I Have absolutely no life, so instead of photoshopping pictures of me and my "family" I am going to blow Papa Jemimah or whatever his name is out of the water:
As promised, I bring you his evidence:
I've never looked through the North Carolina records but I am familiar with a
few names-Arthur Reed, 3rd NC ArtilleryMiles Reed, 3rd NC Artillery-both
described as "free
negro"http://www.footnote.com/browse.php#Civil%20War:%201860-1880^Confederate%20Soldier%20Service%20Records29752971
and in a later comment:
Arthur Reed was enlisted as a private June 16, 1864.Miles Reed was enlisted as a
private May 26, 1864.*Here are some more names of black Confederates in NC
units-
Eli Dempsy, 1st NC
ArtilleryCharles Dempsey, 2nd NC Artillery
Henry Dempsey, 2nd NC Artillery
James Doyle, 3rd NC Artillery
First of all, one wonders about your historical commitment if your initial post was referred to two sets of documents to support your position - one of which (Cleburne's) made the exact opposite point and the other of which (the Confederate Service Records) did not refer to race at all - and you supported your argument with records you had "never looked through?"
Odd, that. Particularly when you responded to Rus's critique with:
Like I said: National Archives' Compiled Service Records of Confederate
Soldiers......abstracted from muster rolls, hospital rolls, &etc. Valid
enough?
Odd, that. It makes one wonder if your belief is based on actual records or on a need for the belief to be true.
I've analyzed your records - have you reflected on the logic of your belief? We won't call it an interpretation because an interpretation deals with all the evidence and I have yet to see you integrate the mountains of opposing evidence into your belief.
I clicked through to your link for Arthur Reed. It is a Confederate Service Record, which as we have discovered, has no blanks to mark race. Unless there is a notation somewhere in the record that he is a free negro, this still doesn't make your case. (If you have premium access so that a larger decipherable image is available, send me the pic with the free negro notation and I''ll post it.
The fact that you are "familiar" with a few names does not inspire confidence either - are these names from the same type of neoconfederate sources who gave us this picture?
See discussion of this invalid picture here.
This is fun. I am "familiar" with evidence that there were "many" Martians who fought for the Confederacy. M. N. Redding is one name. Well, it doesn't actually say that he was a Martian in that service record. Take my word for it.
A quick google search find's Ghost names on a bulletin board about Black confederates. The posters on the board seem to be unclear about the distinction between cook, bodyservant, servant, and teamster and actual enlisted man. No one disputes the fact that the Confederacy forced slaves to do menial work. Neoconfederates intentionally and dishonestly blur the distinction between slaves forced to work and soldiers in order to come up with the outlandish numerical claims cited by History Buff:
There are many substantiated accounts of blacks serving in various capacities in
the Confederate armies. They worked as laborers, servants/bodyguards and yes,
soldiers. Estimates range from 1,000 to over 80,000. In March 1865, there were
two regiments of Black Confederates drilling in the streets of Richmond ready
for combat but the war ended before they could be deployed. Whether the NAACP
likes it or not, blacks did defend their homelands. They didn't like it any more
than whites did when Union troops would steal their livestock, destroy their
homes and rape their women. So they fought back.
When it comes down to brass tacks, Ghost has to refit his argument. Never mind the sources he previously cited for Rus and I - he is "familiar" with six names.
But let's give Ghost the benefit of the doubt. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that all SIX of the fellas that Ghost is "familiar" with were indeed free negroes. Does the fact that SIX anomalous enlistments exist mean that the Congederacy had LEGIONS of negroes? Why wasn't General Cleburne aware of them? Why was the prospect of considering the enlistment of negores so dangerous that Davis had to order Cleburne to keep his ideas secret lest they undermine public support for the war?
GENERAL: I have received your letter, with its inclosure, informing me of the propositions submitted to a meeting of the general officers on the 2d instant, and thank you for the information. Deeming it to be injurious to the public service that such a subject should be mooted, or even known to be entertained by persons possessed of the confidence and respect of the people, I have concluded that the best policy under the circumstances will be to avoid all publicity, and the Secretary of War has therefore written to General Johnston requesting him to convey to those concerned my desire that it should be kept private. If it be kept out of the public journals its ill effect will be much lessened.
Very respectfully and truly, yours,
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
If there had been negroes in the ranks, you'd think that Cleburne's proposal wouldn't have been so dangerous to the Confederacy.
And let us not forget the basis of History Buff and Ghost's obsession with the imaginary/anomalous black Confederate. The putative patriotic slave/free negro supposedly illustrates that the war was not about slavery.
So against the actual ordinances of secession, against the public statements and speeches of Davis, Stephens and the entire leadership of the Confederacy, (leaving aside any Yankee sources), we are to weight Ghost's "familiarity" with six names?
Color me unconvinced.
UPDATE:
I came back another time to try to find the origins of Ghost's familiarty and traced a couple of the names to the "Black Conderate Soldiers" site. Go check out the site. Note how even many of the listed names are slaves "pressed into battle." Every single "combat tales" also confuses the role of servants and soldiers. Note how every single one begins with "body servant."
After the Battle of Gettysburg, two white Confederates came upon an
unsuspecting Yankee soldier but were too drunk to handle him so they turned him
over to their body servant. Colonel Arthur Fremantle, an English observer says
he saw, "a negro dressed in full Yankee uniform, with a rifle at full cock,
leading along a barefoot white man, with whom he had evidently changed clothes."
When questioned by General Longstreet, the servant told the story with obvious
contempt in his voice for his Northern prisoner. (12)
Two body servants of Confederate soldiers named Tom and Overton picked up
Yankee weapons that were laying around and moved up and joined the firing line
of the 12th Virginia Cavalry at an unknown battle. (13)
At the Battle of Mechanicsville, one white Confederate soldier refused to
fight throwing down his rifle and accoutrements. His body servant asked the
commanding officer for permission to take up his masters weapon and equipment
and fight. He was allowed to do so. (14)
One body servant chanced upon a Yankee officer with two horses. Having a gun,
he shot the Northerner and took the horses back to Confederate lines probably to
be given to the cavalry. (15)
The site at least tries to make its sources available through footnotes. Unfortunately, they rely extensively on the anecdotes collected by Richard Rollins (not a historian: a software engineer member of the Sons of the Confederacy) in "Black Confederates in Gray," a book beloved by neoconfederates but shredded by historians. Undergraduate Peter Stam has written a historiographic essay describing peer-reviewed historians' responses to Rollins' work. The whole essay is here; I have reprinted an excerpt below.
On the opposite side of the debate, professional historians Glatthaar,
McPerson and Robert Krick have analyzed, between them, over 25,000 letters of
soldiers, 1,500 manuscript collections, and Confederate service records of
150,000 soldiers, and have all encountered very few accounts of black
soldiers.(20)
Therefore, they see no reason to attach a large number to the individual blacks
who took up arms occasionally.
Clearly, a lot depends on the reading of accounts and sources, otherwise
there would not be such a different result, with on both sides a similar
confidence in one's own findings. The most powerful argument that can be made
against the case of a significant number of blacks fighting in the Confederate
armies, and deriving a large number of black soldiers of the accounts, is the
fact that enlistment of coloreds was simply prohibited by the Confederate
government. In fact, this, and the notion that secession had been largely about
the preservation of slavery and race relations,(21)
is why most historians dismiss the possibility of large numbers of black
Confederates.
In his study of Confederate emancipation and the eventual enlistment of
colored soldiers in the Southern army, Bruce Levine, professor of history at the
University of California, argues that there cannot have been large units of
black fighting men, because there was no societal foundation; the entire notion
of letting blacks fight went against what the Confederacy stood for and
struggled against. Indeed, that is why it took so long for the government to
accept the possibility of colored enlistment. There may have been a few who
championed the cause in order to save the Cause, but most were too stubborn.(23)
Women, on the other hand, run much less the chance of being used as the poster
child for the Confederate Lost Cause, and are more readily accepted than gun
toting blacks.
These objections cast some light, if rather a shadow, on the proposed
numer of 30,000 fighting blacks. It is, after all, questionable how one can
calculate such a large number from scattered anecdotal evidence alone. Moreover,
both amidst controversy and in communication, a number as large as 30,000 would
have been noticed, if not abundantly, at least more frequently than the
abovementioned Civil War historians have found.
Looking at the accounts more specifically, the loyal slave of Jordan's
essay, who could not take an oath that his master would not take, may have
exclaimed this for other reasons than mere loyalty: he could hardly declare
openly that he would easily go against his master-who would never swear loyalty
to the Union. Jordan's interpretation is therefore too simple. His southern
angle is illustrated also in his continuous reference to slaves as
"Afro-Virginians," which is both an anachronism as a misnomer: such a hyphenated
epithet was unthinkable in the nineteenth century South, because blacks were not
recognized (let alone acknowledged) as citizens.
Rollins' examples are also
interpreted naively askew, for the black sniper had to choose between fighting
or being sold away from his wife and family. Fighting for the South rather seems
like a lesser of two evils than a sign of pride. General Gordon's remark about
"strange stories" of a "Negro marksman" at Fort Wagner illustrates mainly that
that the balance of blacks fighting for the Union and for the Confederacy is
disproportionately out of kilter, as the 54th Massachusetts were on the other
side.(24)
On a more scholarly note, the third example is accompanied by an
incomplete footnote, making the story of Kelly untraceable.(25)
In the same line, Rollins often relies on unclear accounts, attributed to "an
observer" or "onlookers" who remain mostly unknown, partly because they were
cited thus in newspaper articles, and partly because Rollins uses obscure
sources.(26)
A least obscure source he relies heavily on, is H.C. Blackerby's Blacks in Blue
and Gray, which borrows extensively from accounts and articles of the post-war
period.
Many anecdotes are rather ambiguous: a comparison between different accounts
of the same scene often leads to different viewings. Soldiers in one story, the
blacks involved in a skirmish are referred to as mere "teamsters" or servants in
another.(27)
There are other reasons for misinterpretation: southern soldiers were often
filthy and sunburnt, and could easily be identified as being dark-skinned; also,
blacks donning old uniforms, wearing their masters' guns could easily be viewed
as soldiers.(28)
For these reasons, the accounts and articles, specifically when written shortly
after the Civil War, should be studied carefully for their right historical
value.
Pensions, also, are not clear-cut evidence for the presence of black soldiers
in Southern armies, because they were often awarded to a group that could be so
broadly defined as to include the workers and body servants. In Virginia, for
instance, pensions became eligible for anyone who "accompanied a soldier [...]
or who served as a cook, hostler, or teamster, or who worked in breastworks
under any command of the army."(29)
Having accompanied the army, or even having been wounded, did not require being
a soldier, actively fighting, or merely carrying a musket; all it took was being
associated with the armed forces.
A final critique is aimed at the photos often used to illustrate both that
blacks did serve in the armies of the South. Granting that photos do not lie,
their usage brings several difficulties. A photograph cannot elaborate on the
exact role of the blacks it portrays, or the position they fulfilled in the
army: it merely illustrates proximity. At most, they deliver an incomplete
story, and conclusions drawn from them should be tentative.
One of the trade-offs of having free speech is that people can lie. There can be a huge monetary reward for turing your back on the evidence and playing to the paying public. Think about the Kennedy conspiracy writers. Think about the guys who make big bucks "exposing" the government's coverup of aliens at Area 51 (I'm not calling out anyone in particular because I rent land from one of those guys). Think about the sales generated by books "proving" that Elvis is alive. Think about the "CIA created AIDS" guys. Or the holy grail of making money on the back of historical falsehood: Holocaust deniers.
Neoconfederate Smackdown post:
[Part 1] "4) An explanation of how Blacks were armed if it was explicitly
prohibited by CSA law until March of 1865. In 1865, over tremendous protest, the
desperate Confederate Congress passed a law allowing the recruitment of slaves
with a promise of freedom."
[Part 2]"So if black troops were recruited prior to this period,
how?"_____________________________
You made a mistake. You switched from "slaves" (see part 1) to "blacks"
(part 2).
Not all blacks were slaves.
* Remember the proposals by Cleburne and Lee were to free and arm
slaves.
In 1860 there were 28,000 free black males of military age in the South.How many of the 28,000 served in Confederate armies?- Many.
I didn't switch terms - the prohibition of arming blacks was based on race - recall that the South's theory of slavery had at its heart the theory of black racial inferiority. Fitzhugh's bestselling Cannibals All has a succinct defense of this theory if you are actually interested in reading a primary source created by Southerners. The South's wide-eyed hysteria about the danger of uncontrolled blacks led to harshly repressive laws in the wake of Turner's Stono Rebellion (kids, check out the great primary source images I had on the unit 9 test). This prohibition has been brought into the news recently with the Heller case. Supporters of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment like to point to the indirect support of their position in Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott. Taney ridiculed the idea that Scott was a human being with standing to sue by mocking the risible(!) slippery slope created by any recognition of Scott's humanity - should blacks be allowed to own guns like White men?
"...It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens
in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever
they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without
obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased
at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed
some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give
them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon
which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political
affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this
would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and
slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and
endangering the peace and safety of the State."
-- Roger Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott
If anything, the looming inevitabilty of emancipation created by Lincoln's marching horde of "Northern Scum" made Southerners even more terrified of armed blackes. Prior to 1861, blacks (but of course, not whites) had to apply for a permit to own a firearm in North Carolina. If a county court could be convinced (and I'd love to see a statistical analysis of the rate of sucess of such petitioners), then they could own a gun. But in 1861 the state court took away county discretion and forbade black ownership of guns in any circumstance. Of course, the same legislative session basically forced free Blacks in South Carolina back into bondage.
Admitedly, North Carolina is just one state. But aside from Maryland, North Carolina was the Southern state that was least influenced by the "positive good" stage of slavery. As Bailey notes, North Carolina was a "vale of humility between two mountains of conceit."
However, time being a factor, I'm not going to track down every single state's laws about free blacks. It seems to me, Ghost, that since you are making an argument contrary to all peer-reviewed scholarship and contrary to the available primary sources of the antebellum period, the burden of proof is in your court. If someone argues that Copernicus was a dishonest liberal heliocentrist bigot, he'd have to bring some pretty convincing flat earth astronomical data. I'll publish anything you've got right here in my humble little blog. I'm trying to teach my sweet kleine Kinder to evaluate all evidence and not just cherry pick things out of context to support a preconceived notion.
You posit that Southerners somehow felt differently about free blacks than they did slaves. Cannibals All! doesn't support this. The literature and rhetoric of the antebellum South doesn't support this - Lincoln is called "Black Lincoln," not "Slave Lincoln." Mississippi's Ordinance of Secession says they are seceding because the North wants to end slavery - and seperately from the slavery issue, allow negro equality. A society in hysterical terror of violent uncontrolled blacks is not going to arm any "negro," whatever his status of bondage happened to be. Also importantly, the small number of freed blacks living in the South - 28,000 vs. over 3,000,000 slaves mitigates against the development of a differential ideology.
I asked: Are there any records at all of free blacks being recruited?
You say I should look at the The National Archives' Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers. I'm not sure how that helps. The Confederacy's records do not have a "race" category - because only whites served. See the example below.
If there are records showing that blacks served in Confederate units, why would you point to records that clearly do not make your point? Is it because, like most neoconfederate argument, you are hoping that your audience will not take the time to find out if the documents say what you say they do?
Again, distorting some sources and ignoring others does not make for a strong argument.
You also suggest that Cleburne and Lee made a distinction between blacks and slaves. I quote you again:
* Remember the proposals by Cleburne and Lee were to free and arm slaves.
Let's look at Cleburne's proposal and see if it is in line with your (and History Buff's) contention that Blacks fought for the Confederacy because the war wasn't about slavery.
The text of Cleburne's proposal - an actual primary source - can be found here. A page with related primary source links can be found here. For convenience, I'll show it here with a few Tueting annotations. Cleburne's proposal is in normal text and my comments are in bold.
Pat Cleburne's Negro Enlistment Proposal
Confederate Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In Southwestern Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, West Florida, And Northern Georgia.--#24O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME LII/2 [S# 110]
JANUARY 2, 1864
COMMANDING GENERAL, THE CORPS, DIVISION, BRIGADE, AND REGIMENTAL COMMANDERS OF THE ARMY OF TENNESSEE:
GENERAL: Moved by the exigency in which our country is now placed, we take the
liberty of laying before you, unofficially, our views on the present state of
affairs. The subject is so grave, and our views so new, we feel it a duty both
to you and the cause that before going further we should submit them for your
judgment and receive your suggestions in regard to them. We therefore
respectfully ask you to give us an expression of your views in the premises. We
have now been fighting for nearly three years, have spilled much of our best
blood, and lost, consumed, or thrown to the flames an amount of property equal
in value to the specie currency of the world. Through some lack in our system
the fruits of our struggles and sacrifices have invariably slipped away from us
and left us nothing but long lists of dead and mangled. Instead of standing
defiantly on the borders of our territory or harassing those of the enemy, we
are hemmed in today into less than two-thirds of it, and still the enemy
menacingly confronts us at every point with superior forces. Our soldiers can
see no end to this state of affairs except in our own exhaustion; hence, instead
of rising to the occasion, they are sinking into a fatal apathy, growing weary
of hardships and slaughters which promise no results. In this state of things it
is easy to understand why there is a growing belief that some black catastrophe
is not far ahead of us, and that unless some extraordinary change is soon made
in our condition we must overtake it. The consequences of this condition are
showing themselves more plainly every day; restlessness of morals spreading
everywhere, manifesting itself in the army in a growing disregard for private
rights; desertion spreading to a class of soldiers it never dared to tamper with
before; military commissions sinking in the estimation of the soldier; our
supplies failing; our firesides in ruins. If this state continues much longer we
must be subjugated. Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of
subjugation before it is too late. We can give but a faint idea when we say it
means the loss of all we now hold most sacred--slaves and all other personal
property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood.
Not the order of what Cleburne says the Confederacy "holds most sacred." What is the first thing on his list? Cleburne is speaking as an high-ranking officer of the Confederacy. He isn't some Wisconsin-born scalawag telling lies about the wonderful egalitarian culture of the South. It seems that it is not Southerners as a group who were confused about the purpose of the war - only some modern Southern apologists are confused. Cleburne and his colleagues knew exactly what they were fighting for.
It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy;
that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from
Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the
influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our
maimed veterans as fit objects for derision. It means the crushing of Southern
manhood, the hatred of our former slaves, who will, on a spy system, be our
secret police.
Good lord! The freed slaves will be in charge! Nat Turner! Nat Turner! Aieeeeeeeeeeee!
The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up
animosity among them, and in training an army of negroes the North no doubt holds this thought in
perspective.
Those evil northerners - arming negroes! One wonders why Cleburne is so annoyed if the South is arming negroes too. Oh wait - Cleburne knows the South didn't have blacks soldiers.
We can see three great causes operating to destroy us: First, the inferiority of
our armies to those of the enemy in point of numbers; second, the poverty of our
single source of supply in comparison with his several sources; third, the fact
that slavery, from being one of our chief sources of strength at the
commencement of the war, has now become, in a military point of view, one of our
chief sources of weakness.
Slavery is now a weakness? Oh, I do hope Cleburne will tell us why.
The enemy already opposes us at every point with superior numbers, and is
endeavoring to make the preponderance irresistible. President Davis, in his
recent message, says the enemy "has recently ordered a large conscription and
made a subsequent call for volunteers, to be followed, if ineffectual, by a
still further draft." In addition, the President of the United States announces
that "he has already in training an army of 100,000 negroes as good as any
troops," and every fresh raid he makes and new slice of territory he wrests from
us will add to this force.
That damn negro-loving black Republican!
Every soldier in our army already knows and feels our numerical inferiority to
the enemy. Want of men in the field has prevented him from reaping the fruits of
his victories, and has prevented him from having the furlough he expected after
the last reorganization,, and when he turns from the wasting armies in the field
to look at the source of supply, he finds nothing in the prospect to encourage
him. Our single source of supply is that portion of our white men fit for duty
and not now in the ranks. The enemy has three sources of supply: First, his own
motley population; secondly, our slaves; and thirdly, Europeans whose hearts are
fired into a crusade against us by fictitious pictures of the atrocities of
slavery, and who meet no hindrance from their Governments in such enterprise,
because these Governments are equally antagonistic to the institution.
Wait - the South's slaves are joining the Union army? I thought they were in the Confederate army. Oh yeah, not so much.
Let us also note Cleburne's understanding of why many union soldiers are fighting. They were fired into a crusade (Jihad! Jihad!) by Harriet Beecher Stowe's fictitious depiction of the South's peculiar institution. And why haven't the foreign governments put a stop to the enlistment of these holy warriors? Because they too know what the war is about:
S
L
A
V
E
R
Y
In touching the third cause, the fact that slavery has become a military
weakness, we may rouse prejudice and passion, but the time has come when it
would be madness not to look at our danger from every point of view, and to
probe it to the bottom. Apart from the assistance that home and foreign
prejudice against slavery has given to the North, slavery is a source of great
strength to the enemy in a purely military point of view, by supplying him with
an army from our granaries; but it is our most vulnerable point, a continued
embarrassment, and in some respects an insidious weakness.
Dang. Even more stuff about how Slavery is central to the war. I wonder how the neoconfederates wil spin this.
Wherever slavery is once seriously disturbed, whether by the actual presence or
the approach of the enemy, or even by a cavalry raid, the whites can no longer
with safety to their property openly sympathize with our cause. The fear of
their slaves is continually haunting them, and from silence and apprehension
many of these soon learn to wish the war stopped on any terms.
Ah kids - I've talked about why poor whites who didn't own slaves fought to preserve slavery. Religion and fear played a major role. Note Cleburne's phrase: The fear of their slaves is continually haunting them. It sounds like the Confederates actually knew that slaves were not eager to join their masters in defense of their Southern homeland.
The next stage is to take the oath to save property, and they become dead to us,
if not open enemies. To prevent raids we are forced to scatter our forces, and
are not free to move and strike like the enemy; his vulnerable points are
carefully selected and fortified depots. Ours are found in every point where
there is a slave to set free.
Shocking - slaves want to be set free instead of fighting for the preservation of Southern culture? Who woulda thunk it?
All along the lines slavery is comparatively valueless to us for labor, but of
great and increasing worth to the enemy for information. It is an omnipresent
spy system, pointing out our valuable men to the enemy, revealing our positions,
purposes, and resources, and yet acting so safely and secretly that there is no
means to guard against it. Even in the heart of our country, where our hold upon
this secret espionage is firmest, it waits but the opening fire of the enemy's
battle line to wake it, like a torpid serpent, into venomous activity.
In the light of Cleburne's assesssment, I'd like the kids to go back and read History Buff's argument. Analyze whether the Cleburne primary source supports or demolishs History Buff's assertion that:
There are many substantiated accounts of blacks serving in various
capacities in the Confederate armies. They worked as laborers,
servants/bodyguards and yes, soldiers. Estimates range from 1,000 to over
80,000. In March 1865, there were two regiments of Black Confederates drilling
in the streets of Richmond ready for combat but the war ended before they could
be deployed. Whether the NAACP likes it or not, blacks did defend their
homelands. They didn't like it any more than whites did when Union troops would
steal their livestock, destroy their homes and rape their women. So they fought
back.
Isn't it ironic that the very document that is the source of neoconfederates' claim that there were black soldiers actually makes the point very clearly that blacks had no love for their masters? Oh, the sweet, sweet irony.
In view of the state of affairs what does our country propose to do? In the
words of President Davis "no effort must be spared to add largely to our
effective force as promptly as possible. The sources of supply are to be found
in restoring to the army all who are improperly absent, putting an end to
substitution, modifying the exemption law, restricting details, and placing in
the ranks such of the able-bodied men now employed as wagoners, nurses, cooks,
and other employés,
as are doing service for which the negroes may be found competent."
Ah - even those negroes Cleburne suggests should be put "in the army" are not going to be combatants (one might have to give them guns!), but rather wagoners, nurses, cooks: employees of the army. No one disputes that tens of thousands of slaves were involuntarily forced to work for the Confederate army. The use of the slaves to do menial jobs so that free whites could use guns was well known and made freeing slaves a priority of Northern generals even prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.
It doesn't mean that folks can argue that blacks served in the Confederate army.
Well, actually, folks are arguing that. But not very effectively.
Most of the men improperly absent, together with many of the exempts and men
having substitutes, are now without the Confederate lines and cannot be
calculated on. If all the exempts capable of bearing arms were enrolled, it will
give us the boys below eighteen, the men above forty-five, and those persons who
are left at home to meet the wants of the country and the army, but this
modification of the exemption law will remove from the fields and manufactories
most of the skill that directed agricultural and mechanical labor, and, as
stated by the President, "details will have to be made to meet the wants of the
country," thus sending many of the men to be derived from this source back to
their homes again. Independently of this, experience proves that striplings and
men above conscript age break down and swell the sick lists more than they do
the ranks. The portion now in our lines of the class who have substitutes is not
on the whole a hopeful element, for the motives that created it must have been
stronger than patriotism, and these motives added to what many of them will call
breach of faith, will cause some to be not forthcoming, and others to be
unwilling and discontented soldiers. The remaining sources mentioned by the
President have been so closely pruned in the Army of Tennessee that they will be
found not to yield largely. The supply from all these sources, together with
what we now have in the field, will exhaust the white race, and though it should
greatly exceed expectations and put us on an equality with the enemy, or even
give us temporary advantages, still we have no reserve to meet unexpected
disaster or to supply a protracted struggle.
So up to this point, it seems from Cleburne's own notes, soldiers have been white - and the draw on the "white race" has been exhausting.
Like past years, 1864 will diminish our ranks by the casualties of war, and what
source of repair is there left us? We therefore see in the recommendations of
the President only a temporary expedient, which at the best will leave us twelve
months hence in the same predicament we are in now. The President attempts to
meet only one of the depressing causes mentioned; for the other two he has
proposed no remedy. They remain to generate lack of confidence in our final
success, and to keep us moving down hill as heretofore. Adequately to meet the
causes which are now threatening ruin to our country, we propose, in addition to
a modification of the President's plans, that we retain in service for the war
all troops now in service, and that we immediately commence training a large
reserve of the most courageous of our slaves, and further that we guarantee
freedom within a reasonable time to every slave in the South who shall remain
true to the Confederacy in this war. As between the loss of independence and the
loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the
latter--give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself.
So we'll free a few slaves so we don't become slaves ourselves. Nice. Desperate too. Notice that Cleburne is not calling for the end of slavery or any significant emancipation. He's advocating using a "the most courageous" negroes to defend the enslavement of their brethern.
If we are correct in this assumption it only remains to show how this great
national sacrifice is, in all human probabilities, to change the current of
success and sweep the invader from our country. Our country has already some
friends in England and France, and there are strong motives to induce these
nations to recognize and assist us, but they cannot assist us without helping
slavery, and to do this would be in conflict with their policy for the last
quarter of a century.
What? You mean that foreign nations wouldn't help the South because of slavery? Oh, I already made that point earlier. It just keeps coming up. Funny, that.
Even more funny is that this is one of the prime documents cherry-picked by neoconfederates to argue that slavery was not the heart of the conflict. If this is the best they can do, perhaps it, like the invalid "Louisiana Native Guard" photo, is illustrative of the incredible weakness of their argument.
England has paid hundreds of millions to emancipate her West India slaves and
break up the slave trade. Could she now consistently spend her treasure to
reinstate slavery in this country? But this barrier once removed, the sympathy
and the interests of these and other nations will accord with our own, and we
may expect from them both moral support and material aid. One thing is certain,
as soon as the great sacrifice to independence is made and known in foreign
countries there will be a complete change of front in our favor of the
sympathies of the world. This measure will deprive the North of the moral and
material aid which it now derives from the bitter prejudices with which
foreigners view the institution, and its war, if continued, will henceforth be
so despicable in their eyes that the source of recruiting will be dried up.
The North gets moral strength from fighting against slavery? This is shocking! Pay not attention to the sermons of the north - Beecher and all his kin - the Northerners were marching South to impose Lincoln's tyrannical tariff policy. At least that's what they told me at the Sons of the Confederacy meeting. Pay no attention to this part of the primary source. La. La. La.
It will leave the enemy's negro army no motive to fight for, and will exhaust
the source from which it has been recruited. The idea that it is their special
mission to war against slavery has held growing sway over the Northern people
for many years, and has at length ripened into an armed and bloody crusade
against it.
Dang it. If Cleburne doesn't shut up, how will anyone ever make an honest argument that slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. It's one thing to criticize Northern biased teachers for making up lies and all, but it is going to be pretty hard to keep pretending the South was fighting against Tariffs if the South's own leaders keep emphasizing the importance of slavery. I mean, dang, one would have to start ignoring the primary sources if the primary sources keep making the slavery argument.
Stop and reread the last sentence of Cleburne's paragraph above: "The idea that it is their special mission to war against slavery has held growing sway over the Northern people for many years, and has at length ripened into an armed and bloody crusade against it. "
Now imagine Tueting jumping up and down yelling "Jihad! Jihad!" (Or Rus or Jake - I know my preachin' superior when I meet him!)
This baleful superstition has so far supplied them with a courage and constancy
not their own.
Because, as we know from our friend Fitzhugh, negroes as a race are effeminate and deserve to be enslaved by their masculine betters. (Pay not attention to Frederick Douglass' narrative!)
It is the most powerful and honestly entertained plank in their war platform.
Knock this away and what is left? A bloody ambition for more territory, a
pretended veneration for the Union, which one of their own most distinguished
orators (Doctor Beecher in his Liverpool speech)openly avowed was only used as a
stimulus to stir up the anti-slavery crusade, and lastly the poisonous and
selfish interests which are the fungus growth of the war itself. Mankind may
fancy it a great duty to destroy slavery, but what interest can mankind have in
upholding this remainder of the Northern war platform?
Here is a place where Cleburne mentions non-abolitionist Northern goals. It is right and mete to note potential counter-arguments, my sweet kinder: Don't just pretend they don't exist. Instead, if they are strong, you need to modify your position. If they are not as strong as the evidence pointing to your interpetation, you can deal with them proleptically (isn't vocabulary coooool?). Observe:
First of all, even Cleburne acknowledges that abolition is the primary and first goal of the Northern war effort (as do all the other contemporary observers). That said, Cleburne's other Northern war aims fit in very well with the thesis that slavery was the prime cause of the Civil War.
When Cleburne notes a "bloody ambition" for new territories, he is referring to the running national conflict over whether slavery should expand or not. Many Northerners who wanted to stop slavery but were unwilling to fight a war over the issue hoped that by denying the entry of new slaveholding states, they could attain a peaceful and gradual abolition through constitutional amendment. This was Lincoln's original platform and goal. This gradual abolition was abhorrent to "Doctor Beecher" (Cleburne is referring to the author of the primary source we used called "War and Emancipation") and many Northerners, but they were a minority. In the South, they understood very well the consequences of the slaveholding states not maintaining parity in the Senate. The South threatened secession in 1820 ans 1850 over the issue of expanding slavery. The "bloody" part of Cleburne's memorable phrase comes from the Bloody Kansas episode where abolitionists and fire-eating slavery adovocates butchered each other in order to claim Kansas for their column when it became a state. We haven't covered this yet except to note the extremism of the fundamentalist protestants of the North went so far as to pass the collection plate for "Reverend Beecher's Missionary Bibles," a transparent euphemism for rifles sent to the "Onward Christian Soldiers!" brigades.
Although Cleburne mentions the conflict over territory as a secondary cause of the war, he (and everyone else in 1864) recognized that it was an outgrowth over the slavery tumult.
Clebrune next mentions a "pretended veneration for the union." This directly relates to another cherished prevarication of the neoconfederate pseudo-history. Many neoconfederate websites claim that it was Northern lust for power that was the cause of the war. If I had a dollar for every neoconfederate who quotes Abraham Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley out of context, I could buy a purebred Holstein cow.
Here's the quote:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either
to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any
slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do
it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also
do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe
it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall
believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall
believe doing more will help the cause."
--The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler,
Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Neoconfederates claim that this shows that Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves.
When viewed in context, it shows the opposite: Lincoln was determined to pragmatically do whatever was necessary to free the slaves. He had learned this the hard way when he opposed Polk's war message as a freshman congressman. Like many northerners, he was opposed to a war of theft on behalf of the planterocracy. The anti-slavery forces were outmanuevered by the crafty Polk who provoked a Mexican attack that "shed American blood on American soil." Nationalistic anger overcame antislavery reservations for a majority of Americans and Lincoln's "spotty" resistance appeared to have ended his political career. Lincoln observed that it was one thing for a writer like Henry David Thoreau to eloquently denounce slaveholder driven aggression, but politicians had to move majorities.
Lincoln's letter to Greeley came in the wake of radical criticism of Lincoln's repudiation of Fremont's unilateral emancipation of slaves in the Western Department. Although Lincoln and Seward had already drawn up plans to end slavery under the warpowers clause of the Constitution, they had to first secure control of the border states and figure out how to control the anticipated opposition of the pro-slavery Irish Americans. Lincoln privately wrote Fremont to ask him to suspend the order, Fremont, always a purist, refused. This forced Lincoln to publicly repudiate Fremont. Lincoln's letter to Greeley was part of this controversy - Lincoln was reassuring the border state slaveholders that their slaves were safe (while circulating a phony plan promising eventual compensated emancipation). At the same time he wrote the for-publication letter to newsman Greeley, he also wrote abolitionist leades and begged them to hold themselves in check to serve the greater good. He was going to end slavery, but he had to bring the borderstates and Irish with him:
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail;
without it nothing can succeed."
Lincoln realized that even though the majority of Northerners supported abolition (he was elected on that platform), he also knew most wanted it done gradually and were unwilling to risk their lives. Taking a cue from Polk, he let the South fire on Fort Sumter first so he could sell the war as a nationalistic endeavor. I highly recommend Doris Kearns Godwin's "Team of Rivals" as the best narrative of Lincoln's public nationalism and private antislavery machinations.
When viewed in context, the quote to Greeley shows Lincoln's determination to end slavery - he wasn't going to trade idealistic purity for the chance to actually accomplish his mission. However, that doesn't mean that his words can't be cherry picked by neoconfederates.
An example from our very own Daily News Record "letters to the editor" column:
"...the elementary school idea that the War for Southern Independance was fought
to end slavery the fact is that both the U.S. and Confederate Constitutions
protected slavery and Lincoln himself said repeatedly that, "this war is not
about slavery it is about union" and even wrote that he would accept slavery to
save the union."
Of course, in the writer's view, one should ignore the vastly more common times that Lincoln spoke of ending slavery. Even assuming you wanted to cling to that one out of context quote, you'd still have to deal with the inconvenient fact that Lincoln did free the slaves. If politicians say different things to different groups (part of the electoral process, n'cest pas?), one should judge them by their actions. Lincoln's actions could not be clearer.
Going back to the original Cleburne passage, note that Cleburne, and Southerners in general, were not fooled by Lincoln's nationlistic oratory. Cleburne's highly indicative choice of adjective for "veneration for the union" was "pretended."
At the midpoint of the last-quoted Cleburne paragraph is an acknowledgement of the far-reaching influence of Reverend Beecher. My kleine AP kinder will recall that Beecher was, shall we say, not equivocal in his denounciation of slavery. Cleburne has once again noted the centrality of slavery to the conflict.
Cleburne ends the paragraph dismissing the idea that it is mankind's duty to end slavery (he grew up during the third phase of slavery when Southern theology had twisted toward the Reverend Wilson's viewpoint). But even in his dismissal is an acknowledgement that the men fighting him across the battlefield thought they were fulfilling the abolitionist mission. He may have thought they were theologically mistaken, but he at least acknowledges their motivation. It amazes me that people who belong to heritage organizations spend most of their time trying to pretend that their anscestors' beliefs were politcially correct. Do you think Cleburne would be very happy with people who use him to say the war wasn't about slavery?
Before I return to our primary source, let me take a teachable moment. Note how I did not try to cherrypick one thing or another. I dealt directly with the other side's argument instead of ignoring it. Good interepretations incorporate all the available evidence. When you refuse to engage the other side's points, you are basically acknowledging that you have a weak argument.
You will note that neoconfederates never take South Carolina's "Ordinance of Secession and Justification" or her "Address to the Slaveholding States" and show that her legislature's clear statement that they were seceding to preserve slavery in perpetuity, was not the true reflection of the Confederacy's aims. They also never try to show that Confederate Vice President Alexander H. H. Stephens was out of step with his government and public when he declared that the very cornerstone of the Confederacy was perpetual bondage:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better,
allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution
has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar
institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the
negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late
rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated
this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was
conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended
the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The
prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the
time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the
African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle,
socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to
deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or
other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass
away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing
idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential
guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be
justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the
common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong.
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It
was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm
came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the
negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior
race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical,
philosophical, and moral truth.
(Italics are Tueting's)
Ghost, prove me wrong.
Please place those three documents in the same context as I placed Lincoln's letter to Greeley.
We now return to General Cleburne:
Their interests and feelings will be diametrically opposed to it. The
measure we propose will strike dead all John Brown fanaticism, and will compel
the enemy to draw off altogether or in the eyes of the world to swallow the
Declaration of Independence without the sauce and disguise of philanthropy. This
delusion of fanaticism at an end, thousands of Northern people will have leisure
to look at home and to see the gulf of despotism into which they themselves are
rushing.
Those darn Northerners who are fighting to free our slaves are trying to enslave us! Paging Mr. Fitzhugh...
The measure will at one blow strip the enemy of foreign sympathy and
assistance, and transfer them to the South; it will dry up two of his three
sources of recruiting; it will take from his negro army the only motive it could
have to fight against the South, and will probably cause much of it to desert
over to us; it will deprive his cause of the powerful stimulus of fanaticism,
and will enable him to see the rock on which his so called friends are now
piloting him.
Because you know, even though those negroes are fighting to end slavery, they will switch sides if we promise to free them some time in the future. After all, they like us - whenever you ask a slave if he loves his master, he says yes! This odd belief clearly highlights the syncretism of Southern ideology. One one hand the slaves are happy and grateful for being civilized, on the other they are potentially violent Nat Turners. The next half of this Cleburne paragraph illustartes this weird conflation of ideas: He starts off by saying that he thinks Union negro soldiers will switch sides and then complains that Southern negroes do everything they can to help the advancing Union army. Weird.
The immediate effect of the emancipation and enrollment of negroes on the
military strength of the South would be: To enable us to have armies numerically
superior to those of the North, and a reserve of any size we might think
necessary; to enable us to take the offensive, move forward, and forage on the
enemy. It would open to us in prospective another and almost untouched source of
supply, and furnish us with the means of preventing temporary disaster, and
carrying on a protracted struggle. It would instantly remove all the
vulnerability, embarrassment, and inherent weakness which result from slavery.
The approach of the enemy would no longer find every household surrounded by
spies; the fear that sealed the master's lips and the avarice that has, in so
many cases, tempted him practically to desert us would alike be removed. There
would be no recruits awaiting the enemy with open arms, no complete history of
every neighborhood with ready guides, no fear of insurrection in the rear, or
anxieties for the fate of loved ones when our armies moved forward. The chronic
irritation of hope deferred would be joyfully ended with the negro, and the
sympathies of his whole race would be due to his native South.
I think a proleptic interruption is appropriate here. I can see a neoconfederate cherrypicking this paragraph to show that Cleburne was proposing wholesale emancipation. But recall the actual proposal: only some of "the most courageous of our slaves," "will be freed within a reasonable time" if they "remain true to the Confederacy in this war." As Cleburne has noted in several places, this is not going to be a large group since most slaves are all to happy to help the advancing Yankee forces.
It would restore confidence in an early termination of the war with all its
inspiring consequences, and even if contrary to all expectations the enemy
should succeed in overrunning the South, instead of finding a cheap, ready-made
means of holding it down, he would find a common hatred and thirst for
vengeance, which would break into acts at every favorable opportunity, would
prevent him from settling on our lands, and render the South a very unprofitable
conquest. It would remove forever all selfish taint from our cause and place
independence above every question of property.
Note that Cleburne doesn't say independence was a stand alone goal. He want to make it a goal separate from preserving slavery. Which of course, shows that slavery was indeed the goal of the South's drive for independence (go and read the Cornerstone speech linked above to have this point driven home with a sledgehammer). Also note that Cleburner's plab was rejected in disgust.
The very magnitude of the sacrifice itself, such as no nation has ever
voluntarily made before, would appal our enemies, destroy his spirit and his
finances, and fill our hearts with a pride and singleness of purpose which would
clothe us with new strength in battle. Apart from all other aspects of the
question, the necessity for more fighting men is upon us. We can only get a
sufficiency by making the negro share the danger and hardships of the war. If we
arm and train him and make him fight for the country in her hour of dire
distress, every consideration of principle and policy demand that we should set
him and his whole race who side with us free.
Here Cleburne does talk about arming his "courageous" few. Ghost took issue with the conflation of the terms black and slave. Here is a good example that the Southern mind did in fact conflate those terms. Cleburne uses the word negro as a synonym for slave. In fact, notice his conditional "If," as in, has not happened yet but could happen, "we arm and train him (pronoun referring back to the word negro)." It indicates that there aren't any free blacks serving under arms in the Confederacy. This is is further implied by the fact that while Cleburne is trying to convince his superiors of the utility of using black troops, he does not provide examples of Confederate blacks to support his argument; he only uses Union troops as exemplars.
It is a first principle with mankind that he who offers his life in defense
of the State should receive from her in return his freedom and his happiness,
and we believe in acknowledgment of this principle. The Constitution of the
Southern States has reserved to their respective governments the power to free
slaves for meritorious services to the State. It is politic besides.
Another emphasis that emancipation will not be universal.
For many years, ever since the agitation of the subject of slavery commenced,
the negro has been dreaming of freedom, and his vivid imagination has surrounded
that condition with so many gratifications that it has become the paradise of
his hopes. To attain it he will tempt dangers and difficulties not exceeded by
the bravest soldier in the field. The hope of freedom is perhaps the only moral
incentive that can be applied to him in his present condition.
Cleburne must be delusional. His superiors knew it and this is why they rejected his proposal to enlist black soldiers. Why would a slave fight against people who would free all of his family members and friends for the promised chance of freedom for himself within a "reasonable time?"
It would be preposterous then to expect him to fight against it with any
degree of enthusiasm, therefore we must bind him to our cause by no doubtful
bonds; we must leave no possible loophole for treachery to creep in. The slaves
are dangerous now, but armed, trained, and collected in an army they would be a
thousand fold more dangerous: therefore when we make soldiers of them we must
make free men of them beyond all question, and thus enlist their sympathies
also. We can do this more effectually than the North can now do, for we can give
the negro not only his own freedom, but that of his wife and child, and can
secure it to him in his old home. To do this, we must immediately make his
marriage and parental relations sacred in the eyes of the law and forbid their
sale.
Well, at least his family will not be sold to someone else far away. They'll stay put.
The past legislation of the South concedes that large free middle class of
negro blood, between the master and slave, must sooner or later destroy the
institution. If, then, we touch the institution at all, we would do best to make
the most of it, and by emancipating the whole race upon reasonable terms, and
within such reasonable time as will prepare both races for the change, secure to
ourselves all the advantages, and to our enemies all the disadvantages that can
arise, both at home and abroad, from such a sacrifice.
This is an echo of stage two of slavery: It is only temporary and will end at some reasonable time in the future when the slaves are ready for freedom. It brings to mind another out of context quote that is a favorite hobby horse of the Neoconfederates - they like to quote Lee as saying that "slavery was a great moral evil" (See here for an example written by Ron Paul's former chief of staff - sorry Weston). Of course, they fail to provide the whole letter in which Lee goes on to say that it is ordained by God and will have to last just a tiny bit longer (This is the very next words following the beloved moral evil (mis)quote):
I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my
feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more
deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than
in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are
undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will
prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be
necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will
sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the
storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure.
The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand
years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian
nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final
abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers,
let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who,
chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a
single day.
Lee in fact, like most Southerners, blames the ungodly abolitionists and their perverted anti-slavery theology for all the trouble:
Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the
right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the
slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not
approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will
be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no
concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor,
-still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange
that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to
preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the
spiritual liberty of others?
Lee didn't mince words, did he? The "evil" abolitionists indeed. I particularly like how Lee mirrors Cleburne at the end. Lee believes that the abolitionist desire to free the slaves makes them the enemies of Southern freedom. Cleburne believes that the abolitionist desire to free the slaves will lead to the enslavement of white southerners under the Yankee yoke. I won't respond to this odd syncretism. I'll just quote Lincoln:
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a
just God, can not long retain it."
-- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume
III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.
Satisfy the negro that if he faithfully adheres to our standard during the
war he shall receive his freedom and that of his race. Give him as an earnest of
our intentions such immediate immunities as will impress him with our sincerity
and be in keeping with his new condition, enroll a portion of his class as
soldiers of the Confederacy, and we change the race from a dreaded weakness to a
position of strength.
Portion. Portion. Portion. Not univsersal.
Will the slaves fight? The helots of Sparta stood their masters good stead in
battle. In the great sea fight of Lepanto where the Christians checked forever
the spread of Mohammedanism over Europe, the galley slaves of portions of the
fleet were promised freedom, and called on to fight at a critical moment of the
battle. They fought well, and civilization owes much to those brave galley
slaves. The negro slaves of Saint Domingo, fighting for freedom, defeated their
white masters and the French troops sent against them. The negro slaves of
Jamaica revolted, and under the name of Maroons held the mountains against their
masters for 150 years; and the experience of this war has been so far that
half-trained negroes have fought as bravely as many other half-trained Yankees.
If, contrary to the training of a lifetime, they can be made to face and fight
bravely against their former masters, how much more probable is it that with the
allurement of a higher reward, and led by those masters, they would submit to
discipline and face dangers.
Cleburne didn't do himself any favors toward persuading his superiors in this paragraph. It was terror over what happened in Santo Domingo and Jamaica that kept many Southerners fighting long after any hope of sucess had evaporated. Note that when he is talking about whether blacks could be good soldiers, he is not using examples from Ghost's imagined freed blacks in grey. If these phantasms of Ghost's fevered imagination existed, Cleburne would have surely used them because it would help make his point that the South could find a way to gain the loyalty of the potentially armed blacks. The fact that he has to rely on the scary spectre of Toussaint L'Ouveture and the Union's black troops speaks volumes.
We will briefly notice a few arguments against this course. It is said
Republicanism cannot exist without the institution.
Cleburne refers here to Fitzhugh's mudsill theory we talked about in the "Books Matter" lecture. The South truly believed that no true culture could exist without slave labor at the bottom.
Even were this true, we prefer any form of government of which the Southern
people may have the molding, to one forced upon us by a conqueror.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Note that Cleburne doesn't actually disagree with the mudsill theory. And note that he acknowledges that Northern victory would mean universal emancipation.
It is said the white man cannot perform agricultural labor in the South. The
experience of this army during the heat of summer from Bowling Green, Ky., to
Tupelo, Miss., is that the white man is healthier when doing reasonable work in
the open field than at any other time.
Cleburne reveals his class bias here. The avergae Southern subsistance farmer knew that he could work in the fields.
It is said an army of negroes cannot be spared from the fields. A sufficient
number of slaves is now administering to luxury alone to supply the place of all
we need, and we believe it would be better to take half the able bodied men off
a plantation than to take the one master mind that economically regulated its
operations. Leave some of the skill at home and take some of the muscle to fight
with. It is said slaves will not work after they are freed. We think necessity
and a wise legislation will compel them to labor for a living.
This is actually what happened after Southern defeat. Once the label of "slave" disappeared, the Northerners as a whole (and to our nation's shame) began to be more concerned with their own economic interests and allowed the South to continue the system of white supremacy well into the 20th century. Vagrancy laws, sharecropping, and violent intimidation kept the "freed" slaves in largely the same circumstances as they enjoyed before the war.
It is said it will cause terrible excitement and some disaffection from our
cause. Excitement is far preferable to the apathy which now exists, and
disaffection will not be among the fighting men. It is said slavery is all we
are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all.
Hmmm. What was the war about?
Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are
fighting for.
A confouding statement. If Cleburne denies that slavery is the cause we are all fighting for, why has he spent a good chunk of his proposal making exactly that argument? I can't explain away this anamolous (oooooo. Vocabulary is coooooool!) phrase. I'll just have to ask my dear readers to place it within the context of all of the other statements Cleburne makes in the rest of this document. Ghost, if you choose to use this excerpt to rebut my thesis, please be so kind as to explain why we should weigh that one sentence more heavily than the many instances when Cleburne acknowledges that the war is being fought over slavery.
Notice again kids, a good argument doesn't ignore conflicting information.
It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more
centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and
liberties.
What liberties other than the liberty own slaves has Cleburne mentioned? Very odd.
We have now briefly proposed a plan which we believe will save our country.
It may be imperfect, but in all human probability it would give us our
independence. No objection ought to outweigh it which is not weightier than
independence. If it is worthy of being put in practice it ought to be mooted
quickly before the people, and urged earnestly by every man who believes in its
efficacy. Negroes will require much training; training will require time, and
there is danger that this concession to common sense may come too late.
P. R. Cleburne, major-general, commanding division; D. C. Govan,
brigadier-general; John E. Murray, colonel Fifth Arkansas; G. F. Baucum, colonel
Eighth Arkansas; Peter Snyder, lieutenant-colonel, commanding Sixth and Seventh
Arkansas; E. Warfield, lieutenant-colonel, Second Arkansas; M. P. Lowrey,
brigadier-general; A. B. Hardcastle, colonel Thirty-second and Forty-fifth
Mississippi; F. A. Ashford, major Sixteenth Alabama; John W. Colquitt, colonel
First Arkansas; Rich. J. Person, major Third and Fifth Confederate; G. S.
Deakins, major Thirty-fifth and Eighth Tennessee; J. H. Collett, captain,
commanding Seventh Texas; J. H. Kelly, brigadier-general, commanding Cavalry
Division.
Cleburne's proposal was rejected. The desperate desire to preserve the peculiar institution kept it from being considered until the issue was moot. A similar proposal, after much acrimonious debate, was passed two weeks prior to Appomattox. No black soldiers ever saw combat wearing Confederate Grey.
Primary sources rock!
Lastly, though certainly not leastly, You, sir, are a poltroon
1 comment:
WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment