate congress would have annexed the various native tribes as state-like entities. With the OTL provisional CSA's successful use of militia, it can be imagined that these 'native outfits' would become militia/national guard type units under Tribal administration.

Hope that's acceptable Melvin :)
 
Agreed. I doubt a federal military unit like this would survive in this capacity.
I hope, however, one final rant won't prove to disruptive!
It seems that any topic on the US civil war tends to devolve into the confederate haters vs. conferderate zealots vs. People who know slavery is bad but still believe that secession was justified, ad infinitum.

In truth, large amounts of Natives and Negroes supported the CS armed forces; particularly because there was a distinct possibility that tribes in the CSA would be treated as legitimate states after the war. I understand that the CSA lost, that the South will not 'rise again' (hopefully), and I am not a racist. Hell, I was born in Connecticut for God's sake.

But through learning and research, I have found that the CSA had legitimate fears of the over-centralization of the Government, and had reasons to secede other than slavery. Any scholar of the civil war worth his(or her) salt knows that black Americans were treated as poorly in the North as the South, and that the 'cult of Abraham Lincoln' that seems so prevalent today is unfounded.

Lincoln achieved his goal (re-unification) with total abandon. He broke laws, signed draft orders, and disregarded the constitution (as FDR would do on a lesser scale in WWII). Lincoln and his Union, however, never had a goal of emancipation. The proclaimation was a brilliant military maneuver that established a 'morally superior cause' for the US.

In fact, as few people know, the proclaimation didn't even free slaves within the Union!

*rant over*

In short, I'm tired of the gross acceptance of propaganda as fact in Civil War discussion, and of its permeation into every topic that even touches the subject.

And, returning at last to the topic, it is likely that the legislation by the peacetime Confederate congress would have annexed the various native tribes as state-like entities. With the OTL provisional CSA's successful use of militia, it can be imagined that these 'native outfits' would become militia/national guard type units under Tribal administration.

Hope that's acceptable Melvin :)

Blacks were treated poorly up north as well as south but they were still treated MUCH better in the north than in the south. They weren't slaves and couldn't have their wife or children sold. There is often a big difference between bad and worse. Would you perfer being beat up or being murdered? Would you rather have being able to walk away from a car accident or be parylized for life by it? Both are bad but one is much worse than the other.


The South seceded mainly because of slavery. Various facts makes this clear. They didn't secede until a Free Soil Republican got elected president. The larger a percentage of the population owned slaves the higher the percentage of votes for secession. Much fewer people in the mountain regions voted for secession than in the plains because very few owned slaves. It was clear they wouldn't get international recognition in any meaningful way (Only one European country recognized the Confederacy which was a small german principality whose king was married to a Southerner) unless they gave up slavery but very few backed arming slaves until the war was almost lost. Lee proposed using Black troops in January 1865 and it didn't pass until March. http://books.google.com/books?id=hEs0v2DES2sC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Lee+%22anything+he+may+ask+for%22&source=bl&ots=BbIuc7PSB2&sig=YaVqpMJ4IfpcjqMQx5eiU9PgJpY&hl=en&ei=48ZYSpC7K4a2sgPozu3WBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 If it took two months even after LEE backed it and the Confederacy was on its death bed how long would have taken if he wasn't? If he didn't back it probably wouldn't have passed untiil Hell froze over! It wasn't even LEGAL to admit Black troops in the army before that date. When did these tens of thousands of troops come in? You had a lot of ditch diggers who served at a point of a gun but very few, if any, real combat troops willingly serving.

Lincoln never backed the idea of slavery. No one has shown any pro-slavery remark by Lincoln although I challanged them more than once to do so. He could have avoided the war altogether by acknowleding the Dred Scott decision and used Federal troops to support slave owners in the territories or at least agree that Dred Scott effectively made abolition in the north de facto illegal. Lincoln used his powers as "Commander in chief" to emancipate the slaves and he couldn't use that power against states that weren't in rebellion. You seem to think his decision wouldn't be challanged in court and it not only could have but was. He was stretching it as is. He had to use some justification war powers was his best shot at it. Most likely they would have did the same thing the north did with Native Americans and shove them on reservations.
 
Last edited:
Why don't I let a black Confederate veteran speak for himself?



[SIZE=-1]Black soldiers served out of love of country, and a desire to defend one's country from invasion...the same reasons given by the vast majority of the white Confederate soldiers whose letters were analyzed by James McPherson in his book WHY THEY FOUGHT. Their reasons may be difficult for modern minds to comprehend. But our failure to understand does not make it any less of a fact that they held those reasons dear...dear enough to defend them, in any capacity which was allowed. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Harris, it should be noted, was a former slave who served in the legislature of Mississippi. He was one of no less than six black representatives still serving in the Mississippi Legislature in 1890, all of whom had served in the Confederate armed forces during the war and all of whom voted to erect a memorial to the Confederate war dead. [/SIZE]

Of course, this is all completely off topic, and I apologize to Melvin Loh that his thread got hijacked. :(

Why would they love a country that enslaved them or their friends ? Would you? Do you think they liked being slaves or having a lot of their friends slaves? There was no reason for Blacks to be loyal to a government that enslaved them and their family and/or friends.
 
Why would they love a country that enslaved them or their friends ? Would you? Do you think they liked being slaves or having a lot of their friends slaves? There was no reason for Blacks to be loyal to a government that enslaved them and their family and/or friends.

Again, our modern minds may not understand, but our lack of understanding does make it less of a fact.
 
At the fiftieth anniversary of Gettysburg There was a reunion of all surviving Civil war veterans.
The organizers had Hotels set aside for the Union Soldiers, the Confederate Soldiers and even some Black hotels for the Blacks in Blue.

The Organizers were caught flatfooted when several thousand Blacks showed up wearing their old Gray uniforms.

The Blacks fought for the South for the same reason Most of the Whites did - They thought they were defending Their Homes and Families.
 
Alright; I know that I'm just as guilty as everyonevelse for provoking this psuedo debate...
But can we end it here and now?
If someone wants to start a dedicated civil war discussion thread, I'm game. But we can't keep hijacking people's threads. Let's stick to the native units in a post Civil War world while in this thread alright?.
Does everyone agree?
 
At the fiftieth anniversary of Gettysburg There was a reunion of all surviving Civil war veterans.
The organizers had Hotels set aside for the Union Soldiers, the Confederate Soldiers and even some Black hotels for the Blacks in Blue.

The Organizers were caught flatfooted when several thousand Blacks showed up wearing their old Gray uniforms.

The Blacks fought for the South for the same reason Most of the Whites did - They thought they were defending Their Homes and Families.

There weren't several thousand of them...more like a few dozen of them...and the veterans were housed in tents, not hotels, but otherwise, the story is accurate. The black Confederates were invited to share the tents of the white Confederates at the reunion.
 
Alright; I know that I'm just as guilty as everyonevelse for provoking this psuedo debate...
But can we end it here and now?
If someone wants to start a dedicated civil war discussion thread, I'm game. But we can't keep hijacking people's threads. Let's stick to the native units in a post Civil War world while in this thread alright?.
Does everyone agree?

I agree, if others will as well.
 
Top