The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[Winston]

Sure there were one-offs but I've yet to see where black Confederate Infantry/Cavalry/Artillery were organized on the unit level in CSA forces.

There are a few instances were black laborers in CSA service received pensions.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

"Black Confederates" is the Civil War Trust's historical article outlining the role of black people in the Southern war effort.

www.battlefields.org

I'd call it revisionist claptrap that serves no end.

I wasn't around back during the Civil War. But I have been to the Cat Square Christmas parade. That is an experience everyone should have, at least once. We are talking in the middle of flippin nowhere. The grand marshal is called the major of Vale, the largest ZIP code, by area, in the country. Spans four counties. You really are nowhere.

But damn, what a parade. Yes, you got floats. Best float every year is the Lumber company, they make something out of logs, looks like Lincoln logs, and it always impresses. And then it is the cars, all kinds rolling by. See, the only thing you need to be in the parade, show up, get in line, have candy. You will see dozens of Mason Lodges, their go karts or gators. And some, just marching in their full uniform. Then tractors, even riding lawn mowers. Local kids, driving dads John Deere. And everyone throwing candy to the crowd like mad. It is crazy.

Right before the end of the parade, before the horses, which naturally bring up the rear. And yes, there are dozens of them. It is the Sons of the Confederacy, proudly marching, proudly carrying the Stars and Bars. Except, they are all black. It really leaps out at you.

There are so many problems with how the Civil War is portrayed in American History, especially at the high school level. In elementary school they don't teach history, they teach fairy tales. Yes, blacks served in the Confederate Army. Yes, they were not allowed to take combat roles, except, well they did. Just like in the American Revolution.

Yes, there were some terrible massive plantation owners. Rice fields in Louisiana, cotton in Mississippi. Whips, "Crackerjacks" they called them. Some sickass puppies. But it was not the norm. Not even close. And slaves, few Confederate soldiers owned them. Yet, for some officers, they had their side man. And there, in that parade, were the proud, yes proud, descendants of those side men.

Funny thing. The local town, and yes, small town. They have a large graveyard right there, in the middle of the town. Old, like some graves before the American Revolution. A few years ago a local college came in and did a deep dive, into the people that were buried there. It was eye opening.

The graveyard was segregated. Whites on one side, blacks on the other. Except, when they did the research, that didn't happen until AFTER the Civil War. And that is just it. This nation was founded with diversity at a level the world had never seen. And since the very beginning, we have not become more diverse, we have become less diverse. And worse, more segregated.

I don't get it. Bring it, bring it on. Come anyone, come everyone. I don't want equal outcome, I want equal opportunity. I don't need an "edge", my children don't need an "edge". Bring it. We are brothers, we make it work TOGETHER, we all want the same thing.

 

[Winston]

Oh! So you think those genuinely obscenely nutty views don't discredit him as a source?! Well, okay, to each his own. Personally, and this is just me, I think anyone who expresses the downright disgusting fringe views that JoeB131 has expressed discredit themselves and proves they are not to be taken seriously. But, again, that's just me.



"One-offs"?! The 3,000 black Confederate combat troops whom Steiner saw in Jackson's force hardly qualify as "one-offs"; rather, they were, said Steiner, "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Since when are 3,000 soldiers "one-offs"?

How about the Union army reports that noted encounters with black Confederate soldiers? Huh? Those were internal Army reports intended to provide higher-ups with accurate information about combat encounters. What possible reason would men like Allabach, Parkhurst, and Stuart have had to fabricate such accounts?

How about Christian A. Fleetwood, who had been a sergeant-major in the 4th U.S. Colored Troops--what reason would he, an African American, have had to lie about black Confederate soldiers?

Folks, you're seeing the liberal mind at work in these reflexive summary dismissals of the evidence that at least 4,000 blacks voluntarily fought for the South. Most of these guys appear to have responded without even bothering to read the article.

It was more than four thousand hoss. Dammit, Yankees attempted to invade our homes. I mean look at it from a black man's perspective. Some of them, they stayed true. They served, and if that meant bearing arms so be it. But some of them revolted. Some of them took up arms against their Massahs. They got 40 acres and a mule, only to have it taken away.

