"Black Confederate Soldiers and African American Soldiers"
Twelve Reasons We Don’t Believe in Black Confederates
Do we ever read the history that
was written by the defeated foe? How many classroom textbooks were written by the defeated and conquered Native Americans?
Do we read Vietnam’s version of the war? How many of us have read Mexico’s view regarding the Mexican-American War? The
victor not only writes and teaches its own version of history, but presents it with outlandish bias and with utter disdain
for the vanquished. We must remember that there are two sides to the story, and to obtain fairness, balance and objectivity
we should lend an ear to each side, and anything less is not history in context, period.
Just as African Americans fought valiantly and died during both the American Revolution and War
of 1812, and were slighted by the United States and its historians and authors, Black Americans have also been ignored
and slighted for their heroic service and valiant military contributions to the Confederacy. During
World I and World War II, African Americans also fought and died for the segregated United States. Yes, even at the height
of the Jim Crow Laws, Black Americans served, bled and died on the battlefields of both Korea and Vietnam. The truth
about the loyalty, dedication, sacrifice, and service of the stalwart black soldier is finally getting some long
overdue credit, but why has the Black American and his service been ignored? The nation has an obvious history and blatant
tradition of ignoring the military contributions of its minorities, and the U.S. has a long ways to go
in fully recognizing the faithful service of African Americans, so let's now examine and recognize not only their Union Civil
War service, but their Confederate Army contributions and loyalty to the Confederacy. In closing, let
us never forget those four powerful and historic words from a man who represents another minority: "We are all Americans."
Words of Seneca Indian, lawyer, and Union officer Ely Parker at the surrender of Lee at Appomattox Court House.
Twelve Reasons We Don't Believe in Black Confederates
Many people reject the evidence that thousands of the South's 3,880,000
blacks, both free men and slaves, labored and fought, willingly, for the Southern Confederacy.
Why do they not believe, given the many accounts in the Official
Records, contemporary newspaper reports, photographs, pension application records, and recollections of black
Southerners? Here are 12 explanations.
1. It may force us to change what we believe.
Changing our beliefs is troublesome and effortful. Most of us have always believed that both the Confederate and Union
armies were all white, just like they are shown in the 1994 film Gettysburg.
2. It is not what most others believe. The leading
guideline for adult behavior in questionable moral areas, according to the classic work of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg
is “What would people think?” (i.e., “what are other people doing”). We base our behavior—and
ideas—on what others are doing, so that we appear “normal.” Since few others believe in black Confederates,
we will not either, in order to fit in with the majority.
3. It might contradict a prejudice. Are we ready
to accept that a black man could be every bit as brave, and every bit as dedicated, as a white man in combat? Rejecting
the claim that blacks fought is consistent with a prejudice against blacks. Perhaps those who reject out of hand the
idea of black Confederates are expressing their own prejudice against blacks.
4. It complicates our simple stereotype of blacks vs. whites as
separate groups. But in truth, are these groups more alike than different? Maybe seeing them as different groups
allows us to perceive differences that are not really there? A more complex perception is of one larger group with many
diverse individuals, not of two groups of similar individuals. The simpler perception that fits a black versus white
stereotype is consistent with the view that there were no black Confederates.
5. How do we now teach Civil War history in 10 minutes?
How do we summarize the reasons for the war in a few sentences, if in fact thousands of black Southerners fired in anger at
the Northern troops coming "to free them"? At least one Northern soldier put his frustration at that incident into the
Official Record of the War of the Rebellion: "Here I had come South and was fighting to free
this man," the disgusted U.S. major wrote in his diary; "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head
off." (Barrow et al., 2001, p. 43).
6. It complicates the simple portrayal of the North as Good,
driving out the “Wicked Southern Slave master.” How can Northern soldiers serve in the role as Angels of
Mercy, if black Confederates shot at them?
7. It weakens support for the claim that the War was About Slavery
We like simplicity. "The War
was About Slavery" is simple, as simple as a Pepsi commercial. For a society raised on Pepsi commercials, the One Factor
Theory (slavery) has enormous appeal. If many blacks chose to fight for the South, how could the War have been exclusively
concerned with slavery? Maybe there were other issues. Now we might have to examine economic factors (No—not
We also have to consider why individual black Southerners fought.
Some were slave owners themselves, and/or occupied respected positions in their communities as Free Men of Color (especially
Louisiana and Virginia) or Free Women of Color (as in Charleston, with its 6000 free blacks, mostly women).
