Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its virtually unknown and not accepted that blacks served. Estimates are about 60,000 served in some manner, with 13,000 meeting the enemy in combat. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white privates.
We can get into black ownership of slaves also. Yes,blacks owned slaves. Some black slave masters purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white holder, however more often than not, blacks owned them outright. According to federal census reports, on June 1 1860, of the 10,689 free negroes residing in new orleans, over 3000 or 28% owned slaves.
Good post! Following up, here are two excellent sites to explore on the general subjects:
Thank you for the link, TomDot. Interesting that it's presented on a site that uses the title "Southern Comfort" (http://www.civilwarhistory.com/csa3.htm). Even plays an interesting little ditty.
The article is attributed to Charles Rice, but I can't further information about Mr. Rice. What are his qualification for writing the article? Is he a historian or journalist? He didn't provide any footnotes, therefore there's no way that anyone can easily check his facts.
I found this quote from your referenced article (bolding mine):
Quote:
It is often forgotten that while slavery was the major underlying cause of the Civil War, its abolition was not the original objective of the US government.
I thought that the major underlying cause of the Civil War was states rights. That's what many of the posters on this thread have been claiming. Is Charles Rice wrong about the major cause of the war?
The article also points out that the Confederate Congress didn't authorize the enlistment of Southern slaves as combat troops until February 1865, only two months before Richmond was evacuated. Why did it take so long for the authorization of black troops to happen? And why was the 1st Louisiana Native Guards disbanded in February 1862?
"If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Howell Cobb, Speaker of the House, Confederate States of America.
Manufacturing mostly centered in the northern new england states where the greatest special interest pressure was concentrated to lobby for high tariffs and other trade barriers to keep out less expensive and better quality european industrial goods. At this time the south was the main exporting region of the country ( cotton, tobacco etc.. ). The south imported most of the finished goods consumed by the southern population. So, any high tariffs and trade barriers would hit the south the hardest, meanwhile the greater portion of import taxes collected by the feds was spent in the northern states. When lincoln was in office he passed the highest tariff in US history. Southerners not only complained about the tariff, they didnt see any of the US "internal improvements", they all went to the north.
I knew that nearly all military land units that fought on both sides in the Civil War were raised by the states and not by their central governments. I was wrong when I suggested that it was a fault of the Confederate government that it didn't arm and supply the 1st Louisiana Native Guard.
I was also wrong in implying that the Confederate government had a hand in the disbanding of the 1st Lousiana Native Guard. It was actually the Louisiana state legislature which did this, by passing a law that reorganized the state militia by "all the free white males capable of bearing arms… irrespective of nationality". The Native Guard, being comprised of blacks was therefore not recognized as a militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Now, here we come to the crux of the matter. That is, the definition of "soldiers". It is true that the north officially sanctioned blacks into the military as "soldiers." However, when such was done in the South, toward the end of the War, the latter authorized the same rate of pay among blacks and whites. Something not true of the Union.
Bottom line is, did the blacks who served the Confederacy think of themselves as soldiers? Yes, they did.
Why is it that you describe the blacks in the Union army as "soldiers" but the blacks in the Confederate army as soldiers (sans quotes)? It almost implies that the black Union troops were not really soldiers, at least in comparision to their southern counterparts.
Bottom line is, did the blacks who served the Confederacy actually get to fight?
I'm not arguing that there weren't blacks who served in the Confederate armies, there obviously were many, serving as cooks, teamsters, laborers, etc. But not as actual combat troops.
I'm not arguing that there weren't free blacks who served in this capacity of their own will.
I'm not even arguing that there weren't blacks who wished to actually fight on the side of the Confederacy. NativeAngelino provided the information that there was a militia unit in Louisiana ready and willing to fight for their state.
What I'm arguing about is whether there actually were any Confederate black military units that actually engaged and fought Union troops during the war. I'm looking for soldiers armed with rifles or cannon, not with shovels or frying pans.
Sure, the Confederate government finally authorized black combat troops in February 1865, but that was two months before the end of the war. These units didn't get the chance to see any military action before the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. The fact is that black troops in the Confederate armies were kept unarmed through nearly all of the war.
I've yet to see any documented proof of black combat troops that actually fought for the Confederacy. Until then the concept of black Confederate soldiers is at best an exajuration.
Manufacturing mostly centered in the northern new england states where the greatest special interest pressure was concentrated to lobby for high tariffs and other trade barriers to keep out less expensive and better quality european industrial goods.
The worst of these tariffs, the Tariff of 1828 or the Tariff of Abominations, was actually authored by John C. Calhoun, which I am certain that you know as a senator from South Carolina and a leading proponent of states rights.
To paraphrase the Wikipedia article Tariff of 1828 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Calhoun authored the bill to not only include tariffs on goods desired by Southerners, but also higher tariffs on goods desired by New Englanders. The hope was that most of the Southern Senators would vote for the tariff bill (for political reasons), but the New Englanders, being subjected to more intolerable tariffs would vote against the it, thus killing the bill.
The plan backfired when the New England senators, against all expectations, voted for the bill.
The Tariff of Abominations, railed against by Southerners, was self-inflicted.
Running up to the Civil War, the tariffs imposed by the federal government were increasingly smaller. The Tariff of 1857 was authored by a senator from Virginia, was an actual tax decrease, and was supported by both northerners and southerners (but protested by the northern iron industry and wool industry, both "losers" in the tariff).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark9989
At this time the south was the main exporting region of the country ( cotton, tobacco etc.. ).
And the corn grown in the Old Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin) is once again forgotten. Grain grown in the Midwest not only fed the Northeastern states, it was also exported to Europe.
In fact, poor crop yields in Europe during the early 1960's factored into the European countries not recognizing the Confederate government -- the Europeans needed food more than they needed cotton. King Corn trumped King Cotton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark9989
The south imported most of the finished goods consumed by the southern population. So, any high tariffs and trade barriers would hit the south the hardest
Depends on which tariff you're talking about. As I've stated above, the Tariff of Abominations was designed to hurt the New England states more than the Southern states, and the Tariff of 1857 was actually supported by southerners as a reduction in taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark9989
meanwhile the greater portion of import taxes collected by the feds was spent in the northern states.
I've heard that the northen states received the greater benefit from revenues collected by the tariffs, but I've never been presented with actual examples of this. Exactly what was it that the north received that the south didn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark9989
When lincoln was in office he passed the highest tariff in US history.
Presidents don't pass tariffs. Congress passes laws, including tariffs, presidents either sign or veto laws, including tariffs.
The Morill Tariff was a protectionist piece of legislation in response to the Panic of 1857. It raised taxes on dutiable imported goods, from an average of 21% to an average of 36%. It was signed into law in March 1961 by President James Buchanan. Note that while it did raise taxes, this tariff was still lower than the rates in the Tariff of Abominations, which approached 50%.
Seven southeren states seceeded from the United States prior to the Morill Tariff becoming law: South Carolina in December, 1860; Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana in January, 1861; Texas on February 1, 1861. Perhaps the people of these states left to avoid paying the higher taxes that would occur should the Morill Tariff bill become law; by leaving Congress, these states certainly lost their ability to vote against the bill. However, the Morill Tariff was introduced into congress after these seven states seceded.
The tariff was raised in the summer of 1861 (after the secessions of Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessea) to rates approaching 48%. This was following the Confederate attack on Fort Sumpter and the need to raise money for an enlarged army. While it's currently fashionable to cut taxes while fighting a war (or two), traditionally the United States has always raised taxes during war time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark9989
Southerners not only complained about the tariff, they didnt see any of the US "internal improvements", they all went to the north.
Well, no they wouldn't see any internal improvements...what with most of the South having seceded and with the bulk of the taxes raised being spent on the Union war effort.
But of course, it's curious that southerners complained about the tariff when the bulk of Southerners lived in states that had seceded and weren't actually paying the tariff taxes.
I knew that nearly all military land units that fought on both sides in the Civil War were raised by the states and not by their central governments. I was wrong when I suggested that it was a fault of the Confederate government that it didn't arm and supply the 1st Louisiana Native Guard.
I was also wrong in implying that the Confederate government had a hand in the disbanding of the 1st Lousiana Native Guard. It was actually the Louisiana state legislature which did this, by passing a law that reorganized the state militia by "all the free white males capable of bearing arms… irrespective of nationality". The Native Guard, being comprised of blacks was therefore not recognized as a militia.
No problem. Even though you and I obviously disagree on many things, it is always refreshing to discuss/debate with someone who is capable of civil discourse!
Quote:
Why is it that you describe the blacks in the Union army as "soldiers" but the blacks in the Confederate army as soldiers (sans quotes)? It almost implies that the black Union troops were not really soldiers, at least in comparision to their southern counterparts.
In turn, I stand corrected ala' my poor gramatical skills! By my use of quotation marks, I didn't mean to make invidious comparrisons. Such was poorly applied, and I can see what you mean. What I was really trying to impart was that, even if the Southern blacks who served in the Confederate military didn't qualify (until near the end) as "soldiers" that there exists recorded memoirs from the same in that they certainly thought of themselves as such. And their white counterparts didn't dispute the label. Again, the Tennessee Confederate Pension records list these men as "Colored Soldiers."
Quote:
Bottom line is, did the blacks who served the Confederacy actually get to fight?
What I'm arguing about is whether there actually were any Confederate black military units that actually engaged and fought Union troops during the war. I'm looking for soldiers armed with rifles or cannon, not with shovels or frying pans.
I've yet to see any documented proof of black combat troops that actually fought for the Confederacy. Until then the concept of black Confederate soldiers is at best an exajuration.
No, there weren't (at least that I know of). And I personally do not argue otherwise. I do though maintain that the fact such existed in the Union Army (relatively late in the war as well) was not indicitive of any sort of acceptance of blacks as equals. But rather, a move stemming from military and strategic necessity.
Quote:
Sure, the Confederate government finally authorized black combat troops in February 1865, but that was two months before the end of the war. These units didn't get the chance to see any military action before the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. The fact is that black troops in the Confederate armies were kept unarmed through nearly all of the war.
Officially, yes. But warfare is a bit different in reality. There are plenty of documented cases where African Americans in the Confederate Army were allowed to arm themselves. Some often served as "pickets" (Harper Magazine in 1862 illustrates this as recorded by a yankee officer). And it was not at all uncommon for them to rush into the fray to help out. So really, what it amounts to is that, yes, while official CSA policy didn't sanction (until near the end) the actual arming of black regiments, the men and officers in the field often took a different view of it!
I thought that the major underlying cause of the Civil War was states rights. That's what many of the posters on this thread have been claiming. Is Charles Rice wrong about the major cause of the war?
Maybe or maybe not, he was just putting it into his own perspective. And incidental to the main point of the article itself. Personally, I happen to think he is wrong about it being a "major" cause of the war.
A larger principle can have many sub-issues within. To say slavery was not an issue at all would be foolish of me. To say however that the South fought the War primarily to preserve slavery overly simplifies a complex issue. Many Southerners feared that slavery was only the excuse for future attacks on the principle of state's rights. As Jefferson Davis said "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
For the vast majority of Southerners who went and volunteered to fight, the only thing they were concerned about was defending their state and homeland against invasion.
Good job at ripping apart my thoughts on the subject. It was all done by memory, so, since I didnt cut and paste from wikipedia, which is not entirely accurate, it will take some time to defend myself. I do not want to go around stating incorrect facts, so unless anyone else has some help here, i'll be reading up for a while. lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