That is what you don't see. After the war, during Reconstruction, which really meant assimilation under arms, many blacks lamented that it was worse then than when they were enslaved. It got ugly fast. The war wasn't about freeing the slaves. That is a joke. Texas, oh, you can have your slaves. Kentucky, we will look the other way. It wasn't even about taxes, tariffs. Nope, it was about federal control and yes, not unlike where we are today.

 

[IM2]

Here we see more white racist dishonesty. Slaves fought for the Confederacy. There were not all that many. Why? Because their masters made them.

Do you racists ever tire of lying to yourselves? First, you want to put slavery on blacks, now the entire Confederate army was blacks who volunteered to fight to remain slaves.

Stop using small numbers to revise history to fit the lies you want to tell yourselves. This thread is another classic example of white fragility. Any time you see or read whites talking about political correctness, it is evidence of that fragility.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Protip. There were more black union soldiers than the entire CSA.

and...

 

[1srelluc]

Oh! So you think those genuinely obscenely nutty views don't discredit him as a source?! Well, okay, to each his own. Personally, and this is just me, I think anyone who expresses the downright disgusting fringe views that JoeB131 has expressed discredit themselves and proves they are not to be taken seriously. But, again, that's just me.



"One-offs"?! The 3,000 black Confederate combat troops whom Steiner saw in Jackson's force hardly qualify as "one-offs"; rather, they were, said Steiner, "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Since when are 3,000 soldiers "one-offs"?

How about the Union army reports that noted encounters with black Confederate soldiers? Huh? Those were internal Army reports intended to provide higher-ups with accurate information about combat encounters. What possible reason would men like Allabach, Parkhurst, and Stuart have had to fabricate such accounts?

How about Christian A. Fleetwood, who had been a sergeant-major in the 4th U.S. Colored Troops--what reason would he, an African American, have had to lie about black Confederate soldiers?

Folks, you're seeing the liberal mind at work in these reflexive summary dismissals of the evidence that at least 4,000 blacks voluntarily fought for the South. Most of these guys appear to have responded without even bothering to read the article.

You are the exact reason anyone with some sense about them don't follow people like you.

 

[IM2]

The existence of black Confederate soldiers is a complex and controversial topic, with evidence suggesting that while some black individuals served in various capacities, the majority did so under coercion rather than as formally recognized soldiers.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend​

The lives of Southern black people changed immeasurably during the war years. In the midst of a see-saw struggle that promised freedom as well as desolation, these men, women, and children made difficult and highly personal decisions in extraordinary circumstances.
Many Southern slaves took advantage of the fog of war to escape towards freedom. Before the Emancipation Proclamation was officially adopted, these escapes usually meant congregating around the Union armies that were operating in Southern territory. Vast columns of escaped slaves followed almost every major Union army at one point or another. These people, sometimes called “contrabands,” as in “confiscated enemy property,” frequently served as scouts and spies for the Union soldiers.

When the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863, Union forces had regained control of large swaths of the South. Although many now claim that the Proclamation was effectively useless because it established policy for a foreign nation, the practical reality is that the Union, by force of arms, had every necessary power to establish policy in its occupied territories, just as Confederate armies exercised their power to capture and enslave free black people during their brief occupations of Northern territories.

Some black Southerners aided the Confederacy. Most of these were forced to accompany their masters or were forced to toil behind the lines. Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army--they were cooks, teamsters, and manual laborers. There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war and no documentation whatsoever exists for any black man being paid or pensioned as a Confederate soldier, although some did receive pensions for their work as laborers. Nevertheless, the black servants and the Confederate soldiers formed bonds in the shared crucible of conflict, and many servants later attended regimental reunions with their wartime comrades.

This is not to say that no black man ever fired a gun for the Confederacy. To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it.

In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common. The non-existence of black combat units is further indicated by the records of debates in the Confederate Congress over the issue of black enlistment. The idea was repeatedly rejected until, on March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, although with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

"Black Confederates" is the Civil War Trust's historical article outlining the role of black people in the Southern war effort.

www.battlefields.org

The lying needs to stop.

 

[JoeB131]

That one smarted did it?

No, it's just too stupid.

There's a reason why Blacks vote 90% Democratic.

I'm sure you don't understand what it is.

Oh! So you think those genuinely obscenely nutty views don't discredit him as a source?! Well, okay, to each his own. Personally, and this is just me, I think anyone who expresses the downright disgusting fringe views that JoeB131 has expressed discredit themselves and proves they are not to be taken seriously. But, again, that's just me.

Yet living in your head rent free.

"One-offs"?! The 3,000 black Confederate combat troops whom Steiner saw in Jackson's force hardly qualify as "one-offs"; rather, they were, said Steiner, "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Since when are 3,000 soldiers "one-offs"?

Um, how about answering his question about which units these black Confederates supposedly served in?

that seems like a pretty easy one.

 

[mikegriffith1]

IM2 said:

In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common.

Oh my goodness. You must be kidding. Do you know anything about how the Official Records were compiled and who edited them? Do you have any idea how fragmentary the Confederate part of the Official Records is? This is a silly argument from silence.

BTW, three of the Union accounts of encounters with black Confederate combat troops that I cite in my article come from the Official Records.

Do you know who Frederick Douglass was? He was an escaped slave and a prominent Northern abolitionist. During the war, he said that there were “many” blacks in the Confederate army who were armed and “ready to shoot down” Union soldiers. He added that this was "pretty well established":

It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may. . . . (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861, online copy available at Frederick Douglass :: Fighting Rebels With Only One Hand | radical journal | Edited by Saswat Pattanayak)

Do you know who Christian Fleetwood was? I talk about him in my article. He was a black senior non-commissioned officer in the Union army. Are you aware that he admitted that blacks served as soldiers in the Confederate army?

Have you read my article yet? How about any of the sources I recommend in my article?

The unwillingness of so many Civil War scholars, not to mention their legends of liberal followers, to admit that no more than 7,000 blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy is a sad sign of how polarized and biased Civil War scholarship has become.

There is no controversy over the fact that about 5,000 Hispanics fought for the Confederacy, or that about 10,000 Jews fought for the Confederacy, or that a brigade of Cherokee Indians fought for the Confederacy (and were led by Stand Watie, who was given a commission in the Confederate army and reached the rank of general). So why the adamant untenable, vacuous denials of the clear evidence that 4,000 to 7,000 blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy?

Here's why: Because so many Civil War scholars have an all-or-nothing mentality when it comes to the Confederacy. They are determined to demonize every aspect of the Confederacy and to deny that the Confederacy had any merit whatsoever.

 

[JoeB131]

The unwillingness of so many Civil War scholars, not to mention their legends of liberal followers, to admit that no more than 7,000 blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy is a sad sign of how polarized and biased Civil War scholarship has become.

Well, no, the problem with Civil War Scholarship is that we are having to clean away layers of BULLSHIT "Lost Cause" mythology.

There is no controversy over the fact that about 5,000 Hispanics fought for the Confederacy, or that about 10,000 Jews fought for the Confederacy, or that a brigade of Cherokee Indians fought for the Confederacy (and were led by Stand Watie, who was given a commission in the Confederate army and reached the rank of general). So why the adamant untenable, vacuous denials of the clear evidence that 4,000 to 7,000 blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy?

Hispanics and Native Americans aren't the same as blacks, Axis Mikey.

To start with, the Cherokee had a good reason to hate the Union. You know, the whole Trail of Tears and being forced to relocate to reservations.

Same with some Hispanics, who thought that they might get territorial concessions if the Union broke up.

There was no real compelling reason for Blacks to fight for a Confederacy determined to keep them as slaves.

Here's why: Because so many Civil War scholars have an all-or-nothing mentality when it comes to the Confederacy. They are determined to demonize every aspect of the Confederacy and to deny that the Confederacy had any merit whatsoever.

Every aspect of the Confederacy should be demonized.

It had absolutely ZERO merit. They fought a hopeless war to destroy the union so a few rich assholes could keep owing and tormenting other human beings.

 

[Winston]

Well, no, the problem with Civil War Scholarship is that we are having to clean away layers of BULLSHIT "Lost Cause" mythology.



Hispanics and Native Americans aren't the same as blacks, Axis Mikey.

To start with, the Cherokee had a good reason to hate the Union. You know, the whole Trail of Tears and being forced to relocate to reservations.

Same with some Hispanics, who thought that they might get territorial concessions if the Union broke up.

There was no real compelling reason for Blacks to fight for a Confederacy determined to keep them as slaves.



Every aspect of the Confederacy should be demonized.

It had absolutely ZERO merit. They fought a hopeless war to destroy the union so a few rich assholes could keep owing and tormenting other human beings.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The great and noble North, those honorable people stood up and gave their lives so the black slaves in the South could be free. ******* horseshit.

The Civil War was about power, specifically, federal power over state power. And the whole slave question is just a damn diversion. I got to be honest, we didn't win the Civil War, the North didn't win, the South didn't lose, what we did lose was the experiment that was America.

This nation has always struggled with Federalism verses states rights. But boy howdy, after the Civil War, the Federal government went damn nuts. Most people have no clue, as to the power and the wealth of the aristocracy, mostly in England. Yes, America was free, for a while. But after the Civil War the very same aristocracy that we fought and rebelled against, they took control again

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The great and noble North, those honorable people stood up and gave their lives so the black slaves in the South could be free. ******* horseshit.

Um, no, I wouldn't go that far. The war was over the South's illegal secession. Freeing the slaves became a goal after the fighting had started.

But kind of every war ends up like that, doesn't it? It starts over some trivial issue (Like killing Franz Ferdinand, getting Bin Laden) and then evolves into some noble cause (making the world safe for Democracy, creating Democracy in the Middle East). Because all this fighting has to be over something.

Wouldn't have been a war had the South kept cool and said, "Yeah, we can live with Lincoln for four years, and then we get our shit together next election and don't split the vote three ways."

The Civil War was about power, specifically, federal power over state power. And the whole slave question is just a damn diversion. I got to be honest, we didn't win the Civil War, the North didn't win, the South didn't lose, what we did lose was the experiment that was America.

I would say the North Won the War, decisively (how hard is it to beat a bunch of inbreds?), but lost the peace.

This nation has always struggled with Federalism verses states rights. But boy howdy, after the Civil War, the Federal government went damn nuts. Most people have no clue, as to the power and the wealth of the aristocracy, mostly in England. Yes, America was free, for a while. But after the Civil War the very same aristocracy that we fought and rebelled against, they took control again

Oh, come on, if anyone had a link to the Aristocracy of England, it was the South. In fact, Historian Will Durant argued that the American Civil War was a replay of the English Civil War (with Northern Puritans vs. Southern Aristocrats.) They were living large on the plantations, sipping their julips, raping their slaves, and the poor dumb white peasants all went along with it because the last thing they wanted was some freed black man trying to **** their sisters. (That was THEIR job, dammit!!!)

Okay, to take this more seriously, America couldn't have endured as a loose federation of mostly independent states, that's the thing. Frankly, the more local you get in politics, the more corrupt it tends to be, because no one is paying attention to these people.

 

[mikegriffith1]

It's worth reading Lewis Steiner's entire statement about the black Confederate combat troops whom he saw in Jackson's force because he went on to note that the presence of those troops was "interesting" when considered "in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion" of having blacks serve as soldiers in the Union army ("the National defense"):

Wednesday, September 10. At four o clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson s force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o clock r. M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 6i,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn bv white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. The fact was patent, and rather interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the National defense. (pp. 19-20)

You can find Steiner's whole report here:

https://dn721604.ca.archive.org/0/items/reportlewissteiner00steirich/reportlewissteiner00steirich_bw.pdf

BTW, Steiner's report was one of the hundreds of documents that did not get included in the Official Records.

As anyone who knows anything about the Official Records can tell you, there are far fewer Confederate documents in the Official Records than there are Union documents--for obvious reasons:

One, a huge amount of Confederate records were lost or destroyed in the last weeks of the war, especially with the destruction of Richmond in April 1865 and the hasty flight of Confederate leaders from the city.

Two, the Confederate army did not have the luxury of being able to keep careful records the way the Union army did. When you are frequently forced to retreat and are having to spend huge amounts of time just trying to find food, you don't have much time to be filing reports, even assuming you have paper available, which was often not the case.

Three, after the federal naval blockade began in 1861, paper became harder and harder to get. By 1864, paper was downright scarce in the Confederacy, so much so that even newspapers had to drastically curtail the number of issues they printed.

 

[JoeB131]

It's worth reading Lewis Steiner's entire statement about the black Confederate combat troops whom he saw in Jackson's force because he went on to note that the presence of those troops was "interesting" when considered "in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion" of having blacks serve as soldiers in the Union army ("the National defense"):

Wednesday, September 10. At four o clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson s force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o clock r. M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 6i,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn bv white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. The fact was patent, and rather interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the National defense. (pp. 19-20)

You can find Steiner's whole report here:

https://dn721604.ca.archive.org/0/items/reportlewissteiner00steirich/reportlewissteiner00steirich_bw.pdf

BTW, Steiner's report was one of the hundreds of documents that did not get included in the Official Records.

As anyone who knows anything about the Official Records can tell you, there are far fewer Confederate documents in the Official Records than there are Union documents--for obvious reasons:

One, a huge amount of Confederate records were lost or destroyed in the last weeks of the war, especially with the destruction of Richmond in April 1865 and the hasty flight of Confederate leaders from the city.

Two, the Confederate army did not have the luxury of being able to keep careful records the way the Union army did. When you are frequently forced to retreat and are having to spend huge amounts of time just trying to find food, you don't have much time to be filing reports, even assuming you have paper available, which was often not the case.

Three, by 1864, paper was becoming increasingly scarce in the Confederacy, so much so that even newspapers had to drastically curtail the number of issues they printed.

Ah, this is what you are going with...

"There were black soldiers, but the reason we can't find any records of them is because the South Ran out of Paper!!!"

Here's the thing, Mikey. By the end of the Civil War, the South was fighting a PR battle. They were desperate to get British and French recognition. The North was fighting to free the slaves. So if there were a bunch of blacks out there fighting for the South, they'd be trumpeting it!

But there weren't, and they didn't.

 

[rightwinger]

because it isn't true.

Blacks were SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN from serving as soldiers or bearing arms.

That was the whole point.

The main reason why Southerners fought to maintain slavery was not that they wanted to own slaves (most of them didn't), but because they were absolutely terrified about what blacks were going to do to whites if they ever were freed. They looked at how the whites were slaughtered in Haiti.

After the war, when blacks didn't seek revenge, and kind of went along with the imposition of Jim Crow, that's when you started hearing the "Lost Cause" revisionist bullshit about tariffs and states' rights.

Blacks serving as soldiers would show that blacks are equal to whites.
No way the Confederacy would allow that

Also, after John Brown the South was terrified of arming slaves

 

[mikegriffith1]

Ah, this is what you are going with...

"There were black soldiers, but the reason we can't find any records of them is because the South Ran out of Paper!!!"

Here's the thing, Mikey. By the end of the Civil War, the South was fighting a PR battle. They were desperate to get British and French recognition. The North was fighting to free the slaves. So if there were a bunch of blacks out there fighting for the South, they'd be trumpeting it!

But there weren't, and they didn't.

You're an ignorant Hitler whitewasher and Nazi apologist, not to mention a Jew hater, a Hamas lover, a Mao lover, etc., etc.

I notice you still haven't tried to deal with any of the evidence presented in my article. What about Steiner's report, which I quoted in the reply that you just pretended to answer? Huh?

And, yes, as you can discover with a Google search, paper began to be hard to get in 1861 in the South after the federal naval blockade started, and paper became harder and harder to get as the war went on. Entire articles have been written about the paper shortage in the Confederacy, but of course you know nothing about this because you're poorly educated and poorly read.

You can also easily Google the fact that there are far, far fewer Confederate records in the Official Records than there are Union records, and that this is partly because so many Confederate records were destroyed toward the end of the war.

 

[JoeB131]

Blacks serving as soldiers would show that blacks are equal to whites.
No way the Confederacy would allow that

Also, after John Brown the South was terrified of arming slaves

Exactly. The whole reason for the Civil War was that white people were terrified of what blacks MIGHT do to them if they were ever freed.

You see, prior to 1820, most of the anti-slavery organizations were in the South. Then word started filtering back about what was going on in Haiti (where the white settlers were systematically slaughtered by the newly freed slaves) and all those Southerners got the vapors.

ou're an ignorant Hitler whitewasher and Nazi apologist,

So, realizing there were REASONS Hitler came to power is "whitewashing"? Really?

Why do YOU think Hitler came to power?

It's not an academic issue for me; my grandparents came to America in 1925 because the Weimar Republic was such a ******* shit-show. When they returned for a visit in 1930, things were still bad.

And every time I think my past relatives were idiots for tolerating Hitler, I have to keep in mind my current relatives (or at least some of them) supported Trump, and none of them have had to eat their dogs.

I notice you still haven't tried to deal with any of the evidence presented in my article. What about Steiner's report, which I quoted in the reply that you just pretended to answer? Huh?

Huh?
I can show you reports about UFOs and Bigfoot, that doesn't make them true. Heck, we've got photos of Bigfoot and UFOs, unlike these mysterious black Confederates. (Who were usually just slaves conscripted to do the dirty work.

And, yes, as you can discover with a Google search, paper began to be hard to get in 1861 in the South after the federal naval blockade started, and paper became harder and harder to get as the war went on. Entire articles have been written about the paper shortage in the Confederacy, but of course you know nothing about this because you're poorly educated and poorly read.

Um, Paper shortages are besides the point. By that point in the war, the South was desperate to show they weren't just fighting for slavery, so a regiment of black soldiers fighting to defend the homeland would have been a propaganda coup for them.

But no such regiment existed.

 

[Winston]

Um, no, I wouldn't go that far. The war was over the South's illegal secession. Freeing the slaves became a goal after the fighting had started.

But kind of every war ends up like that, doesn't it? It starts over some trivial issue (Like killing Franz Ferdinand, getting Bin Laden) and then evolves into some noble cause (making the world safe for Democracy, creating Democracy in the Middle East). Because all this fighting has to be over something.

Wouldn't have been a war had the South kept cool and said, "Yeah, we can live with Lincoln for four years, and then we get our shit together next election and don't split the vote three ways."

Why should the South be forced to live with Lincoln. He wasn't even on the ballot in ten Southern States. He got no votes, ZERO, ZIPPO, from those states. I mean today the right gets riled up because Biden won with so many million votes, imagine if he had won with ZERO votes from the South.

And yes, the election of 1860 was kind of a circus but damn, look into the Republican Convention of 1860. There was some bigtime back room negotiation going on.

I would say the North Won the War, decisively (how hard is it to beat a bunch of inbreds?), but lost the peace.

Evidently, it was much harder to beat those bunch of inbreds than Lincoln and his generals thought, let alone the ignorant Northern public. In the end, it came down to railroads, production capacity, and cannon fodder.

Oh, come on, if anyone had a link to the Aristocracy of England, it was the South. In fact, Historian Will Durant argued that the American Civil War was a replay of the English Civil War (with Northern Puritans vs. Southern Aristocrats.) They were living large on the plantations, sipping their julips, raping their slaves, and the poor dumb white peasants all went along with it because the last thing they wanted was some freed black man trying to **** their sisters. (That was THEIR job, dammit!!!)

Now you are just being ignorant. The Astors, Vanderbilts, Jay Cook, the Baldwins, there was far more wealth in the North. And look at the policies of the time. Tariffs provided the bulk of financing and who paid the bulk of those tariffs? Those railroads that were so instrumental in the Northern victory, they were massive wealth extracting devices specifically targeting the plantation society of the South.

And ironic, you mention tthe English Civil War and Incest in the same paragraph. Prior to the Civil Wars there were 30 "degrees" of incest. Afterwards, it was cut to eleven. Sorry, but the Puritans of New England don't get a free pass on incest.

Okay, to take this more seriously, America couldn't have endured as a loose federation of mostly independent states, that's the thing. Frankly, the more local you get in politics, the more corrupt it tends to be, because no one is paying attention to these people.

I mean right off the bat, the first question, why could America not have endured as a loose federation of mostly independent states? In no small way we had already solved that problem with the Constitution. That is as far as I am willing to push federal power. The expansion after the Civil War is unacceptable. Taxing power, the Federal Reserve, even the immigration issue.

 

[rightwinger]

Why should the South be forced to live with Lincoln. He wasn't even on the ballot in ten Southern States. He got no votes, ZERO, ZIPPO, from those states. I mean today the right gets riled up because Biden won with so many million votes, imagine if he had won with ZERO votes from the South.

And yes, the election of 1860 was kind of a circus but damn, look into the Republican Convention of 1860. There was some bigtime back room negotiation going on.

Because they were part of the United States and 1860 was a lawful election
Seceding because you lost an election is the ultimate sore loser act

 

[Winston]

Exactly. The whole reason for the Civil War was that white people were terrified of what blacks MIGHT do to them if they were ever freed.

You see, prior to 1820, most of the anti-slavery organizations were in the South. Then word started filtering back about what was going on in Haiti (where the white settlers were systematically slaughtered by the newly freed slaves) and all those Southerners got the vapors.

White people in the South were not terrified of blacks. Now, white people in the North, especially Northwest, not so much. They were horrified. And those new states, if they came in slave that means black people would live in them. The whites wanted new states to join free, free of black people.

And hat tip for understanding, yes, the anti-slave movement did originate in the South. For me, the Grimke Sisters were the spur. But the Moravian Church as well, from the very beginning.

But the reality is, there were many free blacks in the South, especially in the trades. Blacksmiths, gun makers, even fine furniture. Look into Thomas Day.

So, realizing there were REASONS Hitler came to power is "whitewashing"? Really?

Why do YOU think Hitler came to power?

It's not an academic issue for me; my grandparents came to America in 1925 because the Weimar Republic was such a ******* shit-show. When they returned for a visit in 1930, things were still bad.

And every time I think my past relatives were idiots for tolerating Hitler, I have to keep in mind my current relatives (or at least some of them) supported Trump, and none of them have had to eat their dogs.



Huh?
I can show you reports about UFOs and Bigfoot, that doesn't make them true. Heck, we've got photos of Bigfoot and UFOs, unlike these mysterious black Confederates. (Who were usually just slaves conscripted to do the dirty work.



Um, Paper shortages are besides the point. By that point in the war, the South was desperate to show they weren't just fighting for slavery, so a regiment of black soldiers fighting to defend the homeland would have been a propaganda coup for them.

But no such regiment existed.

Were there big, bad, evil plantation owners that raped their slaves, drank mint juleps for breakfast, and whipped the bucks in the evening for shits and giggles? Sure. Were there sons of plantation owners, living it up during the war because they owned so many slaves and didn't have to fight? Actually, I doubt it. I mean back at you, that should be easy to produce.

But, did some young son of a plantation owner show up, immediately granted a commission, with a slave Aide-de-Camp? You damn skippy they did. That is what the OP is explaining, blacks riding with Generals? Well yeah, damn skippy. Did the General "own" them? Probably. Were they promised freedom for their service? Well yes, just like during the American Revolution.

 

[rightwinger]

White people in the South were not terrified of blacks.

40 percent of the South were in bondage
The idea of a slave revolt terrified them……especially after John Brown