Suggesting the slavery was not the only factor brings up a number of annoying
truths about slavery, like these:
Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves until about
half way through the war;
Lincoln fired two generals who did free slaves
in 1861 and 1862;
Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his
actual control; (imagine the President today stating that the minimum wage is henceforth and forever going to be $25 an hour--
in Mexico and Canada).
The under ground railroad didn't stop at the Mason/Dixon
line. It reached all the way to Canada because such states as Illinois (the land of Lincoln) had laws that a black could be
whipped if found within the state for more than three days.
There were 5 slave states among the Northern states;
Slavery was legal in these Northern states after
the "emancipation" of slaves that were not under Northern control;
Lincoln's idea of how to deal with emancipated
slaves was to send them to Africa, and a new African country was created for this purpose;
Slavery was legal in the north even after the fall of
The flag that flew over slave ships was the United States'
Stars and Stripes, never a Confederate flag.
Do we want to bring up these facts about slavery?:
That Africans were captured by other Africans to be sold into slavery? That Africans sold other Africans to Yankee,
not to Southern, slave dealers, for transport in Yankee slave ships? That blacks as well as whites owned slaves?
Do we want to recognize that slavery had never been safer
than in 1860: Lincoln personally supported a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, which he signed,
and Illinois had already ratified it when war broke out.
"The institution of slavery had never been more secure for the slave owners,
with the Supreme Court in their back pocket, with the Constitution itself expressly protecting slavery, and mandating the
return of fugitive slaves everywhere-- a mandate Lincoln said he would enforce; with Lincoln also declaring he had no right
to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; with Lincoln personally supporting a new constitutional amendment
protecting slavery forever . . . There is nothing the South could have asked for, for the protection of slavery, that wouldn't
have been gladly provided, just as long as the South remained in the Union." (Adams, 2000).
We don’t believe in black Confederates because when we question that the war was
"about slavery," we eventually get around to the question: “What Was The War About?” and “Why were
360,000 Northern boys and men killed?”
Slavery had died out everywhere in the world except Brazil,
and was on its way out in the Southern American States. Slavery had ended almost everywhere in the world without
war. Was the death of 600,000 Americans worth ending slavery 10 or 15 years sooner?—or than ending it as it had
been ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, by compensated emancipation?
8. Many whites disbelieve that there were black Confederates because
of "White Guilt." Many white Americans feel undeserving of their wealth. Certainly, many are undeserving.
Some give a small part of their wealth to the poor, and this seems to make them feel better. Others hire the poor to
work for them—and then bask in their role as benefactors. Massachusetts writer—and abolitionist-- Henry
Thoreau saw through this chimera 20 years before the War. He wrote concerning charity towards the poor at the end of
the chapter “Economy,” in his masterpiece Walden. Regarding his wealthy friends
who “helped” the poor, by paying them to work in their kitchens, Thoreau wrote: "Let them work in their
One target for giving wealth has traditionally been black causes.
A major recipient has been the NAACP, which endorses a movement to shift massive wealth to former slaves. Establishing
that some of these slaves supported the Southern States, and that some blacks today, descendants of those slaves, still support
the ideals of the Confederacy (and there were other ideals besides slavery), is inconsistent with the fundamental causes of
9. It is inconsistent with the culture of Victimhood.
If blacks chose to fight for the South, how can blacks be passive, helpless, unwilling victims? One black liberal dismissed
evidence that blacks fought for the Southern Confederacy by referencing the "abused wife syndrome": An accusation that
these poor helpless blacks were victims and unable to act with volition and control over their environment. But what
do we say of the blacks captured by Yankees who escaped and returned to their units?— Or of the more than 40 blacks
attending the 1890 UCV Reunion, pictured in another essay? One has to believe an “abused wife syndrome”
that is powerful indeed, to explain the activities of these black Confederates.
10. It brings up the annoying question: Why did blacks fight?
If the reasons blacks fought for the South include the same reasons whites fought for the South, or any of the same reasons
that anyone fights for any cause in any war, then we have to look at those fighting black Confederates as deliberative, volitional,
reasoning, diverse, individuals, just like the whites we talk about, when we talk about why whites fought for the South.
This topic is dealt with as a separate essay.
11. It brings up another annoying question: Why did anyone
fight for the North? No one really knows why men go to war to fight. Once they get there, they don't
fight for their flag, or their country, or God. They fight for their comrades. Some of the issues involved in
the discussion of why men fight are presented in another essay in this series, “Why Did Blacks Fight for the Confederate
States of America.”
