The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[mikegriffith1]

Let us look at more of Andrew Johnson’s statements that prove he did not hate blacks and that prove he was concerned about the welfare and rights of ex-slaves. These statements come from his First Annual Message to Congress, December 4, 1865.

Johnson warned against assuming that blacks and whites could not live together in a mutually beneficial way:

We must equally avoid hasty assumptions of any natural impossibility for the two races to live side by side in a state of mutual benefit and good will. The experiment involves us in no inconsistency; let us, then, go on and make that experiment in good faith, and not be too easily disheartened.

Johnson said the freedmen not only needed jobs and culture but also protection, and he said he opposed “forced removal and colonization”:

The country is in need of labor, and the freedmen are in need of employment, culture, and protection. While their right of voluntary migration and expatriation is not to be questioned, I would not advise their forced removal and colonization.

Johnson urged that ex-slaves be encouraged to engage in honorable and useful labor, and that no one should believe this effort was certain to fail:

Let us rather encourage them to honorable and useful industry, where it may be beneficial to themselves and to the country; and, instead of hasty anticipations of the certainty of failure, let there be nothing wanting to the fair trial of the experiment. The change in their condition is the substitution of labor by contract for the status of slavery.

Johnson said it was unfair to accuse freedmen of being unwilling to work when there was still doubt about their freedom of choice and about their receiving their promised wages, and he added that ex-slaves, like employers, should be able to enforce labor contracts:

The freedman cannot fairly be accused of unwillingness to work so long as a doubt remains about his freedom of choice in his pursuits and the certainty of his recovering his stipulated wages. In this the interests of the employer and the employed coincide. The employer desires in his workmen spirit and alacrity, and these can be permanently secured in no other way. And if the one ought to be able to enforce the contract, so ought the other.

Johnson argued that the Southern states should provide “adequate protection and remedies” for the freedmen, that there was no way to effectively use their labor until this was done, and that if this was not done the freedmen would not be to blame for the failure:

The public interest will be best promoted if the several states will provide adequate protection and remedies for the freedmen. Until this is in some way accomplished there is no chance for the advantageous use of their labor, and the blame of ill success will not rest on them.

If I had attributed these statements to a fanatical Radical Republican such as Charles Sumner, no one would have doubted that he made them, because they exhibit a belief that whites and blacks could live together harmoniously, because they reject forced removal and colonization, and because they show a concern for the rights and welfare of the ex-slaves.

I think it is revealing that very few, if any, of the history books that are authored by orthodox scholars and that claim Johnson hated blacks mention these statements, much less quote them. In fact, of all the books I have read on the Civil War and Reconstruction that claim Johnson was an ardent racist, not one of them mentions or quotes these statements.

 

[JoeB131]

If I had attributed these statements to a fanatical Radical Republican such as Charles Sumner, no one would have doubted that he made them, because they exhibit a belief that whites and blacks could live together harmoniously, because they reject forced removal and colonization, and because they show a concern for the rights and welfare of the ex-slaves.

I think it is revealing that very few, if any, of the history books that are authored by orthodox scholars and that claim Johnson hated blacks mention these statements, much less quote them. In fact, of all the books I have read on the Civil War and Reconstruction that claim Johnson was an ardent racist, not one of them mentions or quotes these statements.

Because actions speak louder than words. Always.

We know what Johnson did. He vetoed those radical ideas about equality. because that was a totally radical idea, how dare anyone suggest that.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Because actions speak louder than words. Always.

We know what Johnson did. He vetoed those radical ideas about equality. because that was a totally radical idea, how dare anyone suggest that.

Oh my heavens! You're relying on the whacky far-left group Democracy Now for your information about Andrew Johnson!

I know you are immune to facts and persuasion, and I'm only replying here for the sake of others, but, again, Johnson supported qualified/limited black suffrage, just as did Abraham Lincoln, and he had no problem at all with universal black suffrage after a few years so as to give ex-slaves sufficient time to get a basic education about American law, history, and government.

--------------------------------

Moving on from JoeB131's usual drivel, a fact that has a direct bearing on the willingness of some Southern blacks to fight for the Confederacy is the fact that Union troops frequently robbed and abused Southern slaves.

Dr. Jeffrey Addicott documents this fact in his recent book Union Terror. Dr. Addicott is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel who specialized in the rules of war and served as senior legal advisor to U.S. Army Special Forces. He is now a professor of law and the Director of the Warrior Defense Project at St. Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, Texas, where he teaches national security law and terrorism law, among other subjects. He is an internationally recognized authority on the law of war.

Dr. Addicott spends dozens of pages in his book analyzing the Lieber Code and documenting how Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and some other generals egregiously violated it. Addicot leaves no doubt (1) that Sherman's defenders have misused/misrepresented the Lieber Code to justify Sherman's actions, (2) that the revised rules of warfare that Grant approved in 1864 unquestionably violated the Lieber Code, and (3) that some Union generals had been violating the code since 1862. Included in this prolonged discussion are numerous accounts from former slaves, Union soldiers, and Southern civilans of Union soldiers robbing, abusing, or even abducting Southern slaves.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh my heavens! You're relying on the whacky far-left group Democracy Now for your information about Andrew Johnson!

I know you are immune to facts and persuasion, and I'm only replying here for the sake of others, but, again, Johnson supported qualified/limited black suffrage, just as did Abraham Lincoln, and he had no problem at all with universal black suffrage after a few years so as to give ex-slaves sufficient time to get a basic education about American law, history, and government.

Wow, that's MIGHTY WHITE of you Mike.

Reality, Johnson sabotaged reconstruction, and we STILL haven't fixed the damage, as any black person who gets pulled over for a Driving While Black will tell you.

 

[August West]

Some Blacks fought for the Confederacy because they had no homes of their own and they liked to eat.

 

[August West]

Oh my heavens! You're relying on the whacky far-left group Democracy Now for your information about Andrew Johnson!

I know you are immune to facts and persuasion, and I'm only replying here for the sake of others, but, again, Johnson supported qualified/limited black suffrage, just as did Abraham Lincoln, and he had no problem at all with universal black suffrage after a few years so as to give ex-slaves sufficient time to get a basic education about American law, history, and government.

--------------------------------

Moving on from JoeB131's usual drivel, a fact that has a direct bearing on the willingness of some Southern blacks to fight for the Confederacy is the fact that Union troops frequently robbed and abused Southern slaves.

Dr. Jeffrey Addicott documents this fact in his recent book Union Terror. Dr. Addicott is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel who specialized in the rules of war and served as senior legal advisor to U.S. Army Special Forces. He is now a professor of law and the Director of the Warrior Defense Project at St. Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, Texas, where he teaches national security law and terrorism law, among other subjects. He is an internationally recognized authority on the law of war.

Dr. Addicott spends dozens of pages in his book analyzing the Lieber Code and documenting how Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and some other generals egregiously violated it. Addicot leaves no doubt (1) that Sherman's defenders have misused/misrepresented the Lieber Code to justify Sherman's actions, (2) that the revised rules of warfare that Grant approved in 1864 unquestionably violated the Lieber Code, and (3) that some Union generals had been violating the code since 1862. Included in this prolonged discussion are numerous accounts from former slaves, Union soldiers, and Southern civilans of Union soldiers robbing, abusing, or even abducting Southern slaves.

Volunteer soldiers did not behave like Regular Army, nor did they have to.

 

[Dante]

The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers​

That Has Never Been A "Touchy" Subject​

NEVER!

 

[Dante]

Volunteer soldiers did not behave like Regular Army, nor did they have to.

Stop arguing with facts on your side!

 

[mikegriffith1]

That Has Never Been A "Touchy" Subject

NEVER!

Your comment proves you have no clue what you're talking about and clearly have not even done some casual reading on the subject. If you had, you'd know that the subject of black Confederate soldiers is an extremely touchy subject that provokes woke historians into fits of extreme posturing and overheated denial.

Given that you view the American Patriots of the Revolutionary War as "traitors," I suspect that your reading on the Civil War has been even more deficient. But, FYI, orthodox historians foam at the mouth even over solid evidence that no more than 7,000 blacks, a drop in the bucket, voluntarily fought for the Confederacy in exchange for individual and unit-level offers of freedom. They still cite and then trounce the old strawman claim that "hundreds of thousands" of blacks willingly fought for the CSA, a claim that no responsible Southern heritage defender has repeated in many years.

 

[JoeB131]

Your comment proves you have no clue what you're talking about and clearly have not even done some casual reading on the subject. If you had, you'd know that the subject of black Confederate soldiers is an extremely touchy subject that provokes woke historians into fits of extreme posturing and overheated denial.

Given that you view the American Patriots of the Revolutionary War as "traitors," I suspect that your reading on the Civil War has been even more deficient. But, FYI, orthodox historians foam at the mouth even over solid evidence that no more than 7,000 blacks, a drop in the bucket, voluntarily fought for the Confederacy in exchange for individual and unit-level offers of freedom. They still cite and then trounce the old strawman claim that "hundreds of thousands" of blacks willingly fought for the CSA, a claim that no responsible Southern heritage defender has repeated in many years.

That's the problem, guy. The Confederacy shouldn't be a 'heritage" anyone should be proud of.

The problem with "unit-level" offers of freedom is that there was no way to enforce them. Do you think that if you went home with a piece of paper from your unit, the kinds of bigots who would spend the next 100 years thinking up new ways to oppress black people would have honored it?

Now, no one disputes that blacks were conscripted to be cooks, laborers, etc.

What no one takes seriously is that they were combat soldiers.

 

[Quantrill]

JoeB131

How about them Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War? When were they removed?

Quantrill

Let's see, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, and New York all had Jim Crow black codes before the War.

Oh...and look, your fair state of Illinois had Jim Crow Black Codes before the War. What a bunch of racist bastards you come from.

And yet you hypocritically ***** about Jim Crow in the South. Illinois produced the powerful white supremacist, Abe Lincoln. No wonder there were Yankee Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War.

Glory, glory,...hallelujah, glory, glory...hallelujah....

Quantrill

So, how about them Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the War? When were they removed? You say they never happened. post #(392) So, what were the balck codes?

And your 'precious' state of 'illinois' the grand land of Lincoln? How about them black codes in the land of the free? I know your scared, but try and answer.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

So, how about them Jim Crow Black Codes

nobody cares.

The Confederacy... celebrating being losers for 150 years.

 

[mikegriffith1]

JoeB131

How about them Jim Crow Black Codes in the North before the war? When did that change?

Quantrill

But the Southern Black Codes were harsher than the Northern ones, and they could not have come at a worse time. Once again, Southern leaders found a way to play right into the hands of the Radical Republicans. This enabled the Radicals to say, "You see what those awful Southerners will do when they're left on their own? This proves we can't trust them."

The Southern Black Codes were actually a significant improvement over slavery and a substantive step forward, but most of them were too harsh. The ex-slaves deserved better treatment. The need for law and order and stability could have been met with more moderate codes, but as usual Southern hotheads just could not help themselves and were seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their actions.

 

[Quantrill]

But the Southern Black Codes were harsher than the Northern ones, and they could not have come at a worse time. Once again, Southern leaders found a way to play right into the hands of the Radical Republicans. This enabled the Radicals to say, "You see what those awful Southerners will do when they're left on their own? This proves we can't trust them."

The Southern Black Codes were actually a significant improvement over slavery and a substantive step forward, but most of them were too harsh. The ex-slaves deserved better treatment. The need for law and order and stability could have been met with more moderate codes, but as usual Southern hotheads just could not help themselves and were seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their actions.

Oh my...the North had Black codes. The North had Jim Crow laws before the War. The North had Jim Crow laws before the South ever did. Those sorry sons-of-bitches.

Point being: The hypocrisy of the self-righteous north. Of which there is no end.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

nobody cares.

The Confederacy... celebrating being losers for 150 years.

Oh yes they care. And you show how stupid and ignorant of history you are by saying no one cares. As though only they care about your bullshit history.

You think people are so stupid to not see how ignorant you are? Just because you keep posting doesn't mean you are not stupid.

Keep bending over and get that smoke up your ass. And belch it out for all to believe.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh my...the North had Black codes. The North had Jim Crow laws before the War. The North had Jim Crow laws before the South ever did. Those sorry sons-of-bitches.

But most Northern states were free states, whereas every Southern state was a slave state. On the other hand, there is good evidence that racism was more severe in the North than in the South.

A lot of people don't know that there were just about as many free blacks in the South as there were in the North.

Point being: The hypocrisy of the self-righteous north. Of which there is no end.

Quantrill

Yes, there was a great deal of hypocrisy in the North, but there was also a stubborn refusal to end slavery in the South.

 

[JoeB131]

But most Northern states were free states, whereas every Southern state was a slave state. On the other hand, there is good evidence that racism was more severe in the North than in the South.

A lot of people don't know that there were just about as many free blacks in the South as there were in the North.

Being a bit disingenuous, aren't we? There were very few blacks in the North because there was no profit in importing or breeding them. If the North wanted cheap labor, they just imported white immigrants from the poorer parts of Europe.

Blacks didn't start migrating North until the late 19th/early 20th century, when all those new industrial jobs opened up. And the South passed laws to try to keep them from leaving, such as making it a crime to walk along railroad tracks leading North.

Now, the nature of Northern Racism was that black communities were often isolated in big cities. The Irish hated the Blacks, but they also hated the Italians and the Poles who lived in their own neighborhoods.

Yes, there was a great deal of hypocrisy in the North, but there was also a stubborn refusal to end slavery in the South.

But Mikey, you keep claiming that Slavery wasn't that bad, and some slaves just loved their masters!!!

(You know, because you don't understand Stockholm Syndrome.)

 

[mikegriffith1]

The touchy subject of slaves being forced to fight for the confederacy is the accurate title of this thread.

I take it you didn't bother to read the linked article. We're talking about slaves who volunteered to fight for the CSA at the state and unit level in exchange for their freedom. When the national government finally approved a program to recruit slaves as soldiers, the execution order specified that the slaves had to volunteer and that their masters had to acknowledge in writing that their slaves would receive freedom as a reward for their service.

I see you quote MLK in your sigblock. What do you think of the disclosures about his violence against women, his use of prostitutes, his arranging for other "ministers" to sleep with young girls, and his excessive profanity in private conversations? I freely acknowledge the need for and value of his public works, but surely the shocking disclosures about his private life should cause us to reassess his status as a hero and examplar.

 

[Quantrill]

But most Northern states were free states, whereas every Southern state was a slave state. On the other hand, there is good evidence that racism was more severe in the North than in the South.

A lot of people don't know that there were just about as many free blacks in the South as there were in the North.


Yes, there was a great deal of hypocrisy in the North, but there was also a stubborn refusal to end slavery in the South.

How was it stubborn refusal when it was very American to have slaves? If, of course, you count the Constitution as a legitimate gauge of what was American.

So who was 'stubborn' and 'hypocritical'. Answer: the traitors, the North.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

How was it stubborn refusal when it was very American to have slaves? If, of course, you count the Constitution as a legitimate gauge of what was American. So who was 'stubborn' and 'hypocritical'. Answer: the traitors, the North. Quantrill

How was it a stubborn refusal? Because slavery was an excreble, evil institution that kept millions of people in bondage for no valid reason. No matter how humanely slavery was usually administered, it was still an abomination.

If you were framed for a crime you didn't commit and sent to prison, you would not care how kindly your guards treated you or how good the food happened to be. You would be outraged at being held in bondage for no good reason.

Yes, cases of severe abuse of slaves were rare, but when you're talking about 3.5 million slaves, such cases numbered in the thousands. Even if we assume that only 2% of slaves were subjected to severe cruelty, 2% of 3.5 million is 70,000. That is morally unacceptable by any rational measurement.

Most Northern states had the good sense to abolish slavery--yes, via gradual emancipation--in the 1820s and 1830s. There were few slaves in the Northern states by 1850. Though technically a Northern state, Maryland was really a border state--yet, even then, the state's voters voted to abolish slavery in 1864. There were zero Northern leaders who claimed slavery was a positive good, yet many prominent Southern leaders made this absurd claim.