The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[JoeB131]

Ooooh, Axis Mikey strikes again. Can't really debate the point, so he screams about me personally. I love living in his head rent free.

More of your juvenile nonsense. The blacks who volunteered to fight for the Confederate army did so in exchange for their freedom. They weren't fighting to "continue their enslavement" but to end it. But you're so clueless and rabid that you can't even get this basic fact right.

Right. Hmm. Let's look at that.

CSA: "Hey, we are willing to give you your freedom, and you can totally trust us that we won't do backsies when the war is over.(WHich is pretty much what they did with Jim Crow, Debt Peonage, and other policies after the North gave up on Reconstruction.) Your friends, family, and neighbors are all shit out of luck, though."

USA: "We are fighting for your freedom, and you will get it once we win. Oh, yeah, and you really don't have to do anything, but if you want to sign up with us, we'll take you."

"Revisionism"?! Wow! Umm, 99% of educated people would consider your obscene, fringe views to be "revisionism," such as your view that "Hitler wasn't the problem," that the Nazis had valid reasons to hate the Jews, that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI, that you "guess" the Holocaust was bad (rational people don't need to guess on this issue),

Wouldn't know who these educated people are. Most historians admit that the Weimar Republic was a Shit Show and that's why Hitler won. Hitler didn't invent German anti-Semitism; he just exploited it. This is the point that I try to get through to you, but you are happier in your faux outrage.

Let's be honest about the "Orthodoxy" about the Weimar years. I put it up there with Vatican II, declaring the Jews didn't kill Jesus despite what the Gospels say. It wasn't that the inciting incidents weren't there; it was downplaying them because they felt bad about what happened.

8 of the top 11 revolutionary leaders who overthrew the Kaiser were Jews. They took Germany from a war they (wrongly) thought they were winning to agreeing to a humiliating peace and a decade of economic deprivation.

Not an academic issue for me. My grandfather fought in the Kaiser's Army and had to flee his home in the Rhineland when it came under French occupation until 1929. He just left. His brother joined the NSDAP.

that Mao and Stalin were swell leaders who really didn't murder nearly as many people as scholars say they did, that Red China was a better place to live than Free China,

Well.... Um... Mao won. And he's still revered in China today. (As opposed to Chiang, who never led a "Free China", and is considered a bit of an embarrassment even in Taiwan.)

Now, for point of reference (and a tad off topic), my wife was born in China. She has no real love for the CCP. She was restricted from going to the church of her choice, her father was denounced during the Cultural Revolution, and she nearly died as a baby because of the deprivations of the Great Famine.

Yet she and most of her family still have a pretty high opinion of Mao himself. To them, he is the George Washington of their country. And understandably. He took a fractured, impoverished country with a 50% infant mortality rate and a 70% illiteracy rate, and put it on the track to be the world's dominant economic power.

Blah, blah, blah. None of this orthodox polemic lays a finger on the evidence I've presented, much less the evidence presented in the several books on the subject that I've discussed. All you ever do is go running to find whatever website supports what you want to believe.

Except - again- no records of units, no names of soldiers, no real evidence, but "Some union guy saw some black dudes following the CSA". No one disputes that the CSA officers brought their slaves with them to do manual labor. But no CSA Officer was going to be stupid enough to give a black guy a gun. That's just an invitation to get "Fragged".

It just so happens that on this issue you endorse the orthodox view, and you've done nothing but quote from orthodox sources, which make no effort to actually address the evidence that several thousand blacks volunteered to fight for the Confederacy in exchange for their freedom.

Um, I've posted several sources, and it is the view of most historians that blacks wouldn't have fought to continue slavery. Not to mention that the CSA law strictly prohibited arming slaves.

Keep in mind WHY the South fought so hard for slavery. It wasn't that the majority of whites owned slaves. (in fact only 25% of households owned slaves). It was that they were absolutely terrified of what kind of revenge blacks might inflict once they had been freed.

If we were talking about any of the many issues where you hold bizarre, fringe views, you would find it necessary to reject the orthodox position. Take, for example, your view that Israel knowingly attacked the USS Liberty in 1967. Virtually all respectable historians reject this view as baseless conspiracy theory--in fact, I can't think of a single reputable historian who does not reject the view.

I take the view of most of the Liberty's crew, including her captain, who believe that the attack was intentional.

Or just common sense, that you don't attack a clearly marked US Ship with a distinct configuration THREE TIMES by "accident".

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” - Ian Fleming.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The fact that the Confederate government began a program of emancipation is not surprising given the historical record about the Confederates and their motives.

As one reads the speeches and letters of Confederate leaders during the war, it becomes apparent that they certainly did not believe their main reason for fighting was to preserve slavery. For example, beginning in late 1862, James Phelan, Joseph Bradford, and Reuben Davis wrote to Jefferson Davis to express concern that some opponents were claiming the war "was for the defense of the institution of slavery" (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 479-480, 765). They called those who were making this claim "demagogues.” Cooper notes that when two Northerners visited Jefferson Davis during the war, Davis insisted "the Confederates were not battling for slavery" and that "slavery had never been the key issue" (Jefferson Davis, American, p. 524). McPherson notes that Jefferson Davis repeatedly said the South was fighting for its independence and that the Southern states merely wanted to be left alone:

Jefferson Davis said repeatedly that the South was fighting for the same “sacred right of self-government” that the revolutionary fathers had fought for. In his first message to Congress [the Confederate Congress] after the fall of Sumter, Davis proclaimed that the Confederacy would “seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone.” (The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 310)

To most Southerners, independence was more important than was the continuation of slavery. This is not surprising, since less than 10 percent of Southern citizens actually held title to slaves, and since 69-75 percent of Southern families were not slaveholders (John Niven, The Coming of the Civil War: 1837-1861, Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1990, p. 34; Divine et al, editors, America Past and Present, p. 389; see also the 1860 Census). Historian Mark Smith provides additional perspective on the number of slaveholders in relation to the South’s white population of about 8 million:

Half of the South’s 385,000 slaveholders (out of . . . a total white population of about 8 million in 1860) owned one to five slaves, about 38 percent belonged to the middling ranks, and 12 percent owned 20 or more bondpeople. . . . Census data suggest that only 13,000 masters owned more than fifty slaves in 1860, and 75 percent of white families owned no slaves whatsoever. . . . (Mark H. Smith, Debating Slavery: Economy and Society in the Antebellum American South, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 15)

Early in the war, James Alcorn, a powerful planter-politician from Mississippi, began to talk openly about emancipation. Duncan Kenner, one of the most powerful slaveholders in the South and a chairman in the Confederate Congress, urged that slavery be abolished in 1862. Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy’s most famous general, believed slavery was evil and favored gradual emancipation. The Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin, and Governor William Smith of Virginia, also supported ending slavery. Several Southern governors supported emancipation for slaves who served in the Confederate army. By late 1864, Jefferson Davis himself was prepared to abolish slavery in order to gain European diplomatic recognition and thus save the Confederacy, which shows that independence was more important to him than was the preservation of slavery. Dr. Jeff Hummel, though critical of the South on many points, observes the following:

Jefferson Davis summarily rejected Lincoln’s demands [for the dissolution of the Confederacy], yet he might have given in on southern emancipation in return for Southern independence. His countrymen were already debating the revolutionary expedient of arming slaves to fight for the Confederacy, even though they knew that this meant an end to their peculiar institution [slavery]. As early as August 1863, an editorial in the Jackson Mississippian declared that slavery should not be “a barrier to our independence. If it is found in the way—if it proves an insurmountable object of the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it! Let it perish!” This was a drastic step, but “we must make up our minds to one solemn duty, the first duty of the patriot, and that is to save ourselves from the rapacious North, whatever the cost.”

General Lee added his prestige to the proposal: “We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions,” he warned. “My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. . . . The best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.” In March of 1865, the Confederate Congress narrowly authorized the recruitment of 300,000 slaves, while the Davis Administration promised full emancipation to the British and French governments in exchange for diplomatic recognition. (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, pp. 280-281)

 

[JoeB131]

The fact that the Confederate government began a program of emancipation is not surprising given the historical record about the Confederates and their motives.

As one reads the speeches and letters of Confederate leaders during the war, it becomes apparent that they certainly did not believe their main reason for fighting was to preserve slavery.

Ah, let's take this pack of deranged lies apart.

Let's start with Alexander Stevens, the Vice President of the Confederacy.

Alexander Stephens on Slavery and the Confederate Constitution, 1861 | The American Yawp Reader

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.

Selected Quotations from 1830

]From the Confederate Constitution:

[Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."[/FONT] Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."[/FONT]
Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence."

[/FONT]

 

[Unkotare]

Toward the end of the Civil War, the so-called confederacy was considering ending slavery themselves. The war ended before they could vote on it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Toward the end of the Civil War, the so-called confederacy was considering ending slavery themselves. The war ended before they could vote on it.

Actually, the Confederacy began its emancipation program in March 1865, one month before the war ended. Major voices in the South, including Robert E. Lee, supported extending the offer of freedom to the families of slaves who volunteered to serve in the army. Jefferson Davis had already sent a special envoy to Europe to advise them the Confederacy was prepared to end slavery.

Ah, yes, I see JoeB131 is quoting Alexander Stephens, which he misspells as "Stevens," even though his quoted source spells it correctly. That's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about and are just copying and pasting from websites that support your view.

Yes, there were certainly come Confederates who viewed the war as being all about slavery, just as there were some Republicans, i.e., the Radical Republicans, who believed the purpose of the war was to abolish slavery. But those hardline voices on both sides were not the majority view.

Most Southerners were entirely willing to give up slavery to gain independence, and most Northerners, including many Republicans, were totally willing to restore the Union without abolishing slavery. Abraham Lincoln himself insisted, in a public reply to Horace Greeley, that if he could restore the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so. Even at the war's end, there were plenty of Northerners who opposed abolishing slavery, but they were now in the minority.

And, yup, I see JoeB131 has trotted out Robert Toombs' statement against using slaves as soldiers, as if he has made some grand discovery. Again, this is what happens when you've done no serious research and are just scouring the Internet for sources to copy and paste, often apparently without actually reading them in their entirety.

Well, yes, of course there were Confederates who were opposed to using slaves as soldiers, just as there were many Republicans who ardently opposed using blacks as Union soldiers. Here, too, such voices were in the minority. Nearly every member of Davis's cabinet supported offering slaves freedom in exchange for military service. All but one of the Confederate generals who expressed a view on the matter supported the measure. But, of course, JoeB131 is oblivious to these facts, or is choosing to dishonestly ignore them.

Finally, I see JoeB131 is quoting from the Confederate Constitution. I know he's only read neo-Radical sources on the subject. I suspect this is why he didn't quote the section of the CSA Constitution that allowed for the admission of free states to the Confederacy, and the section that banned the overseas slave trade. This is kind of misleading cherry-picking comes from being rabidly biased, poorly read, and only reading one side of the story.

The best, must-read book on the Confederate Constitution is Professor Marshall DeRosa's book The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, yes, I see JoeB131 is quoting Alexander Stephens, which he misspells as "Stevens," even though his quoted source spells it correctly. That's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about and are just copying and pasting from websites that support your view.

Yes, there were certainly come Confederates who viewed the war as being all about slavery, just as there were some Republicans, i.e., the Radical Republicans, who believed the purpose of the war was to abolish slavery. But those hardline voices on both sides were not the majority view.

Um, guy, you shouldn't complain about a spelling error and then make a truly hilarious one yourself.

You avoid the point that not just Stephens, but ALL Confederate leaders saw blacks as an inferior form of humanity and that slavery was the natural order of things.

The Civil War was absolutely about "slavery". It wasn't about tariffs or states' rights. It was about slavery. Period.

The problem is that you suffer from "Lost Cause" revisionism. After the Civil War, when Blacks didn't rise up and murder all the white people, and various laws were passed to re-establish the segregation of races, many Southerners were kind of embarrassed. So they started telling themselves, "Well, it was about lofty principles of States' Rights."

The nonsense about "Black Confederate Soldiers" didn't come about until the 1970s, when the Civil Rights movement kind of made the South look bad, and someone had to say, "See, see, blacks served in the Confederate Army"!

Most Southerners were entirely willing to give up slavery to gain independence, and most Northerners, including many Republicans, were totally willing to restore the Union without abolishing slavery. Abraham Lincoln himself insisted, in a public reply to Horace Greeley, that if he could restore the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so. Even at the war's end, there were plenty of Northerners who opposed abolishing slavery, but they were now in the minority.

Um, guy, let's get real. If it weren't for slavery, the South wouldn't have cared about independence. The trigger for independence was Lincoln's election, a guy seen as an abolitionist. The South also threatened to secede if Fremont had been elected in 1856. The rise of an openly abolitionist Republican Party (I know, it's hard to imagine a GOP that is on the RIGHT side of race issues today) is what triggered secession.

And, yup, I see JoeB131 has trotted out Robert Toombs' statement against using slaves as soldiers, as if he has made some grand discovery. Again, this is what happens when you've done no serious research and are just scouring the Internet for sources to copy and paste, often apparently without actually reading them in their entirety.

Um, no, the radicalism is trying to pretend there were black Confederate soldiers to excuse what the Confederates did. It's about as ethical as pointing out some Jews served in the Wehrmacht, which is what one of our resident holocaust deniers does.

Well, yes, of course there were Confederates who were opposed to using slaves as soldiers, just as there were many Republicans who ardently opposed using blacks as Union soldiers. Here, too, such voices were in the minority. Nearly every member of Davis's cabinet supported offering slaves freedom in exchange for military service. All but one of the Confederate generals who expressed a view on the matter supported the measure. But, of course, JoeB131 is oblivious to these facts, or is choosing to dishonestly ignore them.

Again, this was in the last week of the war, when the South was clearly defeated, and they were throwing anything they could find against the wall. Sure, Davis offered freedom to any black dumb enough to fight for the Confederacy, but I doubt he had any takers before he fled Richmond in a dress to avoid capture.

(I know it's an exaggeration, but it's too hilarious!!!)

Finally, I see JoeB131 is quoting from the Confederate Constitution. I know he's only read neo-Radical sources on the subject. I suspect this is why he didn't quote the section of the CSA Constitution that allowed for the admission of free states to the Confederacy, and the section that banned the overseas slave trade. This is kind of misleading cherry-picking comes from being rabidly biased, poorly read, and only reading one side of the story.

The Slave Trade had already been made illegal in 1807 in the US. Not because the USA or the CSA were suddenly enlightened, but because they just plain old didn't want more blacks coming in. Remember, before the Cotton Gin made slavery profitable as hell, and instead of slavery just fading away as the Founders had hoped, it became profitable to breed the heck out of your slaves like fancy goldfish.

Why import more slaves when you could just make them have sex... or have sex with them yourself!

 

[The Duke]

Blacks were Southerners too. You shoulda seen what this 90-something year old coal black woman with white hair in Georgia told me. I was like in 5th grade, she was dipping fine snuff and went on this
rant with a lot of "Damn Yankees" and "Sherman" and spitting and holy crap she got fired up!
They did not teach us that in the history books, so I asked a teacher and they told me about what she was talking about.
Blew my mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Blacks were Southerners too. You shoulda seen what this 90-something year old coal black woman with white hair in Georgia told me. I was like in 5th grade, she was dipping fine snuff and went on this
rant with a lot of "Damn Yankees" and "Sherman" and spitting and holy crap she got fired up!
They did not teach us that in the history books, so I asked a teacher and they told me about what she was talking about.
Blew my mind.

They don't teach a lot in history books.

I am sure by modern standards, what Sherman did should be considered a series of War Crimes.

It also knocked the Confederacy out of the war.

 

[The Duke]

They don't teach a lot in history books.

I am sure by modern standards, what Sherman did should be considered a series of War Crimes.

It also knocked the Confederacy out of the war.

Yeah. It pissed whites and blacks in Georgia off pretty good, though.
For a long time, too. Like forever.

 

[mikegriffith1]

But we have records of MANY of them, that's the point. Not to mention all the Confederate Units that kept having reunions for decades after the war ended.

No, we are missing records for at least 1/3 of the Confederate muster roles. And, again, due to the combat situation and the chronic paper shortage, the Confederate army did not have the time or means to keep the kinds of detailed records that the Union army had the luxury of keeping.

BTW, Hitler was the problem. No, the Nazis had no valid reasons for hating Jews. No, there is no international Zionist conspiracy to rule the word. No, Jews did not rig the Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation into the USS Liberty incident. No, Mao was not a great leader who made life better for the Chinese people. No, Red China was not a better place to live than Free China. No, U.S. intelligence was not stalking and harassing Iris Chang. No, Hamas rule is not even remotely as good as Israeli rule.

If they were marching peacefully, how did he know they were "combat troops"?

LOL! Are you serious? Is this a serious question? Umm, he knew they were combat troops because they were heavily armed, just like the white combat troops. Combat troops don't have to be engaged in battle to be recognized as combat troops.

It should also be pointed out that Maryland was a slave state that only stayed in the Union because they were blocked from seceding. So any account from a Maryland official should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

LOL! One, Steiner was ardently anti-slavery and pro-Union, which explains why he was a Republican. You clearly still have not bothered to read his report. Two, in 1864 Maryland voters voted to abolish slavery. Three, in the 1860 election, 53% of Maryland voters voted for Bell, Douglas, and Lincoln. Four, in the 1864 election, Lincoln carried Maryland by an 11-point margin. Five, the number of Maryland men who served in the Union army was more than double the number of Maryland men who served in the Confederate army.

I notice you again said nothing about the fact that Steiner's account is corroborated by numerous Union army reports that mention encounters with black Confederate combat troops, not to mention Union soldiers' letters and diaries that likewise mention such encounters. I'm guessing you will never venture to explain why none other than former slave and Northern abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in late 1861 that it was "pretty well established" that blacks were serving as combat troops in the Confederate army.

"Neo-Radical Historians"? The problem is his account doesn't make any sense. If there were any blacks marching through Maryland, they'd be running for freedom.

LOL! So this is your final explanation for Steiner's account: it must be wrong because any Southern blacks who marched through Maryland would have run for freedom! The ignorance and bias reflected in that argument are breathtaking. In other words, Steiner must have been hallucinating because otherwise your rabidly warped conception of Confederate soldiers and the Confederacy collapses. I guess it slipped your mind that those Southern slaves were offered freedom in exchange for their military service. Remember?

Do you have any clue about the number of times Southern slaves fled from Union troops in the South, much to the consternation and confusion of those Union troops? Do you have any clue about the Union army reports that discuss Union troops forcefully rounding up Southern slaves because the slaves did not want to leave? You can read all about those round-ups in Thomas Bland Keys’ book The Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records (The Beauvoir Press, 1991), which is based almost exclusively on official federal records.

This is mighty curious: On this issue, you cling to the orthodox position (although you adopt an extreme version of it that even most orthodox historians reject). Yet, when it comes to so many other issues, you take a bizarre fringe view and reject the orthodox view, such as your aberrant view on the USS Liberty incident, the Navy's USS Liberty investigation, Red China, Mao's mass murders, Stalin's mass murders, the alleged U.S. intel harassment of Iris Chang, Hamas's tyranny vs. Israel's pluralistic democracy, the Nazi lie that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI, the Nazi lie that there's an international Zionist conspiracy to rule the world, etc., etc.

 

[JoeB131]

You can always tell I've hit a nerve with Mikey when he goes off topic like this.

BTW, Hitler was the problem. No, the Nazis had no valid reasons for hating Jews.

No, the problem was anti-Jewish sentiment had been hardwired into German Culture for hundreds of years. Hitler didn't have to tell Germans to hate Jews, they already did. After the war, they asked one survivor why didn't he flee when Hitler took power, and his response was, "All the other parties were just as bad."

No, there is no international Zionist conspiracy to rule the word.

Which word?

Little Marco just admitted today that the reason why Trump launched his Sneak Attack on Iran was because the Isrealis forced his hand.

No, Jews did not rig the Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation into the USS Liberty incident.

Sure they did.

No, Mao was not a great leader who made life better for the Chinese people. No, Red China was not a better place to live than Free China.

Where was this "Free China" you keep babbling about? Chiang Kai-shek was a fascist dictator; there was no freedom under his rule.

Here's how you can tell Mao did okay. A billion Chinese still revere his name today.

No, U.S. intelligence was not stalking and harassing Iris Chang.

Well, if they got caught doing it they would suck at their jobs, wouldn't they?

No, Hamas rule is not even remotely as good as Israeli rule.

The Palestinians feel differently. You should probably read up on HOW they earned the loyalty of the Palestinian people. They were providing social services while the collaborators in Fatah were stealing Western Aid money and putting it in Swiss Bank Accounts.

Now, on to the topic at hand.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Are you serious? Is this a serious question? Umm, he knew they were combat troops because they were heavily armed, just like the white combat troops. Combat troops don't have to be engaged in battle to be recognized as combat troops.

Really? My MOS was 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist) but when I was out in the field, I carried a rifle and wore a helmet, just like everyone else.

LOL! One, Steiner was ardently anti-slavery and pro-Union, which explains why he was a Republican. You clearly still have not bothered to read his report.

Nope, I don't read any of the batshittery you post here. I just mock it.

Two, in 1864 Maryland voters voted to abolish slavery.

Wow, you mean when the war was nearly over and the Confederacy was on the ropes? Really?

Three, in the 1860 election, 53% of Maryland voters voted for Bell, Douglas, and Lincoln.

Wow? Really? This is being kind of dishonest, even for you.

Less than 3% of Marylanders voted for Lincoln. Only 7% voted for Dough-face Douglas. 43% voted for Bell, but Breckinridge, the slavery candidate, won.

Neither Douglas nor Bell ran on a "Let's get rid of slavery ticket". Hell, even Lincoln toned down the abolitionist rhetoric compared to Fremont four years earlier.

Four, in the 1864 election, Lincoln carried Maryland by an 11-point margin.

Running against Chicken Shit McClellan?

Five, the number of Maryland men who served in the Union army was more than double the number of Maryland men who served in the Confederate army.

Um, yeah, because there was a draft.

I notice you again said nothing about the fact that Steiner's account is corroborated by numerous Union army reports that mention encounters with black Confederate combat troops, not to mention Union soldiers' letters and diaries that likewise mention such encounters. I'm guessing you will never venture to explain why none other than former slave and Northern abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in late 1861 that it was "pretty well established" that blacks were serving as combat troops in the Confederate army.

Was Douglass anywhere near the lines?

A lot of people have reported encounters with UFO Aliens since 1947. Does that make those real?

LOL! So this is your final explanation for Steiner's account: it must be wrong because any Southern blacks who marched through Maryland would have run for freedom! The ignorance and bias reflected in that argument are breathtaking. In other words, Steiner must have been hallucinating because otherwise your rabidly warped conception of Confederate soldiers and the Confederacy collapses. I guess it slipped your mind that those Southern slaves were offered freedom in exchange for their military service. Remember?

I don't know what went through Steiner's mind and I kind of don't care. Given the lack of ACTUAL evidence like names, units, records, etc.

Do you have any clue about the number of times Southern slaves fled from Union troops in the South, much to the consternation and confusion of those Union troops? Do you have any clue about the Union army reports that discuss Union troops forcefully rounding up Southern slaves because the slaves did not want to leave? You can read all about those round-ups in Thomas Bland Keys’ book The Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records (The Beauvoir Press, 1991), which is based almost exclusively on official federal records.

I'm sure a lot of slaves had no more ambition than three hots and a cot. There's a big gap between "don't want to leave the familiar" and "I'm going to totally go out and fight for people who whip me and call me..." well, a word that I can't use here.

This is mighty curious: On this issue, you cling to the orthodox position (although you adopt an extreme version of it that even most orthodox historians reject).

Um, yeah, on this issue, it's no contest. As opposed to those other issues you whine about, where you have an American bias, to where you can't understand why Germans supported Hitler or the Chinese supported Mao. "Well, I wouldn't have supported them in the comfort of hindsight". Good for you, man. I wouldn't have supported them, either.

But I can completely understand why my great uncle supported Hitler, or why my wife's parents supported Mao.

 

[mikegriffith1]

No, we are missing records for at least 1/3 of the Confederate muster roles. And, again, due to the combat situation and the chronic paper shortage, the Confederate army did not have the time or means to keep the kinds of detailed records that the Union army had the luxury of keeping.

BTW, Hitler was the problem. No, the Nazis had no valid reasons for hating Jews. No, there is no international Zionist conspiracy to rule the word. No, Jews did not rig the Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation into the USS Liberty incident. No, Mao was not a great leader who made life better for the Chinese people. No, Red China was not a better place to live than Free China. No, U.S. intelligence was not stalking and harassing Iris Chang. No, Hamas rule is not even remotely as good as Israeli rule.


LOL! Are you serious? Is this a serious question? Umm, he knew they were combat troops because they were heavily armed, just like the white combat troops. Combat troops don't have to be engaged in battle to be recognized as combat troops.


LOL! One, Steiner was ardently anti-slavery and pro-Union, which explains why he was a Republican. You clearly still have not bothered to read his report. Two, in 1864 Maryland voters voted to abolish slavery. Three, in the 1860 election, 53% of Maryland voters voted for Bell, Douglas, and Lincoln. Four, in the 1864 election, Lincoln carried Maryland by an 11-point margin. Five, the number of Maryland men who served in the Union army was more than double the number of Maryland men who served in the Confederate army.

I notice you again said nothing about the fact that Steiner's account is corroborated by numerous Union army reports that mention encounters with black Confederate combat troops, not to mention Union soldiers' letters and diaries that likewise mention such encounters. I'm guessing you will never venture to explain why none other than former slave and Northern abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in late 1861 that it was "pretty well established" that blacks were serving as combat troops in the Confederate army.


LOL! So this is your final explanation for Steiner's account: it must be wrong because any Southern blacks who marched through Maryland would have run for freedom! The ignorance and bias reflected in that argument are breathtaking. In other words, Steiner must have been hallucinating because otherwise your rabidly warped conception of Confederate soldiers and the Confederacy collapses. I guess it slipped your mind that those Southern slaves were offered freedom in exchange for their military service. Remember?

Do you have any clue about the number of times Southern slaves fled from Union troops in the South, much to the consternation and confusion of those Union troops? Do you have any clue about the Union army reports that discuss Union troops forcefully rounding up Southern slaves because the slaves did not want to leave? You can read all about those round-ups in Thomas Bland Keys’ book The Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records (The Beauvoir Press, 1991), which is based almost exclusively on official federal records.

This is mighty curious: On this issue, you cling to the orthodox position (although you adopt an extreme version of it that even most orthodox historians reject). Yet, when it comes to so many other issues, you take a bizarre fringe view and reject the orthodox view, such as your aberrant view on the USS Liberty incident, the Navy's USS Liberty investigation, Red China, Mao's mass murders, Stalin's mass murders, the alleged U.S. intel harassment of Iris Chang, Hamas's tyranny vs. Israel's pluralistic democracy, the Nazi lie that the Jews sabotaged Germany after WWI, the Nazi lie that there's an international Zionist conspiracy to rule the world, etc., etc.

To follow up on my reply, let's revisit something that JoeB131 said:

JoeB131 said: "Neo-Radical Historians"? The problem is his account doesn't make any sense. If there were any blacks marching through Maryland, they'd be running for freedom.

This argument captures one of the core reasons that neo-Radical historians cannot bring themselves to admit that a relatively small number of slaves (3,000 to 7,000) volunteered to fight for the Confederacy in exchange for freedom. I know JoeB131 captured this argument accidently, since he knows nothing about Civil War scholarship, but we should take a closer look at it.

The argument is based on the radical abolitionist and Radical Republican portrayal of Southern slavery as a never-ending nightmare of cruelty, rape, family separations, neglect, and forced breeding. This is exactly how Hollywood and neo-Radical historians have been portraying Southern slavery for decades. In their view, most slaves were routinely subjected to physical abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, and forced breeding.

In their minds, the idea that even 7,000 slaves accepted offers of freedom to fight for the Confederacy poses a disturbing challenge to their portrayal of slavery, which is why they are unwilling to objectively analyze the evidence on the subject.

A component of the neo-Radical argument is that most Southern slaveholders were barbaric, sadistic monsters and that most Confederate soldiers shared this alleged hatred of blacks, especially of slaves.

Thus, neo-Radical historians refuse to acknowledge the clear evidence that Stonewall Jackson's army included about 3,000 black combat soldiers who served alongside and among the white soldiers. Similarly, they cannot obectively, candidly deal with the Union army reports, letters written by federal soldiers, and diaries of federal soldiers that contain accounts of encounters with black Confederate combat troops, even when former black Union soldiers acknowledged after the war that there were black Confederate combat trooops.

 

[JoeB131]

This argument captures one of the core reasons that neo-Radical historians cannot bring themselves to admit that a relatively small number of slaves (3,000 to 7,000) volunteered to fight for the Confederacy in exchange for freedom. I know JoeB131 captured this argument accidently, since he knows nothing about Civil War scholarship, but we should take a closer look at it.

Uh, no, guy, I have a degree in history, thanks... and the fact is, you haven't really presented anything but anecdotal evidence that blacks fought for the Confederacy, which was ILLEGAL in the Confederacy until the last months of the war.

The argument is based on the radical abolitionist and Radical Republican portrayal of Southern slavery as a never-ending nightmare of cruelty, rape, family separations, neglect, and forced breeding. This is exactly how Hollywood and neo-Radical historians have been portraying Southern slavery for decades. In their view, most slaves were routinely subjected to physical abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, and forced breeding.

Funny you should mention Hollywood. For decades before the Civil Rights movement, Hollywood fully bought into the "Lost Cause" mythos, creating movies like "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone with the Wind" that glorified the South. (One of those great ironies that Hattie McDaniel, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of Mammy in GWTW, wasn't able to attend the premiere because of Segregation.

Of course, Slavery was a series of all the horrors you listed, but Hollywood didn't really start portraying that until the Roots mini-series.

Before that, they considered THIS acceptable entertainment.

But, hey, I have a simple solution. Every Confederate Apologist should be forced to live like a 1850s slave for one year, including being whipped for not producing enough and having their families sold off for a quick buck.

In their minds, the idea that even 7,000 slaves accepted offers of freedom to fight for the Confederacy poses a disturbing challenge to their portrayal of slavery, which is why they are unwilling to objectively analyze the evidence on the subject.

Except you haven't presented anything except anecdotal evidence.

For instance, my Dad served in WWII, despite being born in Germany. Now you'd think he wouldn't want to potentially shoot at his cousins, but he did. But I don't have anecdotal evidence. I have pictures he took during the war, the campaign map of the VIIth Corps with which he served, and copies of letters he sent to his family while serving. A copy of his discharge papers.

So, where is your documentation for these supposed black Confederates? Not, Someone said he talked to someone, who said he saw them, really! What you have hold about as much weight as the guy who says that he knew someone who worked in the emergency room the day they brought in Richard Gere to extract a gerbil.

A component of the neo-Radical argument is that most Southern slaveholders were barbaric, sadistic monsters and that most Confederate soldiers shared this alleged hatred of blacks, especially of slaves.

They tried to destroy the union to keep slavery going as an institution, even though only 25% of them owned slaves. I'd call that a pretty high level of hate. Then there's all the stuff they did AFTER the war. You know, Jim Crow, the KKK, Miscegenation Laws (it's okay to rape them as slaves, but don't marry them!)

Thus, neo-Radical historians refuse to acknowledge the clear evidence that Stonewall Jackson's army included about 3,000 black combat soldiers who served alongside and among the white soldiers. Similarly, they cannot obectively, candidly deal with the Union army reports, letters written by federal soldiers, and diaries of federal soldiers that contain accounts of encounters with black Confederate combat troops, even when former black Union soldiers acknowledged after the war that there were black Confederate combat trooops.

What clear evidence?
Service Records?
Photographs?
Unit Designations?

 

[mikegriffith1]

To follow up on my reply, let's revisit something that JoeB131 said:



This argument captures one of the core reasons that neo-Radical historians cannot bring themselves to admit that a relatively small number of slaves (3,000 to 7,000) volunteered to fight for the Confederacy in exchange for freedom. I know JoeB131 captured this argument accidently, since he knows nothing about Civil War scholarship, but we should take a closer look at it.

The argument is based on the radical abolitionist and Radical Republican portrayal of Southern slavery as a never-ending nightmare of cruelty, rape, family separations, neglect, and forced breeding. This is exactly how Hollywood and neo-Radical historians have been portraying Southern slavery for decades. In their view, most slaves were routinely subjected to physical abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, and forced breeding.

In their minds, the idea that even 7,000 slaves accepted offers of freedom to fight for the Confederacy poses a disturbing challenge to their portrayal of slavery, which is why they are unwilling to objectively analyze the evidence on the subject.

A component of the neo-Radical argument is that most Southern slaveholders were barbaric, sadistic monsters and that most Confederate soldiers shared this alleged hatred of blacks, especially of slaves.

Thus, neo-Radical historians refuse to acknowledge the clear evidence that Stonewall Jackson's army included about 3,000 black combat soldiers who served alongside and among the white soldiers. Similarly, they cannot objectively, candidly deal with the Union army reports, letters written by federal soldiers, and diaries of federal soldiers that contain accounts of encounters with black Confederate combat troops, even when former black Union soldiers acknowledged after the war that there were black Confederate combat troops.

You would think it would go without saying that factually analyzing the way slavery was administered is not in any way a defense of slavery itself. However, if you present evidence that most slaves were not abused, that "slave breeding" was rare, and that in the majority of cases slaves and masters had good relationships, leftists will invariably accuse you of defending and even endorsing slavery, even when most of the evidence comes from the accounts of former slaves themselves.

If my daughter were kidnapped and then returned to me one month later, and if I learned that the kidnappers treated my daughter humanely and did not abuse her, I would still never endorse kidnapping, but I would be willing to admit that my daughter's kidnappers did not mistreat her, and no credible, rational person would accuse me of defending the practice of kidnapping.

Slavery was inherently wrong, no matter how humanely it was usually administered. To sensible, non-ideological people, this is a self-evident fact.

But, you have some people who, for ideological reasons, are determined to portray nearly all Southern slaveholders as demons who routinely brutalized, raped, neglected, and forcefully bred their slaves, and these folks will react with "shock and outrage" to any evidence that contradicts their narrative and will label those who present the evidence as slavery apologists.

Yes, there were certainly some cruel slaveholders, and some slaves were certainly brutalized, but they were the exception, not the rule. Judging from the accounts of former slaves themselves, about 5%-10% of slaves experienced cruel treatment. If only 1% of slaves experienced cruel treatment, this would still be an indictment of Southern slavery, since there were 3.5 million Southern slaves, and since 1% of 3.5 million equals 35,000 people who were subjected to cruelty. This is just one reason that slavery was immoral.

But, this balanced picture of the conditions of slavery is simply unacceptable to neo-Radical historians, and this is a big part of the reason that they refuse to acknowledge the evidence that 3,000 to 7,000 blacks volunteered to fight for the Confederacy. This is why they selectively apply rules of evidence to the issue of black Confederate soldiers that they would never apply in other cases.

Credible Civil War historians know that Confederate records are fragmentary, and that citing the absence of black Confederate soldiers in them is a flimsy argument from silence. Similarly, they lamely dismiss as "anecdotal evidence" the internal Union army battle reports that mention encounters with black Confederate soldiers, as if anecdotal evidence is not often valid and informative. When it comes to Steiner's detailed account of 3,000 black combat troops in Jackson's army, neo-Radicals either simply ignore the account or offer lame, vacuous reasons to reject it. For example, they argue that Steiner vastly overestimated the size of Jackson's army (he didn't) and that therefore he did the same thing regarding the black combat troops whom he saw. Even if Steiner miscounted by a whopping 50%, that would still mean he saw about 1,500 black soldiers in Jackson's force.

Northern Realities, Southern Secession, and Slavery: Did the Confederacy Deserve to Survive?