The literature documenting why men fight is rich: Some of the writers
who have tried to explain why men fight include Erich Maria Remarque, Hans Helmut Kirst, Heinrich Böll; William Broyles, and
McPherson; Ambrose, etc. Southerners fought because the North invaded the South.
But why did Northerners fight? We do not want to ask that question,
and discussing why blacks fought for the South leads us ultimately to the question: Why did anyone fight for the North?
What would you say to a boy from Iowa, bleeding to death in front of a wall
near Fredericksburg in December 1862 (note the date: Before the “Emancipation”)-- "Your life was lost to
help force Arkansas back into a Union she does not wish to be part of"? Or how about: “You gave your life
to help force Florida back into a Union that she does not wish to be part of”?
Why did anyone fight for the North? We know why 1 of 5 of them fought--
they were literally off the boat from Ireland or Germany. These immigrants arrived at Ellis Island, and stepped from
their ship into a New York Infantry Regiment. They fought in order to get citizenship. But what about the other
4 of 5 Northerners who served in the Union forces? It is indeed a difficult question to answer.
12. We Want to Believe the War Was About Slavery.
Accepting that thousands of blacks fought for the Confederate States of
America forces us to rethink the common assumption that the War was “about slavery.” Surely no one would
dismiss slavery as an important factor. But to most modern Americans, slavery was the factor,
perhaps the only factor. Again, to the extent that we believe that thousands of black Confederates fought for their
country, our belief in slavery as the cause of the War is threatened. This need for cognitive
balance is examined at length in another essay. To summarize that essay: We ask, “what balances the deaths
of 600,000 Americans during the years 1861 to 1865?” We need some reason to balance
that great tragedy. What is it?
Getting even for Fort Sumter? No. Settling
States Rights issues? No-- That answer never seems to explain why so many Americans died. Settling Tariff issues?
No-- Same shortcoming, plus, few modern Americans can stay awake during any discussion of tariff issues. How about,
to Preserve our Great Experiment in Democracy! No-- it is hard to sell this idea to modern Americans as the reason that
more than half a million Americans died. The argument typically holds that had the Confederacy established itself, then
there would have been more secessions, until ultimately we would have had a separate country, or two, in everyone’s
Finally, the End of slavery: Yes: Now there’s
a reason we can celebrate: Slavery is bad; The South had slavery; therefore the South was bad and the Good North fought
against the South, and slavery ended. Any child can grasp this argument; try explaining tariff issues to that person.
Try explaining States Rights to that person—try explaining the issue of free trade and Northern versus Southern import
and export economies—try explaining the diverging cultural bases of the North and the South. You will get a big
yawn. Consider Ken Burns’s popular and acclaimed The Civil War—the most popular PBS series in history.
To his great credit, Mr. Burns shows the appalling tragedy of 600,000 thousand dead Americans. And running throughout
this 11 hour drama is the theme that ending slavery was the reason for these deaths. At one point a black woman historian
makes that point explicit: The Union lifted the War to a higher plane, she explains. Clearly, Burns has accepted
the idea that the War was “over slavery”—if only to give some sense to the TV audience who might wonder
why America fought itself, and to do it in the TV schedule he had to work with.
Ultimately we believe the War was about the Ending of Slavery because that
is the only cause that provides the cognitive balance we need.
The great evil of more than 600,000 deaths “balances” in our
minds against the great evil of slavery.
Many of us will never believe that Lee Oswald acted alone in killing President
John Kennedy (no “balance”)—many of us will believe that the U.S. entering World War I was a great victory—we
will not believe that 160,000 more lives were wasted, and that our tipping the balance against Germany and Austria in 1918
lead directly to Hitler, and to WWII with another 100,000,000 dead, and to 40 years of Cold War. “Ending Slavery”
provides that cognitive balance for the War of 1861-- Never mind that slavery ended everywhere else in the world without
bloodshed. Never mind that other factors explain that the North and South became different countries long
before 1860. Slavery provides that simple cognitive explanation.
Any evidence that blacks fought for the South is inconsistent with the notion
that the War was only about slavery. Continued below...
(References and related reading listed at bottom of page.)
Reading: Black Confederates.
Description: The discovery that more than 'a few African Americans' served the Confederacy in
the Civil War -- and not just as servants -- will strike some readers as contradictory, unnatural, and politically incorrect.
