Secession/Independence is a right

Do you believe in secession ?


  • Total voters
    9

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” (Thomas Jefferson). This quote says a lot. We had a war for independence starting 1776 when we declared our independence with Jefferson writing the document or helping you could say depending on your view. We had a war for seperation and I feel that when Lincoln denied it to the secesh states that that was wrong and seams like a very King George type of move. I also don't believe that Lincoln bothered fighting secesion for slavery and here's why " ““I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858) here is another one “... my paramount object is in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery” (Lincoln). Also, not all states seceded at the same time North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee seceded last as a result of Lincoln's hasty 75,000-man invasion force so now Northern aggression comes into play. I also say that if many Black men slave or free willingly served and did it proudly like many did and here are some quotes supporting that " “There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. (Fredrick Douglass), however I disagree with one thing how he says they would destroy the North, that’s a very poor claim because the Confederates fought a defensive war for their freedom. And here’s another quote from abolitionist ( Horace Greeley “For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union. (Horace Greeley) “Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers.

The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September. (Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.). This next quote is the observation from a Union officer seeing Stonewall Jackson's Army which numbered around 15,000 to 18,000 troops “Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number. . . . They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers,
bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde”. (Capt. Isaac Heysinger). So, as you can see many Black men fought for the South and this is a truth many try to
silence because like everything else I wrote proves that the North fighting to end slavery is a false narrative and an attempt to justify the war. However, in the Union Army Blacks were treated worse, getting less pay and they were forced in segregated units with their separate pay and in the Confederate Army pay was equal and pay was based on the job. Many Union men wondered why they saw so many Black Confederates and no Black Yankees on their side in the beginning and here's a quote about rank “At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 34th Texas Cavalry, "Terrell's Texas Cavalry" became it's 3rd Sergeant. In comparison, The highest-ranking Black Union soldier during the war was a Sergeant Major.” And here’s one about pay (Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers "earned on average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350- $600 a year). Yet again in this next quote my point is made about Union treatment of Black people “Union General U.S. Grant in Feb 1865, ordered the capture of "all the Negro men… before the enemy can put them in their ranks." Frederick Douglas warned Lincoln that unless slaves were guaranteed freedom (those in Union controlled areas were still slaves) and land bounties, "they would take up arms for the rebels". You may find this one surprising: “Hames Ward, a slave who fled "Yankeedom" to warn his fellow slaves of abuse and racism in Union army camps and of blacks being forced to the front lines during battles. He preferred being the slave of "the meanest masters in the South" than a free black man in the North: "If this is freedom, give me slavery forever." That's all very powerful information and evidence, so I say the war wasn't about slavery and that the right to independence shouldn't be denied.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Secession is a right only if it succeeds.
The same is true for Independence.

There are a lot of interesting rhetoric arguments regarding the Constitutionality of secession but in the end if a majority of States allow it, it is Constitutional, but if not then it is not. It is a political question to be determined either by force or by political will. In the case of the secession of 1861, the secessionists appealed to war not courts nor Congress. There is considerable evidence that the Secessionists believed in an absolute right to independence and were offended with the North did not share that belief.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
One of the interesting facts about the Steiner Report Involves this letter by Howell Cobb sent to Confederate Secretary of War James A. Seddon, in January 1865:

The proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. It is to me a source of deep mortification and regret to see the name of that good and great man and soldier, General R. E. Lee, given as authority for such a policy. My first hour of despondency will be the one in which that policy shall be adopted. You cannot make soldiers of slaves, nor slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to negro [sic.] soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you; and one secret of the favor With which the proposition is received in portions of the Army is the hope that when negroes go into the Army they will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with negro troops. You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves. It is difficult to get negroes enough for the purpose indicated in the President’s message, much less enough for an Army. Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong — but they won’t make soldiers. As a class they are wanting in every qualification of a soldier. Better by far to yield to the demands of England and France and abolish slavery and thereby purchase their aid, than resort to this policy, which leads as certainly to ruin and subjugation as it is adopted; you want more soldiers, and hence the proposition to take negroes into the Army. Before resorting to it, at least try every reasonable mode of getting white soldiers. I do not entertain a doubt that you can, by the volunteering policy, get more men into the service than you can arm. I have more fears about arms than about men, For Heaven’s sake, try it before you fill with gloom and despondency the hearts of many of our truest and most devoted men, by resort to the suicidal policy of arming our slaves.

From this, one might get the impression that Howell Cobb was not aware of armed Black Confederates fighting as soldiers.

Steiner says in his report
Medical and Surgical Monographs

A drunken, bloated blackguard on horseback, for instance, with the badge of a Major General on his collar, understood to be one Howell Cobb, formerly Secretary of the United States Treasury, on passing the house of a prominent sympathizer with the rebellion, removed his hat in answer to the waving of handkerchiefs, and reining his horse up, called on “his boys” to give three cheers. “Three more, my boys!” and “three more!” Then, looking at the silent crowd of Union men on the pavement, he shook his fist at them, saying, “Oh, you d—d long-faced Yankees! Ladies, take down their names and I will attend to them personally when I return.” In view of the fact that this was addressed to a crowd of unarmed citizens, in the presence of a large body of armed soldiery flushed with success, the prudence — to say nothing of the bravery — of these remarks, may be judged of by any man of common sense.

In short, the commander of the supposed armed Black Confederate Soldiers was unaware of those Black Confederate Soldiers.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
One of the interesting facts about the Steiner Report Involves this letter by Howell Cobb sent to Confederate Secretary of War James A. Seddon, in January 1865:

The proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. It is to me a source of deep mortification and regret to see the name of that good and great man and soldier, General R. E. Lee, given as authority for such a policy. My first hour of despondency will be the one in which that policy shall be adopted. You cannot make soldiers of slaves, nor slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to negro [sic.] soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you; and one secret of the favor With which the proposition is received in portions of the Army is the hope that when negroes go into the Army they will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with negro troops. You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves. It is difficult to get negroes enough for the purpose indicated in the President’s message, much less enough for an Army. Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong — but they won’t make soldiers. As a class they are wanting in every qualification of a soldier. Better by far to yield to the demands of England and France and abolish slavery and thereby purchase their aid, than resort to this policy, which leads as certainly to ruin and subjugation as it is adopted; you want more soldiers, and hence the proposition to take negroes into the Army. Before resorting to it, at least try every reasonable mode of getting white soldiers. I do not entertain a doubt that you can, by the volunteering policy, get more men into the service than you can arm. I have more fears about arms than about men, For Heaven’s sake, try it before you fill with gloom and despondency the hearts of many of our truest and most devoted men, by resort to the suicidal policy of arming our slaves.

From this, one might get the impression that Howell Cobb was not aware of armed Black Confederates fighting as soldiers.

Steiner says in his report
Medical and Surgical Monographs

A drunken, bloated blackguard on horseback, for instance, with the badge of a Major General on his collar, understood to be one Howell Cobb, formerly Secretary of the United States Treasury, on passing the house of a prominent sympathizer with the rebellion, removed his hat in answer to the waving of handkerchiefs, and reining his horse up, called on “his boys” to give three cheers. “Three more, my boys!” and “three more!” Then, looking at the silent crowd of Union men on the pavement, he shook his fist at them, saying, “Oh, you d—d long-faced Yankees! Ladies, take down their names and I will attend to them personally when I return.” In view of the fact that this was addressed to a crowd of unarmed citizens, in the presence of a large body of armed soldiery flushed with success, the prudence — to say nothing of the bravery — of these remarks, may be judged of by any man of common sense.

In short, the commander of the supposed armed Black Confederate Soldiers was unaware of those Black Confederate Soldiers.
That's true some were not aware. But Black enlistment, role, combat whatever you wanna call it wasn't legal nationwide it was done by the states themselves and often by officers or units asking will you fight.
“Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September. (Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.). Tennessee did it like the quote says. Robert E Lee said " When you eliminate the black soldier you eliminate the history of the south" so the General knew of them.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” (Thomas Jefferson). This quote says a lot
If you are going to use a quote, use the whole quote - fill in the blanks and explain the context. Jefferson was in no way saying there was a right to secede if you read the whole letter in which that quote is found. We're easy going on this site but require full, accurate quotes IN CONTEXT. And special pleading and confirmation bias are not welcome.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
If you are going to use a quote, use the whole quote - fill in the blanks and explain the context. Jefferson was in no way saying there was a right to secede if you read the whole letter in which that quote is found. We're easy going on this site but require full, accurate quotes IN CONTEXT. And special pleading and confirmation bias are not welcome.
if any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. ( Jefferson). I was having a hard time finding the original but this is apart of the letter. When you said special pleading and bias do you mean I shouldn't have posted this ?
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
if any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. ( Jefferson). I was having a hard time finding the original but this is apart of the letter. When you said special pleading and bias do you mean I shouldn't have posted this ?
No. I mean post all of it. And post all the quotes on that subject, like Andrew Jackson's quote or others that stated opinions that secession was not only illegal, but treason. Special pleading - posting only the shit that agrees with your opinion. Confirmation bias means that someone only looks for stuff that will confirm his side of an argument. I had an ethics professor tell me that special pleading and confirmation bias are easy to see when others do it but we are blind when it is ourselves who are guilty of it.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
No. I mean post all of it. And post all the quotes on that subject, like Andrew Jackson's quote or others that stated opinions that secession was not only illegal, but treason. Special pleading - posting only the shit that agrees with your opinion. Confirmation bias means that someone only looks for stuff that will confirm his side of an argument. I had an ethics professor tell me that special pleading and confirmation bias are easy to see when others do it but we are blind when it is ourselves who are guilty of it.
I see, but it makes sense to me to put quotes that help your case. I have never ever seen or heard any Union supporter use either of these quotes "
““I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858) here is another one “... my paramount object is in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery” (Lincoln). I doubt anyone would put these out there if they argue that the war wasn't about slavery when it contradicts that point blank right there in these quotes. After all if I am in trouble with you since your in authority I will say that I'm just putting my honest opinion and using quotes and facts and I say it all in the most respectful way.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” (Thomas Jefferson). This quote says a lot. We had a war for independence starting 1776 when we declared our independence with Jefferson writing the document or helping you could say depending on your view. We had a war for seperation and I feel that when Lincoln denied it to the secesh states that that was wrong and seams like a very King George type of move. I also don't believe that Lincoln bothered fighting secesion for slavery and here's why " ““I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858) here is another one “... my paramount object is in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery” (Lincoln).

Cherry pickin' is easy.

And governing is hard.

If I may, have you ever seen the side by side comparison of the U.S. and Confederate Constitutions?

Note that in the CSA column, in yellow text, indicates new additions or deletions to original US clauses. Seems to be a heckuv alot of slavery in there. But I have been accused of not being able to read between the lines before.

https://jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
That's true some were not aware. But Black enlistment, role, combat whatever you wanna call it wasn't legal nationwide it was done by the states themselves and often by officers or units asking will you fight.
“Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September. (Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.). Tennessee did it like the quote says. Robert E Lee said " When you eliminate the black soldier you eliminate the history of the south" so the General knew of them.
Be interesting to see some primary documentation.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
if any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. ( Jefferson). I was having a hard time finding the original but this is apart of the letter. When you said special pleading and bias do you mean I shouldn't have posted this ?
So what? In this context, it is just a private opinion of a private citizen however esteemed expressed in a private letter.

Here is an original quote of mine addressing this.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 20 June 1816 emphasis mine.

Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 20 June 1816
To William H. Crawford

Monticello June 20. 16.

Dear Sir

I am about to sin against all discretion, and knowingly, by adding to the drudgery of your letter-reading, this acknolegement of the reciept of your favor of May 31. with the papers it covered. I cannot however deny my self the gratification of expressing the satisfaction I have recieved, not only from the general statement of affairs at Paris, in your’s of Dec. 12. 14. (as a matter of history which I had not before recieved) but most especially and superlatively, from the letter of the 8th of the same month to mr Fisk, on the subject of draw backs. this most heterogeneous principle was transplanted into ours from the British system, by a man whose mind was really powerful, but chained by native partialities to every thing English: who had formed exaggerated ideas of the superior perfection of the English constitution, the superior wisdom of their government; and sincerely believed it for the good of this country to make them their model in every thing: without considering that what might be wise and good for a nation essentially commercial, and entangled in complicated intercourse with numerous and powerful neighbors, might not be so for one essentially agricultural, & insulated by nature from the abusive governments of the old world.     the exercise by our own citizens of so much commerce as may suffice to exchange our superfluities, for our wants, may be advantageous for the whole. but it does not follow that, with a territory so boundless, it is the interest of the whole to become a mere city of London, to carry on the business of one half the world at the expence of eternal war with the other half. the agricultural capacities of our country constitute it’s distinguishing feature: and the adapting our policy & pursuits to that, is more likely to make us a numerous and happy people than the mimicry of an Amsterdam, a Hamburg, or a city of London. every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of it’s association, & to say to all individuals that, if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles, and involving dangers which the society chuses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, & still less ephemeral & Pseudo-citizens on such terms. we may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease. such is the situation of our country. we have most abundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we may enjoy in peace and safety, without permitting a few citizens, infected with the Mania of rambling & gambling, to bring danger on the great mass engaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. in your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to chose; 1. licentious commerce, & gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many: or 2. restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all.   If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere adopted from the British code the law of draw-backs. I early saw it’s effects in the jealousies and vexations of Britain; and that, retaining it; we must become, like her, an essentially warring nation, and meet, in the end, the catastrophe impending over her. no one can doubt that this alone produced the orders of council, the depredations which preceded, and the war which followed them. had we carried but our own produce, and brought back but our own wants, no nation would have troubled us. our commercial dashers then have already cost us so many thousand lives & so many millions of Dollars, more than their persons and all their commerce was worth. when war was declared, and especially after Massachusets, who had produced it, took side with the enemy waging it, I pressed on some confidential friends in Congress to avail us of the happy opportunity of repealing the draw-back: and I do rejoice to find that you are in that sentiment. you are young, & may be in the way of bringing it into effect. perhaps time, even yet, & change of tone (for there are symptoms of that in Massachusets) may not have obliterated altogether the sense of our late feelings & sufferings; may not have induced oblivion of the friends we have lost, the depredations & conflagrations we have suffered, and the debts we have incurred, & have to labor for through the lives of the present generation. the earlier the repeal is proposed, the more it will be befriended by all these recollections & considerations.   this is one of three great measures necessary to ensure us permanent prosperity. this preserves our peace. a 2d should enable us to meet any war, by adopting the report of the war department, for placing the force of the nation at effectual command; and a 3d should ensure resources of money by the suppression of all paper circulation during peace, and licensing that of the nation alone during war. the metallic medium of which we should be possessed at the commencement of a war would be a sufficent fund for all the loans we should need thro’ it’s continuance: and if the National bills issued, be bottomed (as is indispensable) on pledges of specific taxes for their redemption within certain & moderate epochs, and be of proper denominations for circulation, no interest on them would be necessary, or just, because they would answer to every one the purposes of the metallic money withdrawn & replaced by them.

But possibly these may be the dreams of an old man, or that the occasions of realising them may have past away without return. a government regulating itself by what is wise and just for the many, uninfluenced by the local and selfish views of the few who direct their affairs, has not been seen perhaps on earth. or if it existed, for a moment, at the birth of ours, it would not be easy to fix the term of it’s continuance. still, I believe, it does exist here in a greater degree than any where else; and for it’s growth and continuance, as well as for your personal health and happiness, I offer sincere prayers with the homage of my respect and esteem.

Th: Jefferson

What we have is a hypothetical discussion between 2 options from Crawford.

in your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to chose; 1. licentious commerce, & gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many: or 2. restricted commerce, peace, and steady
occupations for all. 


And a hypothetical response.

  If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture.

In short given a chose between 2 sets of States.
1. licentious commerce, & gambling speculations for a few with eternal war for the many
vs
2. restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. 

Jefferson would not be adverse to letting the first set secede leaving a peaceful agrarian nation.
All in a personal discussion, not about secession but what an ideal nation would look like.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
That's true some were not aware. But Black enlistment, role, combat whatever you wanna call it wasn't legal nationwide it was done by the states themselves and often by officers or units asking will you fight.
“Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September. (Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.). Tennessee did it like the quote says. Robert E Lee said " When you eliminate the black soldier you eliminate the history of the south" so the General knew of them.
I think the distinction there is the word 'free'. Some free blacks did organize into units that were largely not used. More likely, the blacks reported to be seen fighting with Confederate troops were those like Forrest's. He had 47 prime field hands he took to the war with him. They were in several battles, some in his personal escort, some were wounded. When he surrendered, he noted them as Confederates...not as Confederate soldiers. They certainly didn't get $18 a month or treatment as regular soldiers - mostly teamsters, cooks, horse holders and other menial tasks. Forrest did ask them - promised he would free them if they came with him...but he didn't promise to free their families. Most of these men had wives and children, so the chances of them returning to the plantation were fairly high! This was true of many other officers who took their slaves to war with them - it wasn't exactly a real choice. But 47 men at about 2000 a head - that's an investment one might want to keep a hand on. No way would they be left without white men to supervise them on the plantation and maybe be recruited by the enemy.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
I think the distinction there is the word 'free'. Some free blacks did organize into units that were largely not used. More likely, the blacks reported to be seen fighting with Confederate troops were those like Forrest's. He had 47 prime field hands he took to the war with him. They were in several battles, some in his personal escort, some were wounded. When he surrendered, he noted them as Confederates...not as Confederate soldiers. They certainly didn't get $18 a month or treatment as regular soldiers - mostly teamsters, cooks, horse holders and other menial tasks. Forrest did ask them - promised he would free them if they came with him...but he didn't promise to free their families. Most of these men had wives and children, so the chances of them returning to the plantation were fairly high! This was true of many other officers who took their slaves to war with them - it wasn't exactly a real choice. But 47 men at about 2000 a head - that's an investment one might want to keep a hand on. No way would they be left without white men to supervise them on the plantation and maybe be recruited by the enemy.


No one is arguing if the were armed African Americans marching with the CSA army or CSA State militias, just that there was not a whole lot of them.

This is not to say that no black man ever fired a gun for the Confederacy. To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it.
In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common. The non-existence of black combat units is further indicated by the records of debates in the Confederate Congress over the issue of black enlistment. The idea was repeatedly rejected until, on March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, although with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
That last item is why Patrick Cleburne got a black eye - almost literally. His proposal suggested freedom for those slaves who signed up, his argument being they needed to get something out of it. This proposal was so well received Johnston swore everybody to secrecy who saw it and then locked it up in his drawer as if it was a rattler. Didn't stop one guy from wailing all the way to Richmond about it, trying to get that traitorous general hung!
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
That last item is why Patrick Cleburne got a black eye - almost literally. His proposal suggested freedom for those slaves who signed up, his argument being they needed to get something out of it. This proposal was so well received Johnston swore everybody to secrecy who saw it and then locked it up in his drawer as if it was a rattler. Didn't stop one guy from wailing all the way to Richmond about it, trying to get that traitorous general hung!
Sorta suggests that there were no official Black Confederates in the CSA Army.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
I see, but it makes sense to me to put quotes that help your case. I have never ever seen or heard any Union supporter use either of these quotes "
““I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (Abraham Lincoln, September 18, 1858) here is another one “... my paramount object is in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery” (Lincoln). I doubt anyone would put these out there if they argue that the war wasn't about slavery when it contradicts that point blank right there in these quotes. After all if I am in trouble with you since your in authority I will say that I'm just putting my honest opinion and using quotes and facts and I say it all in the most respectful way.
I am a true blue Union man and I have used both quotes several times. And neither quote has anything with the war being about slavery. As usual you cherry picked only parts of both quotes. The 1858 statement was a response to Stephen Douglas accusing Lincoln of being for negro equality and has nothing to do with the war which didn't even happen until three years later. Lincoln was just as racist in his thinking as most Americans at that time. He did not believe black folks were the equal of whites but he was dead set against them being enslaved.

As for the second quote, that came in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862. Greeley had published an open letter in the New York Tribune accusing the Lincoln administration of not using the war to crush slavery. Here is Lincoln's whole letter replying to Greeley:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.


Lincoln must have been smiling when he wrote that. At the time Lincoln wrote that letter, he had already shown the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves in the rebelling states, to his cabinet. The 1858 quote was Lincoln's personal statement of his view of the relationship between the races. The Proclamation was Lincoln's official statement on slavery in the rebelling states.

And just to make it clear, slavery and only slavery was the cause of the Civil War. No matter how you try to spin it, no slavery no war.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
I think the distinction there is the word 'free'. Some free blacks did organize into units that were largely not used. More likely, the blacks reported to be seen fighting with Confederate troops were those like Forrest's. He had 47 prime field hands he took to the war with him. They were in several battles, some in his personal escort, some were wounded. When he surrendered, he noted them as Confederates...not as Confederate soldiers. They certainly didn't get $18 a month or treatment as regular soldiers - mostly teamsters, cooks, horse holders and other menial tasks. Forrest did ask them - promised he would free them if they came with him...but he didn't promise to free their families. Most of these men had wives and children, so the chances of them returning to the plantation were fairly high! This was true of many other officers who took their slaves to war with them - it wasn't exactly a real choice. But 47 men at about 2000 a head - that's an investment one might want to keep a hand on. No way would they be left without white men to supervise them on the plantation and maybe be recruited by the enemy.
$18 in Tennesee not the entire Army. Many had the chance to run but didn't and that to me shows dedication to the cause.
There are numerous accounts of black participation in the battle of First Manassas in the summer of 1861. Black combatants shot, killed, and captured Union troops. Loyal slaves were said to have fought with outstanding bravery alongside their masters. These reports also provide testimony to the fidelity of black Rebels in combat. One black soldier was moving about the field when ordered to surender by a Union officer. The Rebel replied, "No sir, you are my prisoner," while drawing a pistol and shooting the officer dead. He then secured the officer's sidearm and after the battle boasted loudly of having quieted at least one of "the stinkin' Yankees who cam here `specting to whip us Southerners." Another black Confederate who stood behind a tree allowed two Union soldiers to pass before shooting one in the shoulders, clubbing him with a pistol, while demanding the other to surrender. Both prisoners were marched into Confederate lines. An Alabama officer's servant marched a Zouave into camp proclaiming, "Massa, here one of dese devils who been shooting at us, Suh."

Charles W. Harper

They seamed to be out on their own without much supervision, it's hard for many today to understand this without reading the books and scources.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
I am a true blue Union man and I have used both quotes several times. And neither quote has anything with the war being about slavery. As usual you cherry picked only parts of both quotes. The 1858 statement was a response to Stephen Douglas accusing Lincoln of being for negro equality and has nothing to do with the war which didn't even happen until three years later. Lincoln was just as racist in his thinking as most Americans at that time. He did not believe black folks were the equal of whites but he was dead set against them being enslaved.

As for the second quote, that came in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862. Greeley had published an open letter in the New York Tribune accusing the Lincoln administration of not using the war to crush slavery. Here is Lincoln's whole letter replying to Greeley:


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.


Lincoln must have been smiling when he wrote that. At the time Lincoln wrote that letter, he had already shown the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all the slaves in the rebelling states, to his cabinet. The 1858 quote was Lincoln's personal statement of his view of the relationship between the races. The Proclamation was Lincoln's official statement on slavery in the rebelling states.

And just to make it clear, slavery and only slavery was the cause of the Civil War. No matter how you try to spin it, no slavery no war.
Well he said it was for the Union, that doesn't sound like a guy who plans on sending so many Union blue men to die for people he thought were so inferier. The emancipation didn't even apply to all of the states just the ones that seceded so that shows it was Union again. Kentucky, Missouri, Mayland, and Deleware still had slavery and there's no spinning that. If had been about slavery then why not have the emancipation free all of them if he cared so much. An emancipation ( freeing slaves) and Proclomation (announcement) wasn't a law it did nothing, however some argue it allowed Black enlistment. The 13th amendment was what freed all of them then citizen ship and voting followed which is a very good thing but many make the mistake or try to say his emancipation was a law and the Great Lincoln freed the slaves.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Well he said it was for the Union, that doesn't sound like a guy who plans on sending so many Union blue men to die for people he thought were so inferier. The emancipation didn't even apply to all of the states just the ones that seceded so that shows it was Union again. Kentucky, Missouri, Mayland, and Deleware still had slavery and there's no spinning that. If had been about slavery then why not have the emancipation free all of them if he cared so much. An emancipation ( freeing slaves) and Proclomation (announcement) wasn't a law it did nothing, however some argue it allowed Black enlistment. The 13th amendment was what freed all of them then citizen ship and voting followed which is a very good thing but many make the mistake or try to say his emancipation was a law and the Great Lincoln freed the slaves.
Wrong again. The Emancipation Proclamation had the force of law under the President's war powers - as Commander-In-Chief in the time of war, the President can do whatever is "necessary and proper" to successfully prosecute the war. The Proclamation was a war measure to deprive the rebels of free labor. It freed all slaves in the rebelling states. Lincoln didn't want to piss off the slave states that had remained loyal, so he did not include those states in the Proclamation. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery everywhere in the United States.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
Wrong again. The Emancipation Proclamation had the force of law under the President's war powers - as Commander-In-Chief in the time of war, the President can do whatever is "necessary and proper" to successfully prosecute the war. The Proclamation was a war measure to deprive the rebels of free labor. It freed all slaves in the rebelling states. Lincoln didn't want to piss off the slave states that had remained loyal, so he did not include those states in the Proclamation. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery everywhere in the United States.
So when you say at war it almost seams like your acknowledging that the Confederate states were their own nation and the Union was a foreign power and Lincoln was using his power to free slaves so if that's true then why need a 13th amendment at all ? if he wasn't concerned with the border states that had slaves but remained loyal then why bother with another amendment if he already freed them where he wanted them ?
 
Top