Certainly, most historians have ignored the subject. But history is history: One must deal with past reality, not subordinate
the facts to modern political positions. In researching the subject, Barrow called on the readership of Confederate Veteran,
the official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, to submit information on black Southern loyalists. Continued
were large and diverse, based on official reports, pension applications, family correspondence, newspaper articles, and published
memoirs, and from that came this anthology of historical documents and accounts.
Reading: The South Was Right! (Hardcover). Description: Kin
Hubbard said "'Tain't what a man don't know that hurts him; it's what he does know that just ain't so." Much of what people
"know" about the causes, conduct, and consequences of the Civil War "just ain't so." The Kennedy brothers make a strong case
that the real reasons and results of the War Between the States have been buried under the myth of Father Abraham and his
blue-clad saints marching south to save the Union and free the slaves. Sure, the tone is
polemical. But the "enlightened" elements of American opinion have been engaging in a polemic against the South and its people
for decades… This book adopts the "following the money approach" to analyzing who profited most from slavery –
a convincing argument that reflects that much of the wealth went to the North. It also points out that slavery was not new
to Africa, and was practiced by Africans against Africans without foreign intervention. A
strong case is made that the North and Lincoln held strong racist views. Continued below...
Lincoln proposed shipping, or transporting, blacks back to Africa… The blacks residing in the Northern states were in a precarious predicament (e.g.
draft riots and lynchings in NY City). The authors, however, do not make any argument supporting slavery - their consistent
line is the practice is vile. The fact that many blacks served, assisted and provided material support to Union
and Confederate Armies is beyond refute. Native Americans also served with distinction on both sides during the Civil War.
“A controversial and thought-provoking book that challenges the status-quo
of present teachings…”
Reading: When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Review: As a historian, I have learned that the heart of any great work
in history lies in the ample and accurate use of primary sources, and primary sources are the great strength of this work.
While countless tomes have debated the perceived moral sides of the Civil War and the motivations of the various actors, this
work investigates the motives of the primary players in the era and in their own words and writings. This gives the work an
excellent realism and accuracy. The author, Charles Adams, has earned a reputation as one of the leading economic historians
in the field, particularly in the area of taxes. He utilizes this background to investigate the American Civil War, and comes
to some very striking conclusions, many that defy the politically-correct history of today. His thesis postulates that the
Civil War had its primary cause not in slavery or state's rights, but rather in cold, hard economic concerns. Continued below...
He shows that
the North used its supremacy in Congress to push through massive tariffs to fund the government, and that these tariffs fell
much harder on the export-dependent South than upon the insular north. In fact, the total revenue from the "Compromise" Tariffs
on the 1830s and 40s amounted to $107.5 million, of which $90 million came from the South. The majority of the revenue, moreover,
was spent on projects “far from the South.” According to Adams, this disparity finally pushed the South to seek its own independence. Supporting
this conclusion is the fact that the South enacted extremely low tariffs throughout the war, whereas the north enacted the
Morrill Tariff of 1861, which enacted tariffs as high as 50 percent on some goods. Adams
also chronicles the oft-overlooked excesses of the Lincoln Administration, and compares them to the actions of Julius Caesar.
Using the letters and reports of the times, he tells how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, trod
roughshod over the Constitution, jailed thousands of U.S. citizens who
dared disagree with him and even wrote a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the United States. Adams also ably uses the viewpoints
of British and other Europeans to describe different contemporary views on the struggle. These provide excellent outside insight.
On the whole, readers will find the book a superb and scholarly analysis, providing fresh insights into the motivations and
causes of the defining war in American history. AWARDED 5
STARS by americancivilwarhistory.org
Reading: Lincoln and Chief
Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers, by James F. Simon (Simon & Schuster). Publishers Weekly:
This surprisingly taut and gripping book by NYU law professor Simon (What Kind of Nation) examines the limits of presidential
prerogative during the Civil War. Lincoln and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney saw eye to eye on certain matters; both,
for example, disliked slavery. But beginning in 1857, when Lincoln
criticized Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case, the pair began to spar. They diverged further once Lincoln
became president when Taney insisted that secession was constitutional and preferable to bloodshed, and blamed the Civil War
on Lincoln. In 1861, Taney argued that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. This holding was, Simon argues, "a clarion
call for the president to respect the civil liberties of American citizens." Continued below...
In an 1862
group of cases, Taney joined a minority opinion that Lincoln lacked the authority to order the seizure of Southern
ships. Had Taney had the chance, suggests Simon, he would have declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional; he
and Lincoln agreed that the Constitution left slavery up to individual states, but Lincoln
argued that the president's war powers trumped states' rights. Simon's focus on Lincoln and Taney makes for a dramatic, charged
narrative—and the focus on presidential war powers makes this historical study extremely timely.
Reading: A House Divided: Sectionalism and Civil War, 1848-1865 (The American Moment). Reviews: "The best short treatment of the sectional conflict and Civil War
available... Sewell convincingly demonstrates that the conflict was a revolutionary experience that fundamentally transformed
the Republic and its people, and left a racial heritage that still confronts America
today. The result is a poignant discussion of the central tragedy of American history and its legacy for the nation." -- William
E. Gienapp, Georgia Historical Quarterly.
"A provocative starting point for discussion, further study, and independent assessment." -- William H. Pease, History. "Sewell's
style is fast moving and very readable... An excellent volume summarizing the stormy period prior to the war as well as a
look at the military and home fronts." -- Civil War Book Exchange and Collector's Newsletter. Continued below…
traditional, and brief narrative of the period from the end of the Mexican War to the conclusion of the Civil War... Shows
the value of traditional political history which is too often ignored in our rush to reconstruct the social texture of society."
-- Thomas D. Morris, Civil War History. "Tailored for adoption in college courses. Students will find that the author has
a keen eye for vivid quotations, giving his prose welcome immediacy." -- Daniel W. Crofts, Journal of Southern History.
Reading: Secession Debated: Georgia's Showdown
in 1860. Review:
The critical northern antebellum debate matched the rhetorical skills of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in an historic
argument over the future of slavery in a westward-expanding America.
Two years later, an equally historic oratorical showdown between secessionists and Unionists in Georgia
generated as much popular interest south of the Mason-Dixon line, and perhaps had an even more profound immediate effect on
the future of the United States. Continued
Lincoln's "Black Republican" triumph in the presidential election of 1860, the United States witnessed ardent secessionist
sentiment in the South. But Unionists were equally zealous and while South Carolina--a
bastion of Disunionism since 1832--seemed certain to secede; the other fourteen slave states were far from decided. In the
deep South, the road to disunion depended much on the actions of Georgia,
a veritable microcosm of the divided South and geographically in the middle of the Cotton South. If Georgia
went for the Union, secessionist South Carolina could be
isolated. So in November of 1860, all the eyes of Dixie turned to tiny Milledgeville, pre-war capital of Georgia, for a legislative confrontation that would help chart the course toward
civil war. In Secession Debated, William W. Freehling and Craig M. Simpson have for the first time collected the seven surviving
speeches and public letters of this greatest of southern debates over disunion, providing today's reader with a unique window
into a moment of American crisis. Introducing the debate and debaters in compelling fashion, the editors help bring to life
a sleepy Southern town suddenly alive with importance as a divided legislature met to decide the fate of Georgia, and by extension,
that of the nation. We hear myriad voices, among them the energetic and self-righteous Governor Joseph E. Brown who, while
a slaveholder and secessionist, was somewhat suspect as a native North Georgian; Alexander H. Stephens, the eloquent Unionist
whose "calm dispassionate approach" ultimately backfired; and fiery secessionist Robert Toombs who, impatient with Brown's
indecisiveness and the caution of the Unionists, shouted to legislators: "Give me the sword! but if you do not place it in
my hands, before God! I will take it." The secessionists' Henry Benning and Thomas R. R. Cobb as well as the Unionists Benjamin
Hill and Herschel Johnson also speak to us across the years, most with eloquence, all with the patriotic, passionate conviction
that defined an era. In the end, the legislature adopted a convention bill which decreed a popular vote on the issue in early
January 1861. The election results were close, mirroring the intense debate of two months before: 51% of Georgians favored
immediate secession, a slim margin which the propaganda-conscious Brown later inflated to 58%. On January 19th the Georgia
Convention sanctioned secession in a 166-130 vote, and the imminent Confederacy had its Southern hinge. Secession Debated
is a colorful and gripping tale told in the words of the actual participants, one which sheds new light on one of the great
and hitherto neglected verbal showdowns in American history. It is essential to a full understanding of the origins of the
War Between the States.
References: Adams, Charles. (2000). When in the Course of Human Events:
Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Barrow, C. K.,
Segars, J. H., & R.B. Rosenburg, R.B. (Eds.) (2001). Black Confederates, